<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_05_172247</id>
	<title>Human Laughter Up To 16 Million Years Old</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1244231100000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Published today in the journal <em>Current Biology</em>, a new study shows that <a href="http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2794/human-laughter-16-million-years-old">laughter is not a unique human trait</a>, but a behavior shared by all great apes. Tickle a baby chimpanzee and it will giggle just like a human infant. This is because laughter evolved millions of years ago in one of our common ancestors, say scientists."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Published today in the journal Current Biology , a new study shows that laughter is not a unique human trait , but a behavior shared by all great apes .
Tickle a baby chimpanzee and it will giggle just like a human infant .
This is because laughter evolved millions of years ago in one of our common ancestors , say scientists .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Published today in the journal Current Biology, a new study shows that laughter is not a unique human trait, but a behavior shared by all great apes.
Tickle a baby chimpanzee and it will giggle just like a human infant.
This is because laughter evolved millions of years ago in one of our common ancestors, say scientists.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28234425</id>
	<title>Re:These evolutionists should be gagged and put in</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1244313000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We all know that science is a conspiracy to gain control of the government and children.</p></div><p>No, science is a process by which we observe the world and try to understand it. That's all.</p><p>And by the way, technology is applied science. If science is really such a conspiracy, you, sir, have no business using a computer, or any of the fruits of science, if you truly believe what you're saying. I hope the next time you're offered antibiotics, you refuse them, on the grounds that you believe evolution is a conspiracy -- after all, without evolution, no antibiotics, and no modern medicine.</p><p>Let's say you're right. Let's pretend for a moment that science really is some vast conspiracy with some "liberal" agenda. What would be the point?</p><p>I mean, think about this for two seconds. Can you actually come up with a motive that makes sense? Really, now -- a vast, global conspiracy, among tons of educated people -- people who often disagree on other things, and are not easily lead (think "herding cats"), but all agree that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming -- to, what, convince people of evolution?</p><p>Dude. At least the moon hoax <i>kind of</i> makes sense, to boost the morale of the country, and to be able to say we were there first -- and that's bunk, too. Your conspiracy theory doesn't even make as much sense as the moon hoax.</p><p>But then, I'm not sure why I'm going to bother arguing with you...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>These evolutionists should be gagged and put in their place.</p></div><p>Clearly, you don't believe in freedom of speech, either, let alone separation of church and state. These are not dangerous liberal ideals, these are the founding principles of the United States of America. I don't know that you live here, but if you do, your whole post here is an insult to your country -- the founding fathers would've been ashamed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We all know that science is a conspiracy to gain control of the government and children.No , science is a process by which we observe the world and try to understand it .
That 's all.And by the way , technology is applied science .
If science is really such a conspiracy , you , sir , have no business using a computer , or any of the fruits of science , if you truly believe what you 're saying .
I hope the next time you 're offered antibiotics , you refuse them , on the grounds that you believe evolution is a conspiracy -- after all , without evolution , no antibiotics , and no modern medicine.Let 's say you 're right .
Let 's pretend for a moment that science really is some vast conspiracy with some " liberal " agenda .
What would be the point ? I mean , think about this for two seconds .
Can you actually come up with a motive that makes sense ?
Really , now -- a vast , global conspiracy , among tons of educated people -- people who often disagree on other things , and are not easily lead ( think " herding cats " ) , but all agree that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming -- to , what , convince people of evolution ? Dude .
At least the moon hoax kind of makes sense , to boost the morale of the country , and to be able to say we were there first -- and that 's bunk , too .
Your conspiracy theory does n't even make as much sense as the moon hoax.But then , I 'm not sure why I 'm going to bother arguing with you...These evolutionists should be gagged and put in their place.Clearly , you do n't believe in freedom of speech , either , let alone separation of church and state .
These are not dangerous liberal ideals , these are the founding principles of the United States of America .
I do n't know that you live here , but if you do , your whole post here is an insult to your country -- the founding fathers would 've been ashamed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all know that science is a conspiracy to gain control of the government and children.No, science is a process by which we observe the world and try to understand it.
That's all.And by the way, technology is applied science.
If science is really such a conspiracy, you, sir, have no business using a computer, or any of the fruits of science, if you truly believe what you're saying.
I hope the next time you're offered antibiotics, you refuse them, on the grounds that you believe evolution is a conspiracy -- after all, without evolution, no antibiotics, and no modern medicine.Let's say you're right.
Let's pretend for a moment that science really is some vast conspiracy with some "liberal" agenda.
What would be the point?I mean, think about this for two seconds.
Can you actually come up with a motive that makes sense?
Really, now -- a vast, global conspiracy, among tons of educated people -- people who often disagree on other things, and are not easily lead (think "herding cats"), but all agree that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming -- to, what, convince people of evolution?Dude.
At least the moon hoax kind of makes sense, to boost the morale of the country, and to be able to say we were there first -- and that's bunk, too.
Your conspiracy theory doesn't even make as much sense as the moon hoax.But then, I'm not sure why I'm going to bother arguing with you...These evolutionists should be gagged and put in their place.Clearly, you don't believe in freedom of speech, either, let alone separation of church and state.
These are not dangerous liberal ideals, these are the founding principles of the United States of America.
I don't know that you live here, but if you do, your whole post here is an insult to your country -- the founding fathers would've been ashamed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28232385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28247499</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244401380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, you're retarded.</p><p>The bible should be treated as the fiction it is. It is so full of lies, exaggeration and half-truths that it should not be considered in any way a historical document. All examinations of history should be from sources that aren't &gt; 50\% bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , you 're retarded.The bible should be treated as the fiction it is .
It is so full of lies , exaggeration and half-truths that it should not be considered in any way a historical document .
All examinations of history should be from sources that are n't &gt; 50 \ % bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, you're retarded.The bible should be treated as the fiction it is.
It is so full of lies, exaggeration and half-truths that it should not be considered in any way a historical document.
All examinations of history should be from sources that aren't &gt; 50\% bullshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28235183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28235737</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>tecnico.hitos</author>
	<datestamp>1244321460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We observe these 3 things every day, in every new baby plant and animal.
</p><ol> <li>Variation:  We see mutations in every baby.  Brothers (who are not twins) do not look exactly alike, and do not have exactly the same traits.  We can observe that this is because mother and father give different halves of their DNA to each AND we observe mutations occuring within the embryo.</li><li>Heredity:  We observe those same traits being passed on to the next generation.</li><li>Selection:  The organisms with traits that make it easier to survive long enough to reproduce will have more of their traits passed on.  (They'll be making more babies.)</li></ol></div><p>I Am Not A Creationist, but given the way things are now I think it's more about how often people have heterosexual intercourse without (or with ineffective) preconceptive methods than how evolved they are.</p><p>I think we may need a new terminology... unless getting laid become a measure of evolution.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We observe these 3 things every day , in every new baby plant and animal .
Variation : We see mutations in every baby .
Brothers ( who are not twins ) do not look exactly alike , and do not have exactly the same traits .
We can observe that this is because mother and father give different halves of their DNA to each AND we observe mutations occuring within the embryo.Heredity : We observe those same traits being passed on to the next generation.Selection : The organisms with traits that make it easier to survive long enough to reproduce will have more of their traits passed on .
( They 'll be making more babies .
) I Am Not A Creationist , but given the way things are now I think it 's more about how often people have heterosexual intercourse without ( or with ineffective ) preconceptive methods than how evolved they are.I think we may need a new terminology... unless getting laid become a measure of evolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We observe these 3 things every day, in every new baby plant and animal.
Variation:  We see mutations in every baby.
Brothers (who are not twins) do not look exactly alike, and do not have exactly the same traits.
We can observe that this is because mother and father give different halves of their DNA to each AND we observe mutations occuring within the embryo.Heredity:  We observe those same traits being passed on to the next generation.Selection:  The organisms with traits that make it easier to survive long enough to reproduce will have more of their traits passed on.
(They'll be making more babies.
)I Am Not A Creationist, but given the way things are now I think it's more about how often people have heterosexual intercourse without (or with ineffective) preconceptive methods than how evolved they are.I think we may need a new terminology... unless getting laid become a measure of evolution.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231011</id>
	<title>Well, that's a relief...</title>
	<author>painehope</author>
	<datestamp>1244280000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Now I have an excuse for my general demeanor and telling the really, really bad users "<i>because you're a fucking idiot, to be honest!</i>".
</p><p>?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Wipes sweat away from brow, spills beer...damnit</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I have an excuse for my general demeanor and telling the really , really bad users " because you 're a fucking idiot , to be honest ! " .
? /Wipes sweat away from brow , spills beer...damnit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Now I have an excuse for my general demeanor and telling the really, really bad users "because you're a fucking idiot, to be honest!".
? /Wipes sweat away from brow, spills beer...damnit</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28234769</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>Epistax</author>
	<datestamp>1244316060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not to mention that totally unrelated animals can evolve similarly in similar environments.  Whales and dolphins sure look like fish sometimes..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention that totally unrelated animals can evolve similarly in similar environments .
Whales and dolphins sure look like fish sometimes. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention that totally unrelated animals can evolve similarly in similar environments.
Whales and dolphins sure look like fish sometimes..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28271277</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1244540520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Much of what is known about the past is interpreted in order to fit into a prescribed story.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Not at all.</p><blockquote><div><p>Similarities in DNA can easily be attributed to similarities in appearance where the DNA is a certain way because of Two arms and two legs or the way the arms and legs bend rather then because of a common ancestor.</p></div></blockquote><p>
This is irrelevant. The way your arms and legs bend isn't the only piece of available evidence.</p><blockquote><div><p>They won't even allow for Evolution to be broken into distinct groups for challenges as if it harms their holy word or something.</p></div></blockquote><p>
You are retarded, lying, and spewing out straw men. Goodbye.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Much of what is known about the past is interpreted in order to fit into a prescribed story .
Not at all.Similarities in DNA can easily be attributed to similarities in appearance where the DNA is a certain way because of Two arms and two legs or the way the arms and legs bend rather then because of a common ancestor .
This is irrelevant .
The way your arms and legs bend is n't the only piece of available evidence.They wo n't even allow for Evolution to be broken into distinct groups for challenges as if it harms their holy word or something .
You are retarded , lying , and spewing out straw men .
Goodbye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Much of what is known about the past is interpreted in order to fit into a prescribed story.
Not at all.Similarities in DNA can easily be attributed to similarities in appearance where the DNA is a certain way because of Two arms and two legs or the way the arms and legs bend rather then because of a common ancestor.
This is irrelevant.
The way your arms and legs bend isn't the only piece of available evidence.They won't even allow for Evolution to be broken into distinct groups for challenges as if it harms their holy word or something.
You are retarded, lying, and spewing out straw men.
Goodbye.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28234727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231001</id>
	<title>And now</title>
	<author>KneelBeforeZod</author>
	<datestamp>1244279880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anthropologists will be tickling all sorts and varieties of monkeys, apes, primates, and every other mammal just to see if they giggle too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anthropologists will be tickling all sorts and varieties of monkeys , apes , primates , and every other mammal just to see if they giggle too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anthropologists will be tickling all sorts and varieties of monkeys, apes, primates, and every other mammal just to see if they giggle too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231197</id>
	<title>Re:The monsters!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244282580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Human Laughter Up To 16 Million Years Old</i></p><p>That's funny, because so are the gags on "According to Jim".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Human Laughter Up To 16 Million Years OldThat 's funny , because so are the gags on " According to Jim " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Human Laughter Up To 16 Million Years OldThat's funny, because so are the gags on "According to Jim".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231563</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>Zontar The Mindless</author>
	<datestamp>1244289360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AC, you are my new King/Queen/Fido of <em>Whoosh</em>. Brilliant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AC , you are my new King/Queen/Fido of Whoosh .
Brilliant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AC, you are my new King/Queen/Fido of Whoosh.
Brilliant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231081</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244280840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After all these years, creationists are still resorting to the same strawman arguments.  I guess changing their tactics over time to be more successful would be hypocritical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all these years , creationists are still resorting to the same strawman arguments .
I guess changing their tactics over time to be more successful would be hypocritical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all these years, creationists are still resorting to the same strawman arguments.
I guess changing their tactics over time to be more successful would be hypocritical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231145</id>
	<title>Hu?</title>
	<author>aepervius</author>
	<datestamp>1244281740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Just as much proof exists to say that they, at the very least, could have evolved from separate organisms.</i> <br>Could you pelase show us your proof that chimp/ape/human don't share a common ancestor ?<br> <br> <br> <i>Shall I even mention the leap of faith required to even consider whether those same 2 animals evolved in the first place?</i> <br>Ha I see you are a creationist then. I hate to rbeak it to you, but the above article is about science, and for science, as of now with the evidence we have, all animal evolve and those two animal, whatever the animal HAVE evolved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just as much proof exists to say that they , at the very least , could have evolved from separate organisms .
Could you pelase show us your proof that chimp/ape/human do n't share a common ancestor ?
Shall I even mention the leap of faith required to even consider whether those same 2 animals evolved in the first place ?
Ha I see you are a creationist then .
I hate to rbeak it to you , but the above article is about science , and for science , as of now with the evidence we have , all animal evolve and those two animal , whatever the animal HAVE evolved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just as much proof exists to say that they, at the very least, could have evolved from separate organisms.
Could you pelase show us your proof that chimp/ape/human don't share a common ancestor ?
Shall I even mention the leap of faith required to even consider whether those same 2 animals evolved in the first place?
Ha I see you are a creationist then.
I hate to rbeak it to you, but the above article is about science, and for science, as of now with the evidence we have, all animal evolve and those two animal, whatever the animal HAVE evolved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28233237</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>Skrullmukken</author>
	<datestamp>1244304960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I didn't realize we were able to hear someone or something from 16 million years ago laugh to *know* that action is that old.</p></div><p>You incorrectly assume that we have to experience a fact through our senses to be able to know that fact to be true.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't realize we were able to hear someone or something from 16 million years ago laugh to * know * that action is that old.You incorrectly assume that we have to experience a fact through our senses to be able to know that fact to be true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't realize we were able to hear someone or something from 16 million years ago laugh to *know* that action is that old.You incorrectly assume that we have to experience a fact through our senses to be able to know that fact to be true.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231051</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244280540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p><i>The logic used to state, with a straight face no less, that 2 animals which share the same trait must have evolved from a common organism is astoundingly incorrect. Just as much proof exists to say that they, at the very least, could have evolved from separate organisms. Shall I even mention the leap of faith required to even consider whether those same 2 animals evolved in the first place?</i></p></div>  </blockquote><p>OK, I'll bite.  Nobody other than you is saying that humans *must* have evolved from a common ancestor with other apes simply because of a single shared trait.  It's a very well-documented scientific fact that humans and other apes share a common ancestor.  Modern genetics, biology, study of fossil records, etc. all repeatedly confirm this theory.  And it's pretty reasonable to suggest that a trait present in all species of a family was present in their shared common ancestor.</p><p>Science isn't a tool of "the liberal agenda."  Evolve yourself a brain and read a fucking biology textbook.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The logic used to state , with a straight face no less , that 2 animals which share the same trait must have evolved from a common organism is astoundingly incorrect .
Just as much proof exists to say that they , at the very least , could have evolved from separate organisms .
Shall I even mention the leap of faith required to even consider whether those same 2 animals evolved in the first place ?
OK , I 'll bite .
Nobody other than you is saying that humans * must * have evolved from a common ancestor with other apes simply because of a single shared trait .
It 's a very well-documented scientific fact that humans and other apes share a common ancestor .
Modern genetics , biology , study of fossil records , etc .
all repeatedly confirm this theory .
And it 's pretty reasonable to suggest that a trait present in all species of a family was present in their shared common ancestor.Science is n't a tool of " the liberal agenda .
" Evolve yourself a brain and read a fucking biology textbook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The logic used to state, with a straight face no less, that 2 animals which share the same trait must have evolved from a common organism is astoundingly incorrect.
Just as much proof exists to say that they, at the very least, could have evolved from separate organisms.
Shall I even mention the leap of faith required to even consider whether those same 2 animals evolved in the first place?
OK, I'll bite.
Nobody other than you is saying that humans *must* have evolved from a common ancestor with other apes simply because of a single shared trait.
It's a very well-documented scientific fact that humans and other apes share a common ancestor.
Modern genetics, biology, study of fossil records, etc.
all repeatedly confirm this theory.
And it's pretty reasonable to suggest that a trait present in all species of a family was present in their shared common ancestor.Science isn't a tool of "the liberal agenda.
"  Evolve yourself a brain and read a fucking biology textbook.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230947</id>
	<title>Eat my ?o?t?e'? penis!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244279040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eat my <a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">?o?t?e'?</a> [goatse.fr] penis!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eat my ? o ? t ? e ' ?
[ goatse.fr ] penis !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eat my ?o?t?e'?
[goatse.fr] penis!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28235183</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>sumdumass</author>
	<datestamp>1244318400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the problems is that biological evolution is such a broad term that encompasses many things. Take the bible for instance, there are many historically real facts in there. There are some that is questionable and unverifiable to date. However, saying that a burning bush never spoke to someone names Moses doesn't mean that the Egyptians didn't enslave the jews, or that rome didn't conquer the land currently known as Israel and so on.</p><p>With that in mind, there are several aspects of evolution that should have subcategories but don't specifically because people want the appearance of challenges to the validity to appear as challenges to what we know. You pointed to the genetic engineering in which we created breed of the same species. This has been present with cattle probably just as long. However, that is what some attempt to consider as micro evolution (changes within the same species) verses a macro evolution which is changes large enough to create separate species.</p><p>You will find that almost no one disagrees with the premise of micro evolution where some disagree with macro evolution. Now they are related to the extent that enough micro evolutionary changes are thought to product a macro evolutionary change. However, this doesn't mean that the line of thinking is true, nor does it mean that if the speciation portion is false, that the micro evolution has to be false too. Therefore the presence of micro evolution only supports macro evolution, it doesn't prove that aspect, and pointing to it for a response to a macro evolution comment only deflects the position behind tricks and smoking mirrors. It doesn't address anything relevant to the conversation other then it is a mechanical part in the theory.</p><p>Please don't say birds can fly to the moon because we observe them flying so high and far away that the naked human eye can't spot them under some circumstances. That is the reality of what you did, you pointed to evolution within a species to counter a statement questioning the evidence of if two separate species evolved away from a common ancestor somewhere in time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the problems is that biological evolution is such a broad term that encompasses many things .
Take the bible for instance , there are many historically real facts in there .
There are some that is questionable and unverifiable to date .
However , saying that a burning bush never spoke to someone names Moses does n't mean that the Egyptians did n't enslave the jews , or that rome did n't conquer the land currently known as Israel and so on.With that in mind , there are several aspects of evolution that should have subcategories but do n't specifically because people want the appearance of challenges to the validity to appear as challenges to what we know .
You pointed to the genetic engineering in which we created breed of the same species .
This has been present with cattle probably just as long .
However , that is what some attempt to consider as micro evolution ( changes within the same species ) verses a macro evolution which is changes large enough to create separate species.You will find that almost no one disagrees with the premise of micro evolution where some disagree with macro evolution .
Now they are related to the extent that enough micro evolutionary changes are thought to product a macro evolutionary change .
However , this does n't mean that the line of thinking is true , nor does it mean that if the speciation portion is false , that the micro evolution has to be false too .
Therefore the presence of micro evolution only supports macro evolution , it does n't prove that aspect , and pointing to it for a response to a macro evolution comment only deflects the position behind tricks and smoking mirrors .
It does n't address anything relevant to the conversation other then it is a mechanical part in the theory.Please do n't say birds can fly to the moon because we observe them flying so high and far away that the naked human eye ca n't spot them under some circumstances .
That is the reality of what you did , you pointed to evolution within a species to counter a statement questioning the evidence of if two separate species evolved away from a common ancestor somewhere in time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the problems is that biological evolution is such a broad term that encompasses many things.
Take the bible for instance, there are many historically real facts in there.
There are some that is questionable and unverifiable to date.
However, saying that a burning bush never spoke to someone names Moses doesn't mean that the Egyptians didn't enslave the jews, or that rome didn't conquer the land currently known as Israel and so on.With that in mind, there are several aspects of evolution that should have subcategories but don't specifically because people want the appearance of challenges to the validity to appear as challenges to what we know.
You pointed to the genetic engineering in which we created breed of the same species.
This has been present with cattle probably just as long.
However, that is what some attempt to consider as micro evolution (changes within the same species) verses a macro evolution which is changes large enough to create separate species.You will find that almost no one disagrees with the premise of micro evolution where some disagree with macro evolution.
Now they are related to the extent that enough micro evolutionary changes are thought to product a macro evolutionary change.
However, this doesn't mean that the line of thinking is true, nor does it mean that if the speciation portion is false, that the micro evolution has to be false too.
Therefore the presence of micro evolution only supports macro evolution, it doesn't prove that aspect, and pointing to it for a response to a macro evolution comment only deflects the position behind tricks and smoking mirrors.
It doesn't address anything relevant to the conversation other then it is a mechanical part in the theory.Please don't say birds can fly to the moon because we observe them flying so high and far away that the naked human eye can't spot them under some circumstances.
That is the reality of what you did, you pointed to evolution within a species to counter a statement questioning the evidence of if two separate species evolved away from a common ancestor somewhere in time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231069</id>
	<title>First Fart Joke..</title>
	<author>retech</author>
	<datestamp>1244280720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In other news, the first fart joke is thought to be nearly 16 million years old. Since even the most primal of hominids would have had fingers to be pulled when trying to relieve gas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , the first fart joke is thought to be nearly 16 million years old .
Since even the most primal of hominids would have had fingers to be pulled when trying to relieve gas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, the first fart joke is thought to be nearly 16 million years old.
Since even the most primal of hominids would have had fingers to be pulled when trying to relieve gas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231839</id>
	<title>First joke</title>
	<author>quenda</author>
	<datestamp>1244293560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scientists have extrapolated the first joke, which translates like this:</p><p>A mandrill walks up to a watering hole. The barmonkey says "Why the long face?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scientists have extrapolated the first joke , which translates like this : A mandrill walks up to a watering hole .
The barmonkey says " Why the long face ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scientists have extrapolated the first joke, which translates like this:A mandrill walks up to a watering hole.
The barmonkey says "Why the long face?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231797</id>
	<title>Re:I thought it had already been tested on rats</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1244292960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My hypothesis- if an animal can play, it can "laugh" or at least it is familiar with the concept of "laughing".<br><br>Many animals play. And play is often an important part in their lives and development.<br><br>There are various sorts of humour though.<br><br>Some involve you laughing because your brain suddenly made a lots of unexpected connections.<br>Not sure how that relates to you being tickled by someone else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My hypothesis- if an animal can play , it can " laugh " or at least it is familiar with the concept of " laughing " .Many animals play .
And play is often an important part in their lives and development.There are various sorts of humour though.Some involve you laughing because your brain suddenly made a lots of unexpected connections.Not sure how that relates to you being tickled by someone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My hypothesis- if an animal can play, it can "laugh" or at least it is familiar with the concept of "laughing".Many animals play.
And play is often an important part in their lives and development.There are various sorts of humour though.Some involve you laughing because your brain suddenly made a lots of unexpected connections.Not sure how that relates to you being tickled by someone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28233093</id>
	<title>So? We are all mammals</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244304300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If one mammal can laugh, why not another? We share plenty of other traits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If one mammal can laugh , why not another ?
We share plenty of other traits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If one mammal can laugh, why not another?
We share plenty of other traits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230931</id>
	<title>and today...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244278860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>those same apes are still laughing at us 'evolved' humans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>those same apes are still laughing at us 'evolved ' humans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>those same apes are still laughing at us 'evolved' humans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231053</id>
	<title>I thought it had already been tested on rats</title>
	<author>Cochonou</author>
	<datestamp>1244280540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>And that rats also giggled when tickled.<br>
A <a href="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bclee/laughpapers.txt" title="umich.edu">reference</a> [umich.edu] from 1998 might be uselful for those interested.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And that rats also giggled when tickled .
A reference [ umich.edu ] from 1998 might be uselful for those interested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that rats also giggled when tickled.
A reference [umich.edu] from 1998 might be uselful for those interested.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28234727</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>sumdumass</author>
	<datestamp>1244315520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem isn't really a single trait, it the lack of a complete set of traits. Much of what is known about the past is interpreted in order to fit into a prescribed story. You have relationships between form and function that go completely ignored too. Similarities in DNA can easily be attributed to similarities in appearance where the DNA is a certain way because of Two arms and two legs or the way the arms and legs bend rather then because of a common ancestor. There was a recent discussion about dog breeds and how they would be labeled different species altogether is they were extinct and and we dug up the bones. You could theoretically, under the current definition being applied in evolutionary biology as speciation, have two border collies, one in the UK and one in America, separated by the Atlantic ocean and they would be considered separate species.</p><p>Now this isn't to say that there isn't a common ancestral connections, it's to say that there is no empirical evidence proving it and too much weight is being put on the evidence claiming it is true. In fact, some people, even here on slashdot, will claim that evolution as it is currently stated is a proven fact that is indisputable (even to science) despite never witnessing speciation in the real world without bending the definition of species. They won't even allow for Evolution to be broken into distinct groups for challenges as if it harms their holy word or something. Take this laughter situation, rats have been witnessed to emit ultrasonic squeals when tickled as a youth. Dog and cats make the same respective growls and purs when tickled at young ages. To make the same claim that laughter is 16 million years old and that this shows proof of a common ancestor, then rats, cats, dogs, and elephants, most likely belong in the same family with the same ancestors and are practicing something 16 million years old.</p><p>On the other hand, if laughter, especially at an early age, it a function of necessity in pack animals (rats, apes, elephants, canine, felines, and humans are all pack animals in that we band together in early years of life and display what could be considered laughter) in which young animals are encouraged by enjoyment and feedback of that enjoyment to stay with their parents/siblings to learn (interpret) instinct and so on to ensure their survival the species, the only connections to ancestors would be survival over a set of environmental circumstances. Laughter could be nothing more then an evolved trait that animals which group together have found keeps them together at critical stages in life. In short, it could be nothing more then a learned behavior with benefits that encouraged those who did it well to live longer and procreate more then those who didn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is n't really a single trait , it the lack of a complete set of traits .
Much of what is known about the past is interpreted in order to fit into a prescribed story .
You have relationships between form and function that go completely ignored too .
Similarities in DNA can easily be attributed to similarities in appearance where the DNA is a certain way because of Two arms and two legs or the way the arms and legs bend rather then because of a common ancestor .
There was a recent discussion about dog breeds and how they would be labeled different species altogether is they were extinct and and we dug up the bones .
You could theoretically , under the current definition being applied in evolutionary biology as speciation , have two border collies , one in the UK and one in America , separated by the Atlantic ocean and they would be considered separate species.Now this is n't to say that there is n't a common ancestral connections , it 's to say that there is no empirical evidence proving it and too much weight is being put on the evidence claiming it is true .
In fact , some people , even here on slashdot , will claim that evolution as it is currently stated is a proven fact that is indisputable ( even to science ) despite never witnessing speciation in the real world without bending the definition of species .
They wo n't even allow for Evolution to be broken into distinct groups for challenges as if it harms their holy word or something .
Take this laughter situation , rats have been witnessed to emit ultrasonic squeals when tickled as a youth .
Dog and cats make the same respective growls and purs when tickled at young ages .
To make the same claim that laughter is 16 million years old and that this shows proof of a common ancestor , then rats , cats , dogs , and elephants , most likely belong in the same family with the same ancestors and are practicing something 16 million years old.On the other hand , if laughter , especially at an early age , it a function of necessity in pack animals ( rats , apes , elephants , canine , felines , and humans are all pack animals in that we band together in early years of life and display what could be considered laughter ) in which young animals are encouraged by enjoyment and feedback of that enjoyment to stay with their parents/siblings to learn ( interpret ) instinct and so on to ensure their survival the species , the only connections to ancestors would be survival over a set of environmental circumstances .
Laughter could be nothing more then an evolved trait that animals which group together have found keeps them together at critical stages in life .
In short , it could be nothing more then a learned behavior with benefits that encouraged those who did it well to live longer and procreate more then those who did n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem isn't really a single trait, it the lack of a complete set of traits.
Much of what is known about the past is interpreted in order to fit into a prescribed story.
You have relationships between form and function that go completely ignored too.
Similarities in DNA can easily be attributed to similarities in appearance where the DNA is a certain way because of Two arms and two legs or the way the arms and legs bend rather then because of a common ancestor.
There was a recent discussion about dog breeds and how they would be labeled different species altogether is they were extinct and and we dug up the bones.
You could theoretically, under the current definition being applied in evolutionary biology as speciation, have two border collies, one in the UK and one in America, separated by the Atlantic ocean and they would be considered separate species.Now this isn't to say that there isn't a common ancestral connections, it's to say that there is no empirical evidence proving it and too much weight is being put on the evidence claiming it is true.
In fact, some people, even here on slashdot, will claim that evolution as it is currently stated is a proven fact that is indisputable (even to science) despite never witnessing speciation in the real world without bending the definition of species.
They won't even allow for Evolution to be broken into distinct groups for challenges as if it harms their holy word or something.
Take this laughter situation, rats have been witnessed to emit ultrasonic squeals when tickled as a youth.
Dog and cats make the same respective growls and purs when tickled at young ages.
To make the same claim that laughter is 16 million years old and that this shows proof of a common ancestor, then rats, cats, dogs, and elephants, most likely belong in the same family with the same ancestors and are practicing something 16 million years old.On the other hand, if laughter, especially at an early age, it a function of necessity in pack animals (rats, apes, elephants, canine, felines, and humans are all pack animals in that we band together in early years of life and display what could be considered laughter) in which young animals are encouraged by enjoyment and feedback of that enjoyment to stay with their parents/siblings to learn (interpret) instinct and so on to ensure their survival the species, the only connections to ancestors would be survival over a set of environmental circumstances.
Laughter could be nothing more then an evolved trait that animals which group together have found keeps them together at critical stages in life.
In short, it could be nothing more then a learned behavior with benefits that encouraged those who did it well to live longer and procreate more then those who didn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230973</id>
	<title>That is not even Funny</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244279340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hrrmmpff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hrrmmpff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hrrmmpff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231105</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>G3ckoG33k</author>
	<datestamp>1244281260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"2 animals which share the same trait must have evolved from a common organism is astoundingly incorrect"</p><p>No, it is not incorrect. True, those shared traits may not have evolved from a common ancestor, and then they are "analogous" traits;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.e.g. the wings in bats and birds are examples of that.</p><p>If they have evolved through a common ancestor then they are "homologous" traits; the wings of bats and birds are examples of homologus traits, if regarded as forelimbs and not as wings.</p><p>In order to judge which is correct you need make a "phylogenetic analysis". The Internet is full of decriptions on the various techniques on how to do that.</p><p>Go search for it, boy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 2 animals which share the same trait must have evolved from a common organism is astoundingly incorrect " No , it is not incorrect .
True , those shared traits may not have evolved from a common ancestor , and then they are " analogous " traits ; .e.g .
the wings in bats and birds are examples of that.If they have evolved through a common ancestor then they are " homologous " traits ; the wings of bats and birds are examples of homologus traits , if regarded as forelimbs and not as wings.In order to judge which is correct you need make a " phylogenetic analysis " .
The Internet is full of decriptions on the various techniques on how to do that.Go search for it , boy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"2 animals which share the same trait must have evolved from a common organism is astoundingly incorrect"No, it is not incorrect.
True, those shared traits may not have evolved from a common ancestor, and then they are "analogous" traits; .e.g.
the wings in bats and birds are examples of that.If they have evolved through a common ancestor then they are "homologous" traits; the wings of bats and birds are examples of homologus traits, if regarded as forelimbs and not as wings.In order to judge which is correct you need make a "phylogenetic analysis".
The Internet is full of decriptions on the various techniques on how to do that.Go search for it, boy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231029</id>
	<title>Methodology?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244280360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did they test this on children of all races (including mutts) and most especially, niggers? I don't think there's a huge difference, truth be told...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did they test this on children of all races ( including mutts ) and most especially , niggers ?
I do n't think there 's a huge difference , truth be told.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did they test this on children of all races (including mutts) and most especially, niggers?
I don't think there's a huge difference, truth be told...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28238015</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>mikael</author>
	<datestamp>1244297280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, creationists have created an escape condition from that logical argument. They accept that there are small changes that occur between every generation, but that these are small changes that cancel out and do not add up to the major changes that are are claimed to have happened (assuming they don't believe the world was created 6000 years ago).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , creationists have created an escape condition from that logical argument .
They accept that there are small changes that occur between every generation , but that these are small changes that cancel out and do not add up to the major changes that are are claimed to have happened ( assuming they do n't believe the world was created 6000 years ago ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, creationists have created an escape condition from that logical argument.
They accept that there are small changes that occur between every generation, but that these are small changes that cancel out and do not add up to the major changes that are are claimed to have happened (assuming they don't believe the world was created 6000 years ago).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231095</id>
	<title>... as are the jokes</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1244281140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which kinda reinforces my view of TV comedy - recycled, plagiarised and derivative. Now I know why</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which kinda reinforces my view of TV comedy - recycled , plagiarised and derivative .
Now I know why</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which kinda reinforces my view of TV comedy - recycled, plagiarised and derivative.
Now I know why</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230937</id>
	<title>The monsters!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244278920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They tickled three human babies for this experiment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They tickled three human babies for this experiment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They tickled three human babies for this experiment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28232385</id>
	<title>These evolutionists should be gagged and put in th</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244299560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're right, the whole article is fundamentally missing the point. Evolution is just a product of a liberal education system - just like slashdot. We all know that science is a conspiracy to gain control of the government and children. I'm with you on that. These evolutionists should be gagged and put in their place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , the whole article is fundamentally missing the point .
Evolution is just a product of a liberal education system - just like slashdot .
We all know that science is a conspiracy to gain control of the government and children .
I 'm with you on that .
These evolutionists should be gagged and put in their place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, the whole article is fundamentally missing the point.
Evolution is just a product of a liberal education system - just like slashdot.
We all know that science is a conspiracy to gain control of the government and children.
I'm with you on that.
These evolutionists should be gagged and put in their place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28234955</id>
	<title>Re:Hu?</title>
	<author>sumdumass</author>
	<datestamp>1244317260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>Could you pelase show us your proof that chimp/ape/human don't share a common ancestor ?</i></p></div> </blockquote><p> Wow, good argument there. Let's see, lets assume that you don't believe me when I say the was light is green at the intersection exactly 25 years 1 day, 13 minutes and 2 seconds ago, now prove to me it wasn't. You see how that seems ridiculous? The problem isn't finding proof one way or another, it's how convincing that proof is and how much it ties the truth of the situation to reality. Obviously, there are people who aren't convinced that A happened, the answer is to find more proof that A is true as stated not to have someone who doesn't agree run out and find why A is not true. This is especially problematic if A isn't true to begin with and the focus is on A.</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>Ha I see you are a creationist then. I hate to rbeak it to you, but the above article is about science, and for science, as of now with the evidence we have, all animal evolve and those two animal, whatever the animal HAVE evolved.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p> This is a problem with psudo scientist like yourself who have turned science into their own religion. First of all, faith or a leap of faith has nothing to do with religion unless the topic is about religion. In the way the GP used the term, the statement was exactly like this "Shall I even mention the \_enormous amounts of confidence in the existing evidence's interpretations being absolutely correct\_ that is required to even consider whether those same 2 animals evolved from a common ancestor in the first place?"</p><p>But you have turned this into a My religion verses their religion. Because of your own ignorance, you have misinterpreted something someone has said and you then instead of constructively address it, which is the scientific way, you then attempt to remove all value of the statement, ignore it, and rail on about science in which you demonstrated an inability to practice.</p><p>You may be one of these evangelical atheist, it doesn't matter. But if your going to pretend to use science to counter your arch nemesis, then do so using science and not the some psudo religious replacement in which your holy book is more right then theirs. It adds absolutely nothing to the conversation and marks you as one of the same you are railing against.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you pelase show us your proof that chimp/ape/human do n't share a common ancestor ?
Wow , good argument there .
Let 's see , lets assume that you do n't believe me when I say the was light is green at the intersection exactly 25 years 1 day , 13 minutes and 2 seconds ago , now prove to me it was n't .
You see how that seems ridiculous ?
The problem is n't finding proof one way or another , it 's how convincing that proof is and how much it ties the truth of the situation to reality .
Obviously , there are people who are n't convinced that A happened , the answer is to find more proof that A is true as stated not to have someone who does n't agree run out and find why A is not true .
This is especially problematic if A is n't true to begin with and the focus is on A. Ha I see you are a creationist then .
I hate to rbeak it to you , but the above article is about science , and for science , as of now with the evidence we have , all animal evolve and those two animal , whatever the animal HAVE evolved .
This is a problem with psudo scientist like yourself who have turned science into their own religion .
First of all , faith or a leap of faith has nothing to do with religion unless the topic is about religion .
In the way the GP used the term , the statement was exactly like this " Shall I even mention the \ _enormous amounts of confidence in the existing evidence 's interpretations being absolutely correct \ _ that is required to even consider whether those same 2 animals evolved from a common ancestor in the first place ?
" But you have turned this into a My religion verses their religion .
Because of your own ignorance , you have misinterpreted something someone has said and you then instead of constructively address it , which is the scientific way , you then attempt to remove all value of the statement , ignore it , and rail on about science in which you demonstrated an inability to practice.You may be one of these evangelical atheist , it does n't matter .
But if your going to pretend to use science to counter your arch nemesis , then do so using science and not the some psudo religious replacement in which your holy book is more right then theirs .
It adds absolutely nothing to the conversation and marks you as one of the same you are railing against .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Could you pelase show us your proof that chimp/ape/human don't share a common ancestor ?
Wow, good argument there.
Let's see, lets assume that you don't believe me when I say the was light is green at the intersection exactly 25 years 1 day, 13 minutes and 2 seconds ago, now prove to me it wasn't.
You see how that seems ridiculous?
The problem isn't finding proof one way or another, it's how convincing that proof is and how much it ties the truth of the situation to reality.
Obviously, there are people who aren't convinced that A happened, the answer is to find more proof that A is true as stated not to have someone who doesn't agree run out and find why A is not true.
This is especially problematic if A isn't true to begin with and the focus is on A. Ha I see you are a creationist then.
I hate to rbeak it to you, but the above article is about science, and for science, as of now with the evidence we have, all animal evolve and those two animal, whatever the animal HAVE evolved.
This is a problem with psudo scientist like yourself who have turned science into their own religion.
First of all, faith or a leap of faith has nothing to do with religion unless the topic is about religion.
In the way the GP used the term, the statement was exactly like this "Shall I even mention the \_enormous amounts of confidence in the existing evidence's interpretations being absolutely correct\_ that is required to even consider whether those same 2 animals evolved from a common ancestor in the first place?
"But you have turned this into a My religion verses their religion.
Because of your own ignorance, you have misinterpreted something someone has said and you then instead of constructively address it, which is the scientific way, you then attempt to remove all value of the statement, ignore it, and rail on about science in which you demonstrated an inability to practice.You may be one of these evangelical atheist, it doesn't matter.
But if your going to pretend to use science to counter your arch nemesis, then do so using science and not the some psudo religious replacement in which your holy book is more right then theirs.
It adds absolutely nothing to the conversation and marks you as one of the same you are railing against.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28233881</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>Cstryon</author>
	<datestamp>1244308860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really hate this Creationists bashing science, Scientists bashing Creation. Complete nonsense.

Evolution happens, I have my Dads shaped mouth, and my moms huge teeth. Kinda sucks because my jaw locks up when I'm eating, but these are traits passed on. If it weren't for our brains, I would possibly be one of those poor suckers that doesn't breed, because of traits. (But My MD can make things otherwise, and I'm married =&gt; )
But I am also a Christian (LDS), It would be silly of my to assume that the universe was created by an all powerful being, and he wasn't able to set in motion EVOLUTION! For all we know, God told Moses it was 7 days, because Moses just wouldn't understand something like 7 Billion years maybe. Here's what I believe, God Created the universe, god created life, God caused evolution to Just work, so that Humans would eventually evolve. Adam was the first Smart enough primate to understand these things. Whether it was 6000 years, or billions of years since the earth was created, if God is all powerful, he can do it how ever he wants, and will do it the way it best works.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really hate this Creationists bashing science , Scientists bashing Creation .
Complete nonsense .
Evolution happens , I have my Dads shaped mouth , and my moms huge teeth .
Kinda sucks because my jaw locks up when I 'm eating , but these are traits passed on .
If it were n't for our brains , I would possibly be one of those poor suckers that does n't breed , because of traits .
( But My MD can make things otherwise , and I 'm married = &gt; ) But I am also a Christian ( LDS ) , It would be silly of my to assume that the universe was created by an all powerful being , and he was n't able to set in motion EVOLUTION !
For all we know , God told Moses it was 7 days , because Moses just would n't understand something like 7 Billion years maybe .
Here 's what I believe , God Created the universe , god created life , God caused evolution to Just work , so that Humans would eventually evolve .
Adam was the first Smart enough primate to understand these things .
Whether it was 6000 years , or billions of years since the earth was created , if God is all powerful , he can do it how ever he wants , and will do it the way it best works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really hate this Creationists bashing science, Scientists bashing Creation.
Complete nonsense.
Evolution happens, I have my Dads shaped mouth, and my moms huge teeth.
Kinda sucks because my jaw locks up when I'm eating, but these are traits passed on.
If it weren't for our brains, I would possibly be one of those poor suckers that doesn't breed, because of traits.
(But My MD can make things otherwise, and I'm married =&gt; )
But I am also a Christian (LDS), It would be silly of my to assume that the universe was created by an all powerful being, and he wasn't able to set in motion EVOLUTION!
For all we know, God told Moses it was 7 days, because Moses just wouldn't understand something like 7 Billion years maybe.
Here's what I believe, God Created the universe, god created life, God caused evolution to Just work, so that Humans would eventually evolve.
Adam was the first Smart enough primate to understand these things.
Whether it was 6000 years, or billions of years since the earth was created, if God is all powerful, he can do it how ever he wants, and will do it the way it best works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28232137</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244297400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well after 16 million years or so you do kinda get set in your ways Sonny,</p><p>Get ORF my Lawn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well after 16 million years or so you do kinda get set in your ways Sonny,Get ORF my Lawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well after 16 million years or so you do kinda get set in your ways Sonny,Get ORF my Lawn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231013</id>
	<title>Horses laugh too.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244280120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where do you think the term "Horse laugh" comes from?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where do you think the term " Horse laugh " comes from ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where do you think the term "Horse laugh" comes from?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231171</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244282040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Evolution is quite real. Humanity has played with it <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_dog\_breeds" title="wikipedia.org">for a long time</a> [wikipedia.org]. But we must drop the assumption that behavior observed now has been there 16 million years ago. Why do we assume chimpanzees stopped evolving, again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Evolution is quite real .
Humanity has played with it for a long time [ wikipedia.org ] .
But we must drop the assumption that behavior observed now has been there 16 million years ago .
Why do we assume chimpanzees stopped evolving , again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evolution is quite real.
Humanity has played with it for a long time [wikipedia.org].
But we must drop the assumption that behavior observed now has been there 16 million years ago.
Why do we assume chimpanzees stopped evolving, again?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28253425</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244487540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's a very well-documented scientific fact that humans and other apes share a common ancestor.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Well mis-documented.</p><blockquote><div><p>Modern genetics, biology, study of fossil records, etc. all repeatedly confirm this theory.</p></div></blockquote><p>
It would be better for evolutionists if there were no fossil record at all, because it would be easier to abide by an "argument from silence" defense than to have to counter the chorus of fossils, which loudly mock the evolutionist-inspired geologic time table found in textbooks.
<br> <br>
The "living fossils" are especially amused at evolutionism's fossil claims: "I'm not dead yet! <a href="http://news.softpedia.com/news/A-Living-Fossil-That-Resisted-Dinosaur-Extinction-Could-Be-Wiped-Out-By-Global-Warming-40062.shtml" title="softpedia.com" rel="nofollow">I think I'll go for a walk.</a> [softpedia.com]"
<br> <br>
Moreover, they <em>affirm</em> the Genesis account of a worldwide Flood and provide evidence for a "young earth."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a very well-documented scientific fact that humans and other apes share a common ancestor .
Well mis-documented.Modern genetics , biology , study of fossil records , etc .
all repeatedly confirm this theory .
It would be better for evolutionists if there were no fossil record at all , because it would be easier to abide by an " argument from silence " defense than to have to counter the chorus of fossils , which loudly mock the evolutionist-inspired geologic time table found in textbooks .
The " living fossils " are especially amused at evolutionism 's fossil claims : " I 'm not dead yet !
I think I 'll go for a walk .
[ softpedia.com ] " Moreover , they affirm the Genesis account of a worldwide Flood and provide evidence for a " young earth .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a very well-documented scientific fact that humans and other apes share a common ancestor.
Well mis-documented.Modern genetics, biology, study of fossil records, etc.
all repeatedly confirm this theory.
It would be better for evolutionists if there were no fossil record at all, because it would be easier to abide by an "argument from silence" defense than to have to counter the chorus of fossils, which loudly mock the evolutionist-inspired geologic time table found in textbooks.
The "living fossils" are especially amused at evolutionism's fossil claims: "I'm not dead yet!
I think I'll go for a walk.
[softpedia.com]"
 
Moreover, they affirm the Genesis account of a worldwide Flood and provide evidence for a "young earth.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231003</id>
	<title>Imagine being a comic...</title>
	<author>SupremoMan</author>
	<datestamp>1244279940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>16 million and 1 years ago? Talk about a tough crowd... and no booze or blow to help take the edge off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>16 million and 1 years ago ?
Talk about a tough crowd... and no booze or blow to help take the edge off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>16 million and 1 years ago?
Talk about a tough crowd... and no booze or blow to help take the edge off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28250717</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244474520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You seem to incorrectly assume that we can know a thing to be true even if we do experience it with our senses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to incorrectly assume that we can know a thing to be true even if we do experience it with our senses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to incorrectly assume that we can know a thing to be true even if we do experience it with our senses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28233237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230985</id>
	<title>hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244279700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I didn't realize we were able to hear someone or something from 16 million years ago laugh to *know* that action is that old. Scientists sure do like to take liberties with what they say has evolved. The logic used to state, with a straight face no less, that 2 animals which share the same trait must have evolved from a common organism is astoundingly incorrect. Just as much proof exists to say that they, at the very least, could have evolved from separate organisms. Shall I even mention the leap of faith required to even consider whether those same 2 animals evolved in the first place? We may as well assume that 2 people with brown hair must have had the same parents or that 2 people both born with webbed feet came from the same parents. But that logic would just be absurd wouldn't it? And since I'm speaking out against the liberal agenda I must post as AC or else be modded down simply for disagreeing with the desired establishment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't realize we were able to hear someone or something from 16 million years ago laugh to * know * that action is that old .
Scientists sure do like to take liberties with what they say has evolved .
The logic used to state , with a straight face no less , that 2 animals which share the same trait must have evolved from a common organism is astoundingly incorrect .
Just as much proof exists to say that they , at the very least , could have evolved from separate organisms .
Shall I even mention the leap of faith required to even consider whether those same 2 animals evolved in the first place ?
We may as well assume that 2 people with brown hair must have had the same parents or that 2 people both born with webbed feet came from the same parents .
But that logic would just be absurd would n't it ?
And since I 'm speaking out against the liberal agenda I must post as AC or else be modded down simply for disagreeing with the desired establishment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't realize we were able to hear someone or something from 16 million years ago laugh to *know* that action is that old.
Scientists sure do like to take liberties with what they say has evolved.
The logic used to state, with a straight face no less, that 2 animals which share the same trait must have evolved from a common organism is astoundingly incorrect.
Just as much proof exists to say that they, at the very least, could have evolved from separate organisms.
Shall I even mention the leap of faith required to even consider whether those same 2 animals evolved in the first place?
We may as well assume that 2 people with brown hair must have had the same parents or that 2 people both born with webbed feet came from the same parents.
But that logic would just be absurd wouldn't it?
And since I'm speaking out against the liberal agenda I must post as AC or else be modded down simply for disagreeing with the desired establishment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231279</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244283960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Shall I even mention the leap of faith required to even consider whether those same 2 animals evolved in the first place?</p></div><p>If you have:
</p><ol> <li>variation</li><li>heredity</li><li>selection</li></ol><p>It's impossible NOT to have evolution.<br> <br> <br>

We observe these 3 things every day, in every new baby plant and animal.
</p><ol> <li>Variation:  We see mutations in every baby.  Brothers (who are not twins) do not look exactly alike, and do not have exactly the same traits.  We can observe that this is because mother and father give different halves of their DNA to each AND we observe mutations occuring within the embryo.</li><li>Heredity:  We observe those same traits being passed on to the next generation.</li><li>Selection:  The organisms with traits that make it easier to survive long enough to reproduce will have more of their traits passed on.  (They'll be making more babies.)</li></ol><p>

These mutations are not selective to a specific sub-set of traits.  They go across the board effecting every trait of an organism.  Nature is constantly changing every aspect of every organism right in front of our eyes, with every new birth.  If we do this for millions of years it's impossible NOT to have an incredibly different organism at the end.<br> <br>
The misconception comes from the idea that an ape gave birth to a human.  This is simply not the case.  The change was very gradual, changing trait upon trait over time.  Today's apes are VERY different from the apes of the past.<br> <br>

The only reason we separate and classify into Homo erectus, sapians, neanderthalensis, etc. is to make sense of it all.  We give different words to groups of organisms that have different traits.  They're basically the same living thing with slightly different traits.<br> <br>

Where we draw the line and call things different species, races, etc?  Well it's very difficult, and so we're constantly refining what names we give to groups with different traits.  But they're just NAMES.  The traits change all the time.<br> <br>

This gradual change in traits that we observe happening RIGHT NOW is what many people call evolution.  There's LOTS of evidence (bones &amp; fossils) to say that this has always happened.<br> <br>

When observing all of this right in front of our eyes, it actually takes a leap of faith to say things don't evolve.  Even the last 2 Catholic Popes (heads of a very non-liberal organization) have understood and agreed with it.  Once you see it, you have to say, "I don't believe my eyes."  And THAT is the true leap of faith.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shall I even mention the leap of faith required to even consider whether those same 2 animals evolved in the first place ? If you have : variationheredityselectionIt 's impossible NOT to have evolution .
We observe these 3 things every day , in every new baby plant and animal .
Variation : We see mutations in every baby .
Brothers ( who are not twins ) do not look exactly alike , and do not have exactly the same traits .
We can observe that this is because mother and father give different halves of their DNA to each AND we observe mutations occuring within the embryo.Heredity : We observe those same traits being passed on to the next generation.Selection : The organisms with traits that make it easier to survive long enough to reproduce will have more of their traits passed on .
( They 'll be making more babies .
) These mutations are not selective to a specific sub-set of traits .
They go across the board effecting every trait of an organism .
Nature is constantly changing every aspect of every organism right in front of our eyes , with every new birth .
If we do this for millions of years it 's impossible NOT to have an incredibly different organism at the end .
The misconception comes from the idea that an ape gave birth to a human .
This is simply not the case .
The change was very gradual , changing trait upon trait over time .
Today 's apes are VERY different from the apes of the past .
The only reason we separate and classify into Homo erectus , sapians , neanderthalensis , etc .
is to make sense of it all .
We give different words to groups of organisms that have different traits .
They 're basically the same living thing with slightly different traits .
Where we draw the line and call things different species , races , etc ?
Well it 's very difficult , and so we 're constantly refining what names we give to groups with different traits .
But they 're just NAMES .
The traits change all the time .
This gradual change in traits that we observe happening RIGHT NOW is what many people call evolution .
There 's LOTS of evidence ( bones &amp; fossils ) to say that this has always happened .
When observing all of this right in front of our eyes , it actually takes a leap of faith to say things do n't evolve .
Even the last 2 Catholic Popes ( heads of a very non-liberal organization ) have understood and agreed with it .
Once you see it , you have to say , " I do n't believe my eyes .
" And THAT is the true leap of faith .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shall I even mention the leap of faith required to even consider whether those same 2 animals evolved in the first place?If you have:
 variationheredityselectionIt's impossible NOT to have evolution.
We observe these 3 things every day, in every new baby plant and animal.
Variation:  We see mutations in every baby.
Brothers (who are not twins) do not look exactly alike, and do not have exactly the same traits.
We can observe that this is because mother and father give different halves of their DNA to each AND we observe mutations occuring within the embryo.Heredity:  We observe those same traits being passed on to the next generation.Selection:  The organisms with traits that make it easier to survive long enough to reproduce will have more of their traits passed on.
(They'll be making more babies.
)

These mutations are not selective to a specific sub-set of traits.
They go across the board effecting every trait of an organism.
Nature is constantly changing every aspect of every organism right in front of our eyes, with every new birth.
If we do this for millions of years it's impossible NOT to have an incredibly different organism at the end.
The misconception comes from the idea that an ape gave birth to a human.
This is simply not the case.
The change was very gradual, changing trait upon trait over time.
Today's apes are VERY different from the apes of the past.
The only reason we separate and classify into Homo erectus, sapians, neanderthalensis, etc.
is to make sense of it all.
We give different words to groups of organisms that have different traits.
They're basically the same living thing with slightly different traits.
Where we draw the line and call things different species, races, etc?
Well it's very difficult, and so we're constantly refining what names we give to groups with different traits.
But they're just NAMES.
The traits change all the time.
This gradual change in traits that we observe happening RIGHT NOW is what many people call evolution.
There's LOTS of evidence (bones &amp; fossils) to say that this has always happened.
When observing all of this right in front of our eyes, it actually takes a leap of faith to say things don't evolve.
Even the last 2 Catholic Popes (heads of a very non-liberal organization) have understood and agreed with it.
Once you see it, you have to say, "I don't believe my eyes.
"  And THAT is the true leap of faith.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230985</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_172247_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28233881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_172247_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28250717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28233237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_172247_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28238015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_172247_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_172247_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28271277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28234727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_172247_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28234769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_172247_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28234425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28232385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_172247_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28233093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_172247_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_172247_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28234955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_172247_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28232137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_172247_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28253425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_172247_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_172247_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_172247_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28247499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28235183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_172247_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_172247_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28235737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_172247.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230973
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_172247.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231197
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_172247.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230931
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_172247.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28230985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231051
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28234769
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28234727
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28271277
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28253425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231279
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28235737
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28238015
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28233881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231145
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28234955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28233237
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28250717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231105
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28232385
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28234425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231081
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28232137
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231171
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28235183
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28247499
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_172247.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28233093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_172247.28231797
</commentlist>
</conversation>
