<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_01_1358231</id>
	<title>The Incredible Shrinking Genome</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1246458720000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Shipud writes <i>"Mammalian genomes have been <a href="http://bytesizebio.net/index.php/2009/06/27/the-incredible-shrinking-genome/">shrinking for about 65 million years</a>, roughly since the dinosaur extinction. Why? And why were ancient mammalian genomes three times larger than they are today? A new article in <em>Genome Biology and Evolution</em> tries to explain this bizarre finding, and why the genomes of mammals (but not of other living groups) are still shrinking. 'Once [the dinosaurs] were gone, mammals started to radiate, fill those niches, and a whole new level of competition arose. The selective advantage of not having a genome encumbered by potentially damaging mobile DNA elements has probably become critical at this "be ye fruitful and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein" stage. In effect, the genomes of mammals has been shrinking by removing mobile DNA elements, just after the KT boundary. And according to the model presented in this study, this process is still ongoing: mammalian genomes are not at an equilibrium size. Unlike flies, mammals are still cleaning up.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shipud writes " Mammalian genomes have been shrinking for about 65 million years , roughly since the dinosaur extinction .
Why ? And why were ancient mammalian genomes three times larger than they are today ?
A new article in Genome Biology and Evolution tries to explain this bizarre finding , and why the genomes of mammals ( but not of other living groups ) are still shrinking .
'Once [ the dinosaurs ] were gone , mammals started to radiate , fill those niches , and a whole new level of competition arose .
The selective advantage of not having a genome encumbered by potentially damaging mobile DNA elements has probably become critical at this " be ye fruitful and multiply ; bring forth abundantly in the earth , and multiply therein " stage .
In effect , the genomes of mammals has been shrinking by removing mobile DNA elements , just after the KT boundary .
And according to the model presented in this study , this process is still ongoing : mammalian genomes are not at an equilibrium size .
Unlike flies , mammals are still cleaning up .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shipud writes "Mammalian genomes have been shrinking for about 65 million years, roughly since the dinosaur extinction.
Why? And why were ancient mammalian genomes three times larger than they are today?
A new article in Genome Biology and Evolution tries to explain this bizarre finding, and why the genomes of mammals (but not of other living groups) are still shrinking.
'Once [the dinosaurs] were gone, mammals started to radiate, fill those niches, and a whole new level of competition arose.
The selective advantage of not having a genome encumbered by potentially damaging mobile DNA elements has probably become critical at this "be ye fruitful and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein" stage.
In effect, the genomes of mammals has been shrinking by removing mobile DNA elements, just after the KT boundary.
And according to the model presented in this study, this process is still ongoing: mammalian genomes are not at an equilibrium size.
Unlike flies, mammals are still cleaning up.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542359</id>
	<title>Design paterns?</title>
	<author>line-bundle</author>
	<datestamp>1246463220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps the genome is being optimized by design patterns instead of procedural programing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the genome is being optimized by design patterns instead of procedural programing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the genome is being optimized by design patterns instead of procedural programing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28551827</id>
	<title>Love the pun from OP...</title>
	<author>vikstar</author>
	<datestamp>1246452180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"mammals started to radiate"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" mammals started to radiate "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"mammals started to radiate"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28554929</id>
	<title>hashing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246568040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i hope one day DNA invents SHA1 hashing so invalid duplicates are throw away.<br>then we can get rid of cancer plus live forever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i hope one day DNA invents SHA1 hashing so invalid duplicates are throw away.then we can get rid of cancer plus live forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i hope one day DNA invents SHA1 hashing so invalid duplicates are throw away.then we can get rid of cancer plus live forever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542251</id>
	<title>refactoring</title>
	<author>farker haiku</author>
	<datestamp>1246462740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I blame it on increased use of design patterns and better tools for refactoring<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I blame it on increased use of design patterns and better tools for refactoring ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I blame it on increased use of design patterns and better tools for refactoring ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28543969</id>
	<title>Re: The Incredible Shrinking Genome</title>
	<author>Eudial</author>
	<datestamp>1246468860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Politicians don't shed their genes, they shed their genitalia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Politicians do n't shed their genes , they shed their genitalia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Politicians don't shed their genes, they shed their genitalia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542315</id>
	<title>smaller code size without copy&amp; paste</title>
	<author>sadtrev</author>
	<datestamp>1246463100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Body temperature control is very effective in reducing the number of different enzymes that need to be coded for.<br>Frogs, for example have ~8x more genes than humans - partly because they have lots of different enzymes that do the same thing but at different temperature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Body temperature control is very effective in reducing the number of different enzymes that need to be coded for.Frogs , for example have ~ 8x more genes than humans - partly because they have lots of different enzymes that do the same thing but at different temperature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Body temperature control is very effective in reducing the number of different enzymes that need to be coded for.Frogs, for example have ~8x more genes than humans - partly because they have lots of different enzymes that do the same thing but at different temperature.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28543611</id>
	<title>mystery why mitochondria keep any DNA at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246467780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mitochrondia merged with eukaryote cells about a billion years ago.  This allowed eukaryotes to increase metabolic power an order of magnitude over bacteria and evolve locomotive animal life.
<br> <br>
A mystery is why mitochondia kept enough DNA to code for about 10\% of their proteins after all these eons.  They get the other 90\% of proteins from nuclear DNA of the host cells. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Power-Sex-Suicide-Mitochondria-Meaning/dp/0192804812" title="amazon.com"> Nick Lane </a> [amazon.com] suggests in his mitochondria book this DNA codes for the most essential emzymes such as those that break down free-radical waste which could quickly kill the mitchrondia.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mitochrondia merged with eukaryote cells about a billion years ago .
This allowed eukaryotes to increase metabolic power an order of magnitude over bacteria and evolve locomotive animal life .
A mystery is why mitochondia kept enough DNA to code for about 10 \ % of their proteins after all these eons .
They get the other 90 \ % of proteins from nuclear DNA of the host cells .
Nick Lane [ amazon.com ] suggests in his mitochondria book this DNA codes for the most essential emzymes such as those that break down free-radical waste which could quickly kill the mitchrondia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mitochrondia merged with eukaryote cells about a billion years ago.
This allowed eukaryotes to increase metabolic power an order of magnitude over bacteria and evolve locomotive animal life.
A mystery is why mitochondia kept enough DNA to code for about 10\% of their proteins after all these eons.
They get the other 90\% of proteins from nuclear DNA of the host cells.
Nick Lane  [amazon.com] suggests in his mitochondria book this DNA codes for the most essential emzymes such as those that break down free-radical waste which could quickly kill the mitchrondia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542577</id>
	<title>X-Files was right!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246464240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is then still a chance that those strange branches of species we here about in the movies and X-Files tv series could still be or become reality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is then still a chance that those strange branches of species we here about in the movies and X-Files tv series could still be or become reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is then still a chance that those strange branches of species we here about in the movies and X-Files tv series could still be or become reality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542849</id>
	<title>Re:refactoring</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246465380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's all natural selection, versus survival. Where species that are being preyed upon need to be small in order to be faster. Versus dominance in choice of partner of small mammals, most females are smaller anyway.</p><p>The larger the other subject is the more cumbersome the appearance would be to a smaller specimen. That's basically why Chuck Norris is ye bigger than Bruce Lee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all natural selection , versus survival .
Where species that are being preyed upon need to be small in order to be faster .
Versus dominance in choice of partner of small mammals , most females are smaller anyway.The larger the other subject is the more cumbersome the appearance would be to a smaller specimen .
That 's basically why Chuck Norris is ye bigger than Bruce Lee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all natural selection, versus survival.
Where species that are being preyed upon need to be small in order to be faster.
Versus dominance in choice of partner of small mammals, most females are smaller anyway.The larger the other subject is the more cumbersome the appearance would be to a smaller specimen.
That's basically why Chuck Norris is ye bigger than Bruce Lee.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542251</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542825</id>
	<title>General difficulty of preserving a "life-program"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246465260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a thought experiment, imagine the genome to be a very big, very modular program, with lots of clusters of specialized subclasses of functionality that are occasionally or potentially useful.</p><p>This program is represented by a coding sequence of molecules; at essence a copyable and readable bitstring.</p><p>Time and living in a complex, energetic environment tend to break down complex structures which must be "binary-precise" to maintain their meaning. All else being equal, a longer program, a longer bitstring, has a higher probability of losing parts of itself to mutation. Longer programs; longer genomes, require cleverer techniques to preserve themselves over evolutionary time scales.</p><p>The cool thing is, longer programs are precisely those that have the capacity to implement cleverer strategies for keeping their own program information reliably preserved.</p><p>That is the essential battle that life and evolution wage against entropy;<br>More bits (longer genome) = more or better strategies for building bit-containers (organisms) and better strategies for taking advantage of environments or pacifying environments.<br>But more bits = harder to preserve without critical errors breaking the program.</p><p>The life bitstrings are in different states of adaptation to their environment as time passes and both environments and genomes change. In a dynamic environment (or a wide, general niche) more modules and subclasses (waiting in the wings, ready for activation if needed) is probably advantageous to a set of generations of the organism, whereas in a highly adapted state in a stable environment, and an environment with well established niches and in fact cross-supporting functions of those niches (a long-lived relatively stable ecosystem in relatively stable climate), the extra adaptability may carry costs of it being too difficult to retain that extra information reliably for the potential benefit it might have if things changed. The extra program bits can also be dangerous. Most organized variants of code-sections of the life-program are organism-killers, most of the time.</p><p>In summary, a longer bitstring at the core of life can only be supported by evolution if it earns its keep in life-preserving strategy execution.</p><p>I think life bitstrings (genomes) on Earth have GENERALLY been growing by 1 or 2 bits a year since life began (give or take an enormous waffle factor). But in some, relatively stable, organism-environment pairings, temporary program shortening trends may be advantageous prunings of the more wild-ass life mechanism "ideas".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a thought experiment , imagine the genome to be a very big , very modular program , with lots of clusters of specialized subclasses of functionality that are occasionally or potentially useful.This program is represented by a coding sequence of molecules ; at essence a copyable and readable bitstring.Time and living in a complex , energetic environment tend to break down complex structures which must be " binary-precise " to maintain their meaning .
All else being equal , a longer program , a longer bitstring , has a higher probability of losing parts of itself to mutation .
Longer programs ; longer genomes , require cleverer techniques to preserve themselves over evolutionary time scales.The cool thing is , longer programs are precisely those that have the capacity to implement cleverer strategies for keeping their own program information reliably preserved.That is the essential battle that life and evolution wage against entropy ; More bits ( longer genome ) = more or better strategies for building bit-containers ( organisms ) and better strategies for taking advantage of environments or pacifying environments.But more bits = harder to preserve without critical errors breaking the program.The life bitstrings are in different states of adaptation to their environment as time passes and both environments and genomes change .
In a dynamic environment ( or a wide , general niche ) more modules and subclasses ( waiting in the wings , ready for activation if needed ) is probably advantageous to a set of generations of the organism , whereas in a highly adapted state in a stable environment , and an environment with well established niches and in fact cross-supporting functions of those niches ( a long-lived relatively stable ecosystem in relatively stable climate ) , the extra adaptability may carry costs of it being too difficult to retain that extra information reliably for the potential benefit it might have if things changed .
The extra program bits can also be dangerous .
Most organized variants of code-sections of the life-program are organism-killers , most of the time.In summary , a longer bitstring at the core of life can only be supported by evolution if it earns its keep in life-preserving strategy execution.I think life bitstrings ( genomes ) on Earth have GENERALLY been growing by 1 or 2 bits a year since life began ( give or take an enormous waffle factor ) .
But in some , relatively stable , organism-environment pairings , temporary program shortening trends may be advantageous prunings of the more wild-ass life mechanism " ideas " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a thought experiment, imagine the genome to be a very big, very modular program, with lots of clusters of specialized subclasses of functionality that are occasionally or potentially useful.This program is represented by a coding sequence of molecules; at essence a copyable and readable bitstring.Time and living in a complex, energetic environment tend to break down complex structures which must be "binary-precise" to maintain their meaning.
All else being equal, a longer program, a longer bitstring, has a higher probability of losing parts of itself to mutation.
Longer programs; longer genomes, require cleverer techniques to preserve themselves over evolutionary time scales.The cool thing is, longer programs are precisely those that have the capacity to implement cleverer strategies for keeping their own program information reliably preserved.That is the essential battle that life and evolution wage against entropy;More bits (longer genome) = more or better strategies for building bit-containers (organisms) and better strategies for taking advantage of environments or pacifying environments.But more bits = harder to preserve without critical errors breaking the program.The life bitstrings are in different states of adaptation to their environment as time passes and both environments and genomes change.
In a dynamic environment (or a wide, general niche) more modules and subclasses (waiting in the wings, ready for activation if needed) is probably advantageous to a set of generations of the organism, whereas in a highly adapted state in a stable environment, and an environment with well established niches and in fact cross-supporting functions of those niches (a long-lived relatively stable ecosystem in relatively stable climate), the extra adaptability may carry costs of it being too difficult to retain that extra information reliably for the potential benefit it might have if things changed.
The extra program bits can also be dangerous.
Most organized variants of code-sections of the life-program are organism-killers, most of the time.In summary, a longer bitstring at the core of life can only be supported by evolution if it earns its keep in life-preserving strategy execution.I think life bitstrings (genomes) on Earth have GENERALLY been growing by 1 or 2 bits a year since life began (give or take an enormous waffle factor).
But in some, relatively stable, organism-environment pairings, temporary program shortening trends may be advantageous prunings of the more wild-ass life mechanism "ideas".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28543159</id>
	<title>Re:refactoring</title>
	<author>MindKata</author>
	<datestamp>1246466520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"I blame it on increased use of design patterns and better tools for refactoring"</i> <br>
<br>
So its taken us 65 million years to become more optimal?!. <br>
<br>
Still it helps explains politicians, they must be running an earlier version?<br>
<br>
So if its taken us 65 million years, then I can't wait for Windows 6502009 !<br>
<br>
(My old programmer brain just threw an interrupt when I wrote down the numbers 6502<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ahh<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... memories<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... maybe it means Windows will be so optimal by then, that it'll run on a 6502!).</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I blame it on increased use of design patterns and better tools for refactoring " So its taken us 65 million years to become more optimal ? ! .
Still it helps explains politicians , they must be running an earlier version ?
So if its taken us 65 million years , then I ca n't wait for Windows 6502009 !
( My old programmer brain just threw an interrupt when I wrote down the numbers 6502 ... ahh ... memories ... maybe it means Windows will be so optimal by then , that it 'll run on a 6502 !
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I blame it on increased use of design patterns and better tools for refactoring" 

So its taken us 65 million years to become more optimal?!.
Still it helps explains politicians, they must be running an earlier version?
So if its taken us 65 million years, then I can't wait for Windows 6502009 !
(My old programmer brain just threw an interrupt when I wrote down the numbers 6502 ... ahh ... memories ... maybe it means Windows will be so optimal by then, that it'll run on a 6502!
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542251</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542615</id>
	<title>Fugu</title>
	<author>drunken\_boxer777</author>
	<datestamp>1246464360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's interesting that the authors looked at the Fugu genome when determining 'shrinkage'. The Fugu genome has roughly the same number of genes as the human genome, but is only 1/8th the size, meaning it is quite 'cleaned up'.</p><p>In fact, this is especially interesting because the Fugu genome isn't exactly representative of fish genomes in general, as most fish genomes are several times longer than the Fugu genome, and presumably don't contain a proportionate increase in the number of genes. There are other fish genomes out there (zebrafish, tetraodon, etc), so why choose one that is so devoid of non-coding DNA?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's interesting that the authors looked at the Fugu genome when determining 'shrinkage' .
The Fugu genome has roughly the same number of genes as the human genome , but is only 1/8th the size , meaning it is quite 'cleaned up'.In fact , this is especially interesting because the Fugu genome is n't exactly representative of fish genomes in general , as most fish genomes are several times longer than the Fugu genome , and presumably do n't contain a proportionate increase in the number of genes .
There are other fish genomes out there ( zebrafish , tetraodon , etc ) , so why choose one that is so devoid of non-coding DNA ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's interesting that the authors looked at the Fugu genome when determining 'shrinkage'.
The Fugu genome has roughly the same number of genes as the human genome, but is only 1/8th the size, meaning it is quite 'cleaned up'.In fact, this is especially interesting because the Fugu genome isn't exactly representative of fish genomes in general, as most fish genomes are several times longer than the Fugu genome, and presumably don't contain a proportionate increase in the number of genes.
There are other fish genomes out there (zebrafish, tetraodon, etc), so why choose one that is so devoid of non-coding DNA?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542273</id>
	<title>My Crazy Idea</title>
	<author>MarkPNeyer</author>
	<datestamp>1246462800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>God is a computer programmer who made the many species by writing in some high level language which is ultimately compiled into DNA. The similarities in DNA among different species are a result of code re-use, and mammals are his (her?) "flagship product." He's currently refactoring the code, to make it more efficient.</htmltext>
<tokenext>God is a computer programmer who made the many species by writing in some high level language which is ultimately compiled into DNA .
The similarities in DNA among different species are a result of code re-use , and mammals are his ( her ?
) " flagship product .
" He 's currently refactoring the code , to make it more efficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God is a computer programmer who made the many species by writing in some high level language which is ultimately compiled into DNA.
The similarities in DNA among different species are a result of code re-use, and mammals are his (her?
) "flagship product.
" He's currently refactoring the code, to make it more efficient.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542665</id>
	<title>Obviously</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246464540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The selfish genes are deleting themselves</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The selfish genes are deleting themselves</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The selfish genes are deleting themselves</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28544123</id>
	<title>As Blaise Pascal put it...</title>
	<author>backwardMechanic</author>
	<datestamp>1246469220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>"I made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it short."

Blaise Pascal, 1656.
<br>
The watchmaker has had more time...</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it short .
" Blaise Pascal , 1656 .
The watchmaker has had more time.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it short.
"

Blaise Pascal, 1656.
The watchmaker has had more time...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542579</id>
	<title>Ameoba is ten times larger than human</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1246464240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some have over a hunred billion base pairs.  There a tremendous amount of junk DNA and gene duplication.
<br> <br>
Size does not matter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some have over a hunred billion base pairs .
There a tremendous amount of junk DNA and gene duplication .
Size does not matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some have over a hunred billion base pairs.
There a tremendous amount of junk DNA and gene duplication.
Size does not matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542935</id>
	<title>Re:My Crazy Idea</title>
	<author>Artifakt</author>
	<datestamp>1246465740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or we should all become polytheists, because God has open-sourced the project, and it's getting small and streamlined because of the 'many eyes' effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or we should all become polytheists , because God has open-sourced the project , and it 's getting small and streamlined because of the 'many eyes ' effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or we should all become polytheists, because God has open-sourced the project, and it's getting small and streamlined because of the 'many eyes' effect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542215</id>
	<title>Bigger mammals!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246462620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>bigger genome.... bigger mammals! that's it. The woolly mammoth was big because his dna was big! guess size does matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>bigger genome.... bigger mammals !
that 's it .
The woolly mammoth was big because his dna was big !
guess size does matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bigger genome.... bigger mammals!
that's it.
The woolly mammoth was big because his dna was big!
guess size does matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542529</id>
	<title>I can code that human in 44, maybe 42 chromosomes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246464000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like some (open) source I hacked on years ago -- kept finding ways to take (stupid) things out without losing functionality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like some ( open ) source I hacked on years ago -- kept finding ways to take ( stupid ) things out without losing functionality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like some (open) source I hacked on years ago -- kept finding ways to take (stupid) things out without losing functionality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542187</id>
	<title>Indeed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246462500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Unlike flies, mammals are still cleaning up."
<br> <br>
Unlike what you may expect, the flies are actually doing something rather disgusting on that crap, rather than cleaning it up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Unlike flies , mammals are still cleaning up .
" Unlike what you may expect , the flies are actually doing something rather disgusting on that crap , rather than cleaning it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Unlike flies, mammals are still cleaning up.
"
 
Unlike what you may expect, the flies are actually doing something rather disgusting on that crap, rather than cleaning it up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28543353</id>
	<title>Re:Ameoba is ten times larger than human</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246467000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly.  I have to wonder, if mammals' radiation is the cause of their shrinking genome, what powerful radiation did pufferfish undergo to shed so much of theirs? And where's all the left over diversity from that radiation?<br>Every now and then people publish papers announcing they've solved the C-value paradox. I think it's like a bunch of undergrads who think they've solved the problem of induction the first time they hear about it. Except these guys have Ph.Ds, and get slashdot stories for their whole-lot-of-nothing...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
I have to wonder , if mammals ' radiation is the cause of their shrinking genome , what powerful radiation did pufferfish undergo to shed so much of theirs ?
And where 's all the left over diversity from that radiation ? Every now and then people publish papers announcing they 've solved the C-value paradox .
I think it 's like a bunch of undergrads who think they 've solved the problem of induction the first time they hear about it .
Except these guys have Ph.Ds , and get slashdot stories for their whole-lot-of-nothing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
I have to wonder, if mammals' radiation is the cause of their shrinking genome, what powerful radiation did pufferfish undergo to shed so much of theirs?
And where's all the left over diversity from that radiation?Every now and then people publish papers announcing they've solved the C-value paradox.
I think it's like a bunch of undergrads who think they've solved the problem of induction the first time they hear about it.
Except these guys have Ph.Ds, and get slashdot stories for their whole-lot-of-nothing...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542415</id>
	<title>It's the Right Idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246463460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"God" could also be replaced by "evolution".  It explains why late-stage man -- i. e., non-Africans -- is smarter and more accomplished than early-stage man -- i. e., Africans.  As man migrated out of Africa and traveled to the endpoints of Europe and Japan, the harshness and variations of the environment eliminated the genomic variations exhibiting lesser intelligence.
<p>
The effects are quite pronounced.  Non-Africans (notably, ethnic Jews) have an IQ that is 20\% greater than that of Africans.  The developers of computer technology -- including the computer that you are using to read Slashdot -- are nearly 100\% European or Asian (including Americans of European or Asian ancestry).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" God " could also be replaced by " evolution " .
It explains why late-stage man -- i. e. , non-Africans -- is smarter and more accomplished than early-stage man -- i. e. , Africans .
As man migrated out of Africa and traveled to the endpoints of Europe and Japan , the harshness and variations of the environment eliminated the genomic variations exhibiting lesser intelligence .
The effects are quite pronounced .
Non-Africans ( notably , ethnic Jews ) have an IQ that is 20 \ % greater than that of Africans .
The developers of computer technology -- including the computer that you are using to read Slashdot -- are nearly 100 \ % European or Asian ( including Americans of European or Asian ancestry ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"God" could also be replaced by "evolution".
It explains why late-stage man -- i. e., non-Africans -- is smarter and more accomplished than early-stage man -- i. e., Africans.
As man migrated out of Africa and traveled to the endpoints of Europe and Japan, the harshness and variations of the environment eliminated the genomic variations exhibiting lesser intelligence.
The effects are quite pronounced.
Non-Africans (notably, ethnic Jews) have an IQ that is 20\% greater than that of Africans.
The developers of computer technology -- including the computer that you are using to read Slashdot -- are nearly 100\% European or Asian (including Americans of European or Asian ancestry).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28543777</id>
	<title>CAREFUL!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246468260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot is full of whiny partisan Republicans.  Good thing you posted anonymously because you would lose huge amounts of karma.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot is full of whiny partisan Republicans .
Good thing you posted anonymously because you would lose huge amounts of karma .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot is full of whiny partisan Republicans.
Good thing you posted anonymously because you would lose huge amounts of karma.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28548105</id>
	<title>Reason the dinosaurs died out?</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1246481280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Was it ultimately because their DNA was incapable of radiating because it had lost so much of it's "junk DNA" that it couldn't have pulled any information out to help it adapt to changes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was it ultimately because their DNA was incapable of radiating because it had lost so much of it 's " junk DNA " that it could n't have pulled any information out to help it adapt to changes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was it ultimately because their DNA was incapable of radiating because it had lost so much of it's "junk DNA" that it couldn't have pulled any information out to help it adapt to changes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28553823</id>
	<title>Not Surprising</title>
	<author>ZirconCode</author>
	<datestamp>1246468320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recently watched a video where this was predicted.<br>I did a Google Search to find it again just for you guys:</p><p>YouTube - Polyworld: Using Evolution to Design Artificial Intelligence</p><p>Anyway, the author had an interesting theory to why this happened in his simulation. He thought that once the peak of the DNA complexity was reached, evolution started removing the unnecessary parts. Weather this is called evolution or devolution is debateable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recently watched a video where this was predicted.I did a Google Search to find it again just for you guys : YouTube - Polyworld : Using Evolution to Design Artificial IntelligenceAnyway , the author had an interesting theory to why this happened in his simulation .
He thought that once the peak of the DNA complexity was reached , evolution started removing the unnecessary parts .
Weather this is called evolution or devolution is debateable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recently watched a video where this was predicted.I did a Google Search to find it again just for you guys:YouTube - Polyworld: Using Evolution to Design Artificial IntelligenceAnyway, the author had an interesting theory to why this happened in his simulation.
He thought that once the peak of the DNA complexity was reached, evolution started removing the unnecessary parts.
Weather this is called evolution or devolution is debateable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542257</id>
	<title>Evolutionary Problems?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246462800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So there's less diversity possible today? Does that make evolution more difficult today than in the past?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So there 's less diversity possible today ?
Does that make evolution more difficult today than in the past ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So there's less diversity possible today?
Does that make evolution more difficult today than in the past?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28554479</id>
	<title>Energy</title>
	<author>brahmix</author>
	<datestamp>1246476660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Energetic systems will always loose energy.

Evolutionary Information systems will do likewise.

Complexity does not mean more information, it means that the information is better structured and free from redundancy.  I.e. Simpler is better.

K.I.S.S. (?), hardly a surprise that all levels of reality comply.

The Universe is Consistent when viewed as an Energetic Information System- not as balls of gas and stone strung along by gravity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Energetic systems will always loose energy .
Evolutionary Information systems will do likewise .
Complexity does not mean more information , it means that the information is better structured and free from redundancy .
I.e. Simpler is better .
K.I.S.S. ( ?
) , hardly a surprise that all levels of reality comply .
The Universe is Consistent when viewed as an Energetic Information System- not as balls of gas and stone strung along by gravity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Energetic systems will always loose energy.
Evolutionary Information systems will do likewise.
Complexity does not mean more information, it means that the information is better structured and free from redundancy.
I.e. Simpler is better.
K.I.S.S. (?
), hardly a surprise that all levels of reality comply.
The Universe is Consistent when viewed as an Energetic Information System- not as balls of gas and stone strung along by gravity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28543169</id>
	<title>Re:smaller code size without copy&amp; paste</title>
	<author>lavaforge</author>
	<datestamp>1246466520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are we seeing the same tendency in other warm blooded creatures, such as birds?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are we seeing the same tendency in other warm blooded creatures , such as birds ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are we seeing the same tendency in other warm blooded creatures, such as birds?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28544425</id>
	<title>How do they know?</title>
	<author>MiniMax988</author>
	<datestamp>1246470060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does anyone know where they are getting 65 million year old mammal DNA?  Can a full set of DNA really last that long?  Are all the assumptions for the very long extrapolations of LTRs valid?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone know where they are getting 65 million year old mammal DNA ?
Can a full set of DNA really last that long ?
Are all the assumptions for the very long extrapolations of LTRs valid ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone know where they are getting 65 million year old mammal DNA?
Can a full set of DNA really last that long?
Are all the assumptions for the very long extrapolations of LTRs valid?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28553917</id>
	<title>Refactoring!</title>
	<author>S3D</author>
	<datestamp>1246469640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mammalian still <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refactoring" title="wikipedia.org">refactoring</a> [wikipedia.org] their code. And still practicing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual\_reproduction" title="wikipedia.org">Extreme programming</a> [wikipedia.org] too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mammalian still refactoring [ wikipedia.org ] their code .
And still practicing Extreme programming [ wikipedia.org ] too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mammalian still refactoring [wikipedia.org] their code.
And still practicing Extreme programming [wikipedia.org] too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28546491</id>
	<title>Because our environment is stable</title>
	<author>naasking</author>
	<datestamp>1246476120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The genome is shrinking because there is a selective advantage to a smaller genome when the environment is stable. Fewer errors can occur when copying for example. In unstable environments, having a larger genome with more adaptive mutations is a selective advantage. Shorter genomes marks species that are highly specialized to their environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The genome is shrinking because there is a selective advantage to a smaller genome when the environment is stable .
Fewer errors can occur when copying for example .
In unstable environments , having a larger genome with more adaptive mutations is a selective advantage .
Shorter genomes marks species that are highly specialized to their environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The genome is shrinking because there is a selective advantage to a smaller genome when the environment is stable.
Fewer errors can occur when copying for example.
In unstable environments, having a larger genome with more adaptive mutations is a selective advantage.
Shorter genomes marks species that are highly specialized to their environment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542723</id>
	<title>NOP sledge anyone?</title>
	<author>js\_sebastian</author>
	<datestamp>1246464840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Organisms can acquire DNA from other organisms by inserting bits of foreign DNA, known as mobile DNA, into the genome. One way this is done is by viral infections. Some viruses integrate genomic material of their own, and sometimes of other host organisms into the hosts they infect. If those viruses happen to also infect germ cells &#226;" sperm or ova &#226;" those insertions or retrotransposons would be passed on to subsequent generations. It is quite easy to identify these viral insertions: they are flanked by characteristic DNA stretches called Long Terminal Repeats  or LTRs. During the infection and insertion process, LTRs serve as &#226;oeinsertion hooks&#226;</p></div><p>Easy to detect? wait till they start using polymorphism....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Organisms can acquire DNA from other organisms by inserting bits of foreign DNA , known as mobile DNA , into the genome .
One way this is done is by viral infections .
Some viruses integrate genomic material of their own , and sometimes of other host organisms into the hosts they infect .
If those viruses happen to also infect germ cells   " sperm or ova   " those insertions or retrotransposons would be passed on to subsequent generations .
It is quite easy to identify these viral insertions : they are flanked by characteristic DNA stretches called Long Terminal Repeats or LTRs .
During the infection and insertion process , LTRs serve as   oeinsertion hooks   Easy to detect ?
wait till they start using polymorphism... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Organisms can acquire DNA from other organisms by inserting bits of foreign DNA, known as mobile DNA, into the genome.
One way this is done is by viral infections.
Some viruses integrate genomic material of their own, and sometimes of other host organisms into the hosts they infect.
If those viruses happen to also infect germ cells â" sperm or ova â" those insertions or retrotransposons would be passed on to subsequent generations.
It is quite easy to identify these viral insertions: they are flanked by characteristic DNA stretches called Long Terminal Repeats  or LTRs.
During the infection and insertion process, LTRs serve as âoeinsertion hooksâEasy to detect?
wait till they start using polymorphism....
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542255</id>
	<title>entropy is winning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246462800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the genome in mammals is losing information.  This is Devolution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the genome in mammals is losing information .
This is Devolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the genome in mammals is losing information.
This is Devolution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28544857</id>
	<title>Re:refactoring</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246471380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, those "pattern" nuts drive me crazy: they force fit stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , those " pattern " nuts drive me crazy : they force fit stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, those "pattern" nuts drive me crazy: they force fit stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542251</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28544007</id>
	<title>Summary</title>
	<author>AnotherBlackHat</author>
	<datestamp>1246468920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>About the time of the KT extinction, mammals starting spreading and evolving into new niches.<br>Around this same time, their genome expanded.<br>Then, after they had spread into lots of niches, their genome switched from expanding to shrinking.</p><p>And this is surprising?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>About the time of the KT extinction , mammals starting spreading and evolving into new niches.Around this same time , their genome expanded.Then , after they had spread into lots of niches , their genome switched from expanding to shrinking.And this is surprising ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About the time of the KT extinction, mammals starting spreading and evolving into new niches.Around this same time, their genome expanded.Then, after they had spread into lots of niches, their genome switched from expanding to shrinking.And this is surprising?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28544779</id>
	<title>Re:smaller code size without copy&amp; paste</title>
	<author>jae471</author>
	<datestamp>1246471140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We should, if enzyme temperature range is a legitimate reason for the change.
<p>
We should also expect to see less of an effect in monotreme mammals (the platypus and echidna genera). They don't exhibit as much thermal stability as plancentals and marsupials, so they should need a wider range of enzymes. But 3 living genera makes a poor sample size, and the fossil record for monotremes is very poor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should , if enzyme temperature range is a legitimate reason for the change .
We should also expect to see less of an effect in monotreme mammals ( the platypus and echidna genera ) .
They do n't exhibit as much thermal stability as plancentals and marsupials , so they should need a wider range of enzymes .
But 3 living genera makes a poor sample size , and the fossil record for monotremes is very poor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should, if enzyme temperature range is a legitimate reason for the change.
We should also expect to see less of an effect in monotreme mammals (the platypus and echidna genera).
They don't exhibit as much thermal stability as plancentals and marsupials, so they should need a wider range of enzymes.
But 3 living genera makes a poor sample size, and the fossil record for monotremes is very poor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28543169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28544725</id>
	<title>Re:smaller code size without copy&amp; paste</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1246470960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Body temperature control is very effective in reducing the number of different enzymes that need to be coded for. Frogs, for example have ~8x more genes than humans - partly because they have lots of different enzymes that do the same thing but at different temperature.</p></div></blockquote><p>But the downside is that mammals have to eat a lot more to maintain a constant temperature. Amphibians and reptiles can go a lot longer without food. This is partly why mammals have a bigger brain: we have to catch more food per hour, and this requires a more complicated life-style and a wider diet. Amphibians and reptiles mostly sit around and wait for the right kind of food to come their way. Mammals instead have to move, dig, poke, prod, etc. to eat everything they can. Bigger brains are also expensive to feed, which puts even more pressure on food volume.</p><p>Mammal teeth is also different because we have to eat faster by chewing the food first. Most carnivorous reptiles swallow their prey almost whole, then sit around hidden for days or weeks slowly chemically digesting the victim. Thus, reptile teeth are pointy for capture, but not very useful for grinding for size reduction. Mammals tend to rely on social coordination to capture relatively large prey, not so much spiky teeth. But this social coordination also requires a bigger brain.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Body temperature control is very effective in reducing the number of different enzymes that need to be coded for .
Frogs , for example have ~ 8x more genes than humans - partly because they have lots of different enzymes that do the same thing but at different temperature.But the downside is that mammals have to eat a lot more to maintain a constant temperature .
Amphibians and reptiles can go a lot longer without food .
This is partly why mammals have a bigger brain : we have to catch more food per hour , and this requires a more complicated life-style and a wider diet .
Amphibians and reptiles mostly sit around and wait for the right kind of food to come their way .
Mammals instead have to move , dig , poke , prod , etc .
to eat everything they can .
Bigger brains are also expensive to feed , which puts even more pressure on food volume.Mammal teeth is also different because we have to eat faster by chewing the food first .
Most carnivorous reptiles swallow their prey almost whole , then sit around hidden for days or weeks slowly chemically digesting the victim .
Thus , reptile teeth are pointy for capture , but not very useful for grinding for size reduction .
Mammals tend to rely on social coordination to capture relatively large prey , not so much spiky teeth .
But this social coordination also requires a bigger brain .
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Body temperature control is very effective in reducing the number of different enzymes that need to be coded for.
Frogs, for example have ~8x more genes than humans - partly because they have lots of different enzymes that do the same thing but at different temperature.But the downside is that mammals have to eat a lot more to maintain a constant temperature.
Amphibians and reptiles can go a lot longer without food.
This is partly why mammals have a bigger brain: we have to catch more food per hour, and this requires a more complicated life-style and a wider diet.
Amphibians and reptiles mostly sit around and wait for the right kind of food to come their way.
Mammals instead have to move, dig, poke, prod, etc.
to eat everything they can.
Bigger brains are also expensive to feed, which puts even more pressure on food volume.Mammal teeth is also different because we have to eat faster by chewing the food first.
Most carnivorous reptiles swallow their prey almost whole, then sit around hidden for days or weeks slowly chemically digesting the victim.
Thus, reptile teeth are pointy for capture, but not very useful for grinding for size reduction.
Mammals tend to rely on social coordination to capture relatively large prey, not so much spiky teeth.
But this social coordination also requires a bigger brain.
     
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542477</id>
	<title>Actual paper</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246463760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/2009/0/2" title="oxfordjournals.org" rel="nofollow">Here's</a> [oxfordjournals.org] the actual scientific paper, rather than the blog.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's [ oxfordjournals.org ] the actual scientific paper , rather than the blog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's [oxfordjournals.org] the actual scientific paper, rather than the blog.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542303</id>
	<title>Summary of the article</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1246463040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mammals genomes are getting smaller, primarily by cleaning out viral DNA.<br>This "house cleaning" seems to have started about the time of the massive KT extinction that killed the dinosaurs.  Nobody knows for sure how or why the cleaning is occuring, although some hypotheses are set forth.  Nobody knows whether it has anything to do with the KT extinction..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mammals genomes are getting smaller , primarily by cleaning out viral DNA.This " house cleaning " seems to have started about the time of the massive KT extinction that killed the dinosaurs .
Nobody knows for sure how or why the cleaning is occuring , although some hypotheses are set forth .
Nobody knows whether it has anything to do with the KT extinction. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mammals genomes are getting smaller, primarily by cleaning out viral DNA.This "house cleaning" seems to have started about the time of the massive KT extinction that killed the dinosaurs.
Nobody knows for sure how or why the cleaning is occuring, although some hypotheses are set forth.
Nobody knows whether it has anything to do with the KT extinction..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28543481</id>
	<title>Better immune system?</title>
	<author>hey</author>
	<datestamp>1246467420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suppose this could be because mammals have developed a better immune system that stops DNA insertions.  Once the insertions stop of course then number will decrease as they are naturally cleanup up -- just as they are cleaned up in other animals.</p><p>But don't worry something will come along that will figure out how to do DNA insertions in mammals eventually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose this could be because mammals have developed a better immune system that stops DNA insertions .
Once the insertions stop of course then number will decrease as they are naturally cleanup up -- just as they are cleaned up in other animals.But do n't worry something will come along that will figure out how to do DNA insertions in mammals eventually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose this could be because mammals have developed a better immune system that stops DNA insertions.
Once the insertions stop of course then number will decrease as they are naturally cleanup up -- just as they are cleaned up in other animals.But don't worry something will come along that will figure out how to do DNA insertions in mammals eventually.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28543427</id>
	<title>Re:It's the Right Idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246467240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IQ tests are a bad bad metric for proving there's a genetic difference in intelligence.  If you want to explore genetic differences between the races, and not come across as a total asshole, then please, please, don't bring up IQ tests.  Come up with a way to examine intelligence that isn't so subjective.  That'd be productive even aside from the genetics issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IQ tests are a bad bad metric for proving there 's a genetic difference in intelligence .
If you want to explore genetic differences between the races , and not come across as a total asshole , then please , please , do n't bring up IQ tests .
Come up with a way to examine intelligence that is n't so subjective .
That 'd be productive even aside from the genetics issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IQ tests are a bad bad metric for proving there's a genetic difference in intelligence.
If you want to explore genetic differences between the races, and not come across as a total asshole, then please, please, don't bring up IQ tests.
Come up with a way to examine intelligence that isn't so subjective.
That'd be productive even aside from the genetics issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542223</id>
	<title>Re: The Incredible Shrinking Genome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246462620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We still haven't shed the genes that make some people become Republicans...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We still have n't shed the genes that make some people become Republicans.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We still haven't shed the genes that make some people become Republicans...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1358231_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28543427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1358231_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28543969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1358231_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28544779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28543169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1358231_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28543353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1358231_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28543777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1358231_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1358231_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28544857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1358231_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28543159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1358231_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28544725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1358231_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1358231.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542257
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1358231.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542415
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28543427
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1358231.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28543353
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1358231.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542825
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1358231.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28543481
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1358231.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542223
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28543777
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28543969
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1358231.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542529
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1358231.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28543159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28544857
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1358231.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28544425
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1358231.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542215
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1358231.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28543611
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1358231.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542255
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1358231.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542477
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1358231.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542303
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1358231.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28542315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28543169
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28544779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28544725
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1358231.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1358231.28546491
</commentlist>
</conversation>
