<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_10_0232246</id>
	<title>Prions Evolve Despite Having No DNA</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1263116100000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Scientists from the Scripps Research Institute have shown for the first time that 'lifeless' organic substances with no genetic material &mdash; prions similar to those believed responsible for Mad Cow disease and similar, rare conditions in humans &mdash; are capable of <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=prion-evolution-takes-lessons-on-di-2010-01-01">evolving just like higher forms of life</a>. The discovery could reshape the definition of life and have revolutionary impacts on how certain diseases are treated."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Scientists from the Scripps Research Institute have shown for the first time that 'lifeless ' organic substances with no genetic material    prions similar to those believed responsible for Mad Cow disease and similar , rare conditions in humans    are capable of evolving just like higher forms of life .
The discovery could reshape the definition of life and have revolutionary impacts on how certain diseases are treated .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Scientists from the Scripps Research Institute have shown for the first time that 'lifeless' organic substances with no genetic material — prions similar to those believed responsible for Mad Cow disease and similar, rare conditions in humans — are capable of evolving just like higher forms of life.
The discovery could reshape the definition of life and have revolutionary impacts on how certain diseases are treated.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713786</id>
	<title>Randomly Mutating Post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263125520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's late, i'm over tired and maybe i should have cooked that last brain i ate. anyway i did a reread of Darwin's TOOS and then binged on a buncha evolutionary theory and evo-devo stuff, this over the last 3 years. 1st off evolution theory, at least the mainstream stuff presupposes a genotype (dna) translated into a phenotype like me typing this. so the question should arise as to whether prions have a genotype source that has a transcription mechanism. old school Darwinianism as penned by Darwin drifted toward acquired characteristics a la Lamarck because Darwin didn't have any working knowledge of genetics even tho Mendel had sent him a draft of his work. somewhere over 95\% of all species have gone extinct and after all the reading and questions i came away seeing life as a random walk of living crud crusting eons of dead crud. no winners no losers no game no gameplan just stuff that hasn't died yet on top of stuff that has; being slow cooked by a middle aged average sun.</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's late , i 'm over tired and maybe i should have cooked that last brain i ate .
anyway i did a reread of Darwin 's TOOS and then binged on a buncha evolutionary theory and evo-devo stuff , this over the last 3 years .
1st off evolution theory , at least the mainstream stuff presupposes a genotype ( dna ) translated into a phenotype like me typing this .
so the question should arise as to whether prions have a genotype source that has a transcription mechanism .
old school Darwinianism as penned by Darwin drifted toward acquired characteristics a la Lamarck because Darwin did n't have any working knowledge of genetics even tho Mendel had sent him a draft of his work .
somewhere over 95 \ % of all species have gone extinct and after all the reading and questions i came away seeing life as a random walk of living crud crusting eons of dead crud .
no winners no losers no game no gameplan just stuff that has n't died yet on top of stuff that has ; being slow cooked by a middle aged average sun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's late, i'm over tired and maybe i should have cooked that last brain i ate.
anyway i did a reread of Darwin's TOOS and then binged on a buncha evolutionary theory and evo-devo stuff, this over the last 3 years.
1st off evolution theory, at least the mainstream stuff presupposes a genotype (dna) translated into a phenotype like me typing this.
so the question should arise as to whether prions have a genotype source that has a transcription mechanism.
old school Darwinianism as penned by Darwin drifted toward acquired characteristics a la Lamarck because Darwin didn't have any working knowledge of genetics even tho Mendel had sent him a draft of his work.
somewhere over 95\% of all species have gone extinct and after all the reading and questions i came away seeing life as a random walk of living crud crusting eons of dead crud.
no winners no losers no game no gameplan just stuff that hasn't died yet on top of stuff that has; being slow cooked by a middle aged average sun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714038</id>
	<title>Surprise This</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263131280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For what it's worth, everything can "evolve" - ranging from a speck of cosmic dust all the way to a galaxy - depending on how something is measured determines life by the definition of that measure. We and everything else are all part of that same continuum - more precisely, where do we draw the line at not drawing a line?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For what it 's worth , everything can " evolve " - ranging from a speck of cosmic dust all the way to a galaxy - depending on how something is measured determines life by the definition of that measure .
We and everything else are all part of that same continuum - more precisely , where do we draw the line at not drawing a line ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For what it's worth, everything can "evolve" - ranging from a speck of cosmic dust all the way to a galaxy - depending on how something is measured determines life by the definition of that measure.
We and everything else are all part of that same continuum - more precisely, where do we draw the line at not drawing a line?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713852</id>
	<title>Re:Where does Death Begin?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263127080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You claim that most *physicians* are not properly trained to test for brain death, and then you back it up with an anecdote about *technicians* that weren't able to properly identify real brain death.<br> <br>
The difference between a technician and a physician? 6-12 years of top-level education and experience.  Don't confuse the two.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You claim that most * physicians * are not properly trained to test for brain death , and then you back it up with an anecdote about * technicians * that were n't able to properly identify real brain death .
The difference between a technician and a physician ?
6-12 years of top-level education and experience .
Do n't confuse the two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You claim that most *physicians* are not properly trained to test for brain death, and then you back it up with an anecdote about *technicians* that weren't able to properly identify real brain death.
The difference between a technician and a physician?
6-12 years of top-level education and experience.
Don't confuse the two.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715358</id>
	<title>Duh</title>
	<author>greg\_barton</author>
	<datestamp>1263148320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any system that can self replicate can evolve.  Period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any system that can self replicate can evolve .
Period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any system that can self replicate can evolve.
Period.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30720258</id>
	<title>ideas and societies are alive</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1263149820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they react to things, they grow, they die and give birth to more ideas/ societies</p><p>look up the word "meme"</p><p>in fact, much as biological entities are nothing more than the vessels in which living, changing, competing genes exist, our minds are nothing but units in a game of living, changing, competing memes. language is the unit of information exchange</p><p>in fact, genetic change in humanity has ceased to be important. genetic change, across all species, now takes a backseat to memetic change in terms of evolutionary importance. evolutionary importance in this context meaning: the potential to extend life into new realms</p><p>we won't get off earth because of genetic change. we will get off earth because of memetic change. we are the dead end result of genetic change, and we became that when we evolved language and writing. with that leap, we closed the book on genetic change as being of paramount importance in terms of life's potential and opened a new book and a new era in life. we are in the beginning of a new era of memetic change, wherever that may lead, with or without us</p><p>genetics and genetic evolution just isn't the biggest most important game for life anymore. we're the interface between that and the new memetic era of life</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they react to things , they grow , they die and give birth to more ideas/ societieslook up the word " meme " in fact , much as biological entities are nothing more than the vessels in which living , changing , competing genes exist , our minds are nothing but units in a game of living , changing , competing memes .
language is the unit of information exchangein fact , genetic change in humanity has ceased to be important .
genetic change , across all species , now takes a backseat to memetic change in terms of evolutionary importance .
evolutionary importance in this context meaning : the potential to extend life into new realmswe wo n't get off earth because of genetic change .
we will get off earth because of memetic change .
we are the dead end result of genetic change , and we became that when we evolved language and writing .
with that leap , we closed the book on genetic change as being of paramount importance in terms of life 's potential and opened a new book and a new era in life .
we are in the beginning of a new era of memetic change , wherever that may lead , with or without usgenetics and genetic evolution just is n't the biggest most important game for life anymore .
we 're the interface between that and the new memetic era of life</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they react to things, they grow, they die and give birth to more ideas/ societieslook up the word "meme"in fact, much as biological entities are nothing more than the vessels in which living, changing, competing genes exist, our minds are nothing but units in a game of living, changing, competing memes.
language is the unit of information exchangein fact, genetic change in humanity has ceased to be important.
genetic change, across all species, now takes a backseat to memetic change in terms of evolutionary importance.
evolutionary importance in this context meaning: the potential to extend life into new realmswe won't get off earth because of genetic change.
we will get off earth because of memetic change.
we are the dead end result of genetic change, and we became that when we evolved language and writing.
with that leap, we closed the book on genetic change as being of paramount importance in terms of life's potential and opened a new book and a new era in life.
we are in the beginning of a new era of memetic change, wherever that may lead, with or without usgenetics and genetic evolution just isn't the biggest most important game for life anymore.
we're the interface between that and the new memetic era of life</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30719030</id>
	<title>Re:Where does Death Begin?</title>
	<author>dorpus</author>
	<datestamp>1263133860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no contradiction.  Legally speaking (in my state), two physicians have to sign a form before a patient can be declared brain dead.  However, organ procurement technicians will check the patient anyway before they recover organs.  Nobody wants a scandal where a "dead" patient wakes up while having his heart removed.</p><p>In many hospitals, there is a buddy-buddy mentality where if Dr. A says he confirmed brain death, then Dr. B will just sign the form.  To be fair to physicians, their priority is to save patients that can be saved, rather than nitpicking the detailed state of patients who will die in a few hours.  They leave the "dirty" work to technicians who care.</p><p>Physicians are not God.  I've also heard stories where an intern or resident panicked in the OR when things didn't go according to textbook descriptions.  In such situations, if a more senior physician is not available, then experienced nurses will take over.  They have done thousands of operations before, and know exactly what to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no contradiction .
Legally speaking ( in my state ) , two physicians have to sign a form before a patient can be declared brain dead .
However , organ procurement technicians will check the patient anyway before they recover organs .
Nobody wants a scandal where a " dead " patient wakes up while having his heart removed.In many hospitals , there is a buddy-buddy mentality where if Dr. A says he confirmed brain death , then Dr. B will just sign the form .
To be fair to physicians , their priority is to save patients that can be saved , rather than nitpicking the detailed state of patients who will die in a few hours .
They leave the " dirty " work to technicians who care.Physicians are not God .
I 've also heard stories where an intern or resident panicked in the OR when things did n't go according to textbook descriptions .
In such situations , if a more senior physician is not available , then experienced nurses will take over .
They have done thousands of operations before , and know exactly what to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no contradiction.
Legally speaking (in my state), two physicians have to sign a form before a patient can be declared brain dead.
However, organ procurement technicians will check the patient anyway before they recover organs.
Nobody wants a scandal where a "dead" patient wakes up while having his heart removed.In many hospitals, there is a buddy-buddy mentality where if Dr. A says he confirmed brain death, then Dr. B will just sign the form.
To be fair to physicians, their priority is to save patients that can be saved, rather than nitpicking the detailed state of patients who will die in a few hours.
They leave the "dirty" work to technicians who care.Physicians are not God.
I've also heard stories where an intern or resident panicked in the OR when things didn't go according to textbook descriptions.
In such situations, if a more senior physician is not available, then experienced nurses will take over.
They have done thousands of operations before, and know exactly what to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30717272</id>
	<title>Re:I'm skeptical</title>
	<author>Renraku</author>
	<datestamp>1263120000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would say with certainty that it's closer to chemical computation than it is evolution.  Prions' and proteins' function is heavily influenced by their shape.  Their shape isn't a 100\% consistent.  So you could have an d shaped protein and a b shaped protein and they might still function as intended, but if it switches to an a shaped protein, it may not work anymore.  Errors in folding are quite common, even in biological systems.  Usually the aforementioned system has things in place to deal with prions, but obviously not 100\% of prions get dealt with, or we wouldn't have Mad Cow Disease.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say with certainty that it 's closer to chemical computation than it is evolution .
Prions ' and proteins ' function is heavily influenced by their shape .
Their shape is n't a 100 \ % consistent .
So you could have an d shaped protein and a b shaped protein and they might still function as intended , but if it switches to an a shaped protein , it may not work anymore .
Errors in folding are quite common , even in biological systems .
Usually the aforementioned system has things in place to deal with prions , but obviously not 100 \ % of prions get dealt with , or we would n't have Mad Cow Disease .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say with certainty that it's closer to chemical computation than it is evolution.
Prions' and proteins' function is heavily influenced by their shape.
Their shape isn't a 100\% consistent.
So you could have an d shaped protein and a b shaped protein and they might still function as intended, but if it switches to an a shaped protein, it may not work anymore.
Errors in folding are quite common, even in biological systems.
Usually the aforementioned system has things in place to deal with prions, but obviously not 100\% of prions get dealt with, or we wouldn't have Mad Cow Disease.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713630</id>
	<title>evolution is not about dna</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263121500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't get me wrong, dna has some neat copying-related properties... but evolution is not about dna. The idea came along long before the physical basis of human heredity was understood, and it is a far more general principle. To get evolution via natural selection, all you really need is:<br>1. Variation<br>2.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... that is heritable ( prions, dna, epigenetic markers, and cultural practices all have this to some extent or another)<br>3. and something that ensures differential survival (as simple as limited resources).</p><p>These aren't very hard criteria to fulfill. The sticking point is really the heritability bit, but once prions work out the "how to propagate more of me" problem, evolution comes along for the ride.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't get me wrong , dna has some neat copying-related properties... but evolution is not about dna .
The idea came along long before the physical basis of human heredity was understood , and it is a far more general principle .
To get evolution via natural selection , all you really need is : 1 .
Variation2. ... that is heritable ( prions , dna , epigenetic markers , and cultural practices all have this to some extent or another ) 3. and something that ensures differential survival ( as simple as limited resources ) .These are n't very hard criteria to fulfill .
The sticking point is really the heritability bit , but once prions work out the " how to propagate more of me " problem , evolution comes along for the ride .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't get me wrong, dna has some neat copying-related properties... but evolution is not about dna.
The idea came along long before the physical basis of human heredity was understood, and it is a far more general principle.
To get evolution via natural selection, all you really need is:1.
Variation2. ... that is heritable ( prions, dna, epigenetic markers, and cultural practices all have this to some extent or another)3. and something that ensures differential survival (as simple as limited resources).These aren't very hard criteria to fulfill.
The sticking point is really the heritability bit, but once prions work out the "how to propagate more of me" problem, evolution comes along for the ride.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713580</id>
	<title>genetic material</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263120360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Genetic material and DNA aren't really synonymous, are they? Alien life that appeared independently of that on Earth would likely have "genetic material" that served a similar purpose to DNA, but wasn't DNA.
<br> <br>
Prions are proteins that, like viruses, replicate via a host cell. All the high-level principles of evolution by natural selection apply; it's just the low-level mechanisms that are quite different.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Genetic material and DNA are n't really synonymous , are they ?
Alien life that appeared independently of that on Earth would likely have " genetic material " that served a similar purpose to DNA , but was n't DNA .
Prions are proteins that , like viruses , replicate via a host cell .
All the high-level principles of evolution by natural selection apply ; it 's just the low-level mechanisms that are quite different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Genetic material and DNA aren't really synonymous, are they?
Alien life that appeared independently of that on Earth would likely have "genetic material" that served a similar purpose to DNA, but wasn't DNA.
Prions are proteins that, like viruses, replicate via a host cell.
All the high-level principles of evolution by natural selection apply; it's just the low-level mechanisms that are quite different.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713644</id>
	<title>Re:Where</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263121860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>im in ur prions<br>redesigning them</p><p>-- God</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>im in ur prionsredesigning them-- God</tokentext>
<sentencetext>im in ur prionsredesigning them-- God</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714498</id>
	<title>Why would that be likely?</title>
	<author>gbutler69</author>
	<datestamp>1263139140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Possible maybe, but likely? There is probably a reason that DNA (and RNA) are DNA and RNA and not something else. It's the same reason by complex chemicals/life chemicals are mostly constructed around Carbon. Carbon has lots of free valences, which allow it to act like a universal lego-block. Other elements, just don't have as much flexibility. It's why it's entirely unlikely that you will ever see something that can be classified as life that isn't carbon-based. Other elements just can't be as flexible as Carbon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Possible maybe , but likely ?
There is probably a reason that DNA ( and RNA ) are DNA and RNA and not something else .
It 's the same reason by complex chemicals/life chemicals are mostly constructed around Carbon .
Carbon has lots of free valences , which allow it to act like a universal lego-block .
Other elements , just do n't have as much flexibility .
It 's why it 's entirely unlikely that you will ever see something that can be classified as life that is n't carbon-based .
Other elements just ca n't be as flexible as Carbon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Possible maybe, but likely?
There is probably a reason that DNA (and RNA) are DNA and RNA and not something else.
It's the same reason by complex chemicals/life chemicals are mostly constructed around Carbon.
Carbon has lots of free valences, which allow it to act like a universal lego-block.
Other elements, just don't have as much flexibility.
It's why it's entirely unlikely that you will ever see something that can be classified as life that isn't carbon-based.
Other elements just can't be as flexible as Carbon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713702</id>
	<title>Where does Death Begin?</title>
	<author>dorpus</author>
	<datestamp>1263123480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really related, but it is entirely possible for humans to be "alive" in a physical sense even after they are brain dead.  As long as they are hooked up to respirators etc., they can be kept alive indefinitely.  To date, no human being is ever known to have regained consciousness after brain death.</p><p>The \_big\_ catch here is that most physicians are not properly trained to test for brain death.  Most physicians will just see a flat line on an EKG and declare the patient brain dead.  I used to work at an organ transplant center, where there were technicians that went through a formal checklist to make sure the patient really is brain dead.  It was not uncommon to find patients who did not meet the strict criteria.  In the most dramatic example, a 3-yo boy was supposedly brain dead, and he was in the operating room, ready to have his organs removed.  The technicians discovered that his pupils did respond to light, so they rushed him out of the OR.  On the way back to his room, the boy opened his eyes and smiled.  But then he went back into a coma and died 5 days later.</p><p>Needless to say, the boy's parents were furious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really related , but it is entirely possible for humans to be " alive " in a physical sense even after they are brain dead .
As long as they are hooked up to respirators etc. , they can be kept alive indefinitely .
To date , no human being is ever known to have regained consciousness after brain death.The \ _big \ _ catch here is that most physicians are not properly trained to test for brain death .
Most physicians will just see a flat line on an EKG and declare the patient brain dead .
I used to work at an organ transplant center , where there were technicians that went through a formal checklist to make sure the patient really is brain dead .
It was not uncommon to find patients who did not meet the strict criteria .
In the most dramatic example , a 3-yo boy was supposedly brain dead , and he was in the operating room , ready to have his organs removed .
The technicians discovered that his pupils did respond to light , so they rushed him out of the OR .
On the way back to his room , the boy opened his eyes and smiled .
But then he went back into a coma and died 5 days later.Needless to say , the boy 's parents were furious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really related, but it is entirely possible for humans to be "alive" in a physical sense even after they are brain dead.
As long as they are hooked up to respirators etc., they can be kept alive indefinitely.
To date, no human being is ever known to have regained consciousness after brain death.The \_big\_ catch here is that most physicians are not properly trained to test for brain death.
Most physicians will just see a flat line on an EKG and declare the patient brain dead.
I used to work at an organ transplant center, where there were technicians that went through a formal checklist to make sure the patient really is brain dead.
It was not uncommon to find patients who did not meet the strict criteria.
In the most dramatic example, a 3-yo boy was supposedly brain dead, and he was in the operating room, ready to have his organs removed.
The technicians discovered that his pupils did respond to light, so they rushed him out of the OR.
On the way back to his room, the boy opened his eyes and smiled.
But then he went back into a coma and died 5 days later.Needless to say, the boy's parents were furious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714406</id>
	<title>Re:This might revive the age-old debate...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263137820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Are Rebublicans technically life-forms?</p></div><p>How'd those housing starts go in November?  Oh, down 19\%?</p><p>How are the continuing job loses going?  Oh, another 200,000 jobs lost?</p><p>How's that withdrawal from Iraq going?</p><p>Nice to see our DHS Secretary telling us all how well the system worked when a jihadi got on a plane with a bomb.</p><p>I hear Gitmo is going to be closed any decade now.</p><p>And just wait until you see the asshattery unleashed when Khalid Sheikh Mohammad <i>et al</i> are tried in a standard criminal court.</p><p>Think you can come up with a health care "reform" that relies even more on bribery and political payoffs and pisses even more people off?</p><p>Nice to see we have a Democratic Senate Majority Leader who thinks it's great that the President is "light-skinned and doesn't speak with a Negro dialect".</p><p>No fucking wonder Senator Harry Reid (<b>D</b>-Nev) is polling about 30 points behind his probably election opponent.</p><p>How about forcing people to buy health insurance even if they don't want it?  Where are all the libertarians-of-convenience who got so up in arms over the freedoms lost when a relatively small number of phone calls to known Al Qaeda related phones where intercepted without warrants?  Where are all those <b>JACKASSES</b> when Democrats propose laws that would literally unconstitutionally under penalty of jail time force millions of people into private contracts that they don't want and cost thousands of dollars a year?</p><p><b>Democrats.  TOO DUMB TO KNOW THEY'RE DUMB</b></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are Rebublicans technically life-forms ? How 'd those housing starts go in November ?
Oh , down 19 \ % ? How are the continuing job loses going ?
Oh , another 200,000 jobs lost ? How 's that withdrawal from Iraq going ? Nice to see our DHS Secretary telling us all how well the system worked when a jihadi got on a plane with a bomb.I hear Gitmo is going to be closed any decade now.And just wait until you see the asshattery unleashed when Khalid Sheikh Mohammad et al are tried in a standard criminal court.Think you can come up with a health care " reform " that relies even more on bribery and political payoffs and pisses even more people off ? Nice to see we have a Democratic Senate Majority Leader who thinks it 's great that the President is " light-skinned and does n't speak with a Negro dialect " .No fucking wonder Senator Harry Reid ( D-Nev ) is polling about 30 points behind his probably election opponent.How about forcing people to buy health insurance even if they do n't want it ?
Where are all the libertarians-of-convenience who got so up in arms over the freedoms lost when a relatively small number of phone calls to known Al Qaeda related phones where intercepted without warrants ?
Where are all those JACKASSES when Democrats propose laws that would literally unconstitutionally under penalty of jail time force millions of people into private contracts that they do n't want and cost thousands of dollars a year ? Democrats .
TOO DUMB TO KNOW THEY 'RE DUMB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are Rebublicans technically life-forms?How'd those housing starts go in November?
Oh, down 19\%?How are the continuing job loses going?
Oh, another 200,000 jobs lost?How's that withdrawal from Iraq going?Nice to see our DHS Secretary telling us all how well the system worked when a jihadi got on a plane with a bomb.I hear Gitmo is going to be closed any decade now.And just wait until you see the asshattery unleashed when Khalid Sheikh Mohammad et al are tried in a standard criminal court.Think you can come up with a health care "reform" that relies even more on bribery and political payoffs and pisses even more people off?Nice to see we have a Democratic Senate Majority Leader who thinks it's great that the President is "light-skinned and doesn't speak with a Negro dialect".No fucking wonder Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev) is polling about 30 points behind his probably election opponent.How about forcing people to buy health insurance even if they don't want it?
Where are all the libertarians-of-convenience who got so up in arms over the freedoms lost when a relatively small number of phone calls to known Al Qaeda related phones where intercepted without warrants?
Where are all those JACKASSES when Democrats propose laws that would literally unconstitutionally under penalty of jail time force millions of people into private contracts that they don't want and cost thousands of dollars a year?Democrats.
TOO DUMB TO KNOW THEY'RE DUMB
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713770</id>
	<title>Re:Not Surprised.</title>
	<author>GreekLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1263125040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A huge paradigm shift is taking place lately with the realisation by humanity that "life" is not only organic - in fact organic life is simply an efficient thermodynamic machine and acts in exactly the same as inorganic "life"


An excellent example is that plasma crystals exhibit the same properties as organic life <a href="http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/9/8/263/njp7\_8\_263.html" title="iop.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/9/8/263/njp7\_8\_263.html</a> [iop.org]



Given that 99\% of the universe is probably plasma as plasmas are by far the most common phase of matter in the universe, both by mass and by volume and all the stars are made of plasma, and even the space between the stars is filled with a plasma, albeit a very sparse one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma\_(physics)), it is most probable that organic life is simply very small part and specific type of thermodynamic machine.



Nonetheless all Universe appears to be following the 2nd law of thermodynamics and humanity and organic life is simply a local iteration/mutation in the universe's attempt to obey the law, perhaps not even the most efficient one.



This is the reason why we have Fermi's paradox, as we are looking to find life that is a mirror of us, whereas the universe is full of very intelligent inorganic life which even performs computations more complex than humanity at present - can you seriously stare at the remnants of  Tycho's supernova with a clear mind and not think that the supernova is alive in an exotic way ? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Main\_tycho\_remnant\_full.jpg" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Main\_tycho\_remnant\_full.jpg</a> [wikipedia.org]



For the above reason perhaps the most efficient thermodynamic machines in the universe are not organically driven but inorganically driven like black holes which are the maximum entropy objects in the universe.



In fact, is very possible, given the nature of humanity to create efficiencies in energy creation which however do not cover its needs but on the other hand create more needs for more consumption of energy, consistent with the 2nd law (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/jeff-rubins-smaller-world/why-energy-efficiency-means-higher-consumption/article1419515/), it is very possible that the logical progression of this trend is the creation of a black hole by humanity as the singular point of maximum entropy creation (could it be the CERN one?)



In fact, the black holes in the universe may be "life" such as ours which may have "awakened" earlier than us and reached their "purpose" (see thermodynamic conclusion/limit) at an earlier time.



Good stuff!



 Ntemis</htmltext>
<tokenext>A huge paradigm shift is taking place lately with the realisation by humanity that " life " is not only organic - in fact organic life is simply an efficient thermodynamic machine and acts in exactly the same as inorganic " life " An excellent example is that plasma crystals exhibit the same properties as organic life http : //www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/9/8/263/njp7 \ _8 \ _263.html [ iop.org ] Given that 99 \ % of the universe is probably plasma as plasmas are by far the most common phase of matter in the universe , both by mass and by volume and all the stars are made of plasma , and even the space between the stars is filled with a plasma , albeit a very sparse one ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma \ _ ( physics ) ) , it is most probable that organic life is simply very small part and specific type of thermodynamic machine .
Nonetheless all Universe appears to be following the 2nd law of thermodynamics and humanity and organic life is simply a local iteration/mutation in the universe 's attempt to obey the law , perhaps not even the most efficient one .
This is the reason why we have Fermi 's paradox , as we are looking to find life that is a mirror of us , whereas the universe is full of very intelligent inorganic life which even performs computations more complex than humanity at present - can you seriously stare at the remnants of Tycho 's supernova with a clear mind and not think that the supernova is alive in an exotic way ?
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File : Main \ _tycho \ _remnant \ _full.jpg [ wikipedia.org ] For the above reason perhaps the most efficient thermodynamic machines in the universe are not organically driven but inorganically driven like black holes which are the maximum entropy objects in the universe .
In fact , is very possible , given the nature of humanity to create efficiencies in energy creation which however do not cover its needs but on the other hand create more needs for more consumption of energy , consistent with the 2nd law ( http : //www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/jeff-rubins-smaller-world/why-energy-efficiency-means-higher-consumption/article1419515/ ) , it is very possible that the logical progression of this trend is the creation of a black hole by humanity as the singular point of maximum entropy creation ( could it be the CERN one ?
) In fact , the black holes in the universe may be " life " such as ours which may have " awakened " earlier than us and reached their " purpose " ( see thermodynamic conclusion/limit ) at an earlier time .
Good stuff !
Ntemis</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A huge paradigm shift is taking place lately with the realisation by humanity that "life" is not only organic - in fact organic life is simply an efficient thermodynamic machine and acts in exactly the same as inorganic "life"


An excellent example is that plasma crystals exhibit the same properties as organic life http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/9/8/263/njp7\_8\_263.html [iop.org]



Given that 99\% of the universe is probably plasma as plasmas are by far the most common phase of matter in the universe, both by mass and by volume and all the stars are made of plasma, and even the space between the stars is filled with a plasma, albeit a very sparse one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma\_(physics)), it is most probable that organic life is simply very small part and specific type of thermodynamic machine.
Nonetheless all Universe appears to be following the 2nd law of thermodynamics and humanity and organic life is simply a local iteration/mutation in the universe's attempt to obey the law, perhaps not even the most efficient one.
This is the reason why we have Fermi's paradox, as we are looking to find life that is a mirror of us, whereas the universe is full of very intelligent inorganic life which even performs computations more complex than humanity at present - can you seriously stare at the remnants of  Tycho's supernova with a clear mind and not think that the supernova is alive in an exotic way ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Main\_tycho\_remnant\_full.jpg [wikipedia.org]



For the above reason perhaps the most efficient thermodynamic machines in the universe are not organically driven but inorganically driven like black holes which are the maximum entropy objects in the universe.
In fact, is very possible, given the nature of humanity to create efficiencies in energy creation which however do not cover its needs but on the other hand create more needs for more consumption of energy, consistent with the 2nd law (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/jeff-rubins-smaller-world/why-energy-efficiency-means-higher-consumption/article1419515/), it is very possible that the logical progression of this trend is the creation of a black hole by humanity as the singular point of maximum entropy creation (could it be the CERN one?
)



In fact, the black holes in the universe may be "life" such as ours which may have "awakened" earlier than us and reached their "purpose" (see thermodynamic conclusion/limit) at an earlier time.
Good stuff!
Ntemis</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714022</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution is the good news ... wait, bad news?</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1263131100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Definitely bad news. We can forget about having the "saviour" take a bath in the daily oatmeal for our protection<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p> </div><p>Once again, it seems the only way to get rid of a disease is by aiming at its total eradication and <b>extinction</b> like has been done for smallpox and like is almost done for polio.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Definitely bad news .
We can forget about having the " saviour " take a bath in the daily oatmeal for our protection : ) Once again , it seems the only way to get rid of a disease is by aiming at its total eradication and extinction like has been done for smallpox and like is almost done for polio .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Definitely bad news.
We can forget about having the "saviour" take a bath in the daily oatmeal for our protection :) Once again, it seems the only way to get rid of a disease is by aiming at its total eradication and extinction like has been done for smallpox and like is almost done for polio.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714142</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution is the good news ... wait, bad news?</title>
	<author>famebait</author>
	<datestamp>1263133500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>using anti-prion medication probably won't work all the time as it would just breed a drug-resistant breed of prions</p></div><p>
Not necesarily.  Unlike the changes available for lifeforms with their own DNA, there is probably a finite number of ways a given human protein can degrade into a replicating prion configuration. Most proteins probaly have no capacity for becoming prions. For others, the body is perfectly capable of dealing with them.
</p><p>
The capacity to become a prion is already built into the structure of the host protein in question, not aquired through exposure. So while this evolution is probably real and possibly a stumbling block for therapies, it remains confined to the space of potential configurations already inherent in our proteome, of which only a very small subset will cause trouble as prions.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>using anti-prion medication probably wo n't work all the time as it would just breed a drug-resistant breed of prions Not necesarily .
Unlike the changes available for lifeforms with their own DNA , there is probably a finite number of ways a given human protein can degrade into a replicating prion configuration .
Most proteins probaly have no capacity for becoming prions .
For others , the body is perfectly capable of dealing with them .
The capacity to become a prion is already built into the structure of the host protein in question , not aquired through exposure .
So while this evolution is probably real and possibly a stumbling block for therapies , it remains confined to the space of potential configurations already inherent in our proteome , of which only a very small subset will cause trouble as prions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>using anti-prion medication probably won't work all the time as it would just breed a drug-resistant breed of prions
Not necesarily.
Unlike the changes available for lifeforms with their own DNA, there is probably a finite number of ways a given human protein can degrade into a replicating prion configuration.
Most proteins probaly have no capacity for becoming prions.
For others, the body is perfectly capable of dealing with them.
The capacity to become a prion is already built into the structure of the host protein in question, not aquired through exposure.
So while this evolution is probably real and possibly a stumbling block for therapies, it remains confined to the space of potential configurations already inherent in our proteome, of which only a very small subset will cause trouble as prions.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713760</id>
	<title>The idea isn't surprising</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1263124980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After all there's nothing "magical" about DNA. Any self replicating molecule should theoretically be capable of evolution if the replication process is less than perfect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all there 's nothing " magical " about DNA .
Any self replicating molecule should theoretically be capable of evolution if the replication process is less than perfect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all there's nothing "magical" about DNA.
Any self replicating molecule should theoretically be capable of evolution if the replication process is less than perfect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715772</id>
	<title>Re:Matter.</title>
	<author>goodmanj</author>
	<datestamp>1263151620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is what happens when you start taking anthropomorphism seriously.  You get grand-sounding philosophical statements ("Matter has a mission", "nature abhors a vacuum", "information wants to be free" (woot flamebait!)) which have no basis in fact (see Magsol's spot-on reply in this thread).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what happens when you start taking anthropomorphism seriously .
You get grand-sounding philosophical statements ( " Matter has a mission " , " nature abhors a vacuum " , " information wants to be free " ( woot flamebait !
) ) which have no basis in fact ( see Magsol 's spot-on reply in this thread ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what happens when you start taking anthropomorphism seriously.
You get grand-sounding philosophical statements ("Matter has a mission", "nature abhors a vacuum", "information wants to be free" (woot flamebait!
)) which have no basis in fact (see Magsol's spot-on reply in this thread).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30716792</id>
	<title>Re:I'm skeptical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263116760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not quite sure I would call it evolution. I can easily imagine that many prions replicate not only themselves but variations as well and those variations will produce variations of different proportions and so on and so forth.  So just because you subjected a prion to an adverse environment for a particular copy of a prion only means that form will be less populous.</p><p>It feels to me that this is less evolution and something more akin to chemical computation.  Although ironically it does in some ways remind me of the poorly labeled Conway's game of life.</p></div><p>Isn't all life chemical computation?</p><p>I'm not saying all chemical computation is life, but if it replicates and is responsive to change, at the very least enters the "virus" category. If a form is less populous but still replicates then it is evolving, is it not? Natural selection at work.</p><p>Since the virus is not well defined (as of living or not) we cannot rule prions either; what is peculiar about prions is that its way of replicating does not come from ARN nor ADN, and that is what this research is about.</p><p>This marks a great opportunity to see how nature "jump starts" life, in my opinion.</p><p>-Arc</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not quite sure I would call it evolution .
I can easily imagine that many prions replicate not only themselves but variations as well and those variations will produce variations of different proportions and so on and so forth .
So just because you subjected a prion to an adverse environment for a particular copy of a prion only means that form will be less populous.It feels to me that this is less evolution and something more akin to chemical computation .
Although ironically it does in some ways remind me of the poorly labeled Conway 's game of life.Is n't all life chemical computation ? I 'm not saying all chemical computation is life , but if it replicates and is responsive to change , at the very least enters the " virus " category .
If a form is less populous but still replicates then it is evolving , is it not ?
Natural selection at work.Since the virus is not well defined ( as of living or not ) we can not rule prions either ; what is peculiar about prions is that its way of replicating does not come from ARN nor ADN , and that is what this research is about.This marks a great opportunity to see how nature " jump starts " life , in my opinion.-Arc</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not quite sure I would call it evolution.
I can easily imagine that many prions replicate not only themselves but variations as well and those variations will produce variations of different proportions and so on and so forth.
So just because you subjected a prion to an adverse environment for a particular copy of a prion only means that form will be less populous.It feels to me that this is less evolution and something more akin to chemical computation.
Although ironically it does in some ways remind me of the poorly labeled Conway's game of life.Isn't all life chemical computation?I'm not saying all chemical computation is life, but if it replicates and is responsive to change, at the very least enters the "virus" category.
If a form is less populous but still replicates then it is evolving, is it not?
Natural selection at work.Since the virus is not well defined (as of living or not) we cannot rule prions either; what is peculiar about prions is that its way of replicating does not come from ARN nor ADN, and that is what this research is about.This marks a great opportunity to see how nature "jump starts" life, in my opinion.-Arc
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30719104</id>
	<title>Re:genetic material</title>
	<author>mhelander</author>
	<datestamp>1263135060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If they evolve, they HAVE genetic material;"</p><p>Why not 'they ARE genetic material' ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If they evolve , they HAVE genetic material ; " Why not 'they ARE genetic material ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If they evolve, they HAVE genetic material;"Why not 'they ARE genetic material' ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715916</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution for creationists.</title>
	<author>kaini</author>
	<datestamp>1263152820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiNKt6gcEM8" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">sagan explains this wonderfully</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>sagan explains this wonderfully [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sagan explains this wonderfully [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30716564</id>
	<title>Re:Do Life and Evolution always go together?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263114840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Ideas or Societies are not living organisms, yet they do evolve.</i></p><p>Extended phenotypes are indeed related to the evolution of the organisms which comprise them.</p><p><i>Jellyfish and Lizards do qualify as alive. More generally, you would need some sort of functioning nervous system (however primitive) to be "alive". Brain-dead people would possibly not be "alive" by this definition.</i></p><p>Plants etc.I suggest you do some serious reading as you are highly ignorant on the subject, too ignorant to weigh in with an opinion in public.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ideas or Societies are not living organisms , yet they do evolve.Extended phenotypes are indeed related to the evolution of the organisms which comprise them.Jellyfish and Lizards do qualify as alive .
More generally , you would need some sort of functioning nervous system ( however primitive ) to be " alive " .
Brain-dead people would possibly not be " alive " by this definition.Plants etc.I suggest you do some serious reading as you are highly ignorant on the subject , too ignorant to weigh in with an opinion in public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ideas or Societies are not living organisms, yet they do evolve.Extended phenotypes are indeed related to the evolution of the organisms which comprise them.Jellyfish and Lizards do qualify as alive.
More generally, you would need some sort of functioning nervous system (however primitive) to be "alive".
Brain-dead people would possibly not be "alive" by this definition.Plants etc.I suggest you do some serious reading as you are highly ignorant on the subject, too ignorant to weigh in with an opinion in public.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713676</id>
	<title>Natural Selection?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263122940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this just another form of evolution or does it impact the very core of genetic evolution? I wonder how Richard Dawkins will react to this having based his life on the study and preachings of Charles Darwin's Natural Selection and genetic mutation/evolution. How does this affect those theories, is the evolutionary process as closely intertwined with DNA as first thought?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this just another form of evolution or does it impact the very core of genetic evolution ?
I wonder how Richard Dawkins will react to this having based his life on the study and preachings of Charles Darwin 's Natural Selection and genetic mutation/evolution .
How does this affect those theories , is the evolutionary process as closely intertwined with DNA as first thought ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this just another form of evolution or does it impact the very core of genetic evolution?
I wonder how Richard Dawkins will react to this having based his life on the study and preachings of Charles Darwin's Natural Selection and genetic mutation/evolution.
How does this affect those theories, is the evolutionary process as closely intertwined with DNA as first thought?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30716704</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution for creationists.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263116160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And even more interesting is whether if one repeated this back and forth over a few centuries would then the changes going back and forth be rightfully and meaningfully deemed speciation?</p><p>A lot of and possibly a significant majority of current "scientists" and "scientismists" are busy shouting "yes!" from the rooftops.</p><p>Blatantly wrong and highly irrational but they're still shouting it. I'll bother blaming creationists when the fight for meaningful science is won against the "scientists" and their blind acolytes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And even more interesting is whether if one repeated this back and forth over a few centuries would then the changes going back and forth be rightfully and meaningfully deemed speciation ? A lot of and possibly a significant majority of current " scientists " and " scientismists " are busy shouting " yes !
" from the rooftops.Blatantly wrong and highly irrational but they 're still shouting it .
I 'll bother blaming creationists when the fight for meaningful science is won against the " scientists " and their blind acolytes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And even more interesting is whether if one repeated this back and forth over a few centuries would then the changes going back and forth be rightfully and meaningfully deemed speciation?A lot of and possibly a significant majority of current "scientists" and "scientismists" are busy shouting "yes!
" from the rooftops.Blatantly wrong and highly irrational but they're still shouting it.
I'll bother blaming creationists when the fight for meaningful science is won against the "scientists" and their blind acolytes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30716900</id>
	<title>A question for you smart guys/gals.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263117420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok I accept without problem that you can have cellular evolution, ofcourse you dont need DNA, there can be different mechanisms that we are not aware of.</p><p>My interest is in these prions, they are organisms, they are living, but they do not have DNA !</p><p>I was always interested to know if there were other forms of life not based on DNA occuring in nature. This would imply to me that there is more than one tree of life, there is the tree of life that is based on DNA.</p><p>If life can for readily if conditions are acceptable, (like on earth) why would there be only ONE tree of life, and why is it not possible for there to be new trees formed by other chemical reactions but not DNA.</p><p>So is that what we have here, living cells, or organisms that are NOT based on DNA, and I ask is that another seperate tree of life, with it's own evolutionary path ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok I accept without problem that you can have cellular evolution , ofcourse you dont need DNA , there can be different mechanisms that we are not aware of.My interest is in these prions , they are organisms , they are living , but they do not have DNA ! I was always interested to know if there were other forms of life not based on DNA occuring in nature .
This would imply to me that there is more than one tree of life , there is the tree of life that is based on DNA.If life can for readily if conditions are acceptable , ( like on earth ) why would there be only ONE tree of life , and why is it not possible for there to be new trees formed by other chemical reactions but not DNA.So is that what we have here , living cells , or organisms that are NOT based on DNA , and I ask is that another seperate tree of life , with it 's own evolutionary path ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok I accept without problem that you can have cellular evolution, ofcourse you dont need DNA, there can be different mechanisms that we are not aware of.My interest is in these prions, they are organisms, they are living, but they do not have DNA !I was always interested to know if there were other forms of life not based on DNA occuring in nature.
This would imply to me that there is more than one tree of life, there is the tree of life that is based on DNA.If life can for readily if conditions are acceptable, (like on earth) why would there be only ONE tree of life, and why is it not possible for there to be new trees formed by other chemical reactions but not DNA.So is that what we have here, living cells, or organisms that are NOT based on DNA, and I ask is that another seperate tree of life, with it's own evolutionary path ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714128</id>
	<title>Do Life and Evolution always go together?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263133260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>As posts above testify, the word "evolution" is used more and more in contexts that have nothing to do with life.
<br> <br>
For example people talk a lot about the evolution of ideas, societies, and so on... Quite possibly, the philosopher Wilson is one of the popularizers of this approach.
<br> <br>
Anyway, this also leads to a different point - Evolution by itself is not a proof of the existence of Life. For example, Ideas or Societies are not living organisms, yet they do evolve.
<br> <br>
So the fact that prions evolve does not mean they are alive! One can fairly say that they are just a chemical (a protein) that can reproduce itself, evolve, and do damage.
<br> <br>
In Science, Mathematics and Philosophy, it is very common to take "edge cases" in order to better understand the limits of an idea. Prions give us a good example of something that can reproduce and evolve, yet its a chemical not a living organism.
<br> <br>
So what is "Life" ? Perhaps we should require the ability to perceive - awareness of ones surroundings - in order to define true life? In that case Bacteria aren't alive either, which is fine by me.
<br> <br>
Jellyfish and Lizards do qualify as alive. More generally, you would need some sort of functioning nervous system (however primitive) to be "alive". Brain-dead people would possibly not be "alive" by this definition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As posts above testify , the word " evolution " is used more and more in contexts that have nothing to do with life .
For example people talk a lot about the evolution of ideas , societies , and so on... Quite possibly , the philosopher Wilson is one of the popularizers of this approach .
Anyway , this also leads to a different point - Evolution by itself is not a proof of the existence of Life .
For example , Ideas or Societies are not living organisms , yet they do evolve .
So the fact that prions evolve does not mean they are alive !
One can fairly say that they are just a chemical ( a protein ) that can reproduce itself , evolve , and do damage .
In Science , Mathematics and Philosophy , it is very common to take " edge cases " in order to better understand the limits of an idea .
Prions give us a good example of something that can reproduce and evolve , yet its a chemical not a living organism .
So what is " Life " ?
Perhaps we should require the ability to perceive - awareness of ones surroundings - in order to define true life ?
In that case Bacteria are n't alive either , which is fine by me .
Jellyfish and Lizards do qualify as alive .
More generally , you would need some sort of functioning nervous system ( however primitive ) to be " alive " .
Brain-dead people would possibly not be " alive " by this definition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As posts above testify, the word "evolution" is used more and more in contexts that have nothing to do with life.
For example people talk a lot about the evolution of ideas, societies, and so on... Quite possibly, the philosopher Wilson is one of the popularizers of this approach.
Anyway, this also leads to a different point - Evolution by itself is not a proof of the existence of Life.
For example, Ideas or Societies are not living organisms, yet they do evolve.
So the fact that prions evolve does not mean they are alive!
One can fairly say that they are just a chemical (a protein) that can reproduce itself, evolve, and do damage.
In Science, Mathematics and Philosophy, it is very common to take "edge cases" in order to better understand the limits of an idea.
Prions give us a good example of something that can reproduce and evolve, yet its a chemical not a living organism.
So what is "Life" ?
Perhaps we should require the ability to perceive - awareness of ones surroundings - in order to define true life?
In that case Bacteria aren't alive either, which is fine by me.
Jellyfish and Lizards do qualify as alive.
More generally, you would need some sort of functioning nervous system (however primitive) to be "alive".
Brain-dead people would possibly not be "alive" by this definition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713592</id>
	<title>This might revive the age-old debate...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263120480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are Rebublicans technically life-forms?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are Rebublicans technically life-forms ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are Rebublicans technically life-forms?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30716600</id>
	<title>They might even be more clever than you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263115200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know if you've taken "Bio 102" I would hope you would know that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro-evolution" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">biological terms</a> [wikipedia.org]. High school biology curriculum topic really.</p><p>Wikipedia link despite the US-centric poor content quality of the article, get a real textbook on biology instead, a big fat hardcover one. To say that micro-evolution and macro-evolution differs only in quantitative terms as said in the Wikipedia article is pure (American) bullshit (and the "authoritative" argument completely irrelevant in its meaninglessness --it's simply a political statement and certainly not a scientific one no matter who makes it). From a biology/science perspective alleles and genes are simply not the only components in evolution. For example the difference in alleles and genes between some apes and humans are only a few percent (and there aren't all that many percentages different between most mammals either) and far less on its own than it takes to explain the differences between the species: evolution is not simply about what data is present (alleles/genes) but also what data is read and used by the organism and how, i.e. there's far more to evolution than simple differences in alleles (specific allele changes = micro-evolution as they always happen over a fairly short period of time while the bigger picture which includes much more than series of allele changes = macro-evolution).</p><p>And the Wikipedia statement <i>"Contrary to belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation) has indeed been observed and documented by scientists on many occasions.[5]"</i> is sourced to a (hopefully layman) list of "examples" that are fucking hopeless in their total disregard for the actual questions of interest and seemingly utterly confuses speciation with various forms of breeding, hybridization, and simple mutations (including fatal ones! that's a laugh), and the examples are nowhere close to the big questions and issues regarding macro-evolution.</p><p>It should go without saying that lessening the criteria for what can be determined to be observed naturally occurring speciation until the criteria are low enough will "solve" the issues, but it also of course makes doing any such completely useless with regard to science unless one is a brain dead idiot who "believes" it must be so because of assumptions (and that is not science despite how many "scientists" do it, including far too many biologists).</p><p>Bloody hard to take biology as a whole seriously with that many idiots around: they're the ones destroying science far more effectively than any strange religious micro-sized minorities.</p><p>Ah the cesspool of politicized "science" that is the US. Why does the US consistently and continually have to fuck up the meanings of words and concepts and twist them into grotesque caricatures devoid of intelligence? And not just in science, for fucks sake they've even managed to turn "liberal" into de facto "fascist"! (look closely and most US "liberals" are merely pinkish fascists, the word liberal as used when describing the political ideology meant the exact opposite originally and still does in most of the world).</p><p>Rant over but god damn it I've gotten so fed up with all the shite coming out of the US, particularly during the last twenty years. Will they stop soon?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know if you 've taken " Bio 102 " I would hope you would know that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are biological terms [ wikipedia.org ] .
High school biology curriculum topic really.Wikipedia link despite the US-centric poor content quality of the article , get a real textbook on biology instead , a big fat hardcover one .
To say that micro-evolution and macro-evolution differs only in quantitative terms as said in the Wikipedia article is pure ( American ) bullshit ( and the " authoritative " argument completely irrelevant in its meaninglessness --it 's simply a political statement and certainly not a scientific one no matter who makes it ) .
From a biology/science perspective alleles and genes are simply not the only components in evolution .
For example the difference in alleles and genes between some apes and humans are only a few percent ( and there are n't all that many percentages different between most mammals either ) and far less on its own than it takes to explain the differences between the species : evolution is not simply about what data is present ( alleles/genes ) but also what data is read and used by the organism and how , i.e .
there 's far more to evolution than simple differences in alleles ( specific allele changes = micro-evolution as they always happen over a fairly short period of time while the bigger picture which includes much more than series of allele changes = macro-evolution ) .And the Wikipedia statement " Contrary to belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents , evolution of life forms beyond the species level ( " macroevolution " , i.e .
speciation ) has indeed been observed and documented by scientists on many occasions .
[ 5 ] " is sourced to a ( hopefully layman ) list of " examples " that are fucking hopeless in their total disregard for the actual questions of interest and seemingly utterly confuses speciation with various forms of breeding , hybridization , and simple mutations ( including fatal ones !
that 's a laugh ) , and the examples are nowhere close to the big questions and issues regarding macro-evolution.It should go without saying that lessening the criteria for what can be determined to be observed naturally occurring speciation until the criteria are low enough will " solve " the issues , but it also of course makes doing any such completely useless with regard to science unless one is a brain dead idiot who " believes " it must be so because of assumptions ( and that is not science despite how many " scientists " do it , including far too many biologists ) .Bloody hard to take biology as a whole seriously with that many idiots around : they 're the ones destroying science far more effectively than any strange religious micro-sized minorities.Ah the cesspool of politicized " science " that is the US .
Why does the US consistently and continually have to fuck up the meanings of words and concepts and twist them into grotesque caricatures devoid of intelligence ?
And not just in science , for fucks sake they 've even managed to turn " liberal " into de facto " fascist " !
( look closely and most US " liberals " are merely pinkish fascists , the word liberal as used when describing the political ideology meant the exact opposite originally and still does in most of the world ) .Rant over but god damn it I 've gotten so fed up with all the shite coming out of the US , particularly during the last twenty years .
Will they stop soon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know if you've taken "Bio 102" I would hope you would know that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are biological terms [wikipedia.org].
High school biology curriculum topic really.Wikipedia link despite the US-centric poor content quality of the article, get a real textbook on biology instead, a big fat hardcover one.
To say that micro-evolution and macro-evolution differs only in quantitative terms as said in the Wikipedia article is pure (American) bullshit (and the "authoritative" argument completely irrelevant in its meaninglessness --it's simply a political statement and certainly not a scientific one no matter who makes it).
From a biology/science perspective alleles and genes are simply not the only components in evolution.
For example the difference in alleles and genes between some apes and humans are only a few percent (and there aren't all that many percentages different between most mammals either) and far less on its own than it takes to explain the differences between the species: evolution is not simply about what data is present (alleles/genes) but also what data is read and used by the organism and how, i.e.
there's far more to evolution than simple differences in alleles (specific allele changes = micro-evolution as they always happen over a fairly short period of time while the bigger picture which includes much more than series of allele changes = macro-evolution).And the Wikipedia statement "Contrary to belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e.
speciation) has indeed been observed and documented by scientists on many occasions.
[5]" is sourced to a (hopefully layman) list of "examples" that are fucking hopeless in their total disregard for the actual questions of interest and seemingly utterly confuses speciation with various forms of breeding, hybridization, and simple mutations (including fatal ones!
that's a laugh), and the examples are nowhere close to the big questions and issues regarding macro-evolution.It should go without saying that lessening the criteria for what can be determined to be observed naturally occurring speciation until the criteria are low enough will "solve" the issues, but it also of course makes doing any such completely useless with regard to science unless one is a brain dead idiot who "believes" it must be so because of assumptions (and that is not science despite how many "scientists" do it, including far too many biologists).Bloody hard to take biology as a whole seriously with that many idiots around: they're the ones destroying science far more effectively than any strange religious micro-sized minorities.Ah the cesspool of politicized "science" that is the US.
Why does the US consistently and continually have to fuck up the meanings of words and concepts and twist them into grotesque caricatures devoid of intelligence?
And not just in science, for fucks sake they've even managed to turn "liberal" into de facto "fascist"!
(look closely and most US "liberals" are merely pinkish fascists, the word liberal as used when describing the political ideology meant the exact opposite originally and still does in most of the world).Rant over but god damn it I've gotten so fed up with all the shite coming out of the US, particularly during the last twenty years.
Will they stop soon?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715248</id>
	<title>Not New: Hypercycles</title>
	<author>SparafucileMan</author>
	<datestamp>1263147300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not new. See</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred\_Eigen" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred\_Eigen</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>"In addition, Eigen's name is linked with the theory of the chemical hypercycle, the cyclic linkage of reaction cycles as an explanation for the self organization of prebiotic systems, which he described with Peter Schuster in 1979."</p><p>Evolution doesn't require DNA, and the theory is like 40 years old at least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not new .
Seehttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred \ _Eigen [ wikipedia.org ] " In addition , Eigen 's name is linked with the theory of the chemical hypercycle , the cyclic linkage of reaction cycles as an explanation for the self organization of prebiotic systems , which he described with Peter Schuster in 1979 .
" Evolution does n't require DNA , and the theory is like 40 years old at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not new.
Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred\_Eigen [wikipedia.org]"In addition, Eigen's name is linked with the theory of the chemical hypercycle, the cyclic linkage of reaction cycles as an explanation for the self organization of prebiotic systems, which he described with Peter Schuster in 1979.
"Evolution doesn't require DNA, and the theory is like 40 years old at least.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714104</id>
	<title>We need DNA?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263132660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought at some point, the definition become</p><p>"Non-random survival of randomly mutating replicators"</p><p>How is this not a surprise then?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought at some point , the definition become " Non-random survival of randomly mutating replicators " How is this not a surprise then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought at some point, the definition become"Non-random survival of randomly mutating replicators"How is this not a surprise then?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714202</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution is the good news ... wait, bad news?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263134580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The current shape of our entire universe is in fact a result of evolution by natural selection. Do you see any anti-matter out there? Hence the superiority of matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The current shape of our entire universe is in fact a result of evolution by natural selection .
Do you see any anti-matter out there ?
Hence the superiority of matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The current shape of our entire universe is in fact a result of evolution by natural selection.
Do you see any anti-matter out there?
Hence the superiority of matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715900</id>
	<title>DNA itself evolved</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263152760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not like DNA appeared ex nihilo.   Doesn't seem too much of a stretch to apply evolutionary biology outside of DNA now, does it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not like DNA appeared ex nihilo .
Does n't seem too much of a stretch to apply evolutionary biology outside of DNA now , does it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not like DNA appeared ex nihilo.
Doesn't seem too much of a stretch to apply evolutionary biology outside of DNA now, does it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30716848</id>
	<title>Article good, summary bad</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1263117120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't understand how they could be surprised that prions evolve, so I checked with the original article.  They weren't.  They were interested in the rates of evolution and the persistence of strains that were selected against.  Quite reasonable.</p><p>Even totally inorganic matter evolves, in a rough sense.  At it's basis evolution just asserts that those forms which are most suited to an environment tend to persist in that environment.  This seems quite hard to challenge.  Then it accepts Malthus computations on population, and asks:  Given that it's obvious that not all descendants can survive, what does the two laws in combination imply?</p><p>N.B.:  Darwin didn't know ANYTHING about DNA.  Genetics hadn't yet been recognized.  (This was after Mendel, but long before he was discovered.)  So the basis of evolution clearly CAN'T depend on those facts.  Evolution is really quite simple, it's just the working out of the details that is complex.  (Just as Boolean logic is quite simple, but it's a long and complex way from Boole to a compiled program written in C.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't understand how they could be surprised that prions evolve , so I checked with the original article .
They were n't .
They were interested in the rates of evolution and the persistence of strains that were selected against .
Quite reasonable.Even totally inorganic matter evolves , in a rough sense .
At it 's basis evolution just asserts that those forms which are most suited to an environment tend to persist in that environment .
This seems quite hard to challenge .
Then it accepts Malthus computations on population , and asks : Given that it 's obvious that not all descendants can survive , what does the two laws in combination imply ? N.B .
: Darwin did n't know ANYTHING about DNA .
Genetics had n't yet been recognized .
( This was after Mendel , but long before he was discovered .
) So the basis of evolution clearly CA N'T depend on those facts .
Evolution is really quite simple , it 's just the working out of the details that is complex .
( Just as Boolean logic is quite simple , but it 's a long and complex way from Boole to a compiled program written in C. )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't understand how they could be surprised that prions evolve, so I checked with the original article.
They weren't.
They were interested in the rates of evolution and the persistence of strains that were selected against.
Quite reasonable.Even totally inorganic matter evolves, in a rough sense.
At it's basis evolution just asserts that those forms which are most suited to an environment tend to persist in that environment.
This seems quite hard to challenge.
Then it accepts Malthus computations on population, and asks:  Given that it's obvious that not all descendants can survive, what does the two laws in combination imply?N.B.
:  Darwin didn't know ANYTHING about DNA.
Genetics hadn't yet been recognized.
(This was after Mendel, but long before he was discovered.
)  So the basis of evolution clearly CAN'T depend on those facts.
Evolution is really quite simple, it's just the working out of the details that is complex.
(Just as Boolean logic is quite simple, but it's a long and complex way from Boole to a compiled program written in C.)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714392</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution for creationists.</title>
	<author>phoenix321</author>
	<datestamp>1263137400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only individuals of a species that exhibit a certain trait ("fur color", "eye color", "drug resistance") survive and have offspring, will their descendants not share that certain trait, just like most puppies have the same fur as their parents, like most babies with blonde curly hair have parents that also had blonde curly hair?</p><p>There is a population of moths that exhibit a random mixture of black and white pigments, most individuals look like this:<br><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Biston.betularia.7200.jpg" title="wikimedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Biston.betularia.7200.jpg</a> [wikimedia.org]</p><p>Some individuals of this Peppered Moth have an all black or all white coat, so we have three types of moths: random color, all black, all white.</p><p>Some weather or climates heavily select on certain coat colors, because white moths stand out like a sore thumb in 1900's coal-covered forests in England and black moths have a snowball's chance in Hell in light forests and snow covered terrain. Random colored moths blend in best in most environments and while they are more visible in either extreme environmental condition, their chances of survival are fair enough.</p><p>Imagine we would spray paint the entire forest black with coal dust, for centuries, just like it was in England, we just need to assume we never run out of coal to do that. Imagine the moths are not really bothered by the coal dust and their overall food sources and their predators conditions remain stable. Now all random and white colored moths are always eaten first by birds, for centuries, selected heavily, that is.</p><p>Now imagine we have another species of moth, a blindingly yellow type, say the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common\_Brimstone" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common\_Brimstone</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>Both species are exposed to the same environment of a pitch-black coal dusted forest. Both have identical predators and food sources.</p><p>The Peppered Moth survives in their black-coated variant, while the Common Brimstone, presenting a yellow eat-me sign to all the birds in the area will be swiftly eradicated.</p><p>Have the moths adapted to their environment? Has selective pressure brought one species to extinction? Will random and white colored Peppered Moths reappear if the heavily coal-dusted forest clears up after 50 years? Would they also reappear if the forest remained black for 500 or 5000 or 5 million years?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If only individuals of a species that exhibit a certain trait ( " fur color " , " eye color " , " drug resistance " ) survive and have offspring , will their descendants not share that certain trait , just like most puppies have the same fur as their parents , like most babies with blonde curly hair have parents that also had blonde curly hair ? There is a population of moths that exhibit a random mixture of black and white pigments , most individuals look like this : http : //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Biston.betularia.7200.jpg [ wikimedia.org ] Some individuals of this Peppered Moth have an all black or all white coat , so we have three types of moths : random color , all black , all white.Some weather or climates heavily select on certain coat colors , because white moths stand out like a sore thumb in 1900 's coal-covered forests in England and black moths have a snowball 's chance in Hell in light forests and snow covered terrain .
Random colored moths blend in best in most environments and while they are more visible in either extreme environmental condition , their chances of survival are fair enough.Imagine we would spray paint the entire forest black with coal dust , for centuries , just like it was in England , we just need to assume we never run out of coal to do that .
Imagine the moths are not really bothered by the coal dust and their overall food sources and their predators conditions remain stable .
Now all random and white colored moths are always eaten first by birds , for centuries , selected heavily , that is.Now imagine we have another species of moth , a blindingly yellow type , say the http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common \ _Brimstone [ wikipedia.org ] .Both species are exposed to the same environment of a pitch-black coal dusted forest .
Both have identical predators and food sources.The Peppered Moth survives in their black-coated variant , while the Common Brimstone , presenting a yellow eat-me sign to all the birds in the area will be swiftly eradicated.Have the moths adapted to their environment ?
Has selective pressure brought one species to extinction ?
Will random and white colored Peppered Moths reappear if the heavily coal-dusted forest clears up after 50 years ?
Would they also reappear if the forest remained black for 500 or 5000 or 5 million years ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only individuals of a species that exhibit a certain trait ("fur color", "eye color", "drug resistance") survive and have offspring, will their descendants not share that certain trait, just like most puppies have the same fur as their parents, like most babies with blonde curly hair have parents that also had blonde curly hair?There is a population of moths that exhibit a random mixture of black and white pigments, most individuals look like this:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Biston.betularia.7200.jpg [wikimedia.org]Some individuals of this Peppered Moth have an all black or all white coat, so we have three types of moths: random color, all black, all white.Some weather or climates heavily select on certain coat colors, because white moths stand out like a sore thumb in 1900's coal-covered forests in England and black moths have a snowball's chance in Hell in light forests and snow covered terrain.
Random colored moths blend in best in most environments and while they are more visible in either extreme environmental condition, their chances of survival are fair enough.Imagine we would spray paint the entire forest black with coal dust, for centuries, just like it was in England, we just need to assume we never run out of coal to do that.
Imagine the moths are not really bothered by the coal dust and their overall food sources and their predators conditions remain stable.
Now all random and white colored moths are always eaten first by birds, for centuries, selected heavily, that is.Now imagine we have another species of moth, a blindingly yellow type, say the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common\_Brimstone [wikipedia.org].Both species are exposed to the same environment of a pitch-black coal dusted forest.
Both have identical predators and food sources.The Peppered Moth survives in their black-coated variant, while the Common Brimstone, presenting a yellow eat-me sign to all the birds in the area will be swiftly eradicated.Have the moths adapted to their environment?
Has selective pressure brought one species to extinction?
Will random and white colored Peppered Moths reappear if the heavily coal-dusted forest clears up after 50 years?
Would they also reappear if the forest remained black for 500 or 5000 or 5 million years?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713660</id>
	<title>Rocks Too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263122400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think this discovery will mean anything about the definition of life. <a href="http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=992895" title="nationalpost.com" rel="nofollow">Rocks evolve too</a> [nationalpost.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think this discovery will mean anything about the definition of life .
Rocks evolve too [ nationalpost.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think this discovery will mean anything about the definition of life.
Rocks evolve too [nationalpost.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30734260</id>
	<title>Re:genetic material</title>
	<author>dave87656</author>
	<datestamp>1263329280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it's just the low-level mechanisms that are quite different.</p></div><p>That was my first thought, as well. I'm wondering what mechanism is used to transfer information to the next generation. Or even if information is transferred to the next generation at all? Perhaps the organisms simply adapt to their environment without needing a new generation to do it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's just the low-level mechanisms that are quite different.That was my first thought , as well .
I 'm wondering what mechanism is used to transfer information to the next generation .
Or even if information is transferred to the next generation at all ?
Perhaps the organisms simply adapt to their environment without needing a new generation to do it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's just the low-level mechanisms that are quite different.That was my first thought, as well.
I'm wondering what mechanism is used to transfer information to the next generation.
Or even if information is transferred to the next generation at all?
Perhaps the organisms simply adapt to their environment without needing a new generation to do it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713688</id>
	<title>Re:Not Surprised.</title>
	<author>chrb</author>
	<datestamp>1263123180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's time we recognized that the interesting things about "life" are all just products of the fact that all kinds of systems can convey self-replicating entities of some sort, and they tend to be interesting and undergo evolutionary processes and etc. Whether they are non-biological DNA bundles, cellular organisms, oddly folded proteins, crystalized clay, etc.</p></div><p>It goes further than that - almost everything that is built is a product of evolution. Bicycles, planes, cars, the computer, have all been subject to the process of evolution. The fact that they can't self-replicate does not mean that the evolutionary process isn't present. No life can replicate without the necessary supporting environmental conditions, and if one of those prerequisite environmental conditions happens to be the presence of humans and amounts of refined steel and other materials, how is this any different to a bacteria requiring sugars and oxygen?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's time we recognized that the interesting things about " life " are all just products of the fact that all kinds of systems can convey self-replicating entities of some sort , and they tend to be interesting and undergo evolutionary processes and etc .
Whether they are non-biological DNA bundles , cellular organisms , oddly folded proteins , crystalized clay , etc.It goes further than that - almost everything that is built is a product of evolution .
Bicycles , planes , cars , the computer , have all been subject to the process of evolution .
The fact that they ca n't self-replicate does not mean that the evolutionary process is n't present .
No life can replicate without the necessary supporting environmental conditions , and if one of those prerequisite environmental conditions happens to be the presence of humans and amounts of refined steel and other materials , how is this any different to a bacteria requiring sugars and oxygen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's time we recognized that the interesting things about "life" are all just products of the fact that all kinds of systems can convey self-replicating entities of some sort, and they tend to be interesting and undergo evolutionary processes and etc.
Whether they are non-biological DNA bundles, cellular organisms, oddly folded proteins, crystalized clay, etc.It goes further than that - almost everything that is built is a product of evolution.
Bicycles, planes, cars, the computer, have all been subject to the process of evolution.
The fact that they can't self-replicate does not mean that the evolutionary process isn't present.
No life can replicate without the necessary supporting environmental conditions, and if one of those prerequisite environmental conditions happens to be the presence of humans and amounts of refined steel and other materials, how is this any different to a bacteria requiring sugars and oxygen?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715158</id>
	<title>Re:Do Life and Evolution always go together?</title>
	<author>Koiu Lpoi</author>
	<datestamp>1263146220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary\_computation" title="wikipedia.org">Evolutionary Computation</a> [wikipedia.org], the use of evolution in computing, has been around since the 60's. Nothing inside those programs is "alive", so I would say you are certainly on the right track.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Evolutionary Computation [ wikipedia.org ] , the use of evolution in computing , has been around since the 60 's .
Nothing inside those programs is " alive " , so I would say you are certainly on the right track .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evolutionary Computation [wikipedia.org], the use of evolution in computing, has been around since the 60's.
Nothing inside those programs is "alive", so I would say you are certainly on the right track.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713956</id>
	<title>I'm skeptical</title>
	<author>BlueCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1263129540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not quite sure I would call it evolution. I can easily imagine that many prions replicate not only themselves but variations as well and those variations will produce variations of different proportions and so on and so forth.  So just because you subjected a prion to an adverse environment for a particular copy of a prion only means that form will be less populous.</p><p>It feels to me that this is less evolution and something more akin to chemical computation.  Although ironically it does in some ways remind me of the poorly labeled Conway's game of life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not quite sure I would call it evolution .
I can easily imagine that many prions replicate not only themselves but variations as well and those variations will produce variations of different proportions and so on and so forth .
So just because you subjected a prion to an adverse environment for a particular copy of a prion only means that form will be less populous.It feels to me that this is less evolution and something more akin to chemical computation .
Although ironically it does in some ways remind me of the poorly labeled Conway 's game of life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not quite sure I would call it evolution.
I can easily imagine that many prions replicate not only themselves but variations as well and those variations will produce variations of different proportions and so on and so forth.
So just because you subjected a prion to an adverse environment for a particular copy of a prion only means that form will be less populous.It feels to me that this is less evolution and something more akin to chemical computation.
Although ironically it does in some ways remind me of the poorly labeled Conway's game of life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713664</id>
	<title>Understanding evolution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263122400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Evolution is not a capability of living beings, living things, inorganic things or whatever.</p><p>Evolution is the result of passing time, environment pressure and changes.</p><p>It's not the subject who evolves, it's the differences from 'starting' subject and 'surviving' subject what is called evolution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Evolution is not a capability of living beings , living things , inorganic things or whatever.Evolution is the result of passing time , environment pressure and changes.It 's not the subject who evolves , it 's the differences from 'starting ' subject and 'surviving ' subject what is called evolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evolution is not a capability of living beings, living things, inorganic things or whatever.Evolution is the result of passing time, environment pressure and changes.It's not the subject who evolves, it's the differences from 'starting' subject and 'surviving' subject what is called evolution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30716622</id>
	<title>hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263115380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>anyone else read this as:<br>"<i>prisons</i> evolve despite having no DNA"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>anyone else read this as : " prisons evolve despite having no DNA " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>anyone else read this as:"prisons evolve despite having no DNA"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715806</id>
	<title>Prion mutation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263151800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read the article and here's my educated opinion (with quotes and everything):</p><p>"In the classic sense, prions, which are misfolded versions of the brain protein PrP, cannot mutate because they do not contain DNA or RNA. They can, however, give rise to variants with different properties, possibly due to differences in the folding, or shape, of the proteins."</p><p>We can observe these mutations first hand.  I drive a Prion to work. (My coworkers like to tease me about my little car and call me the Prionic man).</p><p>"On the face of it, you have exactly the same process of mutation and adaptive change in prions as you see in viruses," said Dr. Charles Weissmann in a prepared statement. Weissmann, who is the head of the Scripps Florida Department of Infectology in Jupiter, Fla., led the study.</p><p>Despite having colonized Jupiter, there are still many surprises left in scientific research but with each surprise comes the realization that everything is the same.</p><p>"Based on the number of times the cells divided and the number of prion-positive cells in the dish, the group could roughly estimate how quickly prions became swa-resistant."</p><p>In other words, we must drench the planet in swa before the prions have a chance to resist.</p><p>"In other petri dishes, drug resistant strains did not emerge until the cells had doubled over 50 times, or for 50 days."</p><p>Intensive scientific humor has shown to cause this mutation. The barrage would have to last longer than the biblical rains that flooded the earth.</p><p>"The fact that new prion "substrains" can appear and spread among cells in just a couple dozen cell divisions suggests that drug-resistance could easily develop in the lifetime of the host, from mouse to man."</p><p>It can 50 days whether in mouse-years or man-years, it matters not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the article and here 's my educated opinion ( with quotes and everything ) : " In the classic sense , prions , which are misfolded versions of the brain protein PrP , can not mutate because they do not contain DNA or RNA .
They can , however , give rise to variants with different properties , possibly due to differences in the folding , or shape , of the proteins .
" We can observe these mutations first hand .
I drive a Prion to work .
( My coworkers like to tease me about my little car and call me the Prionic man ) .
" On the face of it , you have exactly the same process of mutation and adaptive change in prions as you see in viruses , " said Dr. Charles Weissmann in a prepared statement .
Weissmann , who is the head of the Scripps Florida Department of Infectology in Jupiter , Fla. , led the study.Despite having colonized Jupiter , there are still many surprises left in scientific research but with each surprise comes the realization that everything is the same .
" Based on the number of times the cells divided and the number of prion-positive cells in the dish , the group could roughly estimate how quickly prions became swa-resistant .
" In other words , we must drench the planet in swa before the prions have a chance to resist .
" In other petri dishes , drug resistant strains did not emerge until the cells had doubled over 50 times , or for 50 days .
" Intensive scientific humor has shown to cause this mutation .
The barrage would have to last longer than the biblical rains that flooded the earth .
" The fact that new prion " substrains " can appear and spread among cells in just a couple dozen cell divisions suggests that drug-resistance could easily develop in the lifetime of the host , from mouse to man .
" It can 50 days whether in mouse-years or man-years , it matters not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the article and here's my educated opinion (with quotes and everything):"In the classic sense, prions, which are misfolded versions of the brain protein PrP, cannot mutate because they do not contain DNA or RNA.
They can, however, give rise to variants with different properties, possibly due to differences in the folding, or shape, of the proteins.
"We can observe these mutations first hand.
I drive a Prion to work.
(My coworkers like to tease me about my little car and call me the Prionic man).
"On the face of it, you have exactly the same process of mutation and adaptive change in prions as you see in viruses," said Dr. Charles Weissmann in a prepared statement.
Weissmann, who is the head of the Scripps Florida Department of Infectology in Jupiter, Fla., led the study.Despite having colonized Jupiter, there are still many surprises left in scientific research but with each surprise comes the realization that everything is the same.
"Based on the number of times the cells divided and the number of prion-positive cells in the dish, the group could roughly estimate how quickly prions became swa-resistant.
"In other words, we must drench the planet in swa before the prions have a chance to resist.
"In other petri dishes, drug resistant strains did not emerge until the cells had doubled over 50 times, or for 50 days.
"Intensive scientific humor has shown to cause this mutation.
The barrage would have to last longer than the biblical rains that flooded the earth.
"The fact that new prion "substrains" can appear and spread among cells in just a couple dozen cell divisions suggests that drug-resistance could easily develop in the lifetime of the host, from mouse to man.
"It can 50 days whether in mouse-years or man-years, it matters not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30717722</id>
	<title>Shocking, but so does everything else</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263122940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Business practices, military strategies, popular music, whatever -- \_everything\_ is forced to either evolve and adapt to the environment as it changes (whatever environment that may be) or die out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Business practices , military strategies , popular music , whatever -- \ _everything \ _ is forced to either evolve and adapt to the environment as it changes ( whatever environment that may be ) or die out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Business practices, military strategies, popular music, whatever -- \_everything\_ is forced to either evolve and adapt to the environment as it changes (whatever environment that may be) or die out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30718444</id>
	<title>Re:genetic material</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1263127920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Genetic material is not necessary for evolution.  All that's needed is some mechanism for storing information from one "generation" to the next.  Prions are particular proteins with a twisted segment, a kink if you will.  The position of the kink is probably all the information storage you need.  As the protein gets duplicated, the kink gets duplicated.  A drug that prevents a kink in one place could easily induce a kink in another, like trying to untangle a phone cord.  Voila, the prion has evolved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Genetic material is not necessary for evolution .
All that 's needed is some mechanism for storing information from one " generation " to the next .
Prions are particular proteins with a twisted segment , a kink if you will .
The position of the kink is probably all the information storage you need .
As the protein gets duplicated , the kink gets duplicated .
A drug that prevents a kink in one place could easily induce a kink in another , like trying to untangle a phone cord .
Voila , the prion has evolved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Genetic material is not necessary for evolution.
All that's needed is some mechanism for storing information from one "generation" to the next.
Prions are particular proteins with a twisted segment, a kink if you will.
The position of the kink is probably all the information storage you need.
As the protein gets duplicated, the kink gets duplicated.
A drug that prevents a kink in one place could easily induce a kink in another, like trying to untangle a phone cord.
Voila, the prion has evolved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714868</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution is the good news ... wait, bad news?</title>
	<author>WalksOnDirt</author>
	<datestamp>1263143460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...total eradication and extinction..."</p><p>I doubt that would work with prions.  They're simple enough they probably pop up spontaneously from time to time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...total eradication and extinction... " I doubt that would work with prions .
They 're simple enough they probably pop up spontaneously from time to time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...total eradication and extinction..."I doubt that would work with prions.
They're simple enough they probably pop up spontaneously from time to time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713586</id>
	<title>That's how</title>
	<author>eclectro</author>
	<datestamp>1263120420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That must be how the <a href="http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Crystalline\_Entity" title="memory-alpha.org" rel="nofollow">Crystalline Entity</a> [memory-alpha.org] came into being.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That must be how the Crystalline Entity [ memory-alpha.org ] came into being .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That must be how the Crystalline Entity [memory-alpha.org] came into being.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713612</id>
	<title>Surprising?</title>
	<author>headkase</author>
	<datestamp>1263120840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Evolution can be loosely defined as "change over time."  Everything in our Universe is evolved under this definition, the key is time.  The constants of our Universe provide the selection pressure and the matter provides the instance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Evolution can be loosely defined as " change over time .
" Everything in our Universe is evolved under this definition , the key is time .
The constants of our Universe provide the selection pressure and the matter provides the instance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evolution can be loosely defined as "change over time.
"  Everything in our Universe is evolved under this definition, the key is time.
The constants of our Universe provide the selection pressure and the matter provides the instance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713686</id>
	<title>Okay, lets get redefining then...</title>
	<author>Ceriel Nosforit</author>
	<datestamp>1263123180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I glanced correctly at <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-a-prion-specifica" title="scientificamerican.com">this</a> [scientificamerican.com] article, which does ramble on, prions are rogue proteins which aren't just detrimental to the organism, but cause other proteins to mutate as well. It wasn't clear to me if they do this by altering the genetic code or the neighbouring proteins directly.</p><p>The host organism may apparently have DNA of such nature that a random mutation reliably triggers the disease symptoms. This indicates to me that the code molecules exist in a higher energetic state and them getting upset makes them fall to a predictable lower energetic state which happens to produce malignant proteins.</p><p>This doesn't seem to be about wether or not prions are alive, but if disease is living. I think that instead of giving life a broader sense, we need to split the concept up to be more specific. I would be comfortable calling things that have neurons and therefre possess intelligence "living", and everything else "biomass". That way a tree isn't alive, but it is capable of becoming dead biomass. A person in a coma isn't alive, but enters the category of biomass.</p><p>Of course more useful definitons are possible. This is just something to tickle your creativity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I glanced correctly at this [ scientificamerican.com ] article , which does ramble on , prions are rogue proteins which are n't just detrimental to the organism , but cause other proteins to mutate as well .
It was n't clear to me if they do this by altering the genetic code or the neighbouring proteins directly.The host organism may apparently have DNA of such nature that a random mutation reliably triggers the disease symptoms .
This indicates to me that the code molecules exist in a higher energetic state and them getting upset makes them fall to a predictable lower energetic state which happens to produce malignant proteins.This does n't seem to be about wether or not prions are alive , but if disease is living .
I think that instead of giving life a broader sense , we need to split the concept up to be more specific .
I would be comfortable calling things that have neurons and therefre possess intelligence " living " , and everything else " biomass " .
That way a tree is n't alive , but it is capable of becoming dead biomass .
A person in a coma is n't alive , but enters the category of biomass.Of course more useful definitons are possible .
This is just something to tickle your creativity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I glanced correctly at this [scientificamerican.com] article, which does ramble on, prions are rogue proteins which aren't just detrimental to the organism, but cause other proteins to mutate as well.
It wasn't clear to me if they do this by altering the genetic code or the neighbouring proteins directly.The host organism may apparently have DNA of such nature that a random mutation reliably triggers the disease symptoms.
This indicates to me that the code molecules exist in a higher energetic state and them getting upset makes them fall to a predictable lower energetic state which happens to produce malignant proteins.This doesn't seem to be about wether or not prions are alive, but if disease is living.
I think that instead of giving life a broader sense, we need to split the concept up to be more specific.
I would be comfortable calling things that have neurons and therefre possess intelligence "living", and everything else "biomass".
That way a tree isn't alive, but it is capable of becoming dead biomass.
A person in a coma isn't alive, but enters the category of biomass.Of course more useful definitons are possible.
This is just something to tickle your creativity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713626</id>
	<title>TIme to rewrite the science books</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263121380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... the definition of life is going to have to change.</p><p>But mine will still be the same.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... the definition of life is going to have to change.But mine will still be the same .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... the definition of life is going to have to change.But mine will still be the same.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713808</id>
	<title>Obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263126060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*insert joke about prion overlords here*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* insert joke about prion overlords here *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*insert joke about prion overlords here*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715000</id>
	<title>But I can kinda understand them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263144780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(Note here: I haven't taken as much as highschool biology classes. If I say something that is completely off here, I'd appreciatete someone correcting me)</p><p>What they are saying is that "Yeah... You could originally have had just a pair of birds and they evolved to different species... But it doesn't make sense for a squirrel to gain wings through natural selection". And in fact, they are correct there. A trait can develop further over numerous generations but in order to introduce a completely new trait, natural selection just doesn't cut it. There needs to be a <i>mutation</i>. And the mutation needs to not hamper reproduction (this is a big problem: Animals often shun anything different). In fact it needs to be so beneficial that the new traits will slowly spread and then evolve further.</p><p>To my understanding, even scientists are puzzled about those phases. (I chose my squirrel -&gt; bird examples because as a bird-enthusiast I've seen a few documents about development of wings. Also the news featured on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. a while ago) What creationists are saying "We just don't believe that can happen. There just isn't much proof about that.". The normal, non-fundamentalist christians (Many protestant churches at least, though I think that even Vatican has accept evolution now) just say "Yeah, that can happen but how do we know that god doesn't influence <i>that</i> phase? Yeah, there isn't scientific evidence of such - and can't be - but I choose to believe so anyways."</p><p>While I am personally atheist, neither of those really seems <b>that</b> horrible way to think. Or even that idiotic... The problem with creationists really isn't their lack of faith in evolution. It is what they choose to believe as more credible alternative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Note here : I have n't taken as much as highschool biology classes .
If I say something that is completely off here , I 'd appreciatete someone correcting me ) What they are saying is that " Yeah... You could originally have had just a pair of birds and they evolved to different species... But it does n't make sense for a squirrel to gain wings through natural selection " .
And in fact , they are correct there .
A trait can develop further over numerous generations but in order to introduce a completely new trait , natural selection just does n't cut it .
There needs to be a mutation .
And the mutation needs to not hamper reproduction ( this is a big problem : Animals often shun anything different ) .
In fact it needs to be so beneficial that the new traits will slowly spread and then evolve further.To my understanding , even scientists are puzzled about those phases .
( I chose my squirrel - &gt; bird examples because as a bird-enthusiast I 've seen a few documents about development of wings .
Also the news featured on / .
a while ago ) What creationists are saying " We just do n't believe that can happen .
There just is n't much proof about that. " .
The normal , non-fundamentalist christians ( Many protestant churches at least , though I think that even Vatican has accept evolution now ) just say " Yeah , that can happen but how do we know that god does n't influence that phase ?
Yeah , there is n't scientific evidence of such - and ca n't be - but I choose to believe so anyways .
" While I am personally atheist , neither of those really seems that horrible way to think .
Or even that idiotic... The problem with creationists really is n't their lack of faith in evolution .
It is what they choose to believe as more credible alternative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Note here: I haven't taken as much as highschool biology classes.
If I say something that is completely off here, I'd appreciatete someone correcting me)What they are saying is that "Yeah... You could originally have had just a pair of birds and they evolved to different species... But it doesn't make sense for a squirrel to gain wings through natural selection".
And in fact, they are correct there.
A trait can develop further over numerous generations but in order to introduce a completely new trait, natural selection just doesn't cut it.
There needs to be a mutation.
And the mutation needs to not hamper reproduction (this is a big problem: Animals often shun anything different).
In fact it needs to be so beneficial that the new traits will slowly spread and then evolve further.To my understanding, even scientists are puzzled about those phases.
(I chose my squirrel -&gt; bird examples because as a bird-enthusiast I've seen a few documents about development of wings.
Also the news featured on /.
a while ago) What creationists are saying "We just don't believe that can happen.
There just isn't much proof about that.".
The normal, non-fundamentalist christians (Many protestant churches at least, though I think that even Vatican has accept evolution now) just say "Yeah, that can happen but how do we know that god doesn't influence that phase?
Yeah, there isn't scientific evidence of such - and can't be - but I choose to believe so anyways.
"While I am personally atheist, neither of those really seems that horrible way to think.
Or even that idiotic... The problem with creationists really isn't their lack of faith in evolution.
It is what they choose to believe as more credible alternative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713566</id>
	<title>Where</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263120120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where's your God now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where 's your God now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where's your God now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713918</id>
	<title>Explains my Boss</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263128820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This explains how someone with a rock for a brain could evolve. His is a prion version of V.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This explains how someone with a rock for a brain could evolve .
His is a prion version of V .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This explains how someone with a rock for a brain could evolve.
His is a prion version of V.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714212</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution for creationists.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263134700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Selection != evolution<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Selection ! = evolution .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Selection != evolution ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714158</id>
	<title>Re:The idea isn't surprising</title>
	<author>famebait</author>
	<datestamp>1263133800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Prions do not self replicate.  They can merely spread their degenrate configuration to other preexisting molecules of the same kind.  And this is only a problem when the degenerate version is highly stable and the body doesn't know how to deal with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Prions do not self replicate .
They can merely spread their degenrate configuration to other preexisting molecules of the same kind .
And this is only a problem when the degenerate version is highly stable and the body does n't know how to deal with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prions do not self replicate.
They can merely spread their degenrate configuration to other preexisting molecules of the same kind.
And this is only a problem when the degenerate version is highly stable and the body doesn't know how to deal with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715934</id>
	<title>Re:Matter.</title>
	<author>Warbothong</author>
	<datestamp>1263153060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Any matter has one mission and one mission only: to find greater order. If matter without DNA or any prior form of order couldn't achieve more order, then life would not exist. Things want to be able to interact with their environment more efficiently, and must evolve to do so.</p></div><p>All things in the Universe try to minimise the amount of energy they have. In some special cases, like crystals for example, this means becoming more ordered: the energy of each atom/molecule depends on its distance from its neighbours, with each "preferring" the lowest energy distance. Getting as many neighbours as possible at this distance is effectively packing spheres with that distance as their radius, which turns out to be the most efficient with ordered arrangements like hexagonal close packing, so that's what's observed. In the general case, however, the amount of order goes down, see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy</a> [wikipedia.org] . In fact, in every situation which becomes more ordered over time, Thermodynamics says that somewhere else there must be a system becoming even more disordered (as an example, if a system is minimising its energy by becoming ordered then it's exothermic: the energy its losing will come out as heat. This heat is itself disordered, and can disrupt the order of whatever it comes into contact with (which is why so many Physics experiments are done as close to zero Kelvin as possible). Also, the total energy such systems manage to lose is restricted by the fact that they are becoming more ordered, there is an "entropic cost" when becoming more ordered, which means that it requires energy to do and therefore the system must keep hold of that much energy to do it.</p><p>For a simple example of how becoming more ordered takes energy, try stretching an elastic band. The polymers it's made of would, in a totally disordered system, take "random walks", which is very degenerate (there are LOADS of ways to randomly walk a certain distance starting at a point A and ending at a point B is the distance AB is much shorter than the distance you walk, ideally A and B are in the same place). That's the band's preferred state, and as such it isn't particularly long. By stretching it, the distance AB goes up, so there are fewer random walks of the same length which satisfy these new positions. In the extreme case the distance AB will be the same length as the walk, and there would only be one valid random walk between them (ie. going in a straight line). It takes energy to stretch the band because you're making it more ordered, which it doesn't want to be.</p><p>If matter's mission is to find greater order then a stretched elastic band would never snap back<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any matter has one mission and one mission only : to find greater order .
If matter without DNA or any prior form of order could n't achieve more order , then life would not exist .
Things want to be able to interact with their environment more efficiently , and must evolve to do so.All things in the Universe try to minimise the amount of energy they have .
In some special cases , like crystals for example , this means becoming more ordered : the energy of each atom/molecule depends on its distance from its neighbours , with each " preferring " the lowest energy distance .
Getting as many neighbours as possible at this distance is effectively packing spheres with that distance as their radius , which turns out to be the most efficient with ordered arrangements like hexagonal close packing , so that 's what 's observed .
In the general case , however , the amount of order goes down , see http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy [ wikipedia.org ] .
In fact , in every situation which becomes more ordered over time , Thermodynamics says that somewhere else there must be a system becoming even more disordered ( as an example , if a system is minimising its energy by becoming ordered then it 's exothermic : the energy its losing will come out as heat .
This heat is itself disordered , and can disrupt the order of whatever it comes into contact with ( which is why so many Physics experiments are done as close to zero Kelvin as possible ) .
Also , the total energy such systems manage to lose is restricted by the fact that they are becoming more ordered , there is an " entropic cost " when becoming more ordered , which means that it requires energy to do and therefore the system must keep hold of that much energy to do it.For a simple example of how becoming more ordered takes energy , try stretching an elastic band .
The polymers it 's made of would , in a totally disordered system , take " random walks " , which is very degenerate ( there are LOADS of ways to randomly walk a certain distance starting at a point A and ending at a point B is the distance AB is much shorter than the distance you walk , ideally A and B are in the same place ) .
That 's the band 's preferred state , and as such it is n't particularly long .
By stretching it , the distance AB goes up , so there are fewer random walks of the same length which satisfy these new positions .
In the extreme case the distance AB will be the same length as the walk , and there would only be one valid random walk between them ( ie .
going in a straight line ) .
It takes energy to stretch the band because you 're making it more ordered , which it does n't want to be.If matter 's mission is to find greater order then a stretched elastic band would never snap back ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any matter has one mission and one mission only: to find greater order.
If matter without DNA or any prior form of order couldn't achieve more order, then life would not exist.
Things want to be able to interact with their environment more efficiently, and must evolve to do so.All things in the Universe try to minimise the amount of energy they have.
In some special cases, like crystals for example, this means becoming more ordered: the energy of each atom/molecule depends on its distance from its neighbours, with each "preferring" the lowest energy distance.
Getting as many neighbours as possible at this distance is effectively packing spheres with that distance as their radius, which turns out to be the most efficient with ordered arrangements like hexagonal close packing, so that's what's observed.
In the general case, however, the amount of order goes down, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy [wikipedia.org] .
In fact, in every situation which becomes more ordered over time, Thermodynamics says that somewhere else there must be a system becoming even more disordered (as an example, if a system is minimising its energy by becoming ordered then it's exothermic: the energy its losing will come out as heat.
This heat is itself disordered, and can disrupt the order of whatever it comes into contact with (which is why so many Physics experiments are done as close to zero Kelvin as possible).
Also, the total energy such systems manage to lose is restricted by the fact that they are becoming more ordered, there is an "entropic cost" when becoming more ordered, which means that it requires energy to do and therefore the system must keep hold of that much energy to do it.For a simple example of how becoming more ordered takes energy, try stretching an elastic band.
The polymers it's made of would, in a totally disordered system, take "random walks", which is very degenerate (there are LOADS of ways to randomly walk a certain distance starting at a point A and ending at a point B is the distance AB is much shorter than the distance you walk, ideally A and B are in the same place).
That's the band's preferred state, and as such it isn't particularly long.
By stretching it, the distance AB goes up, so there are fewer random walks of the same length which satisfy these new positions.
In the extreme case the distance AB will be the same length as the walk, and there would only be one valid random walk between them (ie.
going in a straight line).
It takes energy to stretch the band because you're making it more ordered, which it doesn't want to be.If matter's mission is to find greater order then a stretched elastic band would never snap back ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715104</id>
	<title>Re:Not Surprised.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263145740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The day my pet rock died.<br>I started singing, bye, bye, miss aquamarine stone<br>drove my lorry to the quarry, but the rocks were all gone,<br>think of everytime you ever needed an ax to hone,<br>next time i'll leave my pet rocks alone<br>next time i'll leave my pet rocks alone</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The day my pet rock died.I started singing , bye , bye , miss aquamarine stonedrove my lorry to the quarry , but the rocks were all gone,think of everytime you ever needed an ax to hone,next time i 'll leave my pet rocks alonenext time i 'll leave my pet rocks alone</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The day my pet rock died.I started singing, bye, bye, miss aquamarine stonedrove my lorry to the quarry, but the rocks were all gone,think of everytime you ever needed an ax to hone,next time i'll leave my pet rocks alonenext time i'll leave my pet rocks alone</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715972</id>
	<title>Self replicators are self replicators</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1263153360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometimes they occur in the organic chemical domain using DNA. Other times not.</p><p>Same invariant properties apply:</p><p>1) Self-replicators take resources from their environment in order to self replicate.<br>2) Mistakes sometimes happen in self replication. Sometimes they enhance replication. Usually not.</p><p>Salt crystals in solution, YouTube videos, DNA, Money, Religion. It's all pretty much the same, structurally.</p><p>Is this being taught in universities yet, or have they not caught up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes they occur in the organic chemical domain using DNA .
Other times not.Same invariant properties apply : 1 ) Self-replicators take resources from their environment in order to self replicate.2 ) Mistakes sometimes happen in self replication .
Sometimes they enhance replication .
Usually not.Salt crystals in solution , YouTube videos , DNA , Money , Religion .
It 's all pretty much the same , structurally.Is this being taught in universities yet , or have they not caught up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes they occur in the organic chemical domain using DNA.
Other times not.Same invariant properties apply:1) Self-replicators take resources from their environment in order to self replicate.2) Mistakes sometimes happen in self replication.
Sometimes they enhance replication.
Usually not.Salt crystals in solution, YouTube videos, DNA, Money, Religion.
It's all pretty much the same, structurally.Is this being taught in universities yet, or have they not caught up?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714320</id>
	<title>Re:Where does Death Begin?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263136440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The huge failure here is, to have this pointless urge, to draw a line between life and death. There is none. It&rsquo;s a gradient!<br>Just like there is no separation between intelligent and dumb. Or between alive and dead when you ask if something is a life form.<br>The wish to draw a line is purely a human artifact.</p><p>But if you start to ask: How much alive is something? Or: how much of a life form is something? How intelligent is it?<br>Then you start get answers that are useful and make sense.<br>Now all you have to do, is stop thinking in absolutes, and only think of relative answers.<br>&ldquo;Less alive than us. Less of a life form and less intelligent too. But more alive, more of a life form and more intelligent, than a stone or a carbohydrate.&rdquo;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The huge failure here is , to have this pointless urge , to draw a line between life and death .
There is none .
It    s a gradient ! Just like there is no separation between intelligent and dumb .
Or between alive and dead when you ask if something is a life form.The wish to draw a line is purely a human artifact.But if you start to ask : How much alive is something ?
Or : how much of a life form is something ?
How intelligent is it ? Then you start get answers that are useful and make sense.Now all you have to do , is stop thinking in absolutes , and only think of relative answers.    Less alive than us .
Less of a life form and less intelligent too .
But more alive , more of a life form and more intelligent , than a stone or a carbohydrate.   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The huge failure here is, to have this pointless urge, to draw a line between life and death.
There is none.
It’s a gradient!Just like there is no separation between intelligent and dumb.
Or between alive and dead when you ask if something is a life form.The wish to draw a line is purely a human artifact.But if you start to ask: How much alive is something?
Or: how much of a life form is something?
How intelligent is it?Then you start get answers that are useful and make sense.Now all you have to do, is stop thinking in absolutes, and only think of relative answers.“Less alive than us.
Less of a life form and less intelligent too.
But more alive, more of a life form and more intelligent, than a stone or a carbohydrate.”</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713584</id>
	<title>Evolution for creationists.</title>
	<author>X-Power</author>
	<datestamp>1263120420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://c.myspace.com/Groups/00017/98/88/17938889\_l.gif" title="myspace.com" rel="nofollow">http://c.myspace.com/Groups/00017/98/88/17938889\_l.gif</a> [myspace.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //c.myspace.com/Groups/00017/98/88/17938889 \ _l.gif [ myspace.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://c.myspace.com/Groups/00017/98/88/17938889\_l.gif [myspace.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715458</id>
	<title>Re:This might revive the age-old debate...</title>
	<author>goodmanj</author>
	<datestamp>1263149100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot really needs a "+1 flamebait" moderation option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot really needs a " + 1 flamebait " moderation option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot really needs a "+1 flamebait" moderation option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715186</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see a need to get spiritual about it</title>
	<author>Graff</author>
	<datestamp>1263146580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rolling rocks "evolve" to roll better. A fire "evolves" to burn better. Water in a container "evolves" to fill a new container when it is placed in it.</p><p>There's nothing new about the ability for systems to undergo changes that make some actions easier for elements of the system. That's the whole point about evolution in organisms, it'd be surprising if it DIDN'T happen. Things that are successful tend to continue, things that are a dead end tend to stop. Any process that continues over a long period will tend to settle into the most efficient method of operation. If conditions change then the process will change to a mode which is efficient under the new conditions or the process will come to a halt.</p><p>The process of evolution is just happening at a more complicated level than the simple examples I gave in my first paragraph.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rolling rocks " evolve " to roll better .
A fire " evolves " to burn better .
Water in a container " evolves " to fill a new container when it is placed in it.There 's nothing new about the ability for systems to undergo changes that make some actions easier for elements of the system .
That 's the whole point about evolution in organisms , it 'd be surprising if it DID N'T happen .
Things that are successful tend to continue , things that are a dead end tend to stop .
Any process that continues over a long period will tend to settle into the most efficient method of operation .
If conditions change then the process will change to a mode which is efficient under the new conditions or the process will come to a halt.The process of evolution is just happening at a more complicated level than the simple examples I gave in my first paragraph .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rolling rocks "evolve" to roll better.
A fire "evolves" to burn better.
Water in a container "evolves" to fill a new container when it is placed in it.There's nothing new about the ability for systems to undergo changes that make some actions easier for elements of the system.
That's the whole point about evolution in organisms, it'd be surprising if it DIDN'T happen.
Things that are successful tend to continue, things that are a dead end tend to stop.
Any process that continues over a long period will tend to settle into the most efficient method of operation.
If conditions change then the process will change to a mode which is efficient under the new conditions or the process will come to a halt.The process of evolution is just happening at a more complicated level than the simple examples I gave in my first paragraph.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713564</id>
	<title>how long?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263120060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>until there is a flame war about whether this proves the existence of God or not?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>until there is a flame war about whether this proves the existence of God or not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>until there is a flame war about whether this proves the existence of God or not?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713602</id>
	<title>Not Surprised.</title>
	<author>nog\_lorp</author>
	<datestamp>1263120660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's time we recognized that the interesting things about "life" are all just products of the fact that all kinds of systems can convey self-replicating entities of some sort, and they tend to be interesting and undergo evolutionary processes and etc. Whether they are non-biological DNA bundles, cellular organisms, oddly folded proteins, crystalized clay, etc.</p><p>So where are the nefarious / useful engineered prions at?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's time we recognized that the interesting things about " life " are all just products of the fact that all kinds of systems can convey self-replicating entities of some sort , and they tend to be interesting and undergo evolutionary processes and etc .
Whether they are non-biological DNA bundles , cellular organisms , oddly folded proteins , crystalized clay , etc.So where are the nefarious / useful engineered prions at ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's time we recognized that the interesting things about "life" are all just products of the fact that all kinds of systems can convey self-replicating entities of some sort, and they tend to be interesting and undergo evolutionary processes and etc.
Whether they are non-biological DNA bundles, cellular organisms, oddly folded proteins, crystalized clay, etc.So where are the nefarious / useful engineered prions at?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713648</id>
	<title>I don't see a need to get spiritual about it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263121980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even from a purely materialist perspective, it seems reasonable to ponder a class of materials that replicate themselves. How exactly they do so might be more or less complex but the basic idea that it's possible to configure matter in a way that it replicates itself doesn't seem that absurd. And there's no particular reason it has to be DNA --- there are even <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating\_machine" title="wikipedia.org">purely mechanical possibilities</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even from a purely materialist perspective , it seems reasonable to ponder a class of materials that replicate themselves .
How exactly they do so might be more or less complex but the basic idea that it 's possible to configure matter in a way that it replicates itself does n't seem that absurd .
And there 's no particular reason it has to be DNA --- there are even purely mechanical possibilities [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even from a purely materialist perspective, it seems reasonable to ponder a class of materials that replicate themselves.
How exactly they do so might be more or less complex but the basic idea that it's possible to configure matter in a way that it replicates itself doesn't seem that absurd.
And there's no particular reason it has to be DNA --- there are even purely mechanical possibilities [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713598</id>
	<title>Evolution is the good news ... wait, bad news?</title>
	<author>Gopal.V</author>
	<datestamp>1263120540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Natural selection doesn't pre-suppose DNA. Anything which multiplies to produce copies of itself, which can degrade/mutate between generations can evolve just in exactly the same way.
Selection pressures work exactly the same. So does the chain reaction effect of multiplication of the survivors, resulting in major shifts in characteristics of a population.
</p><p>
But the actual story is the bad news part of it. That using anti-prion medication probably won't work all the time as it would just breed a drug-resistant breed of prions by preference.
</p><p>
Definitely bad news. We can forget about having the "saviour" take a bath in the daily oatmeal for our protection<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Natural selection does n't pre-suppose DNA .
Anything which multiplies to produce copies of itself , which can degrade/mutate between generations can evolve just in exactly the same way .
Selection pressures work exactly the same .
So does the chain reaction effect of multiplication of the survivors , resulting in major shifts in characteristics of a population .
But the actual story is the bad news part of it .
That using anti-prion medication probably wo n't work all the time as it would just breed a drug-resistant breed of prions by preference .
Definitely bad news .
We can forget about having the " saviour " take a bath in the daily oatmeal for our protection : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Natural selection doesn't pre-suppose DNA.
Anything which multiplies to produce copies of itself, which can degrade/mutate between generations can evolve just in exactly the same way.
Selection pressures work exactly the same.
So does the chain reaction effect of multiplication of the survivors, resulting in major shifts in characteristics of a population.
But the actual story is the bad news part of it.
That using anti-prion medication probably won't work all the time as it would just breed a drug-resistant breed of prions by preference.
Definitely bad news.
We can forget about having the "saviour" take a bath in the daily oatmeal for our protection :)
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715434</id>
	<title>Re:Why would that be likely?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263148920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why *wouldn't* it be likely?</p><p>Darwin of course knew nothing of DNA, and his theory of evolution says nothing about it.  Darwin didn't put it this way, but the key requirements for an entity to evolve are:</p><p>1. The entity contains the information needed to replicate (self-description)<br>2. This information is subject to random changes (mutation)<br>3. The environment is hostile -- some but *not all* entities will be destroyed (survival)<br>4. Variations between individuals make them more or less likely to survive (fitness)</p><p>DNA-based life fits these restrictions, but so do entities which store their self-descriptive information in RNA, protein, or computer memory.  It places no restrictions whatever on the existence of life chemistry based around other atoms than carbon.</p><p>You can make lots of chemistry arguments about why carbon is necessary, but you can't argue it on pure Darwinian grounds.  As for your specific point in favor of carbon:</p><p><i>Carbon has lots of free valences, which allow it to act like a universal lego-block</i></p><p><i><i>Silicon has the same valence properties, and also forms a wide variety of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicone" title="wikipedia.org">complex molecules</a> [wikipedia.org].  Phosphorus and sulfur can have valences of 5 or 6 in certain situations.  Now, carbon *is* special, but not in the way you've described.</i></i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why * would n't * it be likely ? Darwin of course knew nothing of DNA , and his theory of evolution says nothing about it .
Darwin did n't put it this way , but the key requirements for an entity to evolve are : 1 .
The entity contains the information needed to replicate ( self-description ) 2 .
This information is subject to random changes ( mutation ) 3 .
The environment is hostile -- some but * not all * entities will be destroyed ( survival ) 4 .
Variations between individuals make them more or less likely to survive ( fitness ) DNA-based life fits these restrictions , but so do entities which store their self-descriptive information in RNA , protein , or computer memory .
It places no restrictions whatever on the existence of life chemistry based around other atoms than carbon.You can make lots of chemistry arguments about why carbon is necessary , but you ca n't argue it on pure Darwinian grounds .
As for your specific point in favor of carbon : Carbon has lots of free valences , which allow it to act like a universal lego-blockSilicon has the same valence properties , and also forms a wide variety of complex molecules [ wikipedia.org ] .
Phosphorus and sulfur can have valences of 5 or 6 in certain situations .
Now , carbon * is * special , but not in the way you 've described .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why *wouldn't* it be likely?Darwin of course knew nothing of DNA, and his theory of evolution says nothing about it.
Darwin didn't put it this way, but the key requirements for an entity to evolve are:1.
The entity contains the information needed to replicate (self-description)2.
This information is subject to random changes (mutation)3.
The environment is hostile -- some but *not all* entities will be destroyed (survival)4.
Variations between individuals make them more or less likely to survive (fitness)DNA-based life fits these restrictions, but so do entities which store their self-descriptive information in RNA, protein, or computer memory.
It places no restrictions whatever on the existence of life chemistry based around other atoms than carbon.You can make lots of chemistry arguments about why carbon is necessary, but you can't argue it on pure Darwinian grounds.
As for your specific point in favor of carbon:Carbon has lots of free valences, which allow it to act like a universal lego-blockSilicon has the same valence properties, and also forms a wide variety of complex molecules [wikipedia.org].
Phosphorus and sulfur can have valences of 5 or 6 in certain situations.
Now, carbon *is* special, but not in the way you've described.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30716062</id>
	<title>Redefining Life</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1263153900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In "Energy Flow In Biology" Harold Morowitz posits that an open system between an energy source and an energy sink, containing such elements as can form a variety of bonds and forms, will absorb energy, and form compounds that will persist in that state for a time in inverse proportion to how much energy is required to maintain the state. Increasingly complex forms can be created from those simpler forms if they persist long enough. Those more complex forms can have variations in their subunits locations and forms relative to the components from which it is built. This is the first chapter. The rest of the book is a bit of physics and a great deal of physical chemistry showing why the proportions of organics found on Earth as inevitable given the conditions of the Earth's environment and the combination of elements from which is is made.</p><p>The evolution part applies to the first chapter though. Some compounds self-catalyze, producing more. Some catalysts form that produce other products, but only do so when the first of those products form. Variations such as radicals appearing in different places on a benzene ring produce different forms, and catalysis can cause this to happen step by step, forcing the radical to 'march' around the ring.</p><p>Increasing complexity, with variations in forms of those increasingly complex forms, each of which have more or less ability to contribute to furthering these phenomena, that pretty much describes what life does. Maintaining itself at a level of complexity above the environment (read that 'maintaining itself in a state of negentropy) for a time, using the incoming energy, described something much like how life appears in contrast to its environment.</p><p>Again, this is all based on physical and organic chemistry, pre-biology. It's only logical to expect the activities of living things to mirror the activities of their non-living constituents. No, those compounds are not alive, but if they couldn't do those things, neither could life.</p><p>A marker then for life might be detection of compounds that carry out some functions we see in life, and an environment that allows them to increase in amount and in complexity. Where then do we put the dividing line between life and non? If we can objectively define and predict an emergent property that appears at a certain point in the growing complexity of the chemical soup that is characterized by a behavior which is necessary for life but is absent in the pre-living material, we might be able to describe that sufficiently to say it's one definition of life.</p><p>If it hasn't occurred to you before, it should now: a different environment and collection of compounds might also produce organics (or the equivalent based on other elements) will produce different results. If life, that will be different. Taking the definition from one situation is hobbling yourself when it comes to discovering other forms of life. It might also occur to you that there is no time scales associated with any of this. If we then take the broader view and don't limit 'life' to the result, but include it in the components, we can at least start with a statement about a component being 'alive enough to consider that aspect'.</p><p>We need as broad a view as possible so we will be able to recognize it when we see it elsewhere. A part of science is dedicated to looking for it. With our present definitions, which should be stated "Earth-like life" rather than simple "life", we are primed to not detect any forms of it which we could imagine but which differ significantly from Earth forms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In " Energy Flow In Biology " Harold Morowitz posits that an open system between an energy source and an energy sink , containing such elements as can form a variety of bonds and forms , will absorb energy , and form compounds that will persist in that state for a time in inverse proportion to how much energy is required to maintain the state .
Increasingly complex forms can be created from those simpler forms if they persist long enough .
Those more complex forms can have variations in their subunits locations and forms relative to the components from which it is built .
This is the first chapter .
The rest of the book is a bit of physics and a great deal of physical chemistry showing why the proportions of organics found on Earth as inevitable given the conditions of the Earth 's environment and the combination of elements from which is is made.The evolution part applies to the first chapter though .
Some compounds self-catalyze , producing more .
Some catalysts form that produce other products , but only do so when the first of those products form .
Variations such as radicals appearing in different places on a benzene ring produce different forms , and catalysis can cause this to happen step by step , forcing the radical to 'march ' around the ring.Increasing complexity , with variations in forms of those increasingly complex forms , each of which have more or less ability to contribute to furthering these phenomena , that pretty much describes what life does .
Maintaining itself at a level of complexity above the environment ( read that 'maintaining itself in a state of negentropy ) for a time , using the incoming energy , described something much like how life appears in contrast to its environment.Again , this is all based on physical and organic chemistry , pre-biology .
It 's only logical to expect the activities of living things to mirror the activities of their non-living constituents .
No , those compounds are not alive , but if they could n't do those things , neither could life.A marker then for life might be detection of compounds that carry out some functions we see in life , and an environment that allows them to increase in amount and in complexity .
Where then do we put the dividing line between life and non ?
If we can objectively define and predict an emergent property that appears at a certain point in the growing complexity of the chemical soup that is characterized by a behavior which is necessary for life but is absent in the pre-living material , we might be able to describe that sufficiently to say it 's one definition of life.If it has n't occurred to you before , it should now : a different environment and collection of compounds might also produce organics ( or the equivalent based on other elements ) will produce different results .
If life , that will be different .
Taking the definition from one situation is hobbling yourself when it comes to discovering other forms of life .
It might also occur to you that there is no time scales associated with any of this .
If we then take the broader view and do n't limit 'life ' to the result , but include it in the components , we can at least start with a statement about a component being 'alive enough to consider that aspect'.We need as broad a view as possible so we will be able to recognize it when we see it elsewhere .
A part of science is dedicated to looking for it .
With our present definitions , which should be stated " Earth-like life " rather than simple " life " , we are primed to not detect any forms of it which we could imagine but which differ significantly from Earth forms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In "Energy Flow In Biology" Harold Morowitz posits that an open system between an energy source and an energy sink, containing such elements as can form a variety of bonds and forms, will absorb energy, and form compounds that will persist in that state for a time in inverse proportion to how much energy is required to maintain the state.
Increasingly complex forms can be created from those simpler forms if they persist long enough.
Those more complex forms can have variations in their subunits locations and forms relative to the components from which it is built.
This is the first chapter.
The rest of the book is a bit of physics and a great deal of physical chemistry showing why the proportions of organics found on Earth as inevitable given the conditions of the Earth's environment and the combination of elements from which is is made.The evolution part applies to the first chapter though.
Some compounds self-catalyze, producing more.
Some catalysts form that produce other products, but only do so when the first of those products form.
Variations such as radicals appearing in different places on a benzene ring produce different forms, and catalysis can cause this to happen step by step, forcing the radical to 'march' around the ring.Increasing complexity, with variations in forms of those increasingly complex forms, each of which have more or less ability to contribute to furthering these phenomena, that pretty much describes what life does.
Maintaining itself at a level of complexity above the environment (read that 'maintaining itself in a state of negentropy) for a time, using the incoming energy, described something much like how life appears in contrast to its environment.Again, this is all based on physical and organic chemistry, pre-biology.
It's only logical to expect the activities of living things to mirror the activities of their non-living constituents.
No, those compounds are not alive, but if they couldn't do those things, neither could life.A marker then for life might be detection of compounds that carry out some functions we see in life, and an environment that allows them to increase in amount and in complexity.
Where then do we put the dividing line between life and non?
If we can objectively define and predict an emergent property that appears at a certain point in the growing complexity of the chemical soup that is characterized by a behavior which is necessary for life but is absent in the pre-living material, we might be able to describe that sufficiently to say it's one definition of life.If it hasn't occurred to you before, it should now: a different environment and collection of compounds might also produce organics (or the equivalent based on other elements) will produce different results.
If life, that will be different.
Taking the definition from one situation is hobbling yourself when it comes to discovering other forms of life.
It might also occur to you that there is no time scales associated with any of this.
If we then take the broader view and don't limit 'life' to the result, but include it in the components, we can at least start with a statement about a component being 'alive enough to consider that aspect'.We need as broad a view as possible so we will be able to recognize it when we see it elsewhere.
A part of science is dedicated to looking for it.
With our present definitions, which should be stated "Earth-like life" rather than simple "life", we are primed to not detect any forms of it which we could imagine but which differ significantly from Earth forms.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714432</id>
	<title>The creationists are a little more clever than</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263138120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>that but not by much. Basically they'll say little changes like that (they call it micro-evolution) can happen but nope, no big ones into other species. (But anybody that's taken Bio 102 and seen how impossible it is to come up with a definitive answer to what is one species is and what is another knows that differential is horse-shit.) Guess they needed that so they could have an excuse why it was ok to take newer antibiotics and such. (You know, so they could allow the evolution that's so obvious you have to be pretty much insane to say it doesn't happen.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>that but not by much .
Basically they 'll say little changes like that ( they call it micro-evolution ) can happen but nope , no big ones into other species .
( But anybody that 's taken Bio 102 and seen how impossible it is to come up with a definitive answer to what is one species is and what is another knows that differential is horse-shit .
) Guess they needed that so they could have an excuse why it was ok to take newer antibiotics and such .
( You know , so they could allow the evolution that 's so obvious you have to be pretty much insane to say it does n't happen .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that but not by much.
Basically they'll say little changes like that (they call it micro-evolution) can happen but nope, no big ones into other species.
(But anybody that's taken Bio 102 and seen how impossible it is to come up with a definitive answer to what is one species is and what is another knows that differential is horse-shit.
) Guess they needed that so they could have an excuse why it was ok to take newer antibiotics and such.
(You know, so they could allow the evolution that's so obvious you have to be pretty much insane to say it doesn't happen.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715448</id>
	<title>Re:Where does Death Begin?</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1263149040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Furious about the almost organ harvesting?</p><p>Or furious about having to pay for 5 more days in hospital?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Furious about the almost organ harvesting ? Or furious about having to pay for 5 more days in hospital ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Furious about the almost organ harvesting?Or furious about having to pay for 5 more days in hospital?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713740</id>
	<title>Evolution:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263124680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just a theory, you guys!</p><p>Lol, not really. I had to do that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a theory , you guys ! Lol , not really .
I had to do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a theory, you guys!Lol, not really.
I had to do that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30724720</id>
	<title>Test</title>
	<author>cthulu\_mt</author>
	<datestamp>1263233040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Offtopic.
<br> <br>
Signature test.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Offtopic .
Signature test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Offtopic.
Signature test.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30717386</id>
	<title>Re:I'm skeptical</title>
	<author>ookabooka</author>
	<datestamp>1263120600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could you please explain the differences between evolution and chemical computation? You said that you understand the concept of prions replicating and some versions outperforming others; isn't that the very definition of natural selection? Whats missing? Just DNA?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you please explain the differences between evolution and chemical computation ?
You said that you understand the concept of prions replicating and some versions outperforming others ; is n't that the very definition of natural selection ?
Whats missing ?
Just DNA ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you please explain the differences between evolution and chemical computation?
You said that you understand the concept of prions replicating and some versions outperforming others; isn't that the very definition of natural selection?
Whats missing?
Just DNA?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30719210</id>
	<title>Re:This might revive the age-old debate...</title>
	<author>mhelander</author>
	<datestamp>1263136620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the jab at Republicans got a positive mod, why mod a response to that as off-topic? That's just unsportsmanlike.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the jab at Republicans got a positive mod , why mod a response to that as off-topic ?
That 's just unsportsmanlike .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the jab at Republicans got a positive mod, why mod a response to that as off-topic?
That's just unsportsmanlike.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714014</id>
	<title>Matter.</title>
	<author>Tibia1</author>
	<datestamp>1263131040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any matter has one mission and one mission only: to find greater order. If matter without DNA or any prior form of order couldn't achieve more order, then life would not exist. Things want to be able to interact with their environment more efficiently, and must evolve to do so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any matter has one mission and one mission only : to find greater order .
If matter without DNA or any prior form of order could n't achieve more order , then life would not exist .
Things want to be able to interact with their environment more efficiently , and must evolve to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any matter has one mission and one mission only: to find greater order.
If matter without DNA or any prior form of order couldn't achieve more order, then life would not exist.
Things want to be able to interact with their environment more efficiently, and must evolve to do so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714374</id>
	<title>Re:Where does Death Begin?</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1263137100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As long as they are hooked up to respirators etc., they can be kept alive indefinitely.</p></div></blockquote><p>Indefinitely?  Brain death stops the normal aging process, even at the cellular level?  Telomeres cease to get shorter with each division?</p><p>This could have awesome implications for long distance spaceflight, as an alternative to hibernation or crygenics.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as they are hooked up to respirators etc. , they can be kept alive indefinitely.Indefinitely ?
Brain death stops the normal aging process , even at the cellular level ?
Telomeres cease to get shorter with each division ? This could have awesome implications for long distance spaceflight , as an alternative to hibernation or crygenics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as they are hooked up to respirators etc., they can be kept alive indefinitely.Indefinitely?
Brain death stops the normal aging process, even at the cellular level?
Telomeres cease to get shorter with each division?This could have awesome implications for long distance spaceflight, as an alternative to hibernation or crygenics.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714936</id>
	<title>Re:Randomly Mutating Post</title>
	<author>Alrescha</author>
	<datestamp>1263143940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"it's late, i'm over tired and maybe i should have cooked that last brain i ate"</p><p>Cooking won't help.  Prions aren't alive*, cooking them won't kill them.</p><p>* depending on your definition of life, of course.</p><p>A.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" it 's late , i 'm over tired and maybe i should have cooked that last brain i ate " Cooking wo n't help .
Prions are n't alive * , cooking them wo n't kill them .
* depending on your definition of life , of course.A .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"it's late, i'm over tired and maybe i should have cooked that last brain i ate"Cooking won't help.
Prions aren't alive*, cooking them won't kill them.
* depending on your definition of life, of course.A.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715998</id>
	<title>Folding @ Home?</title>
	<author>ArundelCastle</author>
	<datestamp>1263153480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this mean my stagnant Folding queue could be out of date?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean my stagnant Folding queue could be out of date ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean my stagnant Folding queue could be out of date?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715198</id>
	<title>Re:genetic material</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1263146640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're correct.  If they evolve, they HAVE genetic material; it's a bit of a tautology.  They just don't necessarily have the same genetic material as we do.  (Although our genetic material isn't 100\% defined by our nuclear DNA; we have other inherited material, such as mitochondrial DNA, that is also part of our genetic makeup.  In the wider, touchy-feely, view we have such things as memes and culture that might be considered 'genetic'.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're correct .
If they evolve , they HAVE genetic material ; it 's a bit of a tautology .
They just do n't necessarily have the same genetic material as we do .
( Although our genetic material is n't 100 \ % defined by our nuclear DNA ; we have other inherited material , such as mitochondrial DNA , that is also part of our genetic makeup .
In the wider , touchy-feely , view we have such things as memes and culture that might be considered 'genetic' .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're correct.
If they evolve, they HAVE genetic material; it's a bit of a tautology.
They just don't necessarily have the same genetic material as we do.
(Although our genetic material isn't 100\% defined by our nuclear DNA; we have other inherited material, such as mitochondrial DNA, that is also part of our genetic makeup.
In the wider, touchy-feely, view we have such things as memes and culture that might be considered 'genetic'.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715250</id>
	<title>Insightful? Oh come on, flamebait</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263147300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How'd those housing starts go in November?  Oh, down 19\%?</p></div><p>8 years of republican rule drow the country to horrible depression and debt. Yes, democrats haven't been able to stop that in a year. Whooppedoo. Whether democrats have done good or bad decisions is nearly irrelevant here. There hasn't been enough time that their policies (especially long-term ones) could even theoretically have reflected to financial sector that much.</p><p>There is no way you can blame the current economic situation as a whole on democrats.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>How are the continuing job loses going?  Oh, another 200,000 jobs lost?</p></div><p>Same thing here.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>How's that withdrawal from Iraq going?</p></div><p>I'm with you here. The government should certainly have progressed much faster in getting rid of Bush-era mess. They really haven't done well there. Even so, you can't blame the Iraq (or Afghanistan) mess on current government.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Nice to see our DHS Secretary telling us all how well the system worked when a jihadi got on a plane with a bomb.</p></div><p>And wasn't able to cause any damage... Yeah, it is true that current government should have removed all those unnecessary and inefficient post-911 security stuff from the airports. They (and their voters) should be ashamed that this hasn't happened yet. Even so, you should have hard time blaming democrats on those, either.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I hear Gitmo is going to be closed any decade now.</p><p>And just wait until you see the asshattery unleashed when Khalid Sheikh Mohammad <i>et al</i> are tried in a standard criminal court.</p></div><p>This is getting old at this point. "Republicans did something horrible when they were in charge. Democrats haven't cleared all the mess yet. Ergo, democrats are horrible."</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Nice to see we have a Democratic Senate Majority Leader who thinks it's great that the President is "light-skinned and doesn't speak with a Negro dialect".</p><p>No fucking wonder Senator Harry Reid (<b>D</b>-Nev) is polling about 30 points behind his probably election opponent.</p></div><p>...</p><p>I'm not even answering to this one.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Think you can come up with a health care "reform" that relies even more on bribery and political payoffs and pisses even more people off?</p><p>How about forcing people to buy health insurance even if they don't want it?  Where are all the libertarians-of-convenience who got so up in arms over the freedoms lost when a relatively small number of phone calls to known Al Qaeda related phones where intercepted without warrants?  Where are all those <b>JACKASSES</b> when Democrats propose laws that would literally unconstitutionally under penalty of jail time force millions of people into private contracts that they don't want and cost thousands of dollars a year?</p></div><p>Private contracts? Well, at least the original drafts included government supported options.</p><p>That said... Yeah. The current plan for health care reform is horrible abomination. Not a single country with socialized medicine does it like that. It has the downsides of both systems. They really should ditch it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Democrats.  TOO DUMB TO KNOW THEY'RE DUMB</b> </p></div><p>Aside from that last point about health care reform, your whole post was a collection "Republicans have messed up so througly that democrats haven't fixed those things yet" points. I certainly would think of democrats as the lesser evil based on that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How 'd those housing starts go in November ?
Oh , down 19 \ % ? 8 years of republican rule drow the country to horrible depression and debt .
Yes , democrats have n't been able to stop that in a year .
Whooppedoo. Whether democrats have done good or bad decisions is nearly irrelevant here .
There has n't been enough time that their policies ( especially long-term ones ) could even theoretically have reflected to financial sector that much.There is no way you can blame the current economic situation as a whole on democrats.How are the continuing job loses going ?
Oh , another 200,000 jobs lost ? Same thing here.How 's that withdrawal from Iraq going ? I 'm with you here .
The government should certainly have progressed much faster in getting rid of Bush-era mess .
They really have n't done well there .
Even so , you ca n't blame the Iraq ( or Afghanistan ) mess on current government.Nice to see our DHS Secretary telling us all how well the system worked when a jihadi got on a plane with a bomb.And was n't able to cause any damage... Yeah , it is true that current government should have removed all those unnecessary and inefficient post-911 security stuff from the airports .
They ( and their voters ) should be ashamed that this has n't happened yet .
Even so , you should have hard time blaming democrats on those , either.I hear Gitmo is going to be closed any decade now.And just wait until you see the asshattery unleashed when Khalid Sheikh Mohammad et al are tried in a standard criminal court.This is getting old at this point .
" Republicans did something horrible when they were in charge .
Democrats have n't cleared all the mess yet .
Ergo , democrats are horrible .
" Nice to see we have a Democratic Senate Majority Leader who thinks it 's great that the President is " light-skinned and does n't speak with a Negro dialect " .No fucking wonder Senator Harry Reid ( D-Nev ) is polling about 30 points behind his probably election opponent....I 'm not even answering to this one.Think you can come up with a health care " reform " that relies even more on bribery and political payoffs and pisses even more people off ? How about forcing people to buy health insurance even if they do n't want it ?
Where are all the libertarians-of-convenience who got so up in arms over the freedoms lost when a relatively small number of phone calls to known Al Qaeda related phones where intercepted without warrants ?
Where are all those JACKASSES when Democrats propose laws that would literally unconstitutionally under penalty of jail time force millions of people into private contracts that they do n't want and cost thousands of dollars a year ? Private contracts ?
Well , at least the original drafts included government supported options.That said... Yeah. The current plan for health care reform is horrible abomination .
Not a single country with socialized medicine does it like that .
It has the downsides of both systems .
They really should ditch it .
Democrats. TOO DUMB TO KNOW THEY 'RE DUMB Aside from that last point about health care reform , your whole post was a collection " Republicans have messed up so througly that democrats have n't fixed those things yet " points .
I certainly would think of democrats as the lesser evil based on that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How'd those housing starts go in November?
Oh, down 19\%?8 years of republican rule drow the country to horrible depression and debt.
Yes, democrats haven't been able to stop that in a year.
Whooppedoo. Whether democrats have done good or bad decisions is nearly irrelevant here.
There hasn't been enough time that their policies (especially long-term ones) could even theoretically have reflected to financial sector that much.There is no way you can blame the current economic situation as a whole on democrats.How are the continuing job loses going?
Oh, another 200,000 jobs lost?Same thing here.How's that withdrawal from Iraq going?I'm with you here.
The government should certainly have progressed much faster in getting rid of Bush-era mess.
They really haven't done well there.
Even so, you can't blame the Iraq (or Afghanistan) mess on current government.Nice to see our DHS Secretary telling us all how well the system worked when a jihadi got on a plane with a bomb.And wasn't able to cause any damage... Yeah, it is true that current government should have removed all those unnecessary and inefficient post-911 security stuff from the airports.
They (and their voters) should be ashamed that this hasn't happened yet.
Even so, you should have hard time blaming democrats on those, either.I hear Gitmo is going to be closed any decade now.And just wait until you see the asshattery unleashed when Khalid Sheikh Mohammad et al are tried in a standard criminal court.This is getting old at this point.
"Republicans did something horrible when they were in charge.
Democrats haven't cleared all the mess yet.
Ergo, democrats are horrible.
"Nice to see we have a Democratic Senate Majority Leader who thinks it's great that the President is "light-skinned and doesn't speak with a Negro dialect".No fucking wonder Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev) is polling about 30 points behind his probably election opponent....I'm not even answering to this one.Think you can come up with a health care "reform" that relies even more on bribery and political payoffs and pisses even more people off?How about forcing people to buy health insurance even if they don't want it?
Where are all the libertarians-of-convenience who got so up in arms over the freedoms lost when a relatively small number of phone calls to known Al Qaeda related phones where intercepted without warrants?
Where are all those JACKASSES when Democrats propose laws that would literally unconstitutionally under penalty of jail time force millions of people into private contracts that they don't want and cost thousands of dollars a year?Private contracts?
Well, at least the original drafts included government supported options.That said... Yeah. The current plan for health care reform is horrible abomination.
Not a single country with socialized medicine does it like that.
It has the downsides of both systems.
They really should ditch it.
Democrats.  TOO DUMB TO KNOW THEY'RE DUMB Aside from that last point about health care reform, your whole post was a collection "Republicans have messed up so througly that democrats haven't fixed those things yet" points.
I certainly would think of democrats as the lesser evil based on that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714406</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30717386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30719030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30716792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30719104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30716600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30720258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30716564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30719210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30716704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30718444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30717272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30734260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_0232246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_0232246.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_0232246.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714022
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_0232246.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_0232246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715186
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_0232246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714406
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30719210
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_0232246.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714212
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714392
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30716704
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715000
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30716600
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_0232246.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713564
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_0232246.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30734260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714498
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30719104
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30718444
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_0232246.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30716792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30717272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30717386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_0232246.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30719030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_0232246.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713660
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_0232246.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_0232246.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_0232246.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_0232246.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_0232246.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30720258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30716564
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_0232246.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_0232246.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_0232246.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30714038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30713770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_0232246.30715104
</commentlist>
</conversation>
