<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_20_2310232</id>
	<title>"Immortal Molecule" Evolves &mdash; How Close To Synthetic Life?</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1266670500000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes with word of ongoing work at Scripps Research Institute: <i>"Can life arise from nothing but a chaotic assortment of basic molecules? The answer is a lot closer following a series of ingenious experiments that have shown <a href="http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/3325/life-evolution-a-test-tube">evolution at work in non-living molecules</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes with word of ongoing work at Scripps Research Institute : " Can life arise from nothing but a chaotic assortment of basic molecules ?
The answer is a lot closer following a series of ingenious experiments that have shown evolution at work in non-living molecules .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes with word of ongoing work at Scripps Research Institute: "Can life arise from nothing but a chaotic assortment of basic molecules?
The answer is a lot closer following a series of ingenious experiments that have shown evolution at work in non-living molecules.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215954</id>
	<title>Re:only one step of a great many</title>
	<author>cpricejones</author>
	<datestamp>1266686280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>These are interesting questions, some of which are discussed in a great book on the topic "The RNA World" (3rd ed is the latest) edited by Cech, Atkins, and Gesteland. Joyce has a great chapter in it (chapter 2) about the RNA world hypothesis and the evidence supporting it. And for those who have access, I would recommend the Joyce lab's most recent articles:
<br> <br>
-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19416904
<br>
-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19131595</htmltext>
<tokenext>These are interesting questions , some of which are discussed in a great book on the topic " The RNA World " ( 3rd ed is the latest ) edited by Cech , Atkins , and Gesteland .
Joyce has a great chapter in it ( chapter 2 ) about the RNA world hypothesis and the evidence supporting it .
And for those who have access , I would recommend the Joyce lab 's most recent articles : -http : //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19416904 -http : //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19131595</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These are interesting questions, some of which are discussed in a great book on the topic "The RNA World" (3rd ed is the latest) edited by Cech, Atkins, and Gesteland.
Joyce has a great chapter in it (chapter 2) about the RNA world hypothesis and the evidence supporting it.
And for those who have access, I would recommend the Joyce lab's most recent articles:
 
-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19416904

-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19131595</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31225446</id>
	<title>Christopher Wier</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266770340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, after 8 years and careful conditions, the brilliant engineers were able to take self-replicating enzymes and watch them replicate with mutations. This is exactly why the government should stop taking my money and giving it to scientific researchers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , after 8 years and careful conditions , the brilliant engineers were able to take self-replicating enzymes and watch them replicate with mutations .
This is exactly why the government should stop taking my money and giving it to scientific researchers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, after 8 years and careful conditions, the brilliant engineers were able to take self-replicating enzymes and watch them replicate with mutations.
This is exactly why the government should stop taking my money and giving it to scientific researchers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215934</id>
	<title>out!!</title>
	<author>rico13</author>
	<datestamp>1266686040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>not exactly evolution but a good attempt though<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>not exactly evolution but a good attempt though ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not exactly evolution but a good attempt though ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215206</id>
	<title>only one step of a great many</title>
	<author>rritterson</author>
	<datestamp>1266678000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>For those current in the field, this discovery is not surprising. Several people have created synthetic <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribozyme" title="wikipedia.org">ribozymes</a> [wikipedia.org] already, most doing some trivial and superfluous task. It was only a matter of time until someone created a self-replicating ribozyme. Yet, they do serve as basic evidence that the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA\_world\_hypothesis" title="wikipedia.org">RNA-world hypothesis</a> [wikipedia.org] may be correct. <br> <br>

However, a soup of replicating molecules is still a far cry from life, and, indeed, there are many more complicated features of life as we know it, even at the most basic level, for which there is no creation hypothesis. We know that membranes can self-assemble into micelles, and one key component of all life is a membrane layer to separate the living environment from the surroundings. However, if, by chance, a micelle happened to self-assemble around a ribozyme, how does the ribozyme continue to function, now that it has no ready source of diffusing ribonucleotides (the building block of RNA)?<br> <br>

Second, how did the first micelles replicate? Did they simply continue to grow as more membrane molecules spontaneously add to them until they broke apart into two? Perhaps life arose in some sort of thermally-cycling environment and the micelles broke apart at high temperture, releasing the contents, and then reformed again, with new randomized contents when the temperature cooled. <br> <br>

Third, how did we transition from RNA contents with lipid membranes into the vastly richer information of the amino acid world? Is there a reductionist "alphabet" for amino acids that may have served as the starting point, from which the extra amino acids were added slowly. Is our alphabet 'optimal' (virtually all life uses the same 20-acid alphabet, which minor variations of 1 or 2 in extreme organisms)? Or perhaps the alphabet only evolved once, and thus had no competition and could be completely far from optimal.<br> <br>

As you can see, there are a number of interesting questions to be explored. We have, however, gone from not knowing how the basic components of cells (proteins, DNA, lipids) functioned, to knowing that DNA encodes the 'heritable' information, to its structure, to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey\_experiment" title="wikipedia.org">Miller-Urey experiment</a> [wikipedia.org], and now on to knowing immense details about the complicated protein functional networks within cells, and between cells as well creating synthetic molecules that can evolve via natural selection, all in the span of just more than a century. It's going to be extremely fun to see what we know by the end of the 21st century. Right now we feel like we know all of the basics and just have to work on the hard stuff. I will bet dollars to donuts that we have a lot to learn, and, by 2100, several discoveries will have been made that future people will wonder how we ever thought we knew anything without.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those current in the field , this discovery is not surprising .
Several people have created synthetic ribozymes [ wikipedia.org ] already , most doing some trivial and superfluous task .
It was only a matter of time until someone created a self-replicating ribozyme .
Yet , they do serve as basic evidence that the RNA-world hypothesis [ wikipedia.org ] may be correct .
However , a soup of replicating molecules is still a far cry from life , and , indeed , there are many more complicated features of life as we know it , even at the most basic level , for which there is no creation hypothesis .
We know that membranes can self-assemble into micelles , and one key component of all life is a membrane layer to separate the living environment from the surroundings .
However , if , by chance , a micelle happened to self-assemble around a ribozyme , how does the ribozyme continue to function , now that it has no ready source of diffusing ribonucleotides ( the building block of RNA ) ?
Second , how did the first micelles replicate ?
Did they simply continue to grow as more membrane molecules spontaneously add to them until they broke apart into two ?
Perhaps life arose in some sort of thermally-cycling environment and the micelles broke apart at high temperture , releasing the contents , and then reformed again , with new randomized contents when the temperature cooled .
Third , how did we transition from RNA contents with lipid membranes into the vastly richer information of the amino acid world ?
Is there a reductionist " alphabet " for amino acids that may have served as the starting point , from which the extra amino acids were added slowly .
Is our alphabet 'optimal ' ( virtually all life uses the same 20-acid alphabet , which minor variations of 1 or 2 in extreme organisms ) ?
Or perhaps the alphabet only evolved once , and thus had no competition and could be completely far from optimal .
As you can see , there are a number of interesting questions to be explored .
We have , however , gone from not knowing how the basic components of cells ( proteins , DNA , lipids ) functioned , to knowing that DNA encodes the 'heritable ' information , to its structure , to the Miller-Urey experiment [ wikipedia.org ] , and now on to knowing immense details about the complicated protein functional networks within cells , and between cells as well creating synthetic molecules that can evolve via natural selection , all in the span of just more than a century .
It 's going to be extremely fun to see what we know by the end of the 21st century .
Right now we feel like we know all of the basics and just have to work on the hard stuff .
I will bet dollars to donuts that we have a lot to learn , and , by 2100 , several discoveries will have been made that future people will wonder how we ever thought we knew anything without .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those current in the field, this discovery is not surprising.
Several people have created synthetic ribozymes [wikipedia.org] already, most doing some trivial and superfluous task.
It was only a matter of time until someone created a self-replicating ribozyme.
Yet, they do serve as basic evidence that the RNA-world hypothesis [wikipedia.org] may be correct.
However, a soup of replicating molecules is still a far cry from life, and, indeed, there are many more complicated features of life as we know it, even at the most basic level, for which there is no creation hypothesis.
We know that membranes can self-assemble into micelles, and one key component of all life is a membrane layer to separate the living environment from the surroundings.
However, if, by chance, a micelle happened to self-assemble around a ribozyme, how does the ribozyme continue to function, now that it has no ready source of diffusing ribonucleotides (the building block of RNA)?
Second, how did the first micelles replicate?
Did they simply continue to grow as more membrane molecules spontaneously add to them until they broke apart into two?
Perhaps life arose in some sort of thermally-cycling environment and the micelles broke apart at high temperture, releasing the contents, and then reformed again, with new randomized contents when the temperature cooled.
Third, how did we transition from RNA contents with lipid membranes into the vastly richer information of the amino acid world?
Is there a reductionist "alphabet" for amino acids that may have served as the starting point, from which the extra amino acids were added slowly.
Is our alphabet 'optimal' (virtually all life uses the same 20-acid alphabet, which minor variations of 1 or 2 in extreme organisms)?
Or perhaps the alphabet only evolved once, and thus had no competition and could be completely far from optimal.
As you can see, there are a number of interesting questions to be explored.
We have, however, gone from not knowing how the basic components of cells (proteins, DNA, lipids) functioned, to knowing that DNA encodes the 'heritable' information, to its structure, to the Miller-Urey experiment [wikipedia.org], and now on to knowing immense details about the complicated protein functional networks within cells, and between cells as well creating synthetic molecules that can evolve via natural selection, all in the span of just more than a century.
It's going to be extremely fun to see what we know by the end of the 21st century.
Right now we feel like we know all of the basics and just have to work on the hard stuff.
I will bet dollars to donuts that we have a lot to learn, and, by 2100, several discoveries will have been made that future people will wonder how we ever thought we knew anything without.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31218428</id>
	<title>Great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266767520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now we have replicators.  Where's SG1 when you need them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now we have replicators .
Where 's SG1 when you need them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now we have replicators.
Where's SG1 when you need them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215202</id>
	<title>Mars, Life, and Really Small Shit</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1266678000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "Alan Hills" Mars meteorite has triggered interest in a type of bacteria temporarily coined "nanobacteria". The alleged bacterial fossils in the meteorite have been criticized as too small to be bacteria.</p><p>Since then the search for earthly equivalents has taken off. Some of the candidates appear to be <b>either non-living, or on the borderline</b>, including curious objects found in human blood.</p><p>And it tickles the question of how small a bacterium can get and still be "alive". It's too new of a field to make any definitive conclusions, but does show the <b>value of exploring outer space</b>. It makes us ask questions and explore areas we might otherwise ignore.</p><p>(Although the meteorite did not come from a space mission, it's recognition as being from Mars is based on data from the two Viking landers of the 1970's.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " Alan Hills " Mars meteorite has triggered interest in a type of bacteria temporarily coined " nanobacteria " .
The alleged bacterial fossils in the meteorite have been criticized as too small to be bacteria.Since then the search for earthly equivalents has taken off .
Some of the candidates appear to be either non-living , or on the borderline , including curious objects found in human blood.And it tickles the question of how small a bacterium can get and still be " alive " .
It 's too new of a field to make any definitive conclusions , but does show the value of exploring outer space .
It makes us ask questions and explore areas we might otherwise ignore .
( Although the meteorite did not come from a space mission , it 's recognition as being from Mars is based on data from the two Viking landers of the 1970 's .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "Alan Hills" Mars meteorite has triggered interest in a type of bacteria temporarily coined "nanobacteria".
The alleged bacterial fossils in the meteorite have been criticized as too small to be bacteria.Since then the search for earthly equivalents has taken off.
Some of the candidates appear to be either non-living, or on the borderline, including curious objects found in human blood.And it tickles the question of how small a bacterium can get and still be "alive".
It's too new of a field to make any definitive conclusions, but does show the value of exploring outer space.
It makes us ask questions and explore areas we might otherwise ignore.
(Although the meteorite did not come from a space mission, it's recognition as being from Mars is based on data from the two Viking landers of the 1970's.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215802</id>
	<title>Here is some more info</title>
	<author>telomerewhythere</author>
	<datestamp>1266684540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I found this looking for more information.  A good primer of what they are doing.
<a href="http://www.scripps.edu/mb/joyce/Lincolnjoycenw.htm" title="scripps.edu" rel="nofollow">Joyce Lab News 1</a> [scripps.edu]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I found this looking for more information .
A good primer of what they are doing .
Joyce Lab News 1 [ scripps.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found this looking for more information.
A good primer of what they are doing.
Joyce Lab News 1 [scripps.edu]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31214774</id>
	<title>what is a living molecule?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266674340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>"evolution at work in non-living molecules."<br><br>molecules can live?<br><br>ok just making sure<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>" evolution at work in non-living molecules .
" molecules can live ? ok just making sure : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"evolution at work in non-living molecules.
"molecules can live?ok just making sure :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215104</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266677280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It can't be true since God didn't make it. Obviously<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It ca n't be true since God did n't make it .
Obviously : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It can't be true since God didn't make it.
Obviously :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31218176</id>
	<title>Re:only one step of a great many</title>
	<author>Pedrito</author>
	<datestamp>1266764940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>For those current in the field, this discovery is not surprising.</i> <br> <br>
Especially since those current in the field probably read about it 13 months ago when the <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1167856" title="sciencemag.org">paper</a> [sciencemag.org] was published.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those current in the field , this discovery is not surprising .
Especially since those current in the field probably read about it 13 months ago when the paper [ sciencemag.org ] was published .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those current in the field, this discovery is not surprising.
Especially since those current in the field probably read about it 13 months ago when the paper [sciencemag.org] was published.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31216394</id>
	<title>Re:Synthesized</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1266690600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other words, an "intelligent" being was behind the experiment, making sure the necessary components were there.</p><p>I am not a theistic evolutionist by any means.  I do find it interesting that apparently, experiments HAVEN'T shown this yet (or this would not be news at all!), and yet so many people say they believe it because it's science...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , an " intelligent " being was behind the experiment , making sure the necessary components were there.I am not a theistic evolutionist by any means .
I do find it interesting that apparently , experiments HAVE N'T shown this yet ( or this would not be news at all !
) , and yet so many people say they believe it because it 's science.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, an "intelligent" being was behind the experiment, making sure the necessary components were there.I am not a theistic evolutionist by any means.
I do find it interesting that apparently, experiments HAVEN'T shown this yet (or this would not be news at all!
), and yet so many people say they believe it because it's science...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31216046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215844</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266684960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is impossible to use God's creations to prove that He doesn't exist. When science contradicts our "beliefs" then our beliefs must change. This is where most anti-science Christians fall apart. The mechanics God used to create everything are pretty irrelevant. They're fascinating, sure, but one doesn't need to understand this article to get to heaven.</p><p>God made us in His image, but what image is that? His physical image? His spiritual one? If he meant in His spiritual image then evolution and all this science ceases to contradict scripture. Adam and Eve could have just been the first two to receive souls.</p><p>The purpose of the religion is to give us guidelines to be good people, love one another, and help others in need but too many of my fellow Christians seem to forget that and get hung up on their "beliefs" being contradicted by science.</p><p>Pride is one of the seven deadly sins for a reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is impossible to use God 's creations to prove that He does n't exist .
When science contradicts our " beliefs " then our beliefs must change .
This is where most anti-science Christians fall apart .
The mechanics God used to create everything are pretty irrelevant .
They 're fascinating , sure , but one does n't need to understand this article to get to heaven.God made us in His image , but what image is that ?
His physical image ?
His spiritual one ?
If he meant in His spiritual image then evolution and all this science ceases to contradict scripture .
Adam and Eve could have just been the first two to receive souls.The purpose of the religion is to give us guidelines to be good people , love one another , and help others in need but too many of my fellow Christians seem to forget that and get hung up on their " beliefs " being contradicted by science.Pride is one of the seven deadly sins for a reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is impossible to use God's creations to prove that He doesn't exist.
When science contradicts our "beliefs" then our beliefs must change.
This is where most anti-science Christians fall apart.
The mechanics God used to create everything are pretty irrelevant.
They're fascinating, sure, but one doesn't need to understand this article to get to heaven.God made us in His image, but what image is that?
His physical image?
His spiritual one?
If he meant in His spiritual image then evolution and all this science ceases to contradict scripture.
Adam and Eve could have just been the first two to receive souls.The purpose of the religion is to give us guidelines to be good people, love one another, and help others in need but too many of my fellow Christians seem to forget that and get hung up on their "beliefs" being contradicted by science.Pride is one of the seven deadly sins for a reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215410</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1266679740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> It can't be true since God didn't make it. Obviously<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div> </blockquote><p>God <i>did</i> make it. It's just that to these new critters, God is a giant pink two-eyed thing in a long silly white coat.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It ca n't be true since God did n't make it .
Obviously : ) God did make it .
It 's just that to these new critters , God is a giant pink two-eyed thing in a long silly white coat .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext> It can't be true since God didn't make it.
Obviously :) God did make it.
It's just that to these new critters, God is a giant pink two-eyed thing in a long silly white coat.
   
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31216544</id>
	<title>Want a game made of this!</title>
	<author>SplinterOfChaos</author>
	<datestamp>1266693180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OK, maybe it's a little silly of one to say they want an artificial simulation over a real-world experiment, but i think a Game of Life simulation would be killer based off this. But really, will we really be able to say we can understand this WITHOUT making a game of it? Simulating it artificially could only come from being able to predict the behaviors.<br> <br>

So, because it'd be cool, because it would test our understanding, because it would be educational, i wanna see a game produced!</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , maybe it 's a little silly of one to say they want an artificial simulation over a real-world experiment , but i think a Game of Life simulation would be killer based off this .
But really , will we really be able to say we can understand this WITHOUT making a game of it ?
Simulating it artificially could only come from being able to predict the behaviors .
So , because it 'd be cool , because it would test our understanding , because it would be educational , i wan na see a game produced !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, maybe it's a little silly of one to say they want an artificial simulation over a real-world experiment, but i think a Game of Life simulation would be killer based off this.
But really, will we really be able to say we can understand this WITHOUT making a game of it?
Simulating it artificially could only come from being able to predict the behaviors.
So, because it'd be cool, because it would test our understanding, because it would be educational, i wanna see a game produced!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31217694</id>
	<title>Re:Synthesized</title>
	<author>Monkey-Man2000</author>
	<datestamp>1266759540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're misunderstanding the point because of the bad summary. They observed "spontaneous" evolution because the molecule has three qualities: it can self-replicate, it can pass down heritable information to offspring, and it can alter it's code (in some way that the article doeesn't describe). The descendents of the original synthesized molecules were much more tuned to their environment and out-compete "weaker" descendents of the original molecules.
<br> <br>
So, really this just nicely shows the necessary conditions for very simple natural selection.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're misunderstanding the point because of the bad summary .
They observed " spontaneous " evolution because the molecule has three qualities : it can self-replicate , it can pass down heritable information to offspring , and it can alter it 's code ( in some way that the article doees n't describe ) .
The descendents of the original synthesized molecules were much more tuned to their environment and out-compete " weaker " descendents of the original molecules .
So , really this just nicely shows the necessary conditions for very simple natural selection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're misunderstanding the point because of the bad summary.
They observed "spontaneous" evolution because the molecule has three qualities: it can self-replicate, it can pass down heritable information to offspring, and it can alter it's code (in some way that the article doeesn't describe).
The descendents of the original synthesized molecules were much more tuned to their environment and out-compete "weaker" descendents of the original molecules.
So, really this just nicely shows the necessary conditions for very simple natural selection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31216046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31226338</id>
	<title>A Definition of Life from Philip Morrison....</title>
	<author>rickshaf</author>
	<datestamp>1266778500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I worked on the NASA SETI Program in the 1980s in the Deep Space Network at NASA/JPL in Pasadena, CA.  I led a small team of engineer/astronomers who provided a wide variety of planning, scheduling, and execution of radio astronomy and radar astronomy experiments withing the DSN.  Sometime during that time, a senior manager of SETI, N. A. Renzetti, arranged for the late Dr. Philip Morrison to meet with my team and a few others one afternoon.  There was no particular agenda, but we understood that we were there to hear about Dr. Morrison's opinions about SETI.  One of my colleagues asked what his definition of life was.  He replied that, boiled down to its essentials, it was the ability to reproduce.  He then mentioned, almost in passing, that he had heard from a geologist at MIT about a particular variety of clay that, if given the right raw materials, could reporduce itself, but, if the raw materials were present, but the clay was not, no clay would be produced.  I asked the obvious question:  "How was the original batch of this clay produced?"  Dr. Morrison replied that he really didn't know, but made a joke about chickens and eggs....  I've occasionally wondered about that clay over the years.  Has anyone else every heard of this (possibly) prolific stuff?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked on the NASA SETI Program in the 1980s in the Deep Space Network at NASA/JPL in Pasadena , CA .
I led a small team of engineer/astronomers who provided a wide variety of planning , scheduling , and execution of radio astronomy and radar astronomy experiments withing the DSN .
Sometime during that time , a senior manager of SETI , N. A. Renzetti , arranged for the late Dr. Philip Morrison to meet with my team and a few others one afternoon .
There was no particular agenda , but we understood that we were there to hear about Dr. Morrison 's opinions about SETI .
One of my colleagues asked what his definition of life was .
He replied that , boiled down to its essentials , it was the ability to reproduce .
He then mentioned , almost in passing , that he had heard from a geologist at MIT about a particular variety of clay that , if given the right raw materials , could reporduce itself , but , if the raw materials were present , but the clay was not , no clay would be produced .
I asked the obvious question : " How was the original batch of this clay produced ?
" Dr. Morrison replied that he really did n't know , but made a joke about chickens and eggs.... I 've occasionally wondered about that clay over the years .
Has anyone else every heard of this ( possibly ) prolific stuff ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked on the NASA SETI Program in the 1980s in the Deep Space Network at NASA/JPL in Pasadena, CA.
I led a small team of engineer/astronomers who provided a wide variety of planning, scheduling, and execution of radio astronomy and radar astronomy experiments withing the DSN.
Sometime during that time, a senior manager of SETI, N. A. Renzetti, arranged for the late Dr. Philip Morrison to meet with my team and a few others one afternoon.
There was no particular agenda, but we understood that we were there to hear about Dr. Morrison's opinions about SETI.
One of my colleagues asked what his definition of life was.
He replied that, boiled down to its essentials, it was the ability to reproduce.
He then mentioned, almost in passing, that he had heard from a geologist at MIT about a particular variety of clay that, if given the right raw materials, could reporduce itself, but, if the raw materials were present, but the clay was not, no clay would be produced.
I asked the obvious question:  "How was the original batch of this clay produced?
"  Dr. Morrison replied that he really didn't know, but made a joke about chickens and eggs....  I've occasionally wondered about that clay over the years.
Has anyone else every heard of this (possibly) prolific stuff?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215676</id>
	<title>But they still remain molecules</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1266683040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It does not contradict the Bible at all. After all the evilution, they still remain the molecule kind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does not contradict the Bible at all .
After all the evilution , they still remain the molecule kind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does not contradict the Bible at all.
After all the evilution, they still remain the molecule kind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215278</id>
	<title>Zombie Apocalypse Begins...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266678660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"They're just molecules, so they do what they do until they run out of substrate. And this will go for ever it's an immortal molecule, if you like, he told a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science here in San Diego."</p><p>Later in the evening working alone, Dr DeSilva accidentally cut himself with an x-acto contaminated by his cultures. The RNA slowly overtook his own cellular composition, "blindly finding solutions that made them more successful". Ironically, he had unknowingly predicted his own end, "They do what they do until they run out of substrate". He (the self-replicating RNA by this time) was later to discover the best substrate was brainz...</p><p>And so the zombie apocalypse begins...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" They 're just molecules , so they do what they do until they run out of substrate .
And this will go for ever it 's an immortal molecule , if you like , he told a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science here in San Diego .
" Later in the evening working alone , Dr DeSilva accidentally cut himself with an x-acto contaminated by his cultures .
The RNA slowly overtook his own cellular composition , " blindly finding solutions that made them more successful " .
Ironically , he had unknowingly predicted his own end , " They do what they do until they run out of substrate " .
He ( the self-replicating RNA by this time ) was later to discover the best substrate was brainz...And so the zombie apocalypse begins.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They're just molecules, so they do what they do until they run out of substrate.
And this will go for ever it's an immortal molecule, if you like, he told a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science here in San Diego.
"Later in the evening working alone, Dr DeSilva accidentally cut himself with an x-acto contaminated by his cultures.
The RNA slowly overtook his own cellular composition, "blindly finding solutions that made them more successful".
Ironically, he had unknowingly predicted his own end, "They do what they do until they run out of substrate".
He (the self-replicating RNA by this time) was later to discover the best substrate was brainz...And so the zombie apocalypse begins...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31216462</id>
	<title>...as usual the science "press" makes up a story..</title>
	<author>Samarian Hillbilly</author>
	<datestamp>1266691920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference between the claims of the author and the quotes by the scientists is quite remarkable. The scientists claimed they succeeded in creating a "self-replicating" molecule that could optimize it's response to different environments by passing 30 bits of information to the next generation. They specifically denied that they'd created "evolution" in the sense of evolving molecules of higher and higher complexity and more ingenious responses.  This didn't stop the author of the story from making these claims however.  And of course skeptics will be accused of being "creationists".  Good experiment + bad press = scientism not science</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference between the claims of the author and the quotes by the scientists is quite remarkable .
The scientists claimed they succeeded in creating a " self-replicating " molecule that could optimize it 's response to different environments by passing 30 bits of information to the next generation .
They specifically denied that they 'd created " evolution " in the sense of evolving molecules of higher and higher complexity and more ingenious responses .
This did n't stop the author of the story from making these claims however .
And of course skeptics will be accused of being " creationists " .
Good experiment + bad press = scientism not science</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference between the claims of the author and the quotes by the scientists is quite remarkable.
The scientists claimed they succeeded in creating a "self-replicating" molecule that could optimize it's response to different environments by passing 30 bits of information to the next generation.
They specifically denied that they'd created "evolution" in the sense of evolving molecules of higher and higher complexity and more ingenious responses.
This didn't stop the author of the story from making these claims however.
And of course skeptics will be accused of being "creationists".
Good experiment + bad press = scientism not science</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31220980</id>
	<title>Re:Immortality means no evolution</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1266783840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They have nice things there... replication, making not perfect copies, but what they don't have is death.</p></div><p>They take random samples and move them to new vats. The ones not taken to new vats have no more materials with which to reproduce.</p><p>Anyway, you can't kill that which has no life.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They have nice things there... replication , making not perfect copies , but what they do n't have is death.They take random samples and move them to new vats .
The ones not taken to new vats have no more materials with which to reproduce.Anyway , you ca n't kill that which has no life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have nice things there... replication, making not perfect copies, but what they don't have is death.They take random samples and move them to new vats.
The ones not taken to new vats have no more materials with which to reproduce.Anyway, you can't kill that which has no life.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31216962</id>
	<title>Or...</title>
	<author>thelonious</author>
	<datestamp>1266743520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>what may be a better way to phrase the question is, can people with vested interests in seeing a desirable outcome from an experiment, create such a synthetic experiment that their desired outcomes are manifest.

It's like some people are actually frightened of discovering the truth and hide behind contrived models.

fear</htmltext>
<tokenext>what may be a better way to phrase the question is , can people with vested interests in seeing a desirable outcome from an experiment , create such a synthetic experiment that their desired outcomes are manifest .
It 's like some people are actually frightened of discovering the truth and hide behind contrived models .
fear</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what may be a better way to phrase the question is, can people with vested interests in seeing a desirable outcome from an experiment, create such a synthetic experiment that their desired outcomes are manifest.
It's like some people are actually frightened of discovering the truth and hide behind contrived models.
fear</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31229682</id>
	<title>Tracking Comment</title>
	<author>acteon</author>
	<datestamp>1266856440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tracking comment</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tracking comment</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tracking comment</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31217436</id>
	<title>Horta</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266753720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are obviously trying to create a Horta before the timeline of Star Trek: The Original Series gets here.</p><p>Mark Edwards</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are obviously trying to create a Horta before the timeline of Star Trek : The Original Series gets here.Mark Edwards</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are obviously trying to create a Horta before the timeline of Star Trek: The Original Series gets here.Mark Edwards</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31216046</id>
	<title>Synthesized</title>
	<author>HikingStick</author>
	<datestamp>1266687240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since the scientists involved synthesized the original molecules through their manipulations, I don't see how this can be viewed as evidence of any sort of spontaneous evolution.  Throw together the random ingredients that should have been in the primordial soup and let them cook.  If they then start evolving, it will be something to write home about.  Until then, it's just like a mechanic taking parts from a bunch of different cars, slapping them together, getting something that turns over, and then expressing surprise that a car was able to arise from all of the jumbled parts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the scientists involved synthesized the original molecules through their manipulations , I do n't see how this can be viewed as evidence of any sort of spontaneous evolution .
Throw together the random ingredients that should have been in the primordial soup and let them cook .
If they then start evolving , it will be something to write home about .
Until then , it 's just like a mechanic taking parts from a bunch of different cars , slapping them together , getting something that turns over , and then expressing surprise that a car was able to arise from all of the jumbled parts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the scientists involved synthesized the original molecules through their manipulations, I don't see how this can be viewed as evidence of any sort of spontaneous evolution.
Throw together the random ingredients that should have been in the primordial soup and let them cook.
If they then start evolving, it will be something to write home about.
Until then, it's just like a mechanic taking parts from a bunch of different cars, slapping them together, getting something that turns over, and then expressing surprise that a car was able to arise from all of the jumbled parts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215576</id>
	<title>Re:Immortality means no evolution</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1266682020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're making a false dichotomy between "resources" and energy, which are at a certain level equivalent.  An "immortal" molecule could still be alive, and even evolve (change), without consuming any new resources, but only energy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're making a false dichotomy between " resources " and energy , which are at a certain level equivalent .
An " immortal " molecule could still be alive , and even evolve ( change ) , without consuming any new resources , but only energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're making a false dichotomy between "resources" and energy, which are at a certain level equivalent.
An "immortal" molecule could still be alive, and even evolve (change), without consuming any new resources, but only energy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31217272</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266749880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I say it's both natural and a creation of God. God made us, whatever we create comes from a creation of God's... do we stand outside of His domain?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I say it 's both natural and a creation of God .
God made us , whatever we create comes from a creation of God 's... do we stand outside of His domain ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say it's both natural and a creation of God.
God made us, whatever we create comes from a creation of God's... do we stand outside of His domain?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215938</id>
	<title>I for one...</title>
	<author>SkeeZerD</author>
	<datestamp>1266686100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>welcome our new RNA based overlords</htmltext>
<tokenext>welcome our new RNA based overlords</tokentext>
<sentencetext>welcome our new RNA based overlords</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31214766</id>
	<title>not as close as this first post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266674280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>suck my asshole,  faggots!</htmltext>
<tokenext>suck my asshole , faggots !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>suck my asshole,  faggots!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215288</id>
	<title>Sounds like...</title>
	<author>mim</author>
	<datestamp>1266678780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The team then extracted a random subset, and put them in a new medium: ribozymes then competed with each other to consume as much of the medium as possible."

Sounds like my ex-boyfriend &amp; his beer buddies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The team then extracted a random subset , and put them in a new medium : ribozymes then competed with each other to consume as much of the medium as possible .
" Sounds like my ex-boyfriend &amp; his beer buddies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The team then extracted a random subset, and put them in a new medium: ribozymes then competed with each other to consume as much of the medium as possible.
"

Sounds like my ex-boyfriend &amp; his beer buddies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31216570</id>
	<title>Ah ha! Evolution does work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266693780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as you have a team of intelligent, well-equipped, well-funded scientists working on it.</p><p>Take that all you people who cling to guns and religion!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as you have a team of intelligent , well-equipped , well-funded scientists working on it.Take that all you people who cling to guns and religion !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as you have a team of intelligent, well-equipped, well-funded scientists working on it.Take that all you people who cling to guns and religion!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31216802</id>
	<title>Because they know the Truth</title>
	<author>hyades1</author>
	<datestamp>1266783480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> We all know the god addicts will be drooling and whipping themselves bloody in an attempt to shut down this line of research. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We all know the god addicts will be drooling and whipping themselves bloody in an attempt to shut down this line of research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> We all know the god addicts will be drooling and whipping themselves bloody in an attempt to shut down this line of research. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215166</id>
	<title>Immortality means no evolution</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1266677760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They have nice things there... replication, making not perfect copies, but what they dont have is death. And death is a critical for evolving... without it, you will consume all consummable resources, and when that happens no more copies will be possible. At least until some molecule turns into predator and eats those supposed "immortal" molecules.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They have nice things there... replication , making not perfect copies , but what they dont have is death .
And death is a critical for evolving... without it , you will consume all consummable resources , and when that happens no more copies will be possible .
At least until some molecule turns into predator and eats those supposed " immortal " molecules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have nice things there... replication, making not perfect copies, but what they dont have is death.
And death is a critical for evolving... without it, you will consume all consummable resources, and when that happens no more copies will be possible.
At least until some molecule turns into predator and eats those supposed "immortal" molecules.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31218796</id>
	<title>Is life re-evolving all the time, everywhere?</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1266771480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would that be happening all the time now, except other organisms eat the simple results before they get very advanced?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would that be happening all the time now , except other organisms eat the simple results before they get very advanced ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would that be happening all the time now, except other organisms eat the simple results before they get very advanced?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_2310232_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31220980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_2310232_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_2310232_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31218176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_2310232_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_2310232_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31216394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31216046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_2310232_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31217272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_2310232_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31217694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31216046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_2310232_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_2310232_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_2310232.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31220980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_2310232.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31214766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_2310232.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31216046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31216394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31217694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_2310232.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31218176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_2310232.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31216802
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_2310232.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31217272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215844
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_2310232.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31214774
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_2310232.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_2310232.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_2310232.31215676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
