University of Life Lecture



’Why are there ugly people?’



Indeed, why are there ugly people in the world? If evolution really works shouldn't there have been an environmental pressure to get rid of ugly people? Aren't people picking the most attractive partners they can find to reproduce? Shouldn't this lead to the elimination of ugly people over time?

No.

Evolution is a clever fellow. Evolution doesn't care much about aesthetics as we do. Of course symmetrical features are often an excellent sign of good health and good genes. And certainly we prefer to have sex with a model if we could. But we do not all have sex with models. There are not enough of them to go around.

Our male genes have realized this a long time ago. They can sit around waiting for the model, or go with whatever is available and hope that maybe the next generation male finds a model. For the male genes it is a win-win situation. For the male form this is not always true. The male form might end up with an aesthetically displeasing female form.

The male genes are in control of the one organ that matters for the male form; the penis. The male genes have hardwired the penis to go after whatever female form that comes along. This process was facilitated by the invention of beer. Hence men will reproduce with any female form imaginable.

The female genes have similar desires. They have not hardwired the female sex organ in a similar way to the male form. Instead they are hardwired in to the brain and transformed it. It has become specialized in the conniving task of trapping men. Any man.

Beautiful people are actually doomed. They have to find a suitable partner of similar beauty which is time- and energy consuming. Time and energy that could have been spend on reproducing. Ugly people just do it.

Why do beautiful people still exist you ask? They don't. It is well known that beauty is a cultural value that has changed over the ages. This was not a whim, but a necessity. Whenever a certain type was labeled as beautiful it was doomed to perish because of the actions of male and female genes. And once again a new cultural form of beauty had to be invented.



Spuriousmonkey

source (http://www.*******************)

Why r there ugly people?
Absurd.

I think because ugly people mate with ugly people. Or, the ugly person is male yet he is more aggressive and more "alpha male" like than men that look "normal" because he had to fight to "fit in."

With the obvious exceptions like physical deformities, there is not really any universal human standard of ugliness. We may all be able to agree on which are the most beautiful women in a population, but there's no agreement at the other end of the scale. There may even be a consensus, but there will be plenty of dissenters. Ten of us will slap our foreheads and say that's the ugliest woman we've ever seen, and our eleventh buddy will walk out of the rest room and go chat her up.

There's also the phenomenon of exoticness. We're programmed to appreciate the appearance of people from other gene pools. An obvious species survival trait, it works against inbreeding. If the women in your own tribe think you're ugly, go a great distance and introduce yourself to an unrelated tribe. Some of the women there will instinctively think you're gorgeous just because you don't look like their men.

Without ugly,

we would not know beauty.

Guys will fuck anything.

Even you

Even you

I take it you are a natural repellent for homosexuals?

....There's also the phenomenon of exoticness. We're programmed to appreciate the appearance of people from other gene pools. An obvious species survival trait, it works against inbreeding. If the women in your own tribe think you're ugly, go a great distance and introduce yourself to an unrelated tribe. Some of the women there will instinctively think you're gorgeous just because you don't look like their men.I am reasonably sure:
(1) you have no evidence supporting any of this paragraph.
and
(2) you just made it up as it seems reasonable to you (perhaps to others also)

There have been several empirical studies of what is considered beautiful using photos of many different ordinary people (no one famous like a political leader or movie star etc. included.) In one I remember some of the details of not only were the original photos judged, but various "morphed" version of two or more were also included in the set to be rated by the participant judges (Mainly university students who received a small monetary compensation or if psychology students perhaps extra credit for participating.)

I do not remember all the results, but the most important one was exactly opposite to you POV. For example, if all original photos (of one sex) were morphed into one, producing a very average female, she was "very beautiful" in average of scores. Apparently anything that takes you significantly away from the average of the group you are a member of, is less attractive to you. For example, there were Asian as judges and in the photos. They preferred the morphs made of Asian originals over the morphs made of Caucasians original and again the average of the "paired morphs" (two originals made into one photo) scored higher than the average of the originals etc.

I.e. Increditable as it may seem to you, the truly average girl (or man) is more beautiful and less ugly to the average guy (or woman) than the average of the real women (or men) of the original photos. Not everyone becomes more beautiful or less ugly by becoming more average, but most do, if judged by their own group and all non-own group averages are less beautiful than own group averages.

The demonstrable facts seem to be just the opposite of your claim. Can you support it in any way?

Apparently anything that takes you significantly away from the average of the group you are a member of, is less attractive to you.

But in what context?

I think our preferences are context-specific. In one context, we'll like something, but in some other context, we won't like that same thing so much, or not at all.

good job water.
don't get pissed at me. simply, i believe your new line of thought is suprisingly like one of my currents of the guadzillions (that they are irrelevent---funny how you see, like, a poster, that has a way of living that you already see yourself or something eh?);

anyway,
i'm being a little willy.
PEACE

But in what context?....The context of most of most such studies was a many students individually looking at computer screen displayed photos and rating the image for "beauty" etc. on some scale (1 to 10?) Probably there were some repeats to make sure they were at least looking at the screen etc. (E.G. They would not get paid if on first view given a 2 and on second view 15 minutes later a 10 etc. + possibly other controls. I forget the details.)

Some people are born ugly.

Others have to work at it.

Annr.

I take it you do not believe beauty is in the eyes of the beholder? That there is a universal law that defines degrees of beauty?

I see beauty in most people.

They work at it when the group is ugly.

Anne.

What? Work at what? What do you think ugly is?

sciforums. ugly and nasty.

Anne.

Feel free to leave :)

Going right now, off to work.

Just dropped in to see if I'd been called a liar again.

Why do you care what Sciforumers have to say about you? It's a VERY VERY small handful of people all over the world... not your next door neighbors or coworkers.

I am reasonably sure:
(1) you have no evidence supporting any of this paragraph.
and
(2) you just made it up as it seems reasonable to you (perhaps to others also)



The situation is not as bleak as you paint it:

The Evolution of Mating Preferences and Major Histocompatibility Complex Genes
Dustin J. Penn and Wayne K. Potts
The American Naturalist, volume 153 (1999), pages 145–164

House mice prefer mates genetically dissimilar at the major histocompatibility complex (MHC). The highly polymorphic MHC genes control immunological self/nonself recognition; therefore, this mating preference may function to provide "good genes" for an individual's offspring.
MHC-dependent mating preferences may also function to avoid inbreeding; a hypothesis consistent with other evidence that MHC genes play a role in kin recognition.

Science. 1988 Jun 3;240(4857):1331-2.

Familial imprinting determines H-2 selective mating preferences.

Yamazaki K, Beauchamp GK, Kupniewski D, Bard J, Thomas L, Boyse EA.


Inbred male mice typically prefer to mate with females of a different, non-self H-2 haplotype. To determine whether this natural preference is irrevocable or results from familial imprinting, a test system was used which relied on previous observations that B6 males (H-2b) mate preferentially with congenic B6-H-2k rather than B6 females, and B6-H-2k males with B6 females. This preference was reversed in B6 males fostered by B6-H-2k parents and in B6-H-2k males fostered by B6 parents, preference in these cases favoring the same H-2 type. Thus, H-2 selective mating preference is acquired by imprinting on familial H-2 types.

Nature 352, 619 - 621 (15 August 1991)

Mating patterns in seminatural populations of mice influenced by MHC genotype

Wayne K. Potts*, C. Jo Manning*† & Edward K. Wakeland

BECAUSE of the central role of major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes in immune recognition1−3, it is often assumed that parasite-driven selection maintains the unprecendented genetic diversity of these genes4−7. But associations between MHC genotype and specific infectious diseases have been difficult to identify8,9 with a few exceptions such as Marek's disease10 and malaria11. Alternatively, MHC-related reproductive mechanisms such as selective abortion12−15 and mating preferences16,17 could be responsible for the diversity. To determine both the nature and strength of selection operating on MHC genes by we have studied components of selection in seminatural populations of mice (Mils musculus domesticus). Here we assess MHC-related patterns of reproduction and early (preweaning) mortality by analysing 1,139 progeny born in nine populations, and 662 progeny from laboratory matings. Reproductive mechanisms, primarily mating preferences, result in 27% fewer MHC-homozygous offspring than expected from random mating. MHC genotype had no detectable influence on neonatal (preweaning) mortality. These mating preferences are strong enough to account for most of the MHC genetic diversity found in natural populations of Mus.


However, this exoticness in mice is not measured by appearance, but rather by urinary odor. And that is why men less frequently wash their underwear than women. We are still in tune with their biology. Or maybe this is why women with a partner insist on washing their Man's underpants so often. More than the man thinks is necessary. She is undermining his chances to attract another partner.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1981 Sep;78(9):5817-20.

Distinctive urinary odors governed by the major histocompatibility locus of the mouse.

Yamaguchi M, Yamazaki K, Beauchamp GK, Bard J, Thomas L, Boyse EA.

It has been shown that major histocompatibility complex (MHC) types affect the mating choices of mice and that mice can be trained to distinguish arms of a Y maze scented by odors from MHC-congeneic mice. It is now shown that sensory discrimination of MHC types by trained mice in the Y maze is equally effective with urine as the source of odors. Trained mice, male and female, successfully distinguished between urines of MHC-dissimilar F2 segregants of an MHC-congeneic cross but not between urines of MHC-identical F2 segregants. In a control study with a transfer of training procedure, in which reward was withheld to eliminate any basis for new learning, the trained mice successfully distinguished between urines from panels of MHC-congeneic inbred and F2 segregant congeneic mice that had not previously been used as urine donors. Thus urine, which is a source of chemosensory signals in many species, is also a potent source of the MHC-determined odors that distinguish individual mice.

And as a closing statement I would like to bring accross the point that you can indeed just say whatever you want. But isn't it much more fun to say whatever you want based on actual science? Hone your scientific search engine skills and start cracking.

Don't looks (and a few other clues) help determine whose genes are worth passing on?

Ugly people were invented by beer-makers to make you buy more beer.

Probably.

Indeed, why are there ugly people in the world? If evolution really works shouldn't there have been an environmental pressure to get rid of ugly people? Aren't people picking the most attractive partners they can find to reproduce? Shouldn't this lead to the elimination of ugly people over time?
In any given population there is a variation in the attractiveness (or if you prefer the ugliness) on the individuals of that population. Those at the lower end are considered ugly relative to the other individuals. Sexual selection will favor the more attractive individuals and they will pass on their genes. Evolution occurs and in several generations all the individuals are more attractive relative to previous generations. Again, however, there is a continuum of attractiveness in that later generation. Those at the lower end of the spectrum are considered ugly relative to those at the upper end.

There is always variation in the attractiveness of any given population. Therefore there will always be some individuals that are considered ugly regardless of whether evoluion occurs in either direction.

http://www.mingers.com/photos/classic/m5.jpg
This person is attractive relative to who?
Forget it - I don't wanna know..

Why r there ugly people?
Absurd.
I agree. I almost cared until I read some BS about evolution and how there shouldn't be any ugly people then. Hah! Really now.

...However, this exoticness in mice is not measured by appearance, but rather by urinary odor. And that is why men less frequently wash their underwear than women. We are still in tune with their biology. Or maybe this is why women with a partner insist on washing their Man's underpants so often. More than the man thinks is necessary. She is undermining his chances to attract another partner....I did not carefully read all your post. I think the blue parts are your comments. I note wrt them, that there are lots of things, such as dishes I wash, that I do both less frequently and less well than my wife does, so I am not sure you are on solid ground with this "underpants argument."

I can add a little to the behavior of mice:

If you deliver a litter of mice by cesarean operation and immediately separate the males from females and then raise them separately, even in separate buildings, to sexual maturity, the biological siblings will not mate, unless no other choice is available. This clearly shows something chemical, instead of social conditioning, is at work, much like your reference were stating. Even if one male is later placed cage in with all his sisters and only one non-sister, that is the one he will mate with.

But who you think is beautiful and who you mate with may not be strongly related. - Ask any ugly mother of five. :D

...Sexual selection will favor the more attractive individuals and they will pass on their genes....This is probably true if all other more important factors were equal, but that is rarely the case. Most females of all advanced primates, at least, place more emphases on the males "power" or ability to "provide and protect" - I some social groups this goes to extreme than only the "alpha male" is allowed to mate with a fertile female. Even in humans, some societies have the more successful men with many "wives" and others with none.

In addition, evolution is very slow, many generations required for significant change, but fashion changes in less than a generation. For example, the modern slender woman was "ugly" in most of pragmatic Eastern Europe about 60 years ago. If you could, (were more successful than most men) you chose a good sturdy woman for you "beautiful bride" - Not one of the weak fashion model types of today. Are you old enough to remember flat-chested, skin and bones "twiggy" - that mal nourished paragon of beauty in the west for a few years back in the 1950s I think it was.

SUMMARY: Beauty rapidly changes on evolutionary time scales and is only a small factor, if any, in the determination of the next generation's gene pool, even in societies were most men do not have children. In one where almost all have children - almost all the genes are handed down as number of children born to what is currently considered "ugly" is not significantly less. (Probably their reproduction rate is actually slightly more as the poor tend to be "ugly" and reproduce more. - With little money, what else can they do for fun? :eek: )

I've read that body symmetry has a lot to do natural selection, but I haven't heard any presumed theories about ugliness being related to natural selection. As with good and evil, ugliness is a matter of POV, and in actuality, cannot exist. It is another attempt of man to recognize duality where it is not. However, it does seem that most people have a set of specific preferences. I beleive it has relation to the people who your raised around aswell as the idea of "uniqueness." A few friends and I met a black woman with bright green eyes. We all agree that she is one of the most beautiful women we've ever seen. Granted that the dark skin-green eye combination wasn't the only factor that we would consider attractive in her, it is one of them. My mother, after giving birth to 8 children, still ways only 90 lbs. I myself am very attracted to skinnier, or petit women. Also a greek friend of mine is very attracted to women with curly hair. Greek people very generally have curly hair. I haven't read very much into scientific ugliness, and I couldn't find much with a simple google search. Perhaps I'll try again later and post if I find something.

I wrote down the essence of my latest point down in an essay, since the science apparently obscured the message:

University of Life Lecture



’Why men do not wash their underwear frequently’



Indeed, why are men reluctant to wash their underwear? During the 70s the predominant theory in sociology circles was that men are afraid of washing machines. These machines represented the female sphere of influence. Men had invented washing machines to liberate women to do other chores such as bringing men a cool beer when watching a football game, and instead women started to invade the male environment. They became truck drivers, laywers, doctors, bounchers and plumbers. The theory goes that no man can subconsciously touch the instrument that caused the demise of the world of man.

We were always suspicious about this theory because it eliminates the essence of the human species. That it is driven by biological principles.

In the 80s real scientists discovered that mice like to breed with mice that are genetically different from themselves regarding the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes. A fancy name for genes important for the immunesystem.

But how does a mouse know what kind of MHC genes a potential partner has? Research groups in Japan proposed that mice might have a miniature 'genome sequencer' or PCR machine somewhere used for genotyping the potential partner, but careful studies of histological sections showed none. It then turned out that the secret lies in piss. By sniffing the urinary odour of the potential mate the mouse can determine subconsciously if the MHC genes are different.

We propose that mate selection work not much differently. And that is why men less frequently wash their underwear than women. We are still in tune with nature. Men do not want to remove the one signal that signifies the most important message for the potential partner: 'PICK ME!!!'

Why do women insist on washing men's underwear so frequently once a relationship has started? With a frequency that says to the man: is this really necessary? She is undermining his chances to attract another partner by removing the signal. 'Is this guy matching my MHC? I can't smell a dam thing. That's not an object of desire, that is just an object.'

And that is why men also drink beer. It stimulates the production of urine. It stimulates sloppiness in urination spreading the urinary odour over a greater area. And it stimulates the urination outside the designated sanitary facilities (from toilet to trees, bushes, corners), reverting back to the natural practices of spreading one of nature's most important signals: 'Mate me.'

Yes, it was a feminist who invented the toilet and a man who invented beer.



Spuriousmonkey

Professor at the UOL

http://www.*******************/lectures/lectures/052.html

they breed with other ugly people. :D

spurious: I remember reading that both men and women also selected against HLA genes that were similar from maternal descent but not those that were similar from paternal descent. Is this still believed to be true?

what is this HLA gene you speak of? :confused:
oh, wait. let me use wiki. :D

its Human Leucocyte Antigen genes; a subset of the MHC

The two terms are often used interchangeably

:bugeye: wikipedia should have a section for regular old scientific-jargonless people.
is it the same thing as the mitochondrial protein thing? i mean the way most of the people on the face of the earth were traced back to an ethiopian woman several hundred years ago?

University of Life Lecture



’Why are there ugly people?’



Indeed, why are there ugly people in the world? If evolution really works shouldn't there have been an environmental pressure to get rid of ugly people? Aren't people picking the most attractive partners they can find to reproduce? Shouldn't this lead to the elimination of ugly people over time?

No.

Evolution is a clever fellow. Evolution doesn't care much about aesthetics as we do. Of course symmetrical features are often an excellent sign of good health and good genes. And certainly we prefer to have sex with a model if we could. But we do not all have sex with models. There are not enough of them to go around.

Our male genes have realized this a long time ago. They can sit around waiting for the model, or go with whatever is available and hope that maybe the next generation male finds a model. For the male genes it is a win-win situation. For the male form this is not always true. The male form might end up with an aesthetically displeasing female form.

The male genes are in control of the one organ that matters for the male form; the penis. The male genes have hardwired the penis to go after whatever female form that comes along. This process was facilitated by the invention of beer. Hence men will reproduce with any female form imaginable.

The female genes have similar desires. They have not hardwired the female sex organ in a similar way to the male form. Instead they are hardwired in to the brain and transformed it. It has become specialized in the conniving task of trapping men. Any man.

Beautiful people are actually doomed. They have to find a suitable partner of similar beauty which is time- and energy consuming. Time and energy that could have been spend on reproducing. Ugly people just do it.

Why do beautiful people still exist you ask? They don't. It is well known that beauty is a cultural value that has changed over the ages. This was not a whim, but a necessity. Whenever a certain type was labeled as beautiful it was doomed to perish because of the actions of male and female genes. And once again a new cultural form of beauty had to be invented.



Spuriousmonkey

source (http://www.*******************)

I guess the neanderthals had something to do with it, don't you think? I see one or two them on the bus on the way to work in the mornings, standing on a street corner or walking down the sidewalk everyday. God bless the neanderthals.:D

:bugeye: wikipedia should have a section for regular old scientific-jargonless people.
is it the same thing as the mitochondrial protein thing? i mean the way most of the people on the face of the earth were traced back to an ethiopian woman several hundred years ago?

MHC or Major Histocompatibility Complex molecules are present in the membrane of cells (vertebrates). Their function is to identify "foreign" particles and display them on the cell's surface in order to initiate a specific immune response. So they sort of initiate/maintain a dialogue between immune cells and other cells.

kind of like those advertisments on the sides of buses?

kind of like those advertisments on the sides of buses?

Why, do you feel incredibly attracted , as immune cells to antigens (foreign particles), and immediately throw yourself against the bus?

that depends on whether or not the advertisement is for something like chocolate or half-naked military men. :D

MHC or Major Histocompatibility Complex molecules are present in the membrane of cells (vertebrates). Their function is to identify "foreign" particles and display them on the cell's surface in order to initiate a specific immune response....I am too lazy and inept to goggle, so I ask you as I think you generally know what you are talking about in this area. (Hercules does too, so if he is reading the question goes to him also.)

The MHC must thus have a complete store of information that tells it "Hey that protein structure that just banged up against me, is me - no need to get excited and call for help from 'T-cells' etc." How is this possible?

I seem to recall, but only read it once, that the thyroid is a depositor this information or the “library of proteins” that are "me." - Is there any truth to this "thyroid library" story? It seems to me the variety of "me proteins" is too great to be stored in the MHC. Can you clarify a little? If you cannot, now, is question interesting enough to research some?

The MHC must thus have a complete store of information that tells it "Hey that protein structure that just banged up against me, is me - no need to get excited and call for help from 'T-cells' etc." How is this possible?

The MHC region in the human genomes has over a 100 genes. The HLA is the most important sub-type and is associated with antigen presentation at the cell syrface.

The MHC are divided into Classes I, II & III of which Class I & II show a high degree of polymorphism such that it is possible for humans to be heterozygous at all loci.

When the host cell is a leucocyte or macrophage, it ingests and processes the peptides and presents them on Class II molecules, with highly polymorphic alpha and beta polypeptide chains.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b8/MHC_Class_II.PNG/180px-MHC_Class_II.PNG

When the host cell is an infected cell or a cancerous cell it presents the antigen on Class I MHC molecules which has alpha chains with polymorphic domains.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/10/MHC_Class_I.PNG/180px-MHC_Class_I.PNG

The MHC molecules are usually kept busy presenting self and non self molecules to the T-cells via T cell receptors or TCRs. Successful MHC TCR interactions are such that self peptides are ignored by the T cells while foreign peptides are dealt with.

If you pause to consider that the HLA subtype has 9 classical genes with allelic diversity going up to 500, you can imagine the vast ranges of permutations and combinations possible. The more diverse the MHC genes of the parents, the stronger the immunity in the child.


I'm not up with the current literature on this but I remembet that a couple years ago some papers were published which linked some autoimmune disease to differential processing and presentation of a peptide by an HLA variant; there is also evidence that T cells and immunoglobulins(antibodies) both of which are variable and subject to recombinations may confer genetic susceptibility to auto immune disease.


I seem to recall, but only read it once, that the thyroid is a depositor this information or the “library of proteins” that are "me." - Is there any truth to this "thyroid library" story? It seems to me the variety of "me proteins" is too great to be stored in the MHC. Can you clarify a little? If you cannot, now, is question interesting enough to research some?

I am not certain about this, but I believe that a TCR-MHC interaction is required for the specific immune reaction. No binding = no reaction; it is possible that TCRs do not bind to MHC molecules presenting self proteins. This area is still under research (articles require subscription)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16546094&query_hl=31&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16799471&query_hl=31&itool=pubmed_docsum



Further reading

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16551255&query_hl=21&itool=pubmed_DocSum

Hercules, please check! :)

To Sancdkey:
Thanks. I think the upper or first of you drawing represent the "class II and the secopnd the "class I" - is that correct?

A little old JW (Johova's Witness) lady came to my door back in 1990 and I told her quickly (to get rid of her): "I'm not interested - I am an atheist." She looked so pained, that I soften and said: "What do you want?" Half an hour past with us talking at the door, me letting her think she was converting me to Christ and the JW view.

To be fully convencing, I even paid her $0.25 for my only copy of "Awake" and she went away extremely happy, to have "saved a soul." I have always wondered if I did a very good or very bad thing by tricking her, but for me it was good as that JW paper is, as recall, excellent.

I am going to read my copy of 22Nov.1990 Awake again. - I have been saving it for 16 years as despite it source, it was the best article I ever saw back then on imumune system (for someone on my level of understanding). I will probably be back with more questions.

To Sancdkey:
Thanks. I think the upper or first of you drawing represent the "class II and the secopnd the "class I" - is that correct?

Correct

A little old JW (Johova's Witness) lady came to my door back in 1990 and I told her quickly (to get rid of her): "I'm not interested - I am an atheist." She looked so pained, that I soften and said: "What do you want?" Half an hour past with us talking at the door, me letting her think she was converting me to Christ and the JW view.

To be fully convencing, I even paid her $0.25 for my only copy of "Awake" and she went away extremely happy, to have "saved a soul." I have always wondered if I did a very good or very bad thing by tricking her, but for me it was good as that JW paper is, as recall, excellent.

I am going to read my copy of 22Nov.1990 Awake again. - I have been saving it for 16 years as despite it source, it was the best article I ever saw back then on imumune system (for someone on my level of understanding). I will probably be back with more questions.


Okay

to Sancdkey;

It seems the imune system has:

phagocytes and two type of lymphocytes (T & B cells), produced in bone marrow at about 1 million per second rate! (All are in the "white blood cell" class.)

The phagocytes have two major divisions: "neutrophils" & "macrophages" the later being the "bigger tough guys" (neutrophils only eat about 25 bacteria in a couple of days and dies but the macrophages eat hundreds and live about a week or so). Normally body marrow makes about 100 billion phagocyte per day but when infected five times more.

The T-cells have three major divisions: "helper" "suppressor" & "killer"

Germs have "antigens," I believe exposed on their surface or "skin" and the antigens of each disease (germ type) are very different, with a lot of variation even with in one disease, but in an infection, one particular antigen is being produced in great quantity as the germs multiply.

The cells of the body have "MHC" molecules on their outsides that server as "body idenity tags" (so imune system will not attack the body's cells, except when this goes wrong in "auto-imune diseases.")
The MHC have a second duty: If the cell they are on has been infected. Then they (presumabably by inside the cell mechanism not described in Awake article) get and hold a piece of the germ antigen for the lymphocytes to try to "mate" or "fit to" and stay attached to the MHC via that piece of antigen.

There are typically 10^11 different type (shape) "hooks" on T-cells circulating in the blood (only one "hook" per cell) so despite the fact body has never seen the piece of antigen being held up by the MHC of infected cell before, there will be some T-cells that fit it well enought to latch on, but they are too few to wipe out all the germs so these must be replicated in quantity. That is where the "helper" T-cells play importnt role, and why AIDs is so devistating (It attacks the helper T-cells effectively knocking out the imune system.)

Here my Awake ref is not too clear: I gather that only the "latched on" Helper T-cells make the proteins called lymphokines and some how these proteins help all three types of T-cells when in the thymus (I was confused when recalling the thyroid) learn how to make new? or adapt? their "hooks" to be the shape that fits well the germ antigen displayed by the MHCs. Actually these replicated hooks are not exact copies, so some fit even better (and some worse of course). The "better hooks" of course grab hold of not yet occupied pieces of germ antigen held up by the MHCs causings slight different verions of the protein lymphokines to be made, so the next generation is better able to grab hold of the displayed antigen pieces - It is really Darwin evolution in a few hours "intelligent designing" at work! (but of course my Jehovahs Witness "Awake" booklet does not mention that! :D )

I will stop here and ask two questions:

(1)What good (to the germ) is served by placing antigens on its skin? Must be some very strong benefit as it is like walking around in shooting gallery with a target on your back.

(2) Can you go into more detail about how the lymphokines and thymus etc greatly increase the population of "crude hooks" of the "first generation"

I understand well how Darwin selection can repeat the process to make very good hooks in only a few dozen generations, so just tell how the few of the 10^11 that happen to fit initially get copied. I.e. I understand that once they have been refined by Darwin and thymus etc and exist in great numbers, you are now imune to that particular bacterial disease, even if the next time it invades its antigens are a little bit different.

I also understand that viruses are smarter than bacteria. - Not only do they get some other cell to do all the work of replicating, but they have DNR (or RNA?) sections designed to possibly be drastically different each generation so as to better "duck" the imune system and antibiotics.

(1)What good (to the germ) is served by placing antigens on its skin? Must be some very strong benefit as it is like walking around in shooting gallery with a target on your back

An antigen is a substance that "provokes" an immune response.

An antigen can be

1. exogenous : i.e. they enter the body from outside. they may be inhaled (like pollen) or ingested (e.g. in the case of people with allergy to shellfish, a shellfish is an antigen) or taken by injection (e.g. some people are allergic to drugs)

2. endogenous: i.e they are produced inside the body. e.g. a virus or bacteria invades a cell and releases or makes certain proteins or polysaccharides which are processed by the cell and presented on the cell surface by MHC molecules. Some viruses can "fool" the T-cells so they are not recognised. Another source of endogenous antigens are tumor cells which produce certain tumor specific antigens as part of their "normal" processing

See the germ or bacteria do not carry the antigens; the antigens are "normal" proteins or polysaccharides for them. However they are "foreign" for us and are recognised and destroyed by the T cells.

(2) Can you go into more detail about how the lymphokines and thymus etc greatly increase the population of "crude hooks" of the "first generation"


Just like the MHC molecules T cell receptors ( which bind to the antigen presented by the MHC) also have alpha and beta domains. These domains are highly variable and result in the production of millions of different T cells with different TCRs, so that the body can respond to virtually any invader.

(1)What good (to the germ) is served by placing antigens on its skin? Must be some very strong benefit as it is like walking around in shooting gallery with a target on your back

An antigen is a substance that "provokes" an immune response.

An antigen can be

1. exogenous : i.e. they enter the body from outside. they may be inhaled (like pollen) or ingested (e.g. in the case of people with allergy to shellfish, a shellfish is an antigen) or taken by injection (e.g. some people are allergic to drugs)

2. endogenous: i.e they are produced inside the body. e.g. a virus or bacteria invades a cell and releases or makes certain proteins or polysaccharides which are processed by the cell and presented on the cell surface by MHC molecules. Some viruses can "fool" the T-cells so they are not recognised. Another source of endogenous antigens are tumor cells which produce certain tumor specific antigens as part of the normal processing

See the germ or bacteria do not carry the antigens; the antigens are "normal" proteins or polysaccharides for them. However they are "foreign" for us and are recognised and destroyed by the T cells.
Thanks for the information but it does not Even come close to answering my question: What value are antigens TO A GERM?

Thanks for the information but it does not ven come close to answering my question: What value are antigens TO A GERM?

They are not antigens to the germ (bacteria or virus); they are proteins or polysaccharides that are part of their structure or processing; but since we are not germs we don't have those proteins or polysaccharides so they are antigens to us.

They are not antigens to the germ (bacteria or virus); they are proteins or polysaccharides that are part of their structure or processing; but since we are not germs we don't have those proteins or polysaccharides so they are antigens to us.Ok that is close to my question. I have never been confused thinking the things that are antigens to humans were antigen to the germ etc. I had and still do, (perhaps wrongly) the idea that antigens were exterior parts of germs, etc. What happens when a disease bacteria enter inot a human cell? Does or does not it remain "intact"? I.e. are its "internal parts" exposed to the agents in the cell?

Since there is a "war" going on and bacteria can mutate etc. why do they not develope a exterior made of only human proteins and polsaccharieds?

I had the idea, now beging to understand wrong that just as human cells have MHC external marker, so did bactria but their external markers were of course not human ones. NOw I think you are saying (in answer to my question: "No, antigens are not special external markers but just the basic proteins, polsaccharieds, fats, and etc. than ARE the bacteia." -is this correct?

Even if it is true, I would think that after all this evolutionary time most bacteria that attack man would now be made of only human proteins, polsaccharieds, fats, and etc. Why not?

Perhaps the answer is that there is no such thing as human proteins, polsaccharieds, fats, and etc. instead there is Billy T proteins, polsaccharieds, fats, and etc. and Samcdkey proteins, polsaccharieds, fats, and etc. which are entirely different from the Billy T ones. Perhaps that is what transplant rejection is all about? Am I getting closer?

Ok that is close to my question. I have never been confused thinking the things that are antigens to humans were antigen to the germ etc. I had and still do, (perhaps wrongly) the idea that antigens were exterior parts of germs, etc. What happens when a disease bacteria enter inot a human cell? Does or does not it remain "intact"? I.e. are its "internal parts" exposed to the agents in the cell?


The reason why we get "infected" is after entering our cells, they either release toxins (bacteria) or they use our cellular machinery to duplicate and multiply (viruses); in either case there are non-self products formed, which are recognised by our immune system as foreign.


Since there is a "war" going on and bacteria can mutate etc. why do they not develope a exterior made of only human proteins and polsaccharieds?

Sometimes they can "hide" or they can compromise our immunity (like AIDS, cancer) these are the diseases for which there is no cure.

I had the idea, now beging to understand wrong that just as human cells have MHC external marker, so did bactria but their external markers were of course not human ones. NOw I think you are saying (in answer to my question: "No, antigens are not special external markers but just the basic proteins, polsaccharieds, fats, and etc. than ARE the bacteia." -is this correct?

MHC proteins are made by a region of the humann genome with over 100 genes, too complex for a bacteria or virus. MHC proteins are present only in vertebrates.

Even if it is true, I would think that after all this evolutionary time most bacteria that attack man would now be made of only human proteins, polsaccharieds, fats, and etc. Why not?

Then they would not need us to multiply or survive.

Perhaps the answer is that there is no such thing as human proteins, polsaccharieds, fats, and etc. instead there is Billy T proteins, polsaccharieds, fats, and etc. and Samcdkey proteins, polsaccharieds, fats, and etc. which are entirely different from the Billy T ones. Perhaps that is what transplant rejection is all about? Am I getting closer?

There are individual differences and a lot of variability, and some people are difficult to match for transplants, but the complexity is due to diversity. There are still commom proteins, e.g. if you have surgery, you can type your blood group, find a matching donor and use his blood without any ill-effects.

Note: we also have some "good" bacteria which live in our intestine and help us to digest and metabolise nutrients.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intestinal_flora

Why are there stupid people?

Because in any comparison someone has to come out the loser.

Why are there stupid people?

Because in any comparison someone has to come out the loser.

Depends on the frame of reference you use for comparison; and as you know, lowly females like me always look for redeeming qualities, no matter how far-fetched the likelihood. :D

lowly females like me always look for redeeming qualities
I'm sorry, but my only fault is that I have no redeeming qualities.

I'm sorry, but my only fault is that I have no redeeming qualities.

that's nice. lump them all into one neat little pile. :D

I'm sorry, but my only fault is that I have no redeeming qualities.


Come now Oli, no false modesty here, your only fault?

’Why are there ugly people?’
To make me feel better about myself.
:D

Come now Oli, no false modesty here, your only fault?
You're absolutely correct, Saiyyadati, I'm too modest as well.

Haqqan?

Aiwa. Rubbama.

Hal tatakallamu al-logha alingleziya? :D

I KNEW you were going to do that.

Sigh! I've become too predictable.... ;)

Maalesh, Ya Sheikh.

Afwaan, Saiyyadati min al-Yasmin Ibtasaamaat ilai.

Hi Oli, hi Sam,

What the???

Afwaan, Saiyyadati min al-Yasmin Ibtasaamaat ilai.

Ana muttashakkir

Hi Oli, hi Sam,

What the???


Hi Kat, Sorry we're just showing off our skills in Arabic

Ana muttashakkir
You should be. :D

Hi Kat.

oh ok guys..
my father speaks Arabic....unfortunatelly i don't.

Off topic, but has it become trendy to know arabic?

Off topic, but has it become trendy to know arabic?

it's become trendy to know any language other than your own. :D

it's become trendy to know any language other than your own.
Unfortunately not. It it were "trendy" then the idiots that shop for labels rather than clothes would be doing it. However, it is cultured to be able to speak more than one language....
In my case (with the Arabic) I found someone prepared to teach me, three days so far (as of that last post of mine), then I've got to learn to write it... and then I owe someone a poem, composed and written in Arabic. Life is fun. (-ish).

It thought it was normal to know a language other than your own.

It thought it was normal to know a language other than your own.

You're obviously not an American

A lot of school kids in the UK "learn" another language, inasmuch as they do the course and then take the exam. And then promptly forget it. I Know someone who's at school in his second year of Russian and I remember more (after 35 years and never having had to use it beyong reading the odd tech magazine or book) than he does while actively studying it... Sad state of affairs.

You're obviously not an American

obviously. :D
i learned spanish in highschool. my teachers promised it would be "the" language to know once business affairs took off between america and mexico. they were wrong. so now i wish i'd learned something that could at least be used, like french or japanese. arabic, i'm afraid, was not even offered. nor russian.
i've considered getting those computer/DVD lessons for a language...as soon as i decide what i should learn.
hope i'm not too old to get it.

The only two languages my school offers is spanish and chinese.

The only two languages my school offers is spanish and chinese.

your school offers chinese?! :bugeye:

Its easy to learn a new language

Here:

http://www.word2word.com/coursead.html

http://www.word2word.com/coursead.html

hey, thanks! :D

You are welcome

Why are there ugly people?

To make attractive people feel special.

To sustain the porn industry.

Q: Why are there ugly people?
A: Because your daddy got drunk.

:D

Q: Why are there ugly people?
A: Because your daddy got drunk.

:D

and saw yo' mama thru beer goggles?

:p

Beauty has nothing to do with ugly people. Most scientists are ugly. You think Stephen Hawking is cute? How about Einstien?

We already have too much beauty and not enough intelligence. Maybe this beauty is not going to solve any of the problems, but I guess you can look good on TV and win on American Idol.,

but I guess you can look good on TV and win on American Idol.,

who wants to do those things? i'd rather be covered in engine oil. :D
really...i'd rather be covered in warm engine oil. i like it. :)

University of Life Lecture

’Why are there ugly people?’




Justice, my dear.

Many a beautiful countenance has been wasted on an ugly mind.

Far too many.

November spawned a monster, after all...

Hi Kat, Sorry we're just showing off our skills in Arabic

So is arabic a language you speek, or you're learning? I'm just wondering because "showing of your skills" implies it's being learned.

I speak arabic, but it's hard to understand it when it's written in english. (I know Arabic because I'm Egyptian, not because "it's trendy")

I'm learning it, but I've been slacking off the last two years.

I've gone through basic grammer, now I'm focusing on vocab.

But my conversation is limited.

There are no ugly people, only irregularities, and irregularitis exist even in mathematics. Most of human nature and knowledge is based on esthetics(a universe of beauty). Asymetry is the greates gift of nature, it's what makes us create Symetry; food for the eyes. In truth nature isnt keeing tabs on whats hot and whats not, beauty is a very synthetic and cultural notion.

I see beauty in most people.

Hi Hal