<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_18_1947238</id>
	<title>Observing Evolution Over 40,000 Generations</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1255856460000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Last year we discussed the work of Richard Lenski, who has been <a href="//science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/10/1845250&amp;tid=350">breeding E. coli for 21 years</a> in a laboratory in Michigan. Then, the news was that Lenski's lab had caught direct,   reproducible evidence of a genetic mutation with functional consequences for an organism. Now Lenski's lab has published in Nature a major study <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=evolution-details-revealed-through-2009-10-18">comparing adaptive and random genetic changes</a> in 40,000 generations of E. coli (<a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature08480.html">abstract here</a>). <i>"Early changes in the bacteria appeared to be largely adaptive, helping them be more successful in their environment. 'The genome was evolving along at a surprisingly constant rate, even as the adaptation of the bacteria slowed down,' [Lenski] noted. 'But then suddenly the mutation rate jumped way up, and a new dynamic relationship was established.' By generation 20,000, for example, the group found that some 45 genetic mutations had occurred, but 6,000 generations later a genetic mutation in the metabolism arose and sparked a rapid increase in the number of mutations so that by generation 40,000, some 653 mutations had occurred. Unlike the earlier changes, many of these later mutations appeared to be more random and neutral. The long-awaited findings show that calculating rates and types of evolutionary change may be even more difficult to do without a rich data set."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last year we discussed the work of Richard Lenski , who has been breeding E. coli for 21 years in a laboratory in Michigan .
Then , the news was that Lenski 's lab had caught direct , reproducible evidence of a genetic mutation with functional consequences for an organism .
Now Lenski 's lab has published in Nature a major study comparing adaptive and random genetic changes in 40,000 generations of E. coli ( abstract here ) .
" Early changes in the bacteria appeared to be largely adaptive , helping them be more successful in their environment .
'The genome was evolving along at a surprisingly constant rate , even as the adaptation of the bacteria slowed down, ' [ Lenski ] noted .
'But then suddenly the mutation rate jumped way up , and a new dynamic relationship was established .
' By generation 20,000 , for example , the group found that some 45 genetic mutations had occurred , but 6,000 generations later a genetic mutation in the metabolism arose and sparked a rapid increase in the number of mutations so that by generation 40,000 , some 653 mutations had occurred .
Unlike the earlier changes , many of these later mutations appeared to be more random and neutral .
The long-awaited findings show that calculating rates and types of evolutionary change may be even more difficult to do without a rich data set .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last year we discussed the work of Richard Lenski, who has been breeding E. coli for 21 years in a laboratory in Michigan.
Then, the news was that Lenski's lab had caught direct,   reproducible evidence of a genetic mutation with functional consequences for an organism.
Now Lenski's lab has published in Nature a major study comparing adaptive and random genetic changes in 40,000 generations of E. coli (abstract here).
"Early changes in the bacteria appeared to be largely adaptive, helping them be more successful in their environment.
'The genome was evolving along at a surprisingly constant rate, even as the adaptation of the bacteria slowed down,' [Lenski] noted.
'But then suddenly the mutation rate jumped way up, and a new dynamic relationship was established.
' By generation 20,000, for example, the group found that some 45 genetic mutations had occurred, but 6,000 generations later a genetic mutation in the metabolism arose and sparked a rapid increase in the number of mutations so that by generation 40,000, some 653 mutations had occurred.
Unlike the earlier changes, many of these later mutations appeared to be more random and neutral.
The long-awaited findings show that calculating rates and types of evolutionary change may be even more difficult to do without a rich data set.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787075</id>
	<title>Re:fuck that</title>
	<author>noundi</author>
	<datestamp>1255861440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>god did it</p></div><p>Haha I thought it was funny.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>god did itHaha I thought it was funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>god did itHaha I thought it was funny.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29786921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29790431</id>
	<title>Tagging madness</title>
	<author>mollusc</author>
	<datestamp>1255890480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why the bloody hell is this tagged "badscience"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the bloody hell is this tagged " badscience " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the bloody hell is this tagged "badscience"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29786937</id>
	<title>hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255860420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And there is still idiots who believe evolution is wrong...

Anyway I didn't read the article yet, but i would love to see if he was exposing them to different types of pressure and how did they adapted to that pressure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And there is still idiots who believe evolution is wrong.. . Anyway I did n't read the article yet , but i would love to see if he was exposing them to different types of pressure and how did they adapted to that pressure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And there is still idiots who believe evolution is wrong...

Anyway I didn't read the article yet, but i would love to see if he was exposing them to different types of pressure and how did they adapted to that pressure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787971</id>
	<title>Adaptive and Random mutations</title>
	<author>giladpn</author>
	<datestamp>1255868880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a totally fascinating aspect to these findings that should make our thinking about evolution much deeper.</p><p>Look at the "adaptive" and "random" mutations they report. Think about it for a minute!</p><p>"Adaptive" mutations do not really fit with what we learned in school. We learned that mutations are "random" and by luck a few are adaptive.</p><p>Here we see a long stretch (20000 generations) where most mutations are "adaptive"; then a similarly long stretch (another 20000 or so) where most are random. The second half fits the stuff we were taught at school. The first half is a fascinating hint that evolution is not always driven by randomness.</p><p>What exactly lies behind this? We do not yet know. As the authors say correctly,this "cautions against categorical interpretations about rates of genomic evolution in nature without specific knowledge of molecular and population-genetic processes".</p><p>Science progresses people. We are learning new things here. Evolution is not always driven by randomness...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a totally fascinating aspect to these findings that should make our thinking about evolution much deeper.Look at the " adaptive " and " random " mutations they report .
Think about it for a minute !
" Adaptive " mutations do not really fit with what we learned in school .
We learned that mutations are " random " and by luck a few are adaptive.Here we see a long stretch ( 20000 generations ) where most mutations are " adaptive " ; then a similarly long stretch ( another 20000 or so ) where most are random .
The second half fits the stuff we were taught at school .
The first half is a fascinating hint that evolution is not always driven by randomness.What exactly lies behind this ?
We do not yet know .
As the authors say correctly,this " cautions against categorical interpretations about rates of genomic evolution in nature without specific knowledge of molecular and population-genetic processes " .Science progresses people .
We are learning new things here .
Evolution is not always driven by randomness.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a totally fascinating aspect to these findings that should make our thinking about evolution much deeper.Look at the "adaptive" and "random" mutations they report.
Think about it for a minute!
"Adaptive" mutations do not really fit with what we learned in school.
We learned that mutations are "random" and by luck a few are adaptive.Here we see a long stretch (20000 generations) where most mutations are "adaptive"; then a similarly long stretch (another 20000 or so) where most are random.
The second half fits the stuff we were taught at school.
The first half is a fascinating hint that evolution is not always driven by randomness.What exactly lies behind this?
We do not yet know.
As the authors say correctly,this "cautions against categorical interpretations about rates of genomic evolution in nature without specific knowledge of molecular and population-genetic processes".Science progresses people.
We are learning new things here.
Evolution is not always driven by randomness...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29788157</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution or just surving?</title>
	<author>PolarBearFire</author>
	<datestamp>1255870800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gold star for you!

I also sometimes forget this.  Anyone who doesn't get this doesn't really understand evolution.  Evolution is NOT a magical force that changes organisms.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gold star for you !
I also sometimes forget this .
Anyone who does n't get this does n't really understand evolution .
Evolution is NOT a magical force that changes organisms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gold star for you!
I also sometimes forget this.
Anyone who doesn't get this doesn't really understand evolution.
Evolution is NOT a magical force that changes organisms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29788133</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution or just surving?</title>
	<author>s7uar7</author>
	<datestamp>1255870620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you're on to something there.  I'm not sure what you'd call it though; maybe 'survival of the fittest' or something like that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're on to something there .
I 'm not sure what you 'd call it though ; maybe 'survival of the fittest ' or something like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're on to something there.
I'm not sure what you'd call it though; maybe 'survival of the fittest' or something like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29801457</id>
	<title>I simply can't believe...</title>
	<author>CCarrot</author>
	<datestamp>1255953360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...nobody went for the X-Men angle...I mean, c'mon, is this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. or what?<br> <br>

Spontaneous.  Unexplained. Accelerated.  Mutation.  Rate.<br> <br>

So when can I expect my grandkids to start shooting fireballs out their bums?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...nobody went for the X-Men angle...I mean , c'mon , is this / .
or what ?
Spontaneous. Unexplained .
Accelerated. Mutation .
Rate . So when can I expect my grandkids to start shooting fireballs out their bums ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...nobody went for the X-Men angle...I mean, c'mon, is this /.
or what?
Spontaneous.  Unexplained.
Accelerated.  Mutation.
Rate. 

So when can I expect my grandkids to start shooting fireballs out their bums?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787377</id>
	<title>Summon Bevets!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255863420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..wait, looks like he is already here!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..wait , looks like he is already here !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..wait, looks like he is already here!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29786921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787983</id>
	<title>I don't see the point of this study...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255868940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure no one here questions micro-evolution (which is an entirely different thing than macro-evolution). However, until the bacteria manage to somehow change the number of chromosomes they have, I will always find it hard to believe that maco-evolution has occurred.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure no one here questions micro-evolution ( which is an entirely different thing than macro-evolution ) .
However , until the bacteria manage to somehow change the number of chromosomes they have , I will always find it hard to believe that maco-evolution has occurred .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure no one here questions micro-evolution (which is an entirely different thing than macro-evolution).
However, until the bacteria manage to somehow change the number of chromosomes they have, I will always find it hard to believe that maco-evolution has occurred.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29791899</id>
	<title>Re:Micro vs Macro</title>
	<author>koiransuklaa</author>
	<datestamp>1255953300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I agree. I've been following physics lately and it's weird how the "scientists" only test micro-gravity -- it's like they are trying avoid building planet size objects for their tests even though it's clearly required before their theory could be taken seriously. "Theory of Gravity", hah!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I agree .
I 've been following physics lately and it 's weird how the " scientists " only test micro-gravity -- it 's like they are trying avoid building planet size objects for their tests even though it 's clearly required before their theory could be taken seriously .
" Theory of Gravity " , hah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I agree.
I've been following physics lately and it's weird how the "scientists" only test micro-gravity -- it's like they are trying avoid building planet size objects for their tests even though it's clearly required before their theory could be taken seriously.
"Theory of Gravity", hah!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29790751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787003</id>
	<title>Re:fuck that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255860900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>god did it</p></div><p>Which one of them?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>god did itWhich one of them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>god did itWhich one of them?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29786921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29786921</id>
	<title>fuck that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255860300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>god did it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>god did it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>god did it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29789555</id>
	<title>Rate of change</title>
	<author>PineHall</author>
	<datestamp>1255884000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The long-awaited findings show that calculating rates and types of evolutionary change may be even more difficult to do without a rich data set.</p></div></blockquote><p>
If I read things right, it took over 40,000 generations to make a single functional change.  To extrapolate, 40,000 human generations is approaching 1 million years.  That is a very long time, however there are a lot of unknowns and the rate of mutations was not constant.  If the rate was increased by a factor of 100 or better what environmental differences would be needed to make different rate of change?   I know any answer will be speculation because we don't have a rich data set, but I am curious.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The long-awaited findings show that calculating rates and types of evolutionary change may be even more difficult to do without a rich data set .
If I read things right , it took over 40,000 generations to make a single functional change .
To extrapolate , 40,000 human generations is approaching 1 million years .
That is a very long time , however there are a lot of unknowns and the rate of mutations was not constant .
If the rate was increased by a factor of 100 or better what environmental differences would be needed to make different rate of change ?
I know any answer will be speculation because we do n't have a rich data set , but I am curious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The long-awaited findings show that calculating rates and types of evolutionary change may be even more difficult to do without a rich data set.
If I read things right, it took over 40,000 generations to make a single functional change.
To extrapolate, 40,000 human generations is approaching 1 million years.
That is a very long time, however there are a lot of unknowns and the rate of mutations was not constant.
If the rate was increased by a factor of 100 or better what environmental differences would be needed to make different rate of change?
I know any answer will be speculation because we don't have a rich data set, but I am curious.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29793111</id>
	<title>Re:fuck that</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1255962600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In this case it was the little green one that's made of paper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this case it was the little green one that 's made of paper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this case it was the little green one that's made of paper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787101</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>noundi</author>
	<datestamp>1255861620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While I don't believe in creation, mutations occuring in 40,000 generations (one mutation every 63 generations) of inbred bateria is hardly proof of evolution.</p></div><p>Well I understand your point. But then what would you suggest is more likely?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I do n't believe in creation , mutations occuring in 40,000 generations ( one mutation every 63 generations ) of inbred bateria is hardly proof of evolution.Well I understand your point .
But then what would you suggest is more likely ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I don't believe in creation, mutations occuring in 40,000 generations (one mutation every 63 generations) of inbred bateria is hardly proof of evolution.Well I understand your point.
But then what would you suggest is more likely?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29788277</id>
	<title>Re:Adaptive and Random mutations</title>
	<author>Dachannien</author>
	<datestamp>1255871940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't read the Nature article (no free access from home), but my guess is that the "adaptive" mutations are indicative of a brittle genome where most mutations result in a drastic decrease in fitness, such that the individual mutations aren't propagated very well and thus aren't detectable amid the large population of bacteria.</p><p>In the latter case, it sounds as though a particular portion of the genome was rendered inert or unimportant, such as by a modification of the metabolic pathways to eliminate a portion of it, or through some duplication of genes such that parts of the copies are unimportant.  That is, there is no difference in fitness arising from mutations in these portions of the genome, and the result is random diffusion across a fairly flat region of fitness space.</p><p>An alternative is that there was some auto-repair mechanism that was disabled by mutation at some point, and the mechanism was somehow set up to prevent mutations except in a very few areas (such as areas which typically allow for adaptation to environmental change).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't read the Nature article ( no free access from home ) , but my guess is that the " adaptive " mutations are indicative of a brittle genome where most mutations result in a drastic decrease in fitness , such that the individual mutations are n't propagated very well and thus are n't detectable amid the large population of bacteria.In the latter case , it sounds as though a particular portion of the genome was rendered inert or unimportant , such as by a modification of the metabolic pathways to eliminate a portion of it , or through some duplication of genes such that parts of the copies are unimportant .
That is , there is no difference in fitness arising from mutations in these portions of the genome , and the result is random diffusion across a fairly flat region of fitness space.An alternative is that there was some auto-repair mechanism that was disabled by mutation at some point , and the mechanism was somehow set up to prevent mutations except in a very few areas ( such as areas which typically allow for adaptation to environmental change ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't read the Nature article (no free access from home), but my guess is that the "adaptive" mutations are indicative of a brittle genome where most mutations result in a drastic decrease in fitness, such that the individual mutations aren't propagated very well and thus aren't detectable amid the large population of bacteria.In the latter case, it sounds as though a particular portion of the genome was rendered inert or unimportant, such as by a modification of the metabolic pathways to eliminate a portion of it, or through some duplication of genes such that parts of the copies are unimportant.
That is, there is no difference in fitness arising from mutations in these portions of the genome, and the result is random diffusion across a fairly flat region of fitness space.An alternative is that there was some auto-repair mechanism that was disabled by mutation at some point, and the mechanism was somehow set up to prevent mutations except in a very few areas (such as areas which typically allow for adaptation to environmental change).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29800111</id>
	<title>but</title>
	<author>z-j-y</author>
	<datestamp>1255946820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they didn't evolve into a substantially different organism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they did n't evolve into a substantially different organism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they didn't evolve into a substantially different organism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29790751</id>
	<title>Micro vs Macro</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255893780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Impressive.  Microevolution has never been so successfully illustrated.  I hope the day comes when we can try this with Macroevolution and put that to the test.  *crosses fingers and hopes for a time dilation field*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Impressive .
Microevolution has never been so successfully illustrated .
I hope the day comes when we can try this with Macroevolution and put that to the test .
* crosses fingers and hopes for a time dilation field *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Impressive.
Microevolution has never been so successfully illustrated.
I hope the day comes when we can try this with Macroevolution and put that to the test.
*crosses fingers and hopes for a time dilation field*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787095</id>
	<title>Re:Creationists response:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255861560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or even better: The Darwinian's respsone:<br>Organisms are dynamic! Proof there is no God!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or even better : The Darwinian 's respsone : Organisms are dynamic !
Proof there is no God !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or even better: The Darwinian's respsone:Organisms are dynamic!
Proof there is no God!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29786941</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29797261</id>
	<title>Define "we"</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1255979580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In other words, random mutation ain't the great source of creative, beneficial change we all thought?</p></div> </blockquote><p>Actually, I surprised that there was so much beneficial change. Think back to the days in using Basic - ever write a program where you wrote a program that randomly POKE'd changes into the system? Were any of the changes beneficial to the program? Obviously, DNA is a lot more redundant than a BASIC program, and has repair mechanisms that would fix a lot of potentially lethal problems, but still - random changes in your operating program are generally going to be neutral, sometimes fatal, and more rarely, useful. This doesn't seem counterintuitive at all to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , random mutation ai n't the great source of creative , beneficial change we all thought ?
Actually , I surprised that there was so much beneficial change .
Think back to the days in using Basic - ever write a program where you wrote a program that randomly POKE 'd changes into the system ?
Were any of the changes beneficial to the program ?
Obviously , DNA is a lot more redundant than a BASIC program , and has repair mechanisms that would fix a lot of potentially lethal problems , but still - random changes in your operating program are generally going to be neutral , sometimes fatal , and more rarely , useful .
This does n't seem counterintuitive at all to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, random mutation ain't the great source of creative, beneficial change we all thought?
Actually, I surprised that there was so much beneficial change.
Think back to the days in using Basic - ever write a program where you wrote a program that randomly POKE'd changes into the system?
Were any of the changes beneficial to the program?
Obviously, DNA is a lot more redundant than a BASIC program, and has repair mechanisms that would fix a lot of potentially lethal problems, but still - random changes in your operating program are generally going to be neutral, sometimes fatal, and more rarely, useful.
This doesn't seem counterintuitive at all to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29788117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29788223</id>
	<title>Science is always tentative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255871400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its a shame that posts regarding evolution degrade into a "Lets bash knuckle dragging creationists!" affair.</p><p>For every KDC, there's a KDE (knuckle dragging evolutionist) that thinks that there is a single evolutionary mechanism that explains everything from the origin of life to how we interact with one another. Both of these KD groups need to calm down, stop drinking the kool-aid and open their minds to the scientific process which is (a) ALWAYS tentative (b) best performed with repeatable, empirical experimentation.</p><p>Also, there is a fundamental need for everyone to understand how to think about and discuss evolution.  Evolution happens, and that life changes over time is the "fact of evolution," but how does life change and to what extent?  The "how" part is what we refer to as the theory of evolution, of which there are many, but most lay people are only familiar with Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, otherwise known as Random Mutation and Natural Selection.</p><p>Anyway, regarding Lenski's work, why is it significant, and what do Lenski's most qualified critics have to say about it?  For some reason, in the field of evolutionary biology, open criticism is not as tolerated as it is in other fields.  There's the fear that KDC will get their foot in the door, and there are also the metaphysical aspects of evolutionary biology that tend to stray far from fundamental science.  Even if the critic has a stellar research track record, he has a tremendous challenge when it comes to questioning the power of purely Darwinian mechanisms.  There may be some other mechanism, but such mechanisms typically assume some external source of information, which has different metaphysical assumptions than does those of purely Darwinian evolution.  Consequently, evolutionary biologists are restricted to mechanisms that are purely naturalistic, even if there is a better explanation that is not entirely naturalistic.</p><p>To put it another way, imagine that some aspect of life was designed, perhaps the mechanisms of DNA and protein replication, for example.  But, because of your a-priori commitment to naturalism, you had to look for how such a machine could have come about via random mutation and natural selection.  If you have trouble thinking that the machinery of DNA was designed, then think about the computer you are reading this on.  It WAS designed.  We don't have to resort to forensics to determine that, we KNOW it was designed.  But, how could you show scientifically that it was designed and did not come about naturalistically?  That's the problem that the intelligent design proponents have.</p><p>So, what does the most credible skeptic, Dr. Michael Behe, of Lenski's work have to say?  Read it here:</p><p>http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3U696N278Z93O</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its a shame that posts regarding evolution degrade into a " Lets bash knuckle dragging creationists !
" affair.For every KDC , there 's a KDE ( knuckle dragging evolutionist ) that thinks that there is a single evolutionary mechanism that explains everything from the origin of life to how we interact with one another .
Both of these KD groups need to calm down , stop drinking the kool-aid and open their minds to the scientific process which is ( a ) ALWAYS tentative ( b ) best performed with repeatable , empirical experimentation.Also , there is a fundamental need for everyone to understand how to think about and discuss evolution .
Evolution happens , and that life changes over time is the " fact of evolution , " but how does life change and to what extent ?
The " how " part is what we refer to as the theory of evolution , of which there are many , but most lay people are only familiar with Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution , otherwise known as Random Mutation and Natural Selection.Anyway , regarding Lenski 's work , why is it significant , and what do Lenski 's most qualified critics have to say about it ?
For some reason , in the field of evolutionary biology , open criticism is not as tolerated as it is in other fields .
There 's the fear that KDC will get their foot in the door , and there are also the metaphysical aspects of evolutionary biology that tend to stray far from fundamental science .
Even if the critic has a stellar research track record , he has a tremendous challenge when it comes to questioning the power of purely Darwinian mechanisms .
There may be some other mechanism , but such mechanisms typically assume some external source of information , which has different metaphysical assumptions than does those of purely Darwinian evolution .
Consequently , evolutionary biologists are restricted to mechanisms that are purely naturalistic , even if there is a better explanation that is not entirely naturalistic.To put it another way , imagine that some aspect of life was designed , perhaps the mechanisms of DNA and protein replication , for example .
But , because of your a-priori commitment to naturalism , you had to look for how such a machine could have come about via random mutation and natural selection .
If you have trouble thinking that the machinery of DNA was designed , then think about the computer you are reading this on .
It WAS designed .
We do n't have to resort to forensics to determine that , we KNOW it was designed .
But , how could you show scientifically that it was designed and did not come about naturalistically ?
That 's the problem that the intelligent design proponents have.So , what does the most credible skeptic , Dr. Michael Behe , of Lenski 's work have to say ?
Read it here : http : //www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3U696N278Z93O</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its a shame that posts regarding evolution degrade into a "Lets bash knuckle dragging creationists!
" affair.For every KDC, there's a KDE (knuckle dragging evolutionist) that thinks that there is a single evolutionary mechanism that explains everything from the origin of life to how we interact with one another.
Both of these KD groups need to calm down, stop drinking the kool-aid and open their minds to the scientific process which is (a) ALWAYS tentative (b) best performed with repeatable, empirical experimentation.Also, there is a fundamental need for everyone to understand how to think about and discuss evolution.
Evolution happens, and that life changes over time is the "fact of evolution," but how does life change and to what extent?
The "how" part is what we refer to as the theory of evolution, of which there are many, but most lay people are only familiar with Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, otherwise known as Random Mutation and Natural Selection.Anyway, regarding Lenski's work, why is it significant, and what do Lenski's most qualified critics have to say about it?
For some reason, in the field of evolutionary biology, open criticism is not as tolerated as it is in other fields.
There's the fear that KDC will get their foot in the door, and there are also the metaphysical aspects of evolutionary biology that tend to stray far from fundamental science.
Even if the critic has a stellar research track record, he has a tremendous challenge when it comes to questioning the power of purely Darwinian mechanisms.
There may be some other mechanism, but such mechanisms typically assume some external source of information, which has different metaphysical assumptions than does those of purely Darwinian evolution.
Consequently, evolutionary biologists are restricted to mechanisms that are purely naturalistic, even if there is a better explanation that is not entirely naturalistic.To put it another way, imagine that some aspect of life was designed, perhaps the mechanisms of DNA and protein replication, for example.
But, because of your a-priori commitment to naturalism, you had to look for how such a machine could have come about via random mutation and natural selection.
If you have trouble thinking that the machinery of DNA was designed, then think about the computer you are reading this on.
It WAS designed.
We don't have to resort to forensics to determine that, we KNOW it was designed.
But, how could you show scientifically that it was designed and did not come about naturalistically?
That's the problem that the intelligent design proponents have.So, what does the most credible skeptic, Dr. Michael Behe, of Lenski's work have to say?
Read it here:http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3U696N278Z93O</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29813523</id>
	<title>Re:Punctuated equilibrium?</title>
	<author>Urkki</author>
	<datestamp>1256029740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Punctuated equilibrium" is what mutation based evolution necessarily looks like at some points (regularly). When something radically better appears and manages not die out immediately, then it inevitably spreads and replaces old and inferior.</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0" title="youtube.com">YouTube video about clock evolution simulation</a> [youtube.com] which clearly demonstrates this phenomenon. Of course things in nature are a lot more hairy and not this clear-cut.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Punctuated equilibrium " is what mutation based evolution necessarily looks like at some points ( regularly ) .
When something radically better appears and manages not die out immediately , then it inevitably spreads and replaces old and inferior.YouTube video about clock evolution simulation [ youtube.com ] which clearly demonstrates this phenomenon .
Of course things in nature are a lot more hairy and not this clear-cut .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Punctuated equilibrium" is what mutation based evolution necessarily looks like at some points (regularly).
When something radically better appears and manages not die out immediately, then it inevitably spreads and replaces old and inferior.YouTube video about clock evolution simulation [youtube.com] which clearly demonstrates this phenomenon.
Of course things in nature are a lot more hairy and not this clear-cut.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29793271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29798483</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution or just surving?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255984080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Everyone assumes that the E. coli bacteria "evolved" its way into better dealing with adverse conditions (citric acid, etc.).   Not true - the ones who HAPPENED to be able to withstand and metabolyze citric acid DIDNT DIE - the survivors didn't evolve to metabolize it, they already could.   Animals don't genetically adapt to change - the ones already predisposed to tolerate the change survive.</p></div><p>This isn't entirely accurate.<br>The solution contained citrate as a pH stabilizing agent, largely because it is not metabolized by E. Coli.  Eventually, something began to be able to eat it, and so reproduced much more rapidly than the other E. Coli in the soup.  Eventually, this rapidly growing strain took over the culture, and the number of ancestral phenotype E. Coli dwindled down to little to none by comparison - the others weren't eliminated by their inability to metabolize citrate, they were outbred by the hardier citrate-metabolizing strain.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone assumes that the E. coli bacteria " evolved " its way into better dealing with adverse conditions ( citric acid , etc. ) .
Not true - the ones who HAPPENED to be able to withstand and metabolyze citric acid DIDNT DIE - the survivors did n't evolve to metabolize it , they already could .
Animals do n't genetically adapt to change - the ones already predisposed to tolerate the change survive.This is n't entirely accurate.The solution contained citrate as a pH stabilizing agent , largely because it is not metabolized by E. Coli. Eventually , something began to be able to eat it , and so reproduced much more rapidly than the other E. Coli in the soup .
Eventually , this rapidly growing strain took over the culture , and the number of ancestral phenotype E. Coli dwindled down to little to none by comparison - the others were n't eliminated by their inability to metabolize citrate , they were outbred by the hardier citrate-metabolizing strain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone assumes that the E. coli bacteria "evolved" its way into better dealing with adverse conditions (citric acid, etc.).
Not true - the ones who HAPPENED to be able to withstand and metabolyze citric acid DIDNT DIE - the survivors didn't evolve to metabolize it, they already could.
Animals don't genetically adapt to change - the ones already predisposed to tolerate the change survive.This isn't entirely accurate.The solution contained citrate as a pH stabilizing agent, largely because it is not metabolized by E. Coli.  Eventually, something began to be able to eat it, and so reproduced much more rapidly than the other E. Coli in the soup.
Eventually, this rapidly growing strain took over the culture, and the number of ancestral phenotype E. Coli dwindled down to little to none by comparison - the others weren't eliminated by their inability to metabolize citrate, they were outbred by the hardier citrate-metabolizing strain.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29789927</id>
	<title>No Nobel</title>
	<author>Nova Express</author>
	<datestamp>1255886580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, they're saving the next Nobel Prize in Medicine for Obama...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , they 're saving the next Nobel Prize in Medicine for Obama.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, they're saving the next Nobel Prize in Medicine for Obama...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29788733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29788353</id>
	<title>Random?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255872720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've always been curious about how random mutations really are. Not from a creation / evolution perspective but from a generational perspective. Is there an n-generational component to mutation? Can a mutation in generation 1 deterministically cause a mutation in a later generation, say 101? This seems like a good data set for analysis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always been curious about how random mutations really are .
Not from a creation / evolution perspective but from a generational perspective .
Is there an n-generational component to mutation ?
Can a mutation in generation 1 deterministically cause a mutation in a later generation , say 101 ?
This seems like a good data set for analysis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always been curious about how random mutations really are.
Not from a creation / evolution perspective but from a generational perspective.
Is there an n-generational component to mutation?
Can a mutation in generation 1 deterministically cause a mutation in a later generation, say 101?
This seems like a good data set for analysis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29793271</id>
	<title>Punctuated equilibrium?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255963380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I may have misunderstood the findings, but the rate that these bacteria evolve sounds an awful lot like data to support the theory of punctuated equilibrium. I would sure like to hear fellow<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.'s opinions about this, rather than the same old creationist metadiscussion that we have every single time there's an article about evolution up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I may have misunderstood the findings , but the rate that these bacteria evolve sounds an awful lot like data to support the theory of punctuated equilibrium .
I would sure like to hear fellow / .
's opinions about this , rather than the same old creationist metadiscussion that we have every single time there 's an article about evolution up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I may have misunderstood the findings, but the rate that these bacteria evolve sounds an awful lot like data to support the theory of punctuated equilibrium.
I would sure like to hear fellow /.
's opinions about this, rather than the same old creationist metadiscussion that we have every single time there's an article about evolution up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29791915</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution or just surving?</title>
	<author>aug24</author>
	<datestamp>1255953480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, you've missed out the rather important 'random mutations' part.</p><p>Bactierium A, which can tolerate a bit of citric acid, has three offspring which I shall call alpha, beta and gamma.  Alpha is a perfect copy.  Beta is mutant, missing the 'tolerate citric acid' gene.  Gamma is also a mutant, with two copies of the 'tolerate citric acid' gene.</p><p>Alpha and Gamma survive and reproduct.  Gamma reproduces lots, as the cost of activating the gene is way less than the benefit of being very tolerant of citric acid.  Beta may or may not survive, and may or may not reproduce.</p><p>On to the next generation: the doubling occurs again in a few offspring.  Repeat till an optimum number of copies for the amount of citric acid present is reached.</p><p>Over many generations, the bacterium HAS EVOLVED TO TOLERATE CITRIC ACID.</p><p>If you disagree, and say 'no gamma (et al) has just been tested and survived' then you are just redefining the word evolution, which is pointless.</p><p>Justin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you 've missed out the rather important 'random mutations ' part.Bactierium A , which can tolerate a bit of citric acid , has three offspring which I shall call alpha , beta and gamma .
Alpha is a perfect copy .
Beta is mutant , missing the 'tolerate citric acid ' gene .
Gamma is also a mutant , with two copies of the 'tolerate citric acid ' gene.Alpha and Gamma survive and reproduct .
Gamma reproduces lots , as the cost of activating the gene is way less than the benefit of being very tolerant of citric acid .
Beta may or may not survive , and may or may not reproduce.On to the next generation : the doubling occurs again in a few offspring .
Repeat till an optimum number of copies for the amount of citric acid present is reached.Over many generations , the bacterium HAS EVOLVED TO TOLERATE CITRIC ACID.If you disagree , and say 'no gamma ( et al ) has just been tested and survived ' then you are just redefining the word evolution , which is pointless.Justin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you've missed out the rather important 'random mutations' part.Bactierium A, which can tolerate a bit of citric acid, has three offspring which I shall call alpha, beta and gamma.
Alpha is a perfect copy.
Beta is mutant, missing the 'tolerate citric acid' gene.
Gamma is also a mutant, with two copies of the 'tolerate citric acid' gene.Alpha and Gamma survive and reproduct.
Gamma reproduces lots, as the cost of activating the gene is way less than the benefit of being very tolerant of citric acid.
Beta may or may not survive, and may or may not reproduce.On to the next generation: the doubling occurs again in a few offspring.
Repeat till an optimum number of copies for the amount of citric acid present is reached.Over many generations, the bacterium HAS EVOLVED TO TOLERATE CITRIC ACID.If you disagree, and say 'no gamma (et al) has just been tested and survived' then you are just redefining the word evolution, which is pointless.Justin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29791781</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the point of this study...</title>
	<author>koiransuklaa</author>
	<datestamp>1255952100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>[micro-evolution] is an entirely different thing than macro-evolution</p></div></blockquote><p>Sure it is. The difference between the two just changes all the time, and can't really be expressed in a scientific way (why is number of chromosomes the most important thing?). But of course they are \_entirely\_ different things...</p><p>The bacteria in this experiment managed to produce a totally new advantageous trait. This used to be a definition of macro-evolution at some point but I see the goal posts have moved again.</p><p>If a new trait is not good enough for you, would a hundred new traits suffice? That would probably make the bacteria totally different from a normal E. coli and could be produced just by continuing this test.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ micro-evolution ] is an entirely different thing than macro-evolutionSure it is .
The difference between the two just changes all the time , and ca n't really be expressed in a scientific way ( why is number of chromosomes the most important thing ? ) .
But of course they are \ _entirely \ _ different things...The bacteria in this experiment managed to produce a totally new advantageous trait .
This used to be a definition of macro-evolution at some point but I see the goal posts have moved again.If a new trait is not good enough for you , would a hundred new traits suffice ?
That would probably make the bacteria totally different from a normal E. coli and could be produced just by continuing this test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[micro-evolution] is an entirely different thing than macro-evolutionSure it is.
The difference between the two just changes all the time, and can't really be expressed in a scientific way (why is number of chromosomes the most important thing?).
But of course they are \_entirely\_ different things...The bacteria in this experiment managed to produce a totally new advantageous trait.
This used to be a definition of macro-evolution at some point but I see the goal posts have moved again.If a new trait is not good enough for you, would a hundred new traits suffice?
That would probably make the bacteria totally different from a normal E. coli and could be produced just by continuing this test.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787983</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29786941</id>
	<title>Creationists response:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255860420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>653 mutations? 1305 missing gaps! Proof of god! Hallelulja!</htmltext>
<tokenext>653 mutations ?
1305 missing gaps !
Proof of god !
Hallelulja !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>653 mutations?
1305 missing gaps!
Proof of god!
Hallelulja!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29788581</id>
	<title>Mutation does not equal Evolution</title>
	<author>Maeric</author>
	<datestamp>1255875120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I may be missing something and if I am I'm sure somebody will point it out but I fail to see the evolution in this article.  From my reading E. Coli still continued to be E. Coli.  It certainly mutated, but I do not see any quoted evidence of evolution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I may be missing something and if I am I 'm sure somebody will point it out but I fail to see the evolution in this article .
From my reading E. Coli still continued to be E. Coli. It certainly mutated , but I do not see any quoted evidence of evolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I may be missing something and if I am I'm sure somebody will point it out but I fail to see the evolution in this article.
From my reading E. Coli still continued to be E. Coli.  It certainly mutated, but I do not see any quoted evidence of evolution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29796807</id>
	<title>evolution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255978080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be interesting to look at the types of Bacteriophages Virues in the mix. Bacteriophages Virues infect bacteria and change their DNA.</p><p>Some people think virus are the catalyst to evolution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be interesting to look at the types of Bacteriophages Virues in the mix .
Bacteriophages Virues infect bacteria and change their DNA.Some people think virus are the catalyst to evolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be interesting to look at the types of Bacteriophages Virues in the mix.
Bacteriophages Virues infect bacteria and change their DNA.Some people think virus are the catalyst to evolution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787279</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1255862760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nonsense.  Evolution is nothing more than organisms adapting genetically to their environment.  These bacteria are doing exactly that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nonsense .
Evolution is nothing more than organisms adapting genetically to their environment .
These bacteria are doing exactly that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nonsense.
Evolution is nothing more than organisms adapting genetically to their environment.
These bacteria are doing exactly that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29788987</id>
	<title>Re:fuck that</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1255879440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shiva!  DUH!</p><p>Everyone knows that! Just ask Buddah or Mohammed, they will tell you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shiva !
DUH ! Everyone knows that !
Just ask Buddah or Mohammed , they will tell you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shiva!
DUH!Everyone knows that!
Just ask Buddah or Mohammed, they will tell you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787405</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255863660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh?</p><p>Genetic mutations are by definition evolution.</p><p>Maybe what you meant was that it's not proof of what creationists like to term "macro evolution" (a scientifically meaningless term which I gather roughly means evolution of new species).</p><p>The only functionally useful definition of new species is ability to interbreed which make me wonder how you are guageing that in a species (ecoli) that predominantly reproduces asexually!</p><p>I wonder if the starting and ending strains were unable to reproduce by conjugation you would then accept them as separate species? I wonder are you at all impressed by the rather trivial changes in our lineage over the last 250,000 generations (5 million years)?</p><p><a href="http://bioweb.uwlax.edu/bio203/s2008/moder\_just/reproduction.htm" title="uwlax.edu">http://bioweb.uwlax.edu/bio203/s2008/moder\_just/reproduction.htm</a> [uwlax.edu]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ? Genetic mutations are by definition evolution.Maybe what you meant was that it 's not proof of what creationists like to term " macro evolution " ( a scientifically meaningless term which I gather roughly means evolution of new species ) .The only functionally useful definition of new species is ability to interbreed which make me wonder how you are guageing that in a species ( ecoli ) that predominantly reproduces asexually ! I wonder if the starting and ending strains were unable to reproduce by conjugation you would then accept them as separate species ?
I wonder are you at all impressed by the rather trivial changes in our lineage over the last 250,000 generations ( 5 million years ) ? http : //bioweb.uwlax.edu/bio203/s2008/moder \ _just/reproduction.htm [ uwlax.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?Genetic mutations are by definition evolution.Maybe what you meant was that it's not proof of what creationists like to term "macro evolution" (a scientifically meaningless term which I gather roughly means evolution of new species).The only functionally useful definition of new species is ability to interbreed which make me wonder how you are guageing that in a species (ecoli) that predominantly reproduces asexually!I wonder if the starting and ending strains were unable to reproduce by conjugation you would then accept them as separate species?
I wonder are you at all impressed by the rather trivial changes in our lineage over the last 250,000 generations (5 million years)?http://bioweb.uwlax.edu/bio203/s2008/moder\_just/reproduction.htm [uwlax.edu]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29794569</id>
	<title>Re:fuck that</title>
	<author>ciderVisor</author>
	<datestamp>1255968960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how many basement-dwellers have bred their own private 40,000 generations of E-Coli ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how many basement-dwellers have bred their own private 40,000 generations of E-Coli ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how many basement-dwellers have bred their own private 40,000 generations of E-Coli ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29786921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787731</id>
	<title>X MEN??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255866540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just hope we don't have a human civilization genetically predisposed to treachery!<br>It's not 'you are what you eat' it's 'you are who you are...which makes and shapes what you are'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just hope we do n't have a human civilization genetically predisposed to treachery ! It 's not 'you are what you eat ' it 's 'you are who you are...which makes and shapes what you are'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just hope we don't have a human civilization genetically predisposed to treachery!It's not 'you are what you eat' it's 'you are who you are...which makes and shapes what you are'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29786921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29795285</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1255972080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I don't think you shouldn't participate in any discussions about evolution until you acquire some elementary biology knowledge.</i></p><p>Ewe muss bee knew hear. Asking "stupid" questions (or making ignorant statements and being corrected) is how one sheds ignorance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you should n't participate in any discussions about evolution until you acquire some elementary biology knowledge.Ewe muss bee knew hear .
Asking " stupid " questions ( or making ignorant statements and being corrected ) is how one sheds ignorance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you shouldn't participate in any discussions about evolution until you acquire some elementary biology knowledge.Ewe muss bee knew hear.
Asking "stupid" questions (or making ignorant statements and being corrected) is how one sheds ignorance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29794895</id>
	<title>Re:I thought this sort of thing...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1255970520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How long it takes depends on the organism's lifespan, reproductive rate, and the time it takes for gestation. For humans and elephants it takes a LONG time, less time for rabbits or dogs, far less time for insects and little time at all for virri.</p><p>And it doesn't take millions of years even for humans. Fifty million years ago we were tiny mouse-like creatures. Homo Sapiens is only two or three million years old.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How long it takes depends on the organism 's lifespan , reproductive rate , and the time it takes for gestation .
For humans and elephants it takes a LONG time , less time for rabbits or dogs , far less time for insects and little time at all for virri.And it does n't take millions of years even for humans .
Fifty million years ago we were tiny mouse-like creatures .
Homo Sapiens is only two or three million years old .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long it takes depends on the organism's lifespan, reproductive rate, and the time it takes for gestation.
For humans and elephants it takes a LONG time, less time for rabbits or dogs, far less time for insects and little time at all for virri.And it doesn't take millions of years even for humans.
Fifty million years ago we were tiny mouse-like creatures.
Homo Sapiens is only two or three million years old.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787229</id>
	<title>Re:Creationists response:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255862400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, no. That's exactly the difference between us. We don't draw illogical conclusions. We conclude that evolution is true, that's it. There's no mention of god anywhere. Theists see god everywhere and immideately consider it proof.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , no .
That 's exactly the difference between us .
We do n't draw illogical conclusions .
We conclude that evolution is true , that 's it .
There 's no mention of god anywhere .
Theists see god everywhere and immideately consider it proof .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, no.
That's exactly the difference between us.
We don't draw illogical conclusions.
We conclude that evolution is true, that's it.
There's no mention of god anywhere.
Theists see god everywhere and immideately consider it proof.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29790747</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution or just surving?</title>
	<author>canadian\_right</author>
	<datestamp>1255893720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
You are wrong. The original population of bacteria could NOT metabolize citric acid at all. They tested them and they all died. This was not an existing trait. It evolved.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are wrong .
The original population of bacteria could NOT metabolize citric acid at all .
They tested them and they all died .
This was not an existing trait .
It evolved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
You are wrong.
The original population of bacteria could NOT metabolize citric acid at all.
They tested them and they all died.
This was not an existing trait.
It evolved.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29796475</id>
	<title>Re:fuck that</title>
	<author>mapkinase</author>
	<datestamp>1255976880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are probably aware that half of the people on Earth are monotheists...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are probably aware that half of the people on Earth are monotheists.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are probably aware that half of the people on Earth are monotheists...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29788733</id>
	<title>Nobel?</title>
	<author>Jonny\_eh</author>
	<datestamp>1255876860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Give this man (and his colleagues) the Nobel prize already! This is some freaking impressive science.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Give this man ( and his colleagues ) the Nobel prize already !
This is some freaking impressive science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give this man (and his colleagues) the Nobel prize already!
This is some freaking impressive science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787011</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>black3d</author>
	<datestamp>1255860960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I don't believe in creation, mutations occuring in 40,000 generations (one mutation every 63 generations) of inbred bateria is hardly proof of evolution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I do n't believe in creation , mutations occuring in 40,000 generations ( one mutation every 63 generations ) of inbred bateria is hardly proof of evolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I don't believe in creation, mutations occuring in 40,000 generations (one mutation every 63 generations) of inbred bateria is hardly proof of evolution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29786937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29789291</id>
	<title>Natural Selection</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255882320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What we are really seeing is natural selection or an organism changing to better meet its environment.<br>That may be a form of evolution, but it actually does little to prove that a complex organism can change into another totally different complex organism.</p><p>That study is similar to observing the eating habits of a bunch of meat intolerant people who are locked in a slaughter house.<br>Some will die and some will adapt.</p><p>Does that mean God created us? No.<br>Does that mean God didn't create us? No.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What we are really seeing is natural selection or an organism changing to better meet its environment.That may be a form of evolution , but it actually does little to prove that a complex organism can change into another totally different complex organism.That study is similar to observing the eating habits of a bunch of meat intolerant people who are locked in a slaughter house.Some will die and some will adapt.Does that mean God created us ?
No.Does that mean God did n't create us ?
No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What we are really seeing is natural selection or an organism changing to better meet its environment.That may be a form of evolution, but it actually does little to prove that a complex organism can change into another totally different complex organism.That study is similar to observing the eating habits of a bunch of meat intolerant people who are locked in a slaughter house.Some will die and some will adapt.Does that mean God created us?
No.Does that mean God didn't create us?
No.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29793139</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution or just surving?</title>
	<author>natehimmel</author>
	<datestamp>1255962780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really?<br> <br>
I hope I'm missing the sarcasm.<br> <br>
No one is under the impression a single organism "evolves."<br> <br>
Populations evolve, just like you explained.  That is the way it works.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
I hope I 'm missing the sarcasm .
No one is under the impression a single organism " evolves .
" Populations evolve , just like you explained .
That is the way it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
I hope I'm missing the sarcasm.
No one is under the impression a single organism "evolves.
" 
Populations evolve, just like you explained.
That is the way it works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787951</id>
	<title>Evolution or just surving?</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1255868580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone assumes that the E. coli bacteria "evolved" its way into better dealing with adverse conditions (citric acid, etc.).   Not true - the ones who HAPPENED to be able to withstand and metabolyze citric acid DIDNT DIE - the survivors didn't evolve to metabolize it, they already could.   Animals don't genetically adapt to change - the ones already predisposed to tolerate the change survive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone assumes that the E. coli bacteria " evolved " its way into better dealing with adverse conditions ( citric acid , etc. ) .
Not true - the ones who HAPPENED to be able to withstand and metabolyze citric acid DIDNT DIE - the survivors did n't evolve to metabolize it , they already could .
Animals do n't genetically adapt to change - the ones already predisposed to tolerate the change survive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone assumes that the E. coli bacteria "evolved" its way into better dealing with adverse conditions (citric acid, etc.).
Not true - the ones who HAPPENED to be able to withstand and metabolyze citric acid DIDNT DIE - the survivors didn't evolve to metabolize it, they already could.
Animals don't genetically adapt to change - the ones already predisposed to tolerate the change survive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787987</id>
	<title>Re:fuck that</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1255869000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yay, let's spend the rest of the discussion bashing creationists and religion to make ourselves feel enlightened and intellectual instead of just discussing the story.  This happens on ANY tech site that posts a story that could even remotely be related to religion in some way.  We get it; you're a super-smart atheist like the rest of us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yay , let 's spend the rest of the discussion bashing creationists and religion to make ourselves feel enlightened and intellectual instead of just discussing the story .
This happens on ANY tech site that posts a story that could even remotely be related to religion in some way .
We get it ; you 're a super-smart atheist like the rest of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yay, let's spend the rest of the discussion bashing creationists and religion to make ourselves feel enlightened and intellectual instead of just discussing the story.
This happens on ANY tech site that posts a story that could even remotely be related to religion in some way.
We get it; you're a super-smart atheist like the rest of us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29786921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29792435</id>
	<title>What takes more faith?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255958580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So let me get this right.  They thought this was going to prove their theory.  Things were clipping along fine, then things suddenly went random.  That produced "counterintuitive results" that didn't match their theory.  So rather than that proving the theory incorrect, it proved that this was "more complex" than previously realized.</p><p>Anyone with a little intelligence should struggle with evolution.  There are 350 billion galaxies on one end of the complexity scale.  There are hundreds of intricately complex systems within the human body.  To believe this all occurred by random mutations passed on through natural selection would take more faith than religion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So let me get this right .
They thought this was going to prove their theory .
Things were clipping along fine , then things suddenly went random .
That produced " counterintuitive results " that did n't match their theory .
So rather than that proving the theory incorrect , it proved that this was " more complex " than previously realized.Anyone with a little intelligence should struggle with evolution .
There are 350 billion galaxies on one end of the complexity scale .
There are hundreds of intricately complex systems within the human body .
To believe this all occurred by random mutations passed on through natural selection would take more faith than religion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So let me get this right.
They thought this was going to prove their theory.
Things were clipping along fine, then things suddenly went random.
That produced "counterintuitive results" that didn't match their theory.
So rather than that proving the theory incorrect, it proved that this was "more complex" than previously realized.Anyone with a little intelligence should struggle with evolution.
There are 350 billion galaxies on one end of the complexity scale.
There are hundreds of intricately complex systems within the human body.
To believe this all occurred by random mutations passed on through natural selection would take more faith than religion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29788117</id>
	<title>Random change is ... random?</title>
	<author>davide marney</author>
	<datestamp>1255870440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the summary,</p><p>"...genomic evolution was nearly constant for 20,000 generations. Such clock-like regularity is usually viewed as the signature of neutral evolution, but several lines of evidence indicate that <b>almost all of these mutations were beneficial</b>. This same population later evolved an elevated mutation rate and accumulated hundreds of additional mutations <b>dominated by a neutral signature</b>. Thus, the coupling between genomic and adaptive evolution is complex and can be counterintuitive even in a constant environment. In particular, beneficial substitutions were surprisingly uniform over time, whereas neutral substitutions were highly variable."</p><p>In other words, random mutation ain't the great source of creative, beneficial change we all thought?  It's just sorta<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. random?</p><p>Huh.  That is counterintuitive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the summary , " ...genomic evolution was nearly constant for 20,000 generations .
Such clock-like regularity is usually viewed as the signature of neutral evolution , but several lines of evidence indicate that almost all of these mutations were beneficial .
This same population later evolved an elevated mutation rate and accumulated hundreds of additional mutations dominated by a neutral signature .
Thus , the coupling between genomic and adaptive evolution is complex and can be counterintuitive even in a constant environment .
In particular , beneficial substitutions were surprisingly uniform over time , whereas neutral substitutions were highly variable .
" In other words , random mutation ai n't the great source of creative , beneficial change we all thought ?
It 's just sorta .. random ? Huh. That is counterintuitive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the summary,"...genomic evolution was nearly constant for 20,000 generations.
Such clock-like regularity is usually viewed as the signature of neutral evolution, but several lines of evidence indicate that almost all of these mutations were beneficial.
This same population later evolved an elevated mutation rate and accumulated hundreds of additional mutations dominated by a neutral signature.
Thus, the coupling between genomic and adaptive evolution is complex and can be counterintuitive even in a constant environment.
In particular, beneficial substitutions were surprisingly uniform over time, whereas neutral substitutions were highly variable.
"In other words, random mutation ain't the great source of creative, beneficial change we all thought?
It's just sorta .. random?Huh.  That is counterintuitive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29791297</id>
	<title>Re:Micro vs Macro</title>
	<author>VMaN</author>
	<datestamp>1255945920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't you come out from under that bridge, log in, and say what you want to say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't you come out from under that bridge , log in , and say what you want to say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't you come out from under that bridge, log in, and say what you want to say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29790751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29789699</id>
	<title>Make it a show...</title>
	<author>FatdogHaiku</author>
	<datestamp>1255884960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When this guy gets in front of a crowd for a press release or announcement, a pulsating brain slug hat would be a nice touch. And a deadpan monotone "there was no evolutionary leap as some speculated, now kindly don this protective hat so we may give you a tour" would make it perfect.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When this guy gets in front of a crowd for a press release or announcement , a pulsating brain slug hat would be a nice touch .
And a deadpan monotone " there was no evolutionary leap as some speculated , now kindly don this protective hat so we may give you a tour " would make it perfect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When this guy gets in front of a crowd for a press release or announcement, a pulsating brain slug hat would be a nice touch.
And a deadpan monotone "there was no evolutionary leap as some speculated, now kindly don this protective hat so we may give you a tour" would make it perfect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29793407</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution or just surving?</title>
	<author>macbutch</author>
	<datestamp>1255964040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you kidding? This is insightful...?</p><p>First up - citrate is not an 'adverse condition' it is just something that the original bacteria were unable to use as a food source. That is not 'unable to use well' but unable to use *at all* - so if you put the original bacteria in a solution of only citrate (and no glucose) the population would not be able to grow due to lack of food but not because the citrate is harmful - they need glucose. So you're out right wrong to say that they already could metabolise it - that is really the whole point and if you'd read the article you'd know that btw - same for the morons that modded you insightful. If there was an 'adverse condition' then that would be that the amount of glucose in the solution was limited so that the bacteria would exhaust it everyday.</p><p>In an attempt to clarify why this is so interesting - the experiment* was to put the original strain in a solution of glucose and citrate - only the glucose was the limiting factor in the growth of the bacteria - as when the glucose was exhausted the bacteria could no longer continue to grow. This was repeated - so at the end of each day an extract of the bacteria in a phial would be extracted and put into a new phial of solution containing glucose and citrate.</p><p>The expected result - which kind of matches what you're describing, I think - is that subsequent generations would become more efficient at metabolising glucose and thats exactly what happened up to a point (and yes this is tweaking of an ability that was already there in that the bacteria was already able to metabolise glucose but they become more efficient at it). The really interesting thing is that after a while thousands of generations the bacteria evolved the ability to metabolise citrate - something that it could not do at all before.</p><p>Linking all this back to the summary - there were 45 mutations that they measured which were mostly related to the increased efficiency of glucose use (one of which was larger cell size, I believe). After the the ability to use citrate as a food source there was a much larger number of mutations (653) but more of these later mutations were neutral whereas the earlier mutations were largely about more efficient use of food. Anyway - the point of this new paper (as opposed to the original one which was about evolving to use citrate) is about measuring and observing rates of evolutionary change.</p><p>* disclaimer - my descriptions are largely based from memory, I don't have time to re-read the details and I may have a few points wrong. If there is a biologist around I'm sure they'll be able to correct me - however I am 100\% certain that the original strain can not metabolise citrate as that is a large part of why this research is so impressive (the other part is the detailed level of record keeping that they've done to the point where they have frozen examples of the bacterial strain for every few hundred (few thousand? I forget the details) generations going back 20 years or more (hence they're able to do a lot of work from this - the citrate metabolism is just one part of that).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you kidding ?
This is insightful... ? First up - citrate is not an 'adverse condition ' it is just something that the original bacteria were unable to use as a food source .
That is not 'unable to use well ' but unable to use * at all * - so if you put the original bacteria in a solution of only citrate ( and no glucose ) the population would not be able to grow due to lack of food but not because the citrate is harmful - they need glucose .
So you 're out right wrong to say that they already could metabolise it - that is really the whole point and if you 'd read the article you 'd know that btw - same for the morons that modded you insightful .
If there was an 'adverse condition ' then that would be that the amount of glucose in the solution was limited so that the bacteria would exhaust it everyday.In an attempt to clarify why this is so interesting - the experiment * was to put the original strain in a solution of glucose and citrate - only the glucose was the limiting factor in the growth of the bacteria - as when the glucose was exhausted the bacteria could no longer continue to grow .
This was repeated - so at the end of each day an extract of the bacteria in a phial would be extracted and put into a new phial of solution containing glucose and citrate.The expected result - which kind of matches what you 're describing , I think - is that subsequent generations would become more efficient at metabolising glucose and thats exactly what happened up to a point ( and yes this is tweaking of an ability that was already there in that the bacteria was already able to metabolise glucose but they become more efficient at it ) .
The really interesting thing is that after a while thousands of generations the bacteria evolved the ability to metabolise citrate - something that it could not do at all before.Linking all this back to the summary - there were 45 mutations that they measured which were mostly related to the increased efficiency of glucose use ( one of which was larger cell size , I believe ) .
After the the ability to use citrate as a food source there was a much larger number of mutations ( 653 ) but more of these later mutations were neutral whereas the earlier mutations were largely about more efficient use of food .
Anyway - the point of this new paper ( as opposed to the original one which was about evolving to use citrate ) is about measuring and observing rates of evolutionary change .
* disclaimer - my descriptions are largely based from memory , I do n't have time to re-read the details and I may have a few points wrong .
If there is a biologist around I 'm sure they 'll be able to correct me - however I am 100 \ % certain that the original strain can not metabolise citrate as that is a large part of why this research is so impressive ( the other part is the detailed level of record keeping that they 've done to the point where they have frozen examples of the bacterial strain for every few hundred ( few thousand ?
I forget the details ) generations going back 20 years or more ( hence they 're able to do a lot of work from this - the citrate metabolism is just one part of that ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you kidding?
This is insightful...?First up - citrate is not an 'adverse condition' it is just something that the original bacteria were unable to use as a food source.
That is not 'unable to use well' but unable to use *at all* - so if you put the original bacteria in a solution of only citrate (and no glucose) the population would not be able to grow due to lack of food but not because the citrate is harmful - they need glucose.
So you're out right wrong to say that they already could metabolise it - that is really the whole point and if you'd read the article you'd know that btw - same for the morons that modded you insightful.
If there was an 'adverse condition' then that would be that the amount of glucose in the solution was limited so that the bacteria would exhaust it everyday.In an attempt to clarify why this is so interesting - the experiment* was to put the original strain in a solution of glucose and citrate - only the glucose was the limiting factor in the growth of the bacteria - as when the glucose was exhausted the bacteria could no longer continue to grow.
This was repeated - so at the end of each day an extract of the bacteria in a phial would be extracted and put into a new phial of solution containing glucose and citrate.The expected result - which kind of matches what you're describing, I think - is that subsequent generations would become more efficient at metabolising glucose and thats exactly what happened up to a point (and yes this is tweaking of an ability that was already there in that the bacteria was already able to metabolise glucose but they become more efficient at it).
The really interesting thing is that after a while thousands of generations the bacteria evolved the ability to metabolise citrate - something that it could not do at all before.Linking all this back to the summary - there were 45 mutations that they measured which were mostly related to the increased efficiency of glucose use (one of which was larger cell size, I believe).
After the the ability to use citrate as a food source there was a much larger number of mutations (653) but more of these later mutations were neutral whereas the earlier mutations were largely about more efficient use of food.
Anyway - the point of this new paper (as opposed to the original one which was about evolving to use citrate) is about measuring and observing rates of evolutionary change.
* disclaimer - my descriptions are largely based from memory, I don't have time to re-read the details and I may have a few points wrong.
If there is a biologist around I'm sure they'll be able to correct me - however I am 100\% certain that the original strain can not metabolise citrate as that is a large part of why this research is so impressive (the other part is the detailed level of record keeping that they've done to the point where they have frozen examples of the bacterial strain for every few hundred (few thousand?
I forget the details) generations going back 20 years or more (hence they're able to do a lot of work from this - the citrate metabolism is just one part of that).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29790777</id>
	<title>Re:I thought this sort of thing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255893960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>40000 generations of humans is equal to about a million years. They just used bacteria because their financiers wanted to see quick results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>40000 generations of humans is equal to about a million years .
They just used bacteria because their financiers wanted to see quick results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>40000 generations of humans is equal to about a million years.
They just used bacteria because their financiers wanted to see quick results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787669</id>
	<title>Re:fuck that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255865820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, totally man.</p><p>There is absolutely no way to explain how that random mutation happened that suddenly increased the number of mutations.<br>Damn scientists always lying to us!  Why do they deny the power of God!<br>All hail his noodily appendages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , totally man.There is absolutely no way to explain how that random mutation happened that suddenly increased the number of mutations.Damn scientists always lying to us !
Why do they deny the power of God ! All hail his noodily appendages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, totally man.There is absolutely no way to explain how that random mutation happened that suddenly increased the number of mutations.Damn scientists always lying to us!
Why do they deny the power of God!All hail his noodily appendages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29786921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787937</id>
	<title>I thought this sort of thing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255868520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>took millions of years.  Nobody with eyeballs doubts that things change over time.  What we're finding out finally is just how long it actually takes for things to change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>took millions of years .
Nobody with eyeballs doubts that things change over time .
What we 're finding out finally is just how long it actually takes for things to change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>took millions of years.
Nobody with eyeballs doubts that things change over time.
What we're finding out finally is just how long it actually takes for things to change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29789591</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution or just surving?</title>
	<author>bh\_doc</author>
	<datestamp>1255884240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bacteria evolve. A bacterium doesn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bacteria evolve .
A bacterium does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bacteria evolve.
A bacterium doesn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29788241</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution or just surving?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255871520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On this particular subject, and I know this is unrealistic on slashdot, it would be good to read the article.  The techniques used in this study were brilliant, they are specifically designed to investigate the criticisms that are usually leveled on studies of evolution and they do so beautifully.  I'll try for a quick explanation of why your criticism is invalid.</p><p>First, how the experiment worked.  They put E. Coli. into dishes with a growth medium of glucose and other nutrients with glucose as the limiting nutrient (add more glucose and the maximum population will go up, take some out and the max will go down).  Each and every day, for 20 years, they took 1\% of this sample and put it into a new dish, each time they did so the population would boom and bust as the bacteria consumed the new glucose present in the new dish.  Each day the researchers would take measurements of lots of things including cell size and total population (which would be the maximum population that the level of glucose could support) as well as occasionally freezing off a sample that could be revived later.</p><p>Now, here's where it gets interesting.  Almost 20 years into he experiment, the total population (again, the max that glucose could support) suddenly shot up by a factor of 5.  That's right, after nearly 40,000 generations, the maximum number of bacterium that the dish could support, suddenly increased to five times it's previous level.  After looking into it, the cause was discovered to be that the E. Coli. could suddenly digest a chemical used to prepare the dishes, effectively increasing the food size by 5 times.  If this ability was always present, it should have shown up decades ago and also should have shown up in one of the other 11 lines (the mutation only occurred in a single one).</p><p>Now, I said it was interesting before but I lied, this is where it gets interesting.  The researchers know the average mutation rate for E. Coli.  They also know approximately how many generations occurred and therefore have some idea how many mutations occurred .  If the ability to digest the chemical required only one mutation, it is statistically unlikely that it would have occurred in only one of the cell lines.  Obviously, this mutation was worth investigating.  So the researchers thawed out old samples from that cell line and let them start evolving again.  What's interesting is that samples frozen before the 20,000th generations <b>never</b> evolved the ability to digest the plate medium.  Whereas samples taken after the 20,000th generation often did.  The implication is that a mutation occurred around that time which 'primed' the cell line, so that they were then only a single mutation away from being able to digest the medium.  What's also cool is that the 'priming' mutation doesn't cause any large increase in fitness.  In effect, this is a perfect example of irreducible complexity evolving by natural selection (human beings creating the environment isn't artificial selection the same way breeding a dog is).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On this particular subject , and I know this is unrealistic on slashdot , it would be good to read the article .
The techniques used in this study were brilliant , they are specifically designed to investigate the criticisms that are usually leveled on studies of evolution and they do so beautifully .
I 'll try for a quick explanation of why your criticism is invalid.First , how the experiment worked .
They put E. Coli. into dishes with a growth medium of glucose and other nutrients with glucose as the limiting nutrient ( add more glucose and the maximum population will go up , take some out and the max will go down ) .
Each and every day , for 20 years , they took 1 \ % of this sample and put it into a new dish , each time they did so the population would boom and bust as the bacteria consumed the new glucose present in the new dish .
Each day the researchers would take measurements of lots of things including cell size and total population ( which would be the maximum population that the level of glucose could support ) as well as occasionally freezing off a sample that could be revived later.Now , here 's where it gets interesting .
Almost 20 years into he experiment , the total population ( again , the max that glucose could support ) suddenly shot up by a factor of 5 .
That 's right , after nearly 40,000 generations , the maximum number of bacterium that the dish could support , suddenly increased to five times it 's previous level .
After looking into it , the cause was discovered to be that the E. Coli. could suddenly digest a chemical used to prepare the dishes , effectively increasing the food size by 5 times .
If this ability was always present , it should have shown up decades ago and also should have shown up in one of the other 11 lines ( the mutation only occurred in a single one ) .Now , I said it was interesting before but I lied , this is where it gets interesting .
The researchers know the average mutation rate for E. Coli. They also know approximately how many generations occurred and therefore have some idea how many mutations occurred .
If the ability to digest the chemical required only one mutation , it is statistically unlikely that it would have occurred in only one of the cell lines .
Obviously , this mutation was worth investigating .
So the researchers thawed out old samples from that cell line and let them start evolving again .
What 's interesting is that samples frozen before the 20,000th generations never evolved the ability to digest the plate medium .
Whereas samples taken after the 20,000th generation often did .
The implication is that a mutation occurred around that time which 'primed ' the cell line , so that they were then only a single mutation away from being able to digest the medium .
What 's also cool is that the 'priming ' mutation does n't cause any large increase in fitness .
In effect , this is a perfect example of irreducible complexity evolving by natural selection ( human beings creating the environment is n't artificial selection the same way breeding a dog is ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On this particular subject, and I know this is unrealistic on slashdot, it would be good to read the article.
The techniques used in this study were brilliant, they are specifically designed to investigate the criticisms that are usually leveled on studies of evolution and they do so beautifully.
I'll try for a quick explanation of why your criticism is invalid.First, how the experiment worked.
They put E. Coli. into dishes with a growth medium of glucose and other nutrients with glucose as the limiting nutrient (add more glucose and the maximum population will go up, take some out and the max will go down).
Each and every day, for 20 years, they took 1\% of this sample and put it into a new dish, each time they did so the population would boom and bust as the bacteria consumed the new glucose present in the new dish.
Each day the researchers would take measurements of lots of things including cell size and total population (which would be the maximum population that the level of glucose could support) as well as occasionally freezing off a sample that could be revived later.Now, here's where it gets interesting.
Almost 20 years into he experiment, the total population (again, the max that glucose could support) suddenly shot up by a factor of 5.
That's right, after nearly 40,000 generations, the maximum number of bacterium that the dish could support, suddenly increased to five times it's previous level.
After looking into it, the cause was discovered to be that the E. Coli. could suddenly digest a chemical used to prepare the dishes, effectively increasing the food size by 5 times.
If this ability was always present, it should have shown up decades ago and also should have shown up in one of the other 11 lines (the mutation only occurred in a single one).Now, I said it was interesting before but I lied, this is where it gets interesting.
The researchers know the average mutation rate for E. Coli.  They also know approximately how many generations occurred and therefore have some idea how many mutations occurred .
If the ability to digest the chemical required only one mutation, it is statistically unlikely that it would have occurred in only one of the cell lines.
Obviously, this mutation was worth investigating.
So the researchers thawed out old samples from that cell line and let them start evolving again.
What's interesting is that samples frozen before the 20,000th generations never evolved the ability to digest the plate medium.
Whereas samples taken after the 20,000th generation often did.
The implication is that a mutation occurred around that time which 'primed' the cell line, so that they were then only a single mutation away from being able to digest the medium.
What's also cool is that the 'priming' mutation doesn't cause any large increase in fitness.
In effect, this is a perfect example of irreducible complexity evolving by natural selection (human beings creating the environment isn't artificial selection the same way breeding a dog is).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29790413</id>
	<title>The Greatest Show on Earth</title>
	<author>Loomismeister</author>
	<datestamp>1255890360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quite coincidentally, I was just reading Dawkins' new book in which this very experiment was explained in some detail. This is pretty amazing for proving evolution by natural selection as a process involved in life all around us. Creationist history-deniers are pretty foolish if they actually deny the process of evolution as a fact of life, for it is scientific fact at this point. What could be debated is the origin of life, or maybe different processes by which evolution occurs, but no argument can be made that evolution doesn't actually happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite coincidentally , I was just reading Dawkins ' new book in which this very experiment was explained in some detail .
This is pretty amazing for proving evolution by natural selection as a process involved in life all around us .
Creationist history-deniers are pretty foolish if they actually deny the process of evolution as a fact of life , for it is scientific fact at this point .
What could be debated is the origin of life , or maybe different processes by which evolution occurs , but no argument can be made that evolution does n't actually happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite coincidentally, I was just reading Dawkins' new book in which this very experiment was explained in some detail.
This is pretty amazing for proving evolution by natural selection as a process involved in life all around us.
Creationist history-deniers are pretty foolish if they actually deny the process of evolution as a fact of life, for it is scientific fact at this point.
What could be debated is the origin of life, or maybe different processes by which evolution occurs, but no argument can be made that evolution doesn't actually happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787105</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>arose</author>
	<datestamp>1255861620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>inbred bateria</p></div></blockquote><p>

I don't think you shouldn't participate in any discussions about evolution until you acquire some elementary biology knowledge.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>inbred bateria I do n't think you should n't participate in any discussions about evolution until you acquire some elementary biology knowledge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>inbred bateria

I don't think you shouldn't participate in any discussions about evolution until you acquire some elementary biology knowledge.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29789931</id>
	<title>Re:fuck that</title>
	<author>poofmeisterp</author>
	<datestamp>1255886580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is a "your mom" joke appropriate in this particular case?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is a " your mom " joke appropriate in this particular case ?
: &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is a "your mom" joke appropriate in this particular case?
:&gt;</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29797609</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1255981080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Evolution is nothing more than <i>species</i> adapting genetically to their environment. Organisms don't adapt genetically; your genetics are the same as they were when you were born.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Evolution is nothing more than species adapting genetically to their environment .
Organisms do n't adapt genetically ; your genetics are the same as they were when you were born .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evolution is nothing more than species adapting genetically to their environment.
Organisms don't adapt genetically; your genetics are the same as they were when you were born.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29804425</id>
	<title>silly buggers</title>
	<author>djambalawa</author>
	<datestamp>1255977540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pffft... "direct, reproducible evidence of a genetic mutation with functional consequences for an organism" - wow you mean like the white and black moths?  Umm big deal?   I can't believe this has in the title "Observing Evolution" and how so many nerds here are posting "aha more proof of evolution" comments...

Keep bombarding those thousands of generations with gamma rays folks...    the likes of slashdot will help boost your self belief and even funding perhaps...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pffft... " direct , reproducible evidence of a genetic mutation with functional consequences for an organism " - wow you mean like the white and black moths ?
Umm big deal ?
I ca n't believe this has in the title " Observing Evolution " and how so many nerds here are posting " aha more proof of evolution " comments.. . Keep bombarding those thousands of generations with gamma rays folks... the likes of slashdot will help boost your self belief and even funding perhaps.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pffft... "direct, reproducible evidence of a genetic mutation with functional consequences for an organism" - wow you mean like the white and black moths?
Umm big deal?
I can't believe this has in the title "Observing Evolution" and how so many nerds here are posting "aha more proof of evolution" comments...

Keep bombarding those thousands of generations with gamma rays folks...    the likes of slashdot will help boost your self belief and even funding perhaps...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29788091</id>
	<title>Re:Creationists response:</title>
	<author>sumdumass</author>
	<datestamp>1255870200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But you do extend logic past the empirical evidence which is the same as making shit up.</p><p>This E.coli experiment does nothing to show speciation or anything other then evolution on a micro-scale is possible. But hell, we have known that for centuries.</p><p>How you can jump and fault someone over a belief in god because of this is just inane. There is no logic behind it and you have made the first part of your post out to be false.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But you do extend logic past the empirical evidence which is the same as making shit up.This E.coli experiment does nothing to show speciation or anything other then evolution on a micro-scale is possible .
But hell , we have known that for centuries.How you can jump and fault someone over a belief in god because of this is just inane .
There is no logic behind it and you have made the first part of your post out to be false .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you do extend logic past the empirical evidence which is the same as making shit up.This E.coli experiment does nothing to show speciation or anything other then evolution on a micro-scale is possible.
But hell, we have known that for centuries.How you can jump and fault someone over a belief in god because of this is just inane.
There is no logic behind it and you have made the first part of your post out to be false.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787229</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29786921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29798483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29794569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29786921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29786921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29797609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29786937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29788987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29786921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29795285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29786937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29790747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29789927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29788733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29786921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29794895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29791297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29790751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29788091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29786941
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29791781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29793139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29786937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29786937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29788157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29786921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29791899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29790751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29796475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29786921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29793407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29788277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29786921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29788133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29813523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29793271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29789591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29788241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29791915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29790777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29797261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29788117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29789931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29786921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_18_1947238_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29793111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29786921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_18_1947238.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29788223
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_18_1947238.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29788277
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_18_1947238.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29788117
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29797261
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_18_1947238.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29789555
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_18_1947238.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29790431
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_18_1947238.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29794895
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29790777
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_18_1947238.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29786921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787987
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29794569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787003
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29793111
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29788987
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29789931
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29796475
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_18_1947238.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29788157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29793139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29791915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29798483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29788133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29793407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29789591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29790747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29788241
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_18_1947238.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29793271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29813523
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_18_1947238.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29788581
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_18_1947238.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29786937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787011
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787405
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787105
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29795285
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787279
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29797609
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787101
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_18_1947238.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29786941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787095
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787229
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29788091
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_18_1947238.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29792435
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_18_1947238.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29788733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29789927
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_18_1947238.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29787983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29791781
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_18_1947238.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29790751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29791899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_18_1947238.29791297
</commentlist>
</conversation>
