<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_02_1631204</id>
	<title>The Role of Human Culture In Natural Selection</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1267553100000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>gollum123 writes with this excerpt from the NY Times: <i>"... for the last 20,000 years or so, people have inadvertently been shaping their own evolution. The force is human culture, broadly defined as any learned behavior, including technology. The evidence of its activity is the more surprising because culture has long seemed to play just the opposite role. Biologists have seen it as a shield that protects people from the full force of other selective pressures, since clothes and shelter dull the bite of cold and farming helps build surpluses to ride out famine. Because of this buffering action, culture was thought to have blunted the rate of human evolution, or even brought it to a halt, in the distant past. Many biologists are now seeing the role of culture in a quite different light. Although it does shield people from other forces, culture itself seems to be a powerful force of natural selection. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/science/02evo.html?hp=&amp;pagewanted=all">People adapt genetically to sustained cultural changes</a>, like new diets. And this interaction works more quickly than other selective forces, 'leading some practitioners to argue that gene-culture co-evolution could be the dominant mode of human evolution.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>gollum123 writes with this excerpt from the NY Times : " ... for the last 20,000 years or so , people have inadvertently been shaping their own evolution .
The force is human culture , broadly defined as any learned behavior , including technology .
The evidence of its activity is the more surprising because culture has long seemed to play just the opposite role .
Biologists have seen it as a shield that protects people from the full force of other selective pressures , since clothes and shelter dull the bite of cold and farming helps build surpluses to ride out famine .
Because of this buffering action , culture was thought to have blunted the rate of human evolution , or even brought it to a halt , in the distant past .
Many biologists are now seeing the role of culture in a quite different light .
Although it does shield people from other forces , culture itself seems to be a powerful force of natural selection .
People adapt genetically to sustained cultural changes , like new diets .
And this interaction works more quickly than other selective forces , 'leading some practitioners to argue that gene-culture co-evolution could be the dominant mode of human evolution .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gollum123 writes with this excerpt from the NY Times: "... for the last 20,000 years or so, people have inadvertently been shaping their own evolution.
The force is human culture, broadly defined as any learned behavior, including technology.
The evidence of its activity is the more surprising because culture has long seemed to play just the opposite role.
Biologists have seen it as a shield that protects people from the full force of other selective pressures, since clothes and shelter dull the bite of cold and farming helps build surpluses to ride out famine.
Because of this buffering action, culture was thought to have blunted the rate of human evolution, or even brought it to a halt, in the distant past.
Many biologists are now seeing the role of culture in a quite different light.
Although it does shield people from other forces, culture itself seems to be a powerful force of natural selection.
People adapt genetically to sustained cultural changes, like new diets.
And this interaction works more quickly than other selective forces, 'leading some practitioners to argue that gene-culture co-evolution could be the dominant mode of human evolution.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31336252</id>
	<title>so whats new ?</title>
	<author>BlindRobin</author>
	<datestamp>1267526700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This has always been true, what is surprising is that it isn't obvious. Human 'culture' is as much a product of our evolution as our physical nature and the results are simply an extension of those changes. Thinking that culture is something 'other' than us or created by us is as silly as believing that conscience is something other than that which is supported by the physical context from which it arises.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has always been true , what is surprising is that it is n't obvious .
Human 'culture ' is as much a product of our evolution as our physical nature and the results are simply an extension of those changes .
Thinking that culture is something 'other ' than us or created by us is as silly as believing that conscience is something other than that which is supported by the physical context from which it arises .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has always been true, what is surprising is that it isn't obvious.
Human 'culture' is as much a product of our evolution as our physical nature and the results are simply an extension of those changes.
Thinking that culture is something 'other' than us or created by us is as silly as believing that conscience is something other than that which is supported by the physical context from which it arises.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31336064</id>
	<title>We're evolving other species, too</title>
	<author>andrewagill</author>
	<datestamp>1267526040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Take the example of teosinte (originally Zea mays parviglumis), a grass that has since evolved from a very fit organism to a biological freak: its reproductive organs are encased in a husk and located in a place that makes reproduction less probable unless it's mediated by another organism with opposable thumbs. Why did it evolve this way? Because humans really liked to kill the plant and eat its embryos, and thus wanted to ensure the survival of the species.<br>
<br>
And while Zea mays parviglumis is still around, you're probably less likely to run into that plant than the more common mutant subspecies that humans evolved: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zea\_mays" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">corn</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take the example of teosinte ( originally Zea mays parviglumis ) , a grass that has since evolved from a very fit organism to a biological freak : its reproductive organs are encased in a husk and located in a place that makes reproduction less probable unless it 's mediated by another organism with opposable thumbs .
Why did it evolve this way ?
Because humans really liked to kill the plant and eat its embryos , and thus wanted to ensure the survival of the species .
And while Zea mays parviglumis is still around , you 're probably less likely to run into that plant than the more common mutant subspecies that humans evolved : corn [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take the example of teosinte (originally Zea mays parviglumis), a grass that has since evolved from a very fit organism to a biological freak: its reproductive organs are encased in a husk and located in a place that makes reproduction less probable unless it's mediated by another organism with opposable thumbs.
Why did it evolve this way?
Because humans really liked to kill the plant and eat its embryos, and thus wanted to ensure the survival of the species.
And while Zea mays parviglumis is still around, you're probably less likely to run into that plant than the more common mutant subspecies that humans evolved: corn [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333290</id>
	<title>Re:Religious Neanderthals</title>
	<author>number6x</author>
	<datestamp>1267559160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
Liberals in America think *public* resources should be used to help others.  Conservatives think that private resources should be used.</p></div><p>
Liberals in America think *public* resources should be used to help others.  Conservatives think that *public* resources should be used to help corporations.</p><p>There, fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Liberals in America think * public * resources should be used to help others .
Conservatives think that private resources should be used .
Liberals in America think * public * resources should be used to help others .
Conservatives think that * public * resources should be used to help corporations.There , fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Liberals in America think *public* resources should be used to help others.
Conservatives think that private resources should be used.
Liberals in America think *public* resources should be used to help others.
Conservatives think that *public* resources should be used to help corporations.There, fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31338100</id>
	<title>Already been pointed out...a lot...</title>
	<author>sugarmatic</author>
	<datestamp>1267534260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The core of this "news" item is already well-documented in canines. The development of the neural crest during fetal development and subsequent maturation is affected by not-so-subtle hormonal changes instigated by environmental changes from domestication during term. The neural crest affects the initiation, duration, completion, and other aspects of developmental processes. These include cartilage distribution and growth, gland development, and other aspects that definitively affect physical and behavior development. As we "domesticate" canines, they retain many characteristics that are exemplary of a wild puppy throughout their lives. As the domestication influence is removed, the neural crest changes revert and a normal wild adult will occur fully within two or four generations.</p><p>Even more interesting is that this domestication shift creates a developmental relationship that is "sticky", or stable. Many of the behaviors exhibited by domesticated animals are shown to domesticate offspring as well even with drastic reductions in domestication inputs from humans.</p><p>What this means is that the change towards domestication can occur rather rapidly, and the departure from domestication can be difficult at first but then very rapid after maternal behavioral inputs die off (hysteresis).</p><p>Why wouldn't this happen in humans as well? It is complete speculation on my part, but the sudden appearance of agriculturation and the lack of significant examples of a flow back to hunter/gathering once agriculturizaton has occurred seems to have similar characteristics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The core of this " news " item is already well-documented in canines .
The development of the neural crest during fetal development and subsequent maturation is affected by not-so-subtle hormonal changes instigated by environmental changes from domestication during term .
The neural crest affects the initiation , duration , completion , and other aspects of developmental processes .
These include cartilage distribution and growth , gland development , and other aspects that definitively affect physical and behavior development .
As we " domesticate " canines , they retain many characteristics that are exemplary of a wild puppy throughout their lives .
As the domestication influence is removed , the neural crest changes revert and a normal wild adult will occur fully within two or four generations.Even more interesting is that this domestication shift creates a developmental relationship that is " sticky " , or stable .
Many of the behaviors exhibited by domesticated animals are shown to domesticate offspring as well even with drastic reductions in domestication inputs from humans.What this means is that the change towards domestication can occur rather rapidly , and the departure from domestication can be difficult at first but then very rapid after maternal behavioral inputs die off ( hysteresis ) .Why would n't this happen in humans as well ?
It is complete speculation on my part , but the sudden appearance of agriculturation and the lack of significant examples of a flow back to hunter/gathering once agriculturizaton has occurred seems to have similar characteristics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The core of this "news" item is already well-documented in canines.
The development of the neural crest during fetal development and subsequent maturation is affected by not-so-subtle hormonal changes instigated by environmental changes from domestication during term.
The neural crest affects the initiation, duration, completion, and other aspects of developmental processes.
These include cartilage distribution and growth, gland development, and other aspects that definitively affect physical and behavior development.
As we "domesticate" canines, they retain many characteristics that are exemplary of a wild puppy throughout their lives.
As the domestication influence is removed, the neural crest changes revert and a normal wild adult will occur fully within two or four generations.Even more interesting is that this domestication shift creates a developmental relationship that is "sticky", or stable.
Many of the behaviors exhibited by domesticated animals are shown to domesticate offspring as well even with drastic reductions in domestication inputs from humans.What this means is that the change towards domestication can occur rather rapidly, and the departure from domestication can be difficult at first but then very rapid after maternal behavioral inputs die off (hysteresis).Why wouldn't this happen in humans as well?
It is complete speculation on my part, but the sudden appearance of agriculturation and the lack of significant examples of a flow back to hunter/gathering once agriculturizaton has occurred seems to have similar characteristics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31334070</id>
	<title>Not No More</title>
	<author>KharmaWidow</author>
	<datestamp>1267561860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not since FDR, at least. Now we are filling the population with people with genetic illnesses - saving any person we can regardless how their eventual reproduction will just make us weaker as a species. Both physically and intellectually. In addition, government is now dictating diet regardless of what an individual needs/wants, and to accommodate for those with allergies or other health problems. Brave New World has transformed from a fictional warning to future generations to a 'how to" manual...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not since FDR , at least .
Now we are filling the population with people with genetic illnesses - saving any person we can regardless how their eventual reproduction will just make us weaker as a species .
Both physically and intellectually .
In addition , government is now dictating diet regardless of what an individual needs/wants , and to accommodate for those with allergies or other health problems .
Brave New World has transformed from a fictional warning to future generations to a 'how to " manual.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not since FDR, at least.
Now we are filling the population with people with genetic illnesses - saving any person we can regardless how their eventual reproduction will just make us weaker as a species.
Both physically and intellectually.
In addition, government is now dictating diet regardless of what an individual needs/wants, and to accommodate for those with allergies or other health problems.
Brave New World has transformed from a fictional warning to future generations to a 'how to" manual...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333976</id>
	<title>Re:conservatives don't pay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267561560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>[conservatives don't pay] for public or private resources</i> Huh? Conservatives pay for plenty of both.
<br>
<br>
<i>the ultimate effect of a conservative ideology is a third world country: a rich upper class of a few, and a vast underclass of poor</i>
The ultimate effect of a liberal ideology is a third world country: a rich elite ruling class of a few, and a vast underclass of dependents of the state.
<br>
<br>
<i>there is no room for the middle class in conservative ideology. this includes no room for middle class idiots who believe the corporate propaganda about "evuls socialisticisms". some people are their own worst enemy</i> I think you are confusing plutocracy for a "conservative ideology". A liberal ideology can lead to the same problems by believing all the propaganda about "evuls greedy capitalists". the road the hell is paved with good intentions.
<br>
<br>
<i>the money you have in your pocket is an abstract expression of the wealth of the society you live in. if you do not invest in your society, the money in your pocket loses value. if you invest in your society, you are paid dividends of a richer society, which pays you back with more business opportunities, etc</i>
The money in my pocket is an abstract expression of the wealth that I have earned. I know best how to invest my money. The money in the pocket of someone who didn't earn it represents the generosity of a charitable person, or the fruits of another's labor, taken by the state, diminished in value through the inefficiencies of layers of bueracracy and allocated to those who can get it.
<br>
<br>
<i>"but dem freeloading welfare queens..."</i> These are the ones who don't pay for public or private resources.
<br>
<br>
<i>oh shut up retard. take a look at denmark someday. tell me they aren't happier healthier and wealthier than the average american. and then take a look at their tax rate</i> Denmark is a country with a population the size of an average US state. Conservatives want to "conserve" the original intent of the constitution - e.g. the Federal government has very specific duties, and then ought to butt out and leave each State to sort things out, state by state. After all, who knows better what a population needs, then the people themselves?
<br>
<br>
<i>i'd rather be taxed to high hell than worry about declaring bankruptcy if i get cancer</i>
I'd rather buy a really high deductable major medical policy. Nobody can insure your health, everyone will die sooner or later. You can, however, insure against financial risks - like your house buring down, or a major medical bill. Allocate your resources as you see fit.
<br>
<br>
<i>but the conservative answer about a rising poor underclass (made up of previous middle class people) is to buy more guns</i> Huh? I don't know what to say about this. Oh, wait, I think I just saw the perfect quote somewhere... "oh shut up retard".
<br>
<br>
<i>the greatest irony/ tragedy/ comedy is how many previously lower middle class people who are now the new american poor (because of conservative initiatives like gutting depression era financial protections that created the real estate bubble) support with such rapturous passion the gutting of social safety nets that only exist to serve them. some people are full of so much stupidity and hatred- for their own neighbors, their own society, and their own government, that they only destroy themselves</i>
There is a fine line between a safety net that breaks your fall and a net that catches one into a life of dependency. The greatest irony<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/tragedy is that the previously lower middle class of people who "use these services" are now caught in the net, to their own detriment, yet demand more and more.
<br>
<br>
<i>but i'm not going to let the morons take us all down. and if you read my words and agree with me, roll up your sleeves: there is a real life zombie apocalypse of propagandized retards out there, and we need to fight them to save our country from their self-destructive conservative stupidity</i>
But I'm not going to let the morons take us all down. If you read my words and agree with me, especially if you are a younger US citizen who doesn't want to be burdened with another generation of even more government waste, get out and vote for someone who will let you have more choice in how to allocate your resources. There is a real life zombie apocalypes of propagandized retards out there, and we need to fight them to save our country from their self-destructive liberal stupidity.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ conservatives do n't pay ] for public or private resources Huh ?
Conservatives pay for plenty of both .
the ultimate effect of a conservative ideology is a third world country : a rich upper class of a few , and a vast underclass of poor The ultimate effect of a liberal ideology is a third world country : a rich elite ruling class of a few , and a vast underclass of dependents of the state .
there is no room for the middle class in conservative ideology .
this includes no room for middle class idiots who believe the corporate propaganda about " evuls socialisticisms " .
some people are their own worst enemy I think you are confusing plutocracy for a " conservative ideology " .
A liberal ideology can lead to the same problems by believing all the propaganda about " evuls greedy capitalists " .
the road the hell is paved with good intentions .
the money you have in your pocket is an abstract expression of the wealth of the society you live in .
if you do not invest in your society , the money in your pocket loses value .
if you invest in your society , you are paid dividends of a richer society , which pays you back with more business opportunities , etc The money in my pocket is an abstract expression of the wealth that I have earned .
I know best how to invest my money .
The money in the pocket of someone who did n't earn it represents the generosity of a charitable person , or the fruits of another 's labor , taken by the state , diminished in value through the inefficiencies of layers of bueracracy and allocated to those who can get it .
" but dem freeloading welfare queens... " These are the ones who do n't pay for public or private resources .
oh shut up retard .
take a look at denmark someday .
tell me they are n't happier healthier and wealthier than the average american .
and then take a look at their tax rate Denmark is a country with a population the size of an average US state .
Conservatives want to " conserve " the original intent of the constitution - e.g .
the Federal government has very specific duties , and then ought to butt out and leave each State to sort things out , state by state .
After all , who knows better what a population needs , then the people themselves ?
i 'd rather be taxed to high hell than worry about declaring bankruptcy if i get cancer I 'd rather buy a really high deductable major medical policy .
Nobody can insure your health , everyone will die sooner or later .
You can , however , insure against financial risks - like your house buring down , or a major medical bill .
Allocate your resources as you see fit .
but the conservative answer about a rising poor underclass ( made up of previous middle class people ) is to buy more guns Huh ?
I do n't know what to say about this .
Oh , wait , I think I just saw the perfect quote somewhere... " oh shut up retard " .
the greatest irony/ tragedy/ comedy is how many previously lower middle class people who are now the new american poor ( because of conservative initiatives like gutting depression era financial protections that created the real estate bubble ) support with such rapturous passion the gutting of social safety nets that only exist to serve them .
some people are full of so much stupidity and hatred- for their own neighbors , their own society , and their own government , that they only destroy themselves There is a fine line between a safety net that breaks your fall and a net that catches one into a life of dependency .
The greatest irony /tragedy is that the previously lower middle class of people who " use these services " are now caught in the net , to their own detriment , yet demand more and more .
but i 'm not going to let the morons take us all down .
and if you read my words and agree with me , roll up your sleeves : there is a real life zombie apocalypse of propagandized retards out there , and we need to fight them to save our country from their self-destructive conservative stupidity But I 'm not going to let the morons take us all down .
If you read my words and agree with me , especially if you are a younger US citizen who does n't want to be burdened with another generation of even more government waste , get out and vote for someone who will let you have more choice in how to allocate your resources .
There is a real life zombie apocalypes of propagandized retards out there , and we need to fight them to save our country from their self-destructive liberal stupidity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[conservatives don't pay] for public or private resources Huh?
Conservatives pay for plenty of both.
the ultimate effect of a conservative ideology is a third world country: a rich upper class of a few, and a vast underclass of poor
The ultimate effect of a liberal ideology is a third world country: a rich elite ruling class of a few, and a vast underclass of dependents of the state.
there is no room for the middle class in conservative ideology.
this includes no room for middle class idiots who believe the corporate propaganda about "evuls socialisticisms".
some people are their own worst enemy I think you are confusing plutocracy for a "conservative ideology".
A liberal ideology can lead to the same problems by believing all the propaganda about "evuls greedy capitalists".
the road the hell is paved with good intentions.
the money you have in your pocket is an abstract expression of the wealth of the society you live in.
if you do not invest in your society, the money in your pocket loses value.
if you invest in your society, you are paid dividends of a richer society, which pays you back with more business opportunities, etc
The money in my pocket is an abstract expression of the wealth that I have earned.
I know best how to invest my money.
The money in the pocket of someone who didn't earn it represents the generosity of a charitable person, or the fruits of another's labor, taken by the state, diminished in value through the inefficiencies of layers of bueracracy and allocated to those who can get it.
"but dem freeloading welfare queens..." These are the ones who don't pay for public or private resources.
oh shut up retard.
take a look at denmark someday.
tell me they aren't happier healthier and wealthier than the average american.
and then take a look at their tax rate Denmark is a country with a population the size of an average US state.
Conservatives want to "conserve" the original intent of the constitution - e.g.
the Federal government has very specific duties, and then ought to butt out and leave each State to sort things out, state by state.
After all, who knows better what a population needs, then the people themselves?
i'd rather be taxed to high hell than worry about declaring bankruptcy if i get cancer
I'd rather buy a really high deductable major medical policy.
Nobody can insure your health, everyone will die sooner or later.
You can, however, insure against financial risks - like your house buring down, or a major medical bill.
Allocate your resources as you see fit.
but the conservative answer about a rising poor underclass (made up of previous middle class people) is to buy more guns Huh?
I don't know what to say about this.
Oh, wait, I think I just saw the perfect quote somewhere... "oh shut up retard".
the greatest irony/ tragedy/ comedy is how many previously lower middle class people who are now the new american poor (because of conservative initiatives like gutting depression era financial protections that created the real estate bubble) support with such rapturous passion the gutting of social safety nets that only exist to serve them.
some people are full of so much stupidity and hatred- for their own neighbors, their own society, and their own government, that they only destroy themselves
There is a fine line between a safety net that breaks your fall and a net that catches one into a life of dependency.
The greatest irony /tragedy is that the previously lower middle class of people who "use these services" are now caught in the net, to their own detriment, yet demand more and more.
but i'm not going to let the morons take us all down.
and if you read my words and agree with me, roll up your sleeves: there is a real life zombie apocalypse of propagandized retards out there, and we need to fight them to save our country from their self-destructive conservative stupidity
But I'm not going to let the morons take us all down.
If you read my words and agree with me, especially if you are a younger US citizen who doesn't want to be burdened with another generation of even more government waste, get out and vote for someone who will let you have more choice in how to allocate your resources.
There is a real life zombie apocalypes of propagandized retards out there, and we need to fight them to save our country from their self-destructive liberal stupidity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333592</id>
	<title>Re:conservatives don't pay</title>
	<author>PPalmgren</author>
	<datestamp>1267560360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your agenda is showing.  The world isn't black and white.  You paint conservative idealism, yet don't point out the flaws in liberal idealism.  Idealism is dangerous in general, since the solution is always in the grey area.  Deciding on a solution to a problem based on the current situation always beats deciding based on an ideal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your agenda is showing .
The world is n't black and white .
You paint conservative idealism , yet do n't point out the flaws in liberal idealism .
Idealism is dangerous in general , since the solution is always in the grey area .
Deciding on a solution to a problem based on the current situation always beats deciding based on an ideal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your agenda is showing.
The world isn't black and white.
You paint conservative idealism, yet don't point out the flaws in liberal idealism.
Idealism is dangerous in general, since the solution is always in the grey area.
Deciding on a solution to a problem based on the current situation always beats deciding based on an ideal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31338230</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution is not...or is that naught?</title>
	<author>adynata</author>
	<datestamp>1267534920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Individual fitness doesn't help further the species, it helps further your genes. You may die an early, painful death - but if, beforehand, you impregnate twice the number of females than the average male moose does in their lifetime: your genes win. The idea of "for the benefit of the species" was once popular but is now known to be false. Co-operation and altruism between animals can *mostly* be traced to ultimately selfish motivations that benefit an individual's genes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Individual fitness does n't help further the species , it helps further your genes .
You may die an early , painful death - but if , beforehand , you impregnate twice the number of females than the average male moose does in their lifetime : your genes win .
The idea of " for the benefit of the species " was once popular but is now known to be false .
Co-operation and altruism between animals can * mostly * be traced to ultimately selfish motivations that benefit an individual 's genes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Individual fitness doesn't help further the species, it helps further your genes.
You may die an early, painful death - but if, beforehand, you impregnate twice the number of females than the average male moose does in their lifetime: your genes win.
The idea of "for the benefit of the species" was once popular but is now known to be false.
Co-operation and altruism between animals can *mostly* be traced to ultimately selfish motivations that benefit an individual's genes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31335804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31335462</id>
	<title>Tastier, more docile.</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1267523820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agriculture and human culture have had profound effects on the natural selection of other species.  To wit: the individuals "fittest" for survival near humans are usually the tastiest, most docile specimens, and they are the ones that get (are forced) to breed.  How long until Soylent Green is on the menu?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agriculture and human culture have had profound effects on the natural selection of other species .
To wit : the individuals " fittest " for survival near humans are usually the tastiest , most docile specimens , and they are the ones that get ( are forced ) to breed .
How long until Soylent Green is on the menu ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agriculture and human culture have had profound effects on the natural selection of other species.
To wit: the individuals "fittest" for survival near humans are usually the tastiest, most docile specimens, and they are the ones that get (are forced) to breed.
How long until Soylent Green is on the menu?
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333086</id>
	<title>conservatives don't pay</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1267558380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for public or private resources</p><p>the ultimate effect of a conservative ideology is a third world country: a rich upper class of a few, and a vast underclass of poor</p><p>there is no room for the middle class in conservative ideology. this includes no room for middle class idiots who believe the corporate propaganda about "evuls socialisticisms". some people are their own worst enemy</p><p>the money you have in your pocket is an abstract expression of the wealth of the society you live in. if you do not invest in your society, the money in your pocket loses value. if you invest in your society, you are paid dividends of a richer society, which pays you back with more business opportunities, etc</p><p>"but dem freeloading welfare queens..."</p><p>oh shut up retard. take a look at denmark someday. tell me they aren't happier healthier and wealthier than the average american. and then take a look at their tax rate</p><p>i'd rather be taxed to high hell than worry about declaring bankruptcy if i get cancer</p><p>but the conservative answer about a rising poor underclass (made up of previous middle class people) is to buy more guns</p><p>the greatest irony/ tragedy/ comedy is how many previously lower middle class people who are now the new american poor (because of conservative initiatives like gutting depression era financial protections that created the real estate bubble) support with such rapturous passion the gutting of social safety nets that only exist to serve them. some people are full of so much stupidity and hatred- for their own neighbors, their own society, and their own government, that they only destroy themselves</p><p>but i'm not going to let the morons take us all down. and if you read my words and agree with me, roll up your sleeves: there is a real life zombie apocalypse of propagandized retards out there, and we need to fight them to save our country from their self-destructive conservative stupidity</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for public or private resourcesthe ultimate effect of a conservative ideology is a third world country : a rich upper class of a few , and a vast underclass of poorthere is no room for the middle class in conservative ideology .
this includes no room for middle class idiots who believe the corporate propaganda about " evuls socialisticisms " .
some people are their own worst enemythe money you have in your pocket is an abstract expression of the wealth of the society you live in .
if you do not invest in your society , the money in your pocket loses value .
if you invest in your society , you are paid dividends of a richer society , which pays you back with more business opportunities , etc " but dem freeloading welfare queens... " oh shut up retard .
take a look at denmark someday .
tell me they are n't happier healthier and wealthier than the average american .
and then take a look at their tax ratei 'd rather be taxed to high hell than worry about declaring bankruptcy if i get cancerbut the conservative answer about a rising poor underclass ( made up of previous middle class people ) is to buy more gunsthe greatest irony/ tragedy/ comedy is how many previously lower middle class people who are now the new american poor ( because of conservative initiatives like gutting depression era financial protections that created the real estate bubble ) support with such rapturous passion the gutting of social safety nets that only exist to serve them .
some people are full of so much stupidity and hatred- for their own neighbors , their own society , and their own government , that they only destroy themselvesbut i 'm not going to let the morons take us all down .
and if you read my words and agree with me , roll up your sleeves : there is a real life zombie apocalypse of propagandized retards out there , and we need to fight them to save our country from their self-destructive conservative stupidity</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for public or private resourcesthe ultimate effect of a conservative ideology is a third world country: a rich upper class of a few, and a vast underclass of poorthere is no room for the middle class in conservative ideology.
this includes no room for middle class idiots who believe the corporate propaganda about "evuls socialisticisms".
some people are their own worst enemythe money you have in your pocket is an abstract expression of the wealth of the society you live in.
if you do not invest in your society, the money in your pocket loses value.
if you invest in your society, you are paid dividends of a richer society, which pays you back with more business opportunities, etc"but dem freeloading welfare queens..."oh shut up retard.
take a look at denmark someday.
tell me they aren't happier healthier and wealthier than the average american.
and then take a look at their tax ratei'd rather be taxed to high hell than worry about declaring bankruptcy if i get cancerbut the conservative answer about a rising poor underclass (made up of previous middle class people) is to buy more gunsthe greatest irony/ tragedy/ comedy is how many previously lower middle class people who are now the new american poor (because of conservative initiatives like gutting depression era financial protections that created the real estate bubble) support with such rapturous passion the gutting of social safety nets that only exist to serve them.
some people are full of so much stupidity and hatred- for their own neighbors, their own society, and their own government, that they only destroy themselvesbut i'm not going to let the morons take us all down.
and if you read my words and agree with me, roll up your sleeves: there is a real life zombie apocalypse of propagandized retards out there, and we need to fight them to save our country from their self-destructive conservative stupidity</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31336530</id>
	<title>Re:You'd think at this point</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1267528020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well, women can have DDD breasts, as for men..we decided it was easier to use sitcoms to lower womens expectations of men</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well , women can have DDD breasts , as for men..we decided it was easier to use sitcoms to lower womens expectations of men</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well, women can have DDD breasts, as for men..we decided it was easier to use sitcoms to lower womens expectations of men</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31335764</id>
	<title>Re:Religious Neanderthals</title>
	<author>AdamThor</author>
	<datestamp>1267524840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The parent sounds flip, but there are various movements that gather together under the conservative banner...</p><p>Conservative #1 - religious / social conservative<br>Conservative #2 - fiscal conservative, small gov't.<br>Conservative #3 - big-business + big-gov't, trickle down economics</p><p>One can complain more coherently if one is aware of the distinctions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The parent sounds flip , but there are various movements that gather together under the conservative banner...Conservative # 1 - religious / social conservativeConservative # 2 - fiscal conservative , small gov't.Conservative # 3 - big-business + big-gov't , trickle down economicsOne can complain more coherently if one is aware of the distinctions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The parent sounds flip, but there are various movements that gather together under the conservative banner...Conservative #1 - religious / social conservativeConservative #2 - fiscal conservative, small gov't.Conservative #3 - big-business + big-gov't, trickle down economicsOne can complain more coherently if one is aware of the distinctions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332808</id>
	<title>Re:Religious Neanderthals</title>
	<author>magarity</author>
	<datestamp>1267557240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The people conducting that study were completely confused:<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; <i>The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines "liberal" in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people</i> <br>
&nbsp; <br>Liberals in America think *public* resources should be used to help others.  Conservatives think that private resources should be used.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The people conducting that study were completely confused :     The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines " liberal " in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people   Liberals in America think * public * resources should be used to help others .
Conservatives think that private resources should be used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people conducting that study were completely confused:
  
  The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines "liberal" in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people 
  Liberals in America think *public* resources should be used to help others.
Conservatives think that private resources should be used.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31334496</id>
	<title>Full of Ego</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1267563480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>      Fullness of ego can make scientists full of beans. The experts making this claim seem to suffer from the belief that humans are evolving. In fact a strong argument can be made that humans are in devolution. Like some bacteria humans tend to destroy their sustenance as they supposedly evolve. Yet when we are done destroying all that is around us we will pass just as that colony of bacteria does. When we stop having too many offspring,too much pollution, and endless wars, perhaps then we can consider humans as an advancing species. As it is we are essentially waging war in a larger and larger garbage and sewage dump.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fullness of ego can make scientists full of beans .
The experts making this claim seem to suffer from the belief that humans are evolving .
In fact a strong argument can be made that humans are in devolution .
Like some bacteria humans tend to destroy their sustenance as they supposedly evolve .
Yet when we are done destroying all that is around us we will pass just as that colony of bacteria does .
When we stop having too many offspring,too much pollution , and endless wars , perhaps then we can consider humans as an advancing species .
As it is we are essentially waging war in a larger and larger garbage and sewage dump .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>      Fullness of ego can make scientists full of beans.
The experts making this claim seem to suffer from the belief that humans are evolving.
In fact a strong argument can be made that humans are in devolution.
Like some bacteria humans tend to destroy their sustenance as they supposedly evolve.
Yet when we are done destroying all that is around us we will pass just as that colony of bacteria does.
When we stop having too many offspring,too much pollution, and endless wars, perhaps then we can consider humans as an advancing species.
As it is we are essentially waging war in a larger and larger garbage and sewage dump.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333012</id>
	<title>Re:Religious Neanderthals</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267558080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In practice, conservatives think that <i>no</i> resources should be used to help others.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In practice , conservatives think that no resources should be used to help others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In practice, conservatives think that no resources should be used to help others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333886</id>
	<title>Natural selection gives way to human selection</title>
	<author>JamJam</author>
	<datestamp>1267561320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not just humans impacts on themselves.  Humans have become 'superpredators' speeding up the evolution of the species they hunt and harvest at rates far above what is found in nature.  Hunting techniques such as bagging the biggest trophy animal to commercial fisheries where mesh openings in nets capture the largest while allowing the smallest to escape has impacted the natural selection process. Removing the strongest and biggest species from the gene pool has resulted in offspring characteristics such as reduced body size and lower reproductive age.
<br>
<br>
More info from this <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/article965588.ece" title="theglobeandmail.com">article</a> [theglobeandmail.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just humans impacts on themselves .
Humans have become 'superpredators ' speeding up the evolution of the species they hunt and harvest at rates far above what is found in nature .
Hunting techniques such as bagging the biggest trophy animal to commercial fisheries where mesh openings in nets capture the largest while allowing the smallest to escape has impacted the natural selection process .
Removing the strongest and biggest species from the gene pool has resulted in offspring characteristics such as reduced body size and lower reproductive age .
More info from this article [ theglobeandmail.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just humans impacts on themselves.
Humans have become 'superpredators' speeding up the evolution of the species they hunt and harvest at rates far above what is found in nature.
Hunting techniques such as bagging the biggest trophy animal to commercial fisheries where mesh openings in nets capture the largest while allowing the smallest to escape has impacted the natural selection process.
Removing the strongest and biggest species from the gene pool has resulted in offspring characteristics such as reduced body size and lower reproductive age.
More info from this article [theglobeandmail.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31336140</id>
	<title>Wha..?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1267526280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" to have blunted the rate of human evolution, or even brought it to a halt, "</p><p>What? any evolutionary biologist who said that in the last 20 years should have there credentials revoked.</p><p>Technology and culture bring more options to the table.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" to have blunted the rate of human evolution , or even brought it to a halt , " What ?
any evolutionary biologist who said that in the last 20 years should have there credentials revoked.Technology and culture bring more options to the table .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" to have blunted the rate of human evolution, or even brought it to a halt, "What?
any evolutionary biologist who said that in the last 20 years should have there credentials revoked.Technology and culture bring more options to the table.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31344516</id>
	<title>copy cats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267627320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think about it, the main means through which evolution occurs is through genetic inheritance. These genes that are being passed convey information (instincts,growth patterns,timing) to help ensure the survival of a species. It shouldn't be at all surprising that as the amount of information needed to survive increases, that this is no longer adequate (for humans). Instead, we have developed our own method of information transmission (language and culture) that is faster and further  reaching than anything DNA could hope to accomplish. There are many "natural" structures that humans have mimicked with technology and logic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think about it , the main means through which evolution occurs is through genetic inheritance .
These genes that are being passed convey information ( instincts,growth patterns,timing ) to help ensure the survival of a species .
It should n't be at all surprising that as the amount of information needed to survive increases , that this is no longer adequate ( for humans ) .
Instead , we have developed our own method of information transmission ( language and culture ) that is faster and further reaching than anything DNA could hope to accomplish .
There are many " natural " structures that humans have mimicked with technology and logic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think about it, the main means through which evolution occurs is through genetic inheritance.
These genes that are being passed convey information (instincts,growth patterns,timing) to help ensure the survival of a species.
It shouldn't be at all surprising that as the amount of information needed to survive increases, that this is no longer adequate (for humans).
Instead, we have developed our own method of information transmission (language and culture) that is faster and further  reaching than anything DNA could hope to accomplish.
There are many "natural" structures that humans have mimicked with technology and logic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31335804</id>
	<title>Evolution is not...or is that naught?</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1267525020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Been awhile since I tried slogging through Natural Selection, but the impression I got was the choicest survivability attributes may be fleeting things.  On top of that, the sexual selection attributes might even conflict with survivability.  So, you could be the moose with the prettiest antlers that get all the girls/cows, but you'd get locked up in brush and starve to death.  Same thing with humans.  The hottest girl you've ever seen might be too dumb to tie her shoe laces.  How's that help further the species, besides making you extremely pleased during your breeding years?  So, just because we've evolved some attributes or culture doesn't say a damned thing about how good it is for humanity either right now or in the long run.  Chance seems to play a very large part in the game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Been awhile since I tried slogging through Natural Selection , but the impression I got was the choicest survivability attributes may be fleeting things .
On top of that , the sexual selection attributes might even conflict with survivability .
So , you could be the moose with the prettiest antlers that get all the girls/cows , but you 'd get locked up in brush and starve to death .
Same thing with humans .
The hottest girl you 've ever seen might be too dumb to tie her shoe laces .
How 's that help further the species , besides making you extremely pleased during your breeding years ?
So , just because we 've evolved some attributes or culture does n't say a damned thing about how good it is for humanity either right now or in the long run .
Chance seems to play a very large part in the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Been awhile since I tried slogging through Natural Selection, but the impression I got was the choicest survivability attributes may be fleeting things.
On top of that, the sexual selection attributes might even conflict with survivability.
So, you could be the moose with the prettiest antlers that get all the girls/cows, but you'd get locked up in brush and starve to death.
Same thing with humans.
The hottest girl you've ever seen might be too dumb to tie her shoe laces.
How's that help further the species, besides making you extremely pleased during your breeding years?
So, just because we've evolved some attributes or culture doesn't say a damned thing about how good it is for humanity either right now or in the long run.
Chance seems to play a very large part in the game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332690</id>
	<title>Religious Neanderthals</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267556820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>
Too bad smarter people tend to breed less.
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">
"Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ"</a> [cnn.com]
<br> <br>
You can always hope the current crop of Religious Neanderthals will be bred out as their namegivers had.
<br> <br>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad smarter people tend to breed less .
" Liberalism , atheism , male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ " [ cnn.com ] You can always hope the current crop of Religious Neanderthals will be bred out as their namegivers had .
.</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Too bad smarter people tend to breed less.
"Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ" [cnn.com]
 
You can always hope the current crop of Religious Neanderthals will be bred out as their namegivers had.
.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31337010</id>
	<title>Well Duh!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267529760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course culture affects evolution. Without going into the technical details which I am sure you all know, evolution is simply about death and birth. Culture has a huge affect on birth and death.</p><p>Why is it that so many news stories about scientific studies leave me thinking "Shit I could have told you that years ago." It saddens me that these people get paid far more than me to laboriously prove the obvious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course culture affects evolution .
Without going into the technical details which I am sure you all know , evolution is simply about death and birth .
Culture has a huge affect on birth and death.Why is it that so many news stories about scientific studies leave me thinking " Shit I could have told you that years ago .
" It saddens me that these people get paid far more than me to laboriously prove the obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course culture affects evolution.
Without going into the technical details which I am sure you all know, evolution is simply about death and birth.
Culture has a huge affect on birth and death.Why is it that so many news stories about scientific studies leave me thinking "Shit I could have told you that years ago.
" It saddens me that these people get paid far more than me to laboriously prove the obvious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31336206</id>
	<title>Re: Full of Ego</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1267526580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"In fact a strong argument can be made that humans are in devolution."</p><p>That statement right there shows you ahveno idea what evolution is. There is no such the as 'de-evolving' only evolving.</p><p>Just so you know:</p><p>We feed more people, drive cleaner cars, have cleaner water, and sustain a large number of people. I call all the advancing.</p><p>Hell, look at war over the last 200 years. It's not nearly as bad, hurts a lot less civilians, requires less people.</p><p>We are very advanced.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In fact a strong argument can be made that humans are in devolution .
" That statement right there shows you ahveno idea what evolution is .
There is no such the as 'de-evolving ' only evolving.Just so you know : We feed more people , drive cleaner cars , have cleaner water , and sustain a large number of people .
I call all the advancing.Hell , look at war over the last 200 years .
It 's not nearly as bad , hurts a lot less civilians , requires less people.We are very advanced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In fact a strong argument can be made that humans are in devolution.
"That statement right there shows you ahveno idea what evolution is.
There is no such the as 'de-evolving' only evolving.Just so you know:We feed more people, drive cleaner cars, have cleaner water, and sustain a large number of people.
I call all the advancing.Hell, look at war over the last 200 years.
It's not nearly as bad, hurts a lot less civilians, requires less people.We are very advanced.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31334496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31335128</id>
	<title>Evolution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267522680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So let me get this straight... This paper says that evolution (the process of a population adapting to its environment through generations and selection) causes the population to adapt to their culturally defined environment?</p><p>Call me shocked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So let me get this straight... This paper says that evolution ( the process of a population adapting to its environment through generations and selection ) causes the population to adapt to their culturally defined environment ? Call me shocked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So let me get this straight... This paper says that evolution (the process of a population adapting to its environment through generations and selection) causes the population to adapt to their culturally defined environment?Call me shocked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333826</id>
	<title>You'd think at this point</title>
	<author>Low Ranked Craig</author>
	<datestamp>1267561140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>most women would have DDD breasts and men would have penises that hang to the knee...</htmltext>
<tokenext>most women would have DDD breasts and men would have penises that hang to the knee.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>most women would have DDD breasts and men would have penises that hang to the knee...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31334214</id>
	<title>Re:Religious Neanderthals</title>
	<author>Prien715</author>
	<datestamp>1267562340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ebeneezer Scrooge, when asked about the poor said "Are there no workhouses?"  Which were public institutions.  I'd hardly classify him as liberal (as per your logic).</p><p>And, the vast majority of non-profits, are run by liberals.  Or maybe libertarians.  Find me one donation funded radio station otherwise in the US run by a conservative.</p><p>Liberals fundamentally believe in charity, sometimes at the expense of bankrupting society.  Conservatives simply don't believe in charity; they believe in mutually beneficial exchanges at best -- no handouts.  There's a balance to be had surely, but I can't think of a single non-political charity dominated by conservatives (aside from churches).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ebeneezer Scrooge , when asked about the poor said " Are there no workhouses ?
" Which were public institutions .
I 'd hardly classify him as liberal ( as per your logic ) .And , the vast majority of non-profits , are run by liberals .
Or maybe libertarians .
Find me one donation funded radio station otherwise in the US run by a conservative.Liberals fundamentally believe in charity , sometimes at the expense of bankrupting society .
Conservatives simply do n't believe in charity ; they believe in mutually beneficial exchanges at best -- no handouts .
There 's a balance to be had surely , but I ca n't think of a single non-political charity dominated by conservatives ( aside from churches ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ebeneezer Scrooge, when asked about the poor said "Are there no workhouses?
"  Which were public institutions.
I'd hardly classify him as liberal (as per your logic).And, the vast majority of non-profits, are run by liberals.
Or maybe libertarians.
Find me one donation funded radio station otherwise in the US run by a conservative.Liberals fundamentally believe in charity, sometimes at the expense of bankrupting society.
Conservatives simply don't believe in charity; they believe in mutually beneficial exchanges at best -- no handouts.
There's a balance to be had surely, but I can't think of a single non-political charity dominated by conservatives (aside from churches).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31346526</id>
	<title>Hope they didn't spend money to "learn" that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267636200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like, isn't culture/behavior one of the traits that drives selection? It would be in any other species. One could go so far as to suggest humans causing another species to become extinct is simply natural selection. If some really efficient animal hunted and killed off another species, it would then need to find other prey or die out itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like , is n't culture/behavior one of the traits that drives selection ?
It would be in any other species .
One could go so far as to suggest humans causing another species to become extinct is simply natural selection .
If some really efficient animal hunted and killed off another species , it would then need to find other prey or die out itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like, isn't culture/behavior one of the traits that drives selection?
It would be in any other species.
One could go so far as to suggest humans causing another species to become extinct is simply natural selection.
If some really efficient animal hunted and killed off another species, it would then need to find other prey or die out itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31334726</id>
	<title>what about the effect of new media?</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1267521240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How are books, movies, television, computer screens, phones, etc. affecting humans?  Humans are becoming more nearsighted.  The incidence of nearsightedness has increased from 25\% in the mid-20th century to 40\% now.  There probably wasnt much of it in the pre-literate era.
<br> <br>
I wonder if we more <i> actively </i> evolve connecting communications and media directly to the brain and nervous system.  Will we develop hive minds then like the Borg?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How are books , movies , television , computer screens , phones , etc .
affecting humans ?
Humans are becoming more nearsighted .
The incidence of nearsightedness has increased from 25 \ % in the mid-20th century to 40 \ % now .
There probably wasnt much of it in the pre-literate era .
I wonder if we more actively evolve connecting communications and media directly to the brain and nervous system .
Will we develop hive minds then like the Borg ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How are books, movies, television, computer screens, phones, etc.
affecting humans?
Humans are becoming more nearsighted.
The incidence of nearsightedness has increased from 25\% in the mid-20th century to 40\% now.
There probably wasnt much of it in the pre-literate era.
I wonder if we more  actively  evolve connecting communications and media directly to the brain and nervous system.
Will we develop hive minds then like the Borg?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31336242</id>
	<title>Re:You'd think at this point</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1267526700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a counter-force in our culture that leads women to marry at a later age, and it is a law of physics that DDDs can't remain in good shape very long, so it's not suprising that evolution has stopped in that direction. The same counter-force grants rich men with small penises excellent chances of finding a mate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a counter-force in our culture that leads women to marry at a later age , and it is a law of physics that DDDs ca n't remain in good shape very long , so it 's not suprising that evolution has stopped in that direction .
The same counter-force grants rich men with small penises excellent chances of finding a mate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a counter-force in our culture that leads women to marry at a later age, and it is a law of physics that DDDs can't remain in good shape very long, so it's not suprising that evolution has stopped in that direction.
The same counter-force grants rich men with small penises excellent chances of finding a mate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31337208</id>
	<title>Re:conservatives don't pay</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1267530420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a tool. You are basically repeating the new republican mantra, and like them not bothering to think about it or look at the evidence or even read the experts. People like that hurt are society more then any other group ever has.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a tool .
You are basically repeating the new republican mantra , and like them not bothering to think about it or look at the evidence or even read the experts .
People like that hurt are society more then any other group ever has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a tool.
You are basically repeating the new republican mantra, and like them not bothering to think about it or look at the evidence or even read the experts.
People like that hurt are society more then any other group ever has.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31334456</id>
	<title>Re:conservatives don't pay</title>
	<author>losfromla</author>
	<datestamp>1267563360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm with you!  Where do I sign up?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm with you !
Where do I sign up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm with you!
Where do I sign up?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31340672</id>
	<title>Re:Religious Neanderthals</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267553280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Liberals in America think *public* resources should be used to help others. Conservatives think *public* resources should be used to kill others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Liberals in America think * public * resources should be used to help others .
Conservatives think * public * resources should be used to kill others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Liberals in America think *public* resources should be used to help others.
Conservatives think *public* resources should be used to kill others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31347172</id>
	<title>Re:conservatives don't pay</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1267638720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The money in my pocket is an abstract expression of the wealth that I have earned. I know best how to invest my money.</i></p><p>Your definition of "earned" varys quite considerably from mine. I earn my money by working. The interst I accrue in my savings account is not "earned"; I did nothing to gain that money. I earn money by either creating wealth, or providing a service to enable others to create wealth. The guy on the factory floor creates the wealth, the bookkeeper provides a service to to enable the guy on the factory fllor to create the wealth, which mostly goes to stockholders, who do not work for their money; their money works for them. They earn nothing.</p><p><i>The money in the pocket of someone who didn't earn it represents the generosity of a charitable person, <b>or the fruits of another's labor</b> </i></p><p>I see you agree with me; your wealth comes from my labor. Buying stock or making a bank deposit is not by any definition "labor".</p><p><i>diminished in value through the inefficiencies of layers of bueracracy and allocated to those who can get it.<br></i><br>Governments have no monopoly on bureaucracy. The larger any organization becomes, the more bureaucracy is necessary. The American health insurance industry is an excellent example of various inneficient and unnecessary bureaucracies.</p><p><i>"but dem freeloading welfare queens..." These are the ones who don't pay for public or private resources.<br></i><br>IBM, Kodak, etc.</p><p><i>You can, however, insure against financial risks - like your house buring down, or a major medical bill. </i></p><p>Most people cannot afford to both insure against a major medical bill and eat.</p><p><i>There is a fine line between a safety net that breaks your fall and a net that catches one into a life of dependency</i></p><p>The PORA enacted in 1996 ended that. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aid\_to\_Families\_with\_Dependent\_Children" title="wikipedia.org">There is no more AFDC entitlement,</a> [wikipedia.org] which I agree was a travesty that locked people into poverty. It was replaced by TANF, which has a lifetime limit of five years, and one cannot recieve benefits for more than two years in a row. We no longer have generational welfare in the US, but be still have generational poverty.</p><p>There are both liberal retards and conservative retards. They're referred to as "wingnuts".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The money in my pocket is an abstract expression of the wealth that I have earned .
I know best how to invest my money.Your definition of " earned " varys quite considerably from mine .
I earn my money by working .
The interst I accrue in my savings account is not " earned " ; I did nothing to gain that money .
I earn money by either creating wealth , or providing a service to enable others to create wealth .
The guy on the factory floor creates the wealth , the bookkeeper provides a service to to enable the guy on the factory fllor to create the wealth , which mostly goes to stockholders , who do not work for their money ; their money works for them .
They earn nothing.The money in the pocket of someone who did n't earn it represents the generosity of a charitable person , or the fruits of another 's labor I see you agree with me ; your wealth comes from my labor .
Buying stock or making a bank deposit is not by any definition " labor " .diminished in value through the inefficiencies of layers of bueracracy and allocated to those who can get it.Governments have no monopoly on bureaucracy .
The larger any organization becomes , the more bureaucracy is necessary .
The American health insurance industry is an excellent example of various inneficient and unnecessary bureaucracies .
" but dem freeloading welfare queens... " These are the ones who do n't pay for public or private resources.IBM , Kodak , etc.You can , however , insure against financial risks - like your house buring down , or a major medical bill .
Most people can not afford to both insure against a major medical bill and eat.There is a fine line between a safety net that breaks your fall and a net that catches one into a life of dependencyThe PORA enacted in 1996 ended that .
There is no more AFDC entitlement , [ wikipedia.org ] which I agree was a travesty that locked people into poverty .
It was replaced by TANF , which has a lifetime limit of five years , and one can not recieve benefits for more than two years in a row .
We no longer have generational welfare in the US , but be still have generational poverty.There are both liberal retards and conservative retards .
They 're referred to as " wingnuts " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The money in my pocket is an abstract expression of the wealth that I have earned.
I know best how to invest my money.Your definition of "earned" varys quite considerably from mine.
I earn my money by working.
The interst I accrue in my savings account is not "earned"; I did nothing to gain that money.
I earn money by either creating wealth, or providing a service to enable others to create wealth.
The guy on the factory floor creates the wealth, the bookkeeper provides a service to to enable the guy on the factory fllor to create the wealth, which mostly goes to stockholders, who do not work for their money; their money works for them.
They earn nothing.The money in the pocket of someone who didn't earn it represents the generosity of a charitable person, or the fruits of another's labor I see you agree with me; your wealth comes from my labor.
Buying stock or making a bank deposit is not by any definition "labor".diminished in value through the inefficiencies of layers of bueracracy and allocated to those who can get it.Governments have no monopoly on bureaucracy.
The larger any organization becomes, the more bureaucracy is necessary.
The American health insurance industry is an excellent example of various inneficient and unnecessary bureaucracies.
"but dem freeloading welfare queens..." These are the ones who don't pay for public or private resources.IBM, Kodak, etc.You can, however, insure against financial risks - like your house buring down, or a major medical bill.
Most people cannot afford to both insure against a major medical bill and eat.There is a fine line between a safety net that breaks your fall and a net that catches one into a life of dependencyThe PORA enacted in 1996 ended that.
There is no more AFDC entitlement, [wikipedia.org] which I agree was a travesty that locked people into poverty.
It was replaced by TANF, which has a lifetime limit of five years, and one cannot recieve benefits for more than two years in a row.
We no longer have generational welfare in the US, but be still have generational poverty.There are both liberal retards and conservative retards.
They're referred to as "wingnuts".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31336648</id>
	<title>Prof. Dyson</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267528440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't believe no one mentioned Prof. Freeman Dyson yet!</p><p>Many moons ago he wrote about how we should also include "external factors" which we inherit from a generation instead of only "internal factors" like DNA and such...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe no one mentioned Prof. Freeman Dyson yet ! Many moons ago he wrote about how we should also include " external factors " which we inherit from a generation instead of only " internal factors " like DNA and such.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe no one mentioned Prof. Freeman Dyson yet!Many moons ago he wrote about how we should also include "external factors" which we inherit from a generation instead of only "internal factors" like DNA and such...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31347786</id>
	<title>Re:Religious Neanderthals</title>
	<author>Vitriol+Angst</author>
	<datestamp>1267641480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And Liberals are SMART enough to realize that trying to solve; Hunger, War, Poverty, Health Care, Prejudice and add anything else that isn't the military to this list -- by way of having a Bake Sale isn't going to work.</p><p>Conservatives, on the other hand, don't really believe ANYTHING can be solved and all the problems in the world are due to people who are not Conservative -- THUS, charities are great, because it allows them just to donate to the people in the neighborhood they LIKE.</p><p>&gt;&gt; Charity is really a "MY TRIBE" kind of solution -- and they can't scale very well, while on average MOST charities are lucky to have only 80\% overhead. I know this, obviously, because I'm a Liberal and I don't just want to donate to appease my Ego.</p><p>Libertarians, like Charity solutions, because things are going well for them, they are not sick, plan to be able to not have problems, so screw everybody else.</p><p>&gt;&gt; The IQ of Liberals is skewed downward however, because I believe that many but not all of the two other groups that end up on some kind of Public Assistance, start identifying themselves as Liberals. So this is more of an example of "Social Pressure creating an evolution of IQ" -- if they've learned anything beyond "Well, now its my turn in the barrel."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And Liberals are SMART enough to realize that trying to solve ; Hunger , War , Poverty , Health Care , Prejudice and add anything else that is n't the military to this list -- by way of having a Bake Sale is n't going to work.Conservatives , on the other hand , do n't really believe ANYTHING can be solved and all the problems in the world are due to people who are not Conservative -- THUS , charities are great , because it allows them just to donate to the people in the neighborhood they LIKE. &gt; &gt; Charity is really a " MY TRIBE " kind of solution -- and they ca n't scale very well , while on average MOST charities are lucky to have only 80 \ % overhead .
I know this , obviously , because I 'm a Liberal and I do n't just want to donate to appease my Ego.Libertarians , like Charity solutions , because things are going well for them , they are not sick , plan to be able to not have problems , so screw everybody else. &gt; &gt; The IQ of Liberals is skewed downward however , because I believe that many but not all of the two other groups that end up on some kind of Public Assistance , start identifying themselves as Liberals .
So this is more of an example of " Social Pressure creating an evolution of IQ " -- if they 've learned anything beyond " Well , now its my turn in the barrel .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Liberals are SMART enough to realize that trying to solve; Hunger, War, Poverty, Health Care, Prejudice and add anything else that isn't the military to this list -- by way of having a Bake Sale isn't going to work.Conservatives, on the other hand, don't really believe ANYTHING can be solved and all the problems in the world are due to people who are not Conservative -- THUS, charities are great, because it allows them just to donate to the people in the neighborhood they LIKE.&gt;&gt; Charity is really a "MY TRIBE" kind of solution -- and they can't scale very well, while on average MOST charities are lucky to have only 80\% overhead.
I know this, obviously, because I'm a Liberal and I don't just want to donate to appease my Ego.Libertarians, like Charity solutions, because things are going well for them, they are not sick, plan to be able to not have problems, so screw everybody else.&gt;&gt; The IQ of Liberals is skewed downward however, because I believe that many but not all of the two other groups that end up on some kind of Public Assistance, start identifying themselves as Liberals.
So this is more of an example of "Social Pressure creating an evolution of IQ" -- if they've learned anything beyond "Well, now its my turn in the barrel.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31335004</id>
	<title>Re:conservatives don't pay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267522320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the worst part of the two above posts is that it illustrates what is *really* wrong.  And that is that liberals believe that conservatives are destroying the country and conservatives believe that liberals are destroying the country.  It's very easy to see everything as black or white, meanwhile, life goes on and is *neither*.  The real world is messy and confusing and does not benefit from applying a single ideology to everything.  There are certain instances where a "conservative" approach might make more sense, and others where a "liberal" approach will be better.  What is important is to be able to look at each situation independently so that the *best* solution can be reached.  That is what "intelligent" people do.  The real "zombie apocalypse" approach would be to blindly apply one particular ideology to every problem, regardless of the outcome.</p><p>*end rant*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the worst part of the two above posts is that it illustrates what is * really * wrong .
And that is that liberals believe that conservatives are destroying the country and conservatives believe that liberals are destroying the country .
It 's very easy to see everything as black or white , meanwhile , life goes on and is * neither * .
The real world is messy and confusing and does not benefit from applying a single ideology to everything .
There are certain instances where a " conservative " approach might make more sense , and others where a " liberal " approach will be better .
What is important is to be able to look at each situation independently so that the * best * solution can be reached .
That is what " intelligent " people do .
The real " zombie apocalypse " approach would be to blindly apply one particular ideology to every problem , regardless of the outcome .
* end rant *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the worst part of the two above posts is that it illustrates what is *really* wrong.
And that is that liberals believe that conservatives are destroying the country and conservatives believe that liberals are destroying the country.
It's very easy to see everything as black or white, meanwhile, life goes on and is *neither*.
The real world is messy and confusing and does not benefit from applying a single ideology to everything.
There are certain instances where a "conservative" approach might make more sense, and others where a "liberal" approach will be better.
What is important is to be able to look at each situation independently so that the *best* solution can be reached.
That is what "intelligent" people do.
The real "zombie apocalypse" approach would be to blindly apply one particular ideology to every problem, regardless of the outcome.
*end rant*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333330</id>
	<title>Re:conservatives don't pay</title>
	<author>cusco</author>
	<datestamp>1267559280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Excellent rant.  I may steal parts of that for another forum that I post in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Excellent rant .
I may steal parts of that for another forum that I post in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excellent rant.
I may steal parts of that for another forum that I post in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31336886</id>
	<title>Re:Not No More</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1267529400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Evidence shows you are wrong. That's a nice 1950s view you have there, but you might want to get caught up with the literature.</p><p>Wow, you wrapped you ignorance of evolution around your ignorance of government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Evidence shows you are wrong .
That 's a nice 1950s view you have there , but you might want to get caught up with the literature.Wow , you wrapped you ignorance of evolution around your ignorance of government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evidence shows you are wrong.
That's a nice 1950s view you have there, but you might want to get caught up with the literature.Wow, you wrapped you ignorance of evolution around your ignorance of government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31334070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31342222</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution is not...or is that naught?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267610160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>However pretty the moose is, it's not going to have many children if it's dead. Also, contrary to popular belief, pretty but stupid girls don't get all the boys. Of course, they do get quite a lot of stupid boys which is where the two-joke, not deliberately ironic, Idiocracy comes in. Chance might seem to play a large part, however, if you look around you, you'll see that it doesn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However pretty the moose is , it 's not going to have many children if it 's dead .
Also , contrary to popular belief , pretty but stupid girls do n't get all the boys .
Of course , they do get quite a lot of stupid boys which is where the two-joke , not deliberately ironic , Idiocracy comes in .
Chance might seem to play a large part , however , if you look around you , you 'll see that it does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However pretty the moose is, it's not going to have many children if it's dead.
Also, contrary to popular belief, pretty but stupid girls don't get all the boys.
Of course, they do get quite a lot of stupid boys which is where the two-joke, not deliberately ironic, Idiocracy comes in.
Chance might seem to play a large part, however, if you look around you, you'll see that it doesn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31335804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31336584</id>
	<title>Re:Religious Neanderthals</title>
	<author>philosiphus</author>
	<datestamp>1267528200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=1174" title="catholiccharitiesusa.org" rel="nofollow">Catholic Charities</a> [catholiccharitiesusa.org] -- conservative in a religious and social sense (not necessarily economically conservative) is extremely generous and funded by donations.  <a href="http://www.ewtn.com/radio/amfm.htm" title="ewtn.com" rel="nofollow">EWTN</a> [ewtn.com] is a conservative radio station (religiously, socially and for many shows economically) and is largely funded by donations.  There is some division when it comes to Catholics, though: some seem economically conservative and others seem almost socialistic but none have advocated socialism as a governmental system or socialist policies for government because all governments that tend toward communism or socialism are anti-religious (Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba...).</p><p>The <a href="http://www.uschamber.com/about/default" title="uschamber.com" rel="nofollow">US Chamber of Commerce</a> [uschamber.com] is partly funded by donations and fiscally conservative.</p><p>I would say that I am conservative in all three distinct ways given by AdamThor, above, and I tend to give a relatively large percentage of my income to charity; I know many others like me who give both time and money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Catholic Charities [ catholiccharitiesusa.org ] -- conservative in a religious and social sense ( not necessarily economically conservative ) is extremely generous and funded by donations .
EWTN [ ewtn.com ] is a conservative radio station ( religiously , socially and for many shows economically ) and is largely funded by donations .
There is some division when it comes to Catholics , though : some seem economically conservative and others seem almost socialistic but none have advocated socialism as a governmental system or socialist policies for government because all governments that tend toward communism or socialism are anti-religious ( Russia , China , Venezuela , Cuba... ) .The US Chamber of Commerce [ uschamber.com ] is partly funded by donations and fiscally conservative.I would say that I am conservative in all three distinct ways given by AdamThor , above , and I tend to give a relatively large percentage of my income to charity ; I know many others like me who give both time and money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Catholic Charities [catholiccharitiesusa.org] -- conservative in a religious and social sense (not necessarily economically conservative) is extremely generous and funded by donations.
EWTN [ewtn.com] is a conservative radio station (religiously, socially and for many shows economically) and is largely funded by donations.
There is some division when it comes to Catholics, though: some seem economically conservative and others seem almost socialistic but none have advocated socialism as a governmental system or socialist policies for government because all governments that tend toward communism or socialism are anti-religious (Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba...).The US Chamber of Commerce [uschamber.com] is partly funded by donations and fiscally conservative.I would say that I am conservative in all three distinct ways given by AdamThor, above, and I tend to give a relatively large percentage of my income to charity; I know many others like me who give both time and money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31334214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31335672</id>
	<title>Evolution never stops</title>
	<author>gwait</author>
	<datestamp>1267524540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do any actual evolutionary scientists believe that humans stopped evolving at any point?</p><p>HIV alone is a direct example - many people world wide have died from this, but a small handful of people have been found to be resistant to it.<br>A classic (and sad) example of evolution at work.<br>A similar thing happened to North &amp; South America when Europeans showed up with dozens of new diseases, wiping out a large percentage of the native population. (See "Guns Germs &amp; Steel - an excellent read)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do any actual evolutionary scientists believe that humans stopped evolving at any point ? HIV alone is a direct example - many people world wide have died from this , but a small handful of people have been found to be resistant to it.A classic ( and sad ) example of evolution at work.A similar thing happened to North &amp; South America when Europeans showed up with dozens of new diseases , wiping out a large percentage of the native population .
( See " Guns Germs &amp; Steel - an excellent read )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do any actual evolutionary scientists believe that humans stopped evolving at any point?HIV alone is a direct example - many people world wide have died from this, but a small handful of people have been found to be resistant to it.A classic (and sad) example of evolution at work.A similar thing happened to North &amp; South America when Europeans showed up with dozens of new diseases, wiping out a large percentage of the native population.
(See "Guns Germs &amp; Steel - an excellent read)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31334636</id>
	<title>new American Scientist article about diet</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1267520940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Primates evolved trichomatic eyes to find fruit better.  Most mammals are dichromatic.
Now humans eat more meat, cooked food, more starch from grains and more dairy from cattle.  Each diet change <a href="http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/gene-culture-coevolution-and-human-diet" title="americanscientist.org"> affected the genes </a> [americanscientist.org].  One could argue the next stage- hyper nutrition and processed food- selecting against humans with metabolic disease like diabetes, obesity, and bad hearts. This was very interesting article.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Primates evolved trichomatic eyes to find fruit better .
Most mammals are dichromatic .
Now humans eat more meat , cooked food , more starch from grains and more dairy from cattle .
Each diet change affected the genes [ americanscientist.org ] .
One could argue the next stage- hyper nutrition and processed food- selecting against humans with metabolic disease like diabetes , obesity , and bad hearts .
This was very interesting article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Primates evolved trichomatic eyes to find fruit better.
Most mammals are dichromatic.
Now humans eat more meat, cooked food, more starch from grains and more dairy from cattle.
Each diet change  affected the genes  [americanscientist.org].
One could argue the next stage- hyper nutrition and processed food- selecting against humans with metabolic disease like diabetes, obesity, and bad hearts.
This was very interesting article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31336056</id>
	<title>Re:You'd think at this point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267526040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know you are aiming for humor but from what I see on the female side that is where we are heading. I notice a lot more well endowed young ladies these days. Talking to folks older than me they agree to an increasing trend.</p><p>Now bust size is definitely related to caloric intake and there is a fine line between well endowed and just big everywhere.</p><p>My suspicion is male size has a relatively "hard" limit if you will forgive the pun. We have certainly gained some, but now that male genatalia are not a factor for mate selection the pressure on this seems to be waning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know you are aiming for humor but from what I see on the female side that is where we are heading .
I notice a lot more well endowed young ladies these days .
Talking to folks older than me they agree to an increasing trend.Now bust size is definitely related to caloric intake and there is a fine line between well endowed and just big everywhere.My suspicion is male size has a relatively " hard " limit if you will forgive the pun .
We have certainly gained some , but now that male genatalia are not a factor for mate selection the pressure on this seems to be waning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know you are aiming for humor but from what I see on the female side that is where we are heading.
I notice a lot more well endowed young ladies these days.
Talking to folks older than me they agree to an increasing trend.Now bust size is definitely related to caloric intake and there is a fine line between well endowed and just big everywhere.My suspicion is male size has a relatively "hard" limit if you will forgive the pun.
We have certainly gained some, but now that male genatalia are not a factor for mate selection the pressure on this seems to be waning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31338568</id>
	<title>1950s Points Of View are Smarter, Apprently</title>
	<author>KharmaWidow</author>
	<datestamp>1267536420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are sicker than ever and prevalence of all major illnesses are growing</p><p>Here is just some scientific data:More premature babies surviving than ever.  Over half of the premature babies that survived experienced serious health problems. A UK study of premature births, called EPICure, found children born very early often had learning difficulties as well as physical problems such as cerebral palsy, blindness or deafness. Researchers at the Oxford Centre for Health Economics estimate the cost of an average preterm baby is one and a half times more than a baby born full term. Professor Neil Marlow, who has been running the EPICure studies, said: "Even with better survival rates, the rate of morbidity, meaning problems that the babies have, is still very high.</p><p>Data from 10 regional registries of birth defects show that the incidence of Down syndrome among U.S. children increased by 31 percent between 1979 and 2003, from 9.0 to 11.8 per 100,000 live births.</p><p>Recent headlines from China are revealing a growing public health crisis: birth defects are up 40\% since 2001</p><p>According to the March of Dimes, one in 33 babies born in the US have a birth defect -- about twice as many as China.</p><p>In the US, the total number of cancer cases has increased since cancer statistics have been kept. 12,769 deaths in 1900 (3\% of total deaths), 158,335 cancer deaths on 1940 (11,3\% of deaths), 553,768 in 2001 (23 of deaths)</p><p>Alzheimer's: The annual number of incident cases is expected to more than double by the midpoint of the twenty-first century: from 377,000 (95\% confidence interval = 159,000-595,000) in 1995 to 959,000 (95\% confidence interval = 140,000-1,778,000) in 2050. The proportion of new onset casess who are age 85 or older will increase from 40\% in 1995 to 62\% in 2050 when the youngest of the baby boomers will attain that age</p><p>Parkinson's disease is a growing national health problem. There are over 20 new cases diagnosed per 100,000 people annually ( Bernstein, 1995b). Most victims are over 40 years<br>old, although this disease has a form that can strike teenagers. Incidence of PD increase with the increase of longevity.</p><p>Multiple Sclerosis: M.S. affects 400,000 in the United States and 2 and half million people around the world. The overall prevalence estimate was 85/100,000 population, or approximately 211,000 (&#177;20,000) persons. A 50\% increase was observed in the number of women reporting MS for 1991 through 1994 vs 1982 through 1986. The observed trend in higher numbers of self-reported MS among women is consistent with recent observations of higher prevalence and incidence.</p><p>Prevalence of Genetic Conditions / Birth Defects<br><a href="http://www.kumc.edu/gec/prof/prevalnc.html" title="kumc.edu" rel="nofollow">http://www.kumc.edu/gec/prof/prevalnc.html</a> [kumc.edu]</p><p>As for intellectually, American grades are lower than ever.</p><p>Hoover Institution, Stanford University: "A science and math, American students trail those in other advanced democracies. The longer students are in school, the worse things get. Among fourth graders, U.S. students rank high on the International Test of Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Despite this head start, by eighth grade, American adolescents have slipped to the midpoint on the TIMSS; by age 17, their scores trail all but those in a few developing countries.</p><p>The United States is living on its past. Among the oldest group in the study (those aged 56&ndash;65), U.S. prose skills rose to second place. For those attending school in the 1950s, SAT scores reached an all-time high.</p><p>As the years go by, the United States slips down the list. Americans educated in the sixties captured a Bronze Medal in literacy, those schooled in the seventies got 5th place in the race. But those schooled in the nineties ranked 14th.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are sicker than ever and prevalence of all major illnesses are growingHere is just some scientific data : More premature babies surviving than ever .
Over half of the premature babies that survived experienced serious health problems .
A UK study of premature births , called EPICure , found children born very early often had learning difficulties as well as physical problems such as cerebral palsy , blindness or deafness .
Researchers at the Oxford Centre for Health Economics estimate the cost of an average preterm baby is one and a half times more than a baby born full term .
Professor Neil Marlow , who has been running the EPICure studies , said : " Even with better survival rates , the rate of morbidity , meaning problems that the babies have , is still very high.Data from 10 regional registries of birth defects show that the incidence of Down syndrome among U.S. children increased by 31 percent between 1979 and 2003 , from 9.0 to 11.8 per 100,000 live births.Recent headlines from China are revealing a growing public health crisis : birth defects are up 40 \ % since 2001According to the March of Dimes , one in 33 babies born in the US have a birth defect -- about twice as many as China.In the US , the total number of cancer cases has increased since cancer statistics have been kept .
12,769 deaths in 1900 ( 3 \ % of total deaths ) , 158,335 cancer deaths on 1940 ( 11,3 \ % of deaths ) , 553,768 in 2001 ( 23 of deaths ) Alzheimer 's : The annual number of incident cases is expected to more than double by the midpoint of the twenty-first century : from 377,000 ( 95 \ % confidence interval = 159,000-595,000 ) in 1995 to 959,000 ( 95 \ % confidence interval = 140,000-1,778,000 ) in 2050 .
The proportion of new onset casess who are age 85 or older will increase from 40 \ % in 1995 to 62 \ % in 2050 when the youngest of the baby boomers will attain that ageParkinson 's disease is a growing national health problem .
There are over 20 new cases diagnosed per 100,000 people annually ( Bernstein , 1995b ) .
Most victims are over 40 yearsold , although this disease has a form that can strike teenagers .
Incidence of PD increase with the increase of longevity.Multiple Sclerosis : M.S .
affects 400,000 in the United States and 2 and half million people around the world .
The overall prevalence estimate was 85/100,000 population , or approximately 211,000 (   20,000 ) persons .
A 50 \ % increase was observed in the number of women reporting MS for 1991 through 1994 vs 1982 through 1986 .
The observed trend in higher numbers of self-reported MS among women is consistent with recent observations of higher prevalence and incidence.Prevalence of Genetic Conditions / Birth Defectshttp : //www.kumc.edu/gec/prof/prevalnc.html [ kumc.edu ] As for intellectually , American grades are lower than ever.Hoover Institution , Stanford University : " A science and math , American students trail those in other advanced democracies .
The longer students are in school , the worse things get .
Among fourth graders , U.S. students rank high on the International Test of Mathematics and Science Study ( TIMSS ) .
Despite this head start , by eighth grade , American adolescents have slipped to the midpoint on the TIMSS ; by age 17 , their scores trail all but those in a few developing countries.The United States is living on its past .
Among the oldest group in the study ( those aged 56    65 ) , U.S. prose skills rose to second place .
For those attending school in the 1950s , SAT scores reached an all-time high.As the years go by , the United States slips down the list .
Americans educated in the sixties captured a Bronze Medal in literacy , those schooled in the seventies got 5th place in the race .
But those schooled in the nineties ranked 14th .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are sicker than ever and prevalence of all major illnesses are growingHere is just some scientific data:More premature babies surviving than ever.
Over half of the premature babies that survived experienced serious health problems.
A UK study of premature births, called EPICure, found children born very early often had learning difficulties as well as physical problems such as cerebral palsy, blindness or deafness.
Researchers at the Oxford Centre for Health Economics estimate the cost of an average preterm baby is one and a half times more than a baby born full term.
Professor Neil Marlow, who has been running the EPICure studies, said: "Even with better survival rates, the rate of morbidity, meaning problems that the babies have, is still very high.Data from 10 regional registries of birth defects show that the incidence of Down syndrome among U.S. children increased by 31 percent between 1979 and 2003, from 9.0 to 11.8 per 100,000 live births.Recent headlines from China are revealing a growing public health crisis: birth defects are up 40\% since 2001According to the March of Dimes, one in 33 babies born in the US have a birth defect -- about twice as many as China.In the US, the total number of cancer cases has increased since cancer statistics have been kept.
12,769 deaths in 1900 (3\% of total deaths), 158,335 cancer deaths on 1940 (11,3\% of deaths), 553,768 in 2001 (23 of deaths)Alzheimer's: The annual number of incident cases is expected to more than double by the midpoint of the twenty-first century: from 377,000 (95\% confidence interval = 159,000-595,000) in 1995 to 959,000 (95\% confidence interval = 140,000-1,778,000) in 2050.
The proportion of new onset casess who are age 85 or older will increase from 40\% in 1995 to 62\% in 2050 when the youngest of the baby boomers will attain that ageParkinson's disease is a growing national health problem.
There are over 20 new cases diagnosed per 100,000 people annually ( Bernstein, 1995b).
Most victims are over 40 yearsold, although this disease has a form that can strike teenagers.
Incidence of PD increase with the increase of longevity.Multiple Sclerosis: M.S.
affects 400,000 in the United States and 2 and half million people around the world.
The overall prevalence estimate was 85/100,000 population, or approximately 211,000 (±20,000) persons.
A 50\% increase was observed in the number of women reporting MS for 1991 through 1994 vs 1982 through 1986.
The observed trend in higher numbers of self-reported MS among women is consistent with recent observations of higher prevalence and incidence.Prevalence of Genetic Conditions / Birth Defectshttp://www.kumc.edu/gec/prof/prevalnc.html [kumc.edu]As for intellectually, American grades are lower than ever.Hoover Institution, Stanford University: "A science and math, American students trail those in other advanced democracies.
The longer students are in school, the worse things get.
Among fourth graders, U.S. students rank high on the International Test of Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).
Despite this head start, by eighth grade, American adolescents have slipped to the midpoint on the TIMSS; by age 17, their scores trail all but those in a few developing countries.The United States is living on its past.
Among the oldest group in the study (those aged 56–65), U.S. prose skills rose to second place.
For those attending school in the 1950s, SAT scores reached an all-time high.As the years go by, the United States slips down the list.
Americans educated in the sixties captured a Bronze Medal in literacy, those schooled in the seventies got 5th place in the race.
But those schooled in the nineties ranked 14th.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31336886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332774</id>
	<title>Re:Religious Neanderthals</title>
	<author>ArhcAngel</author>
	<datestamp>1267557120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You can always hope the current crop of Neanderthals will be bred out as their namegivers had.</i></p><p>I wouldn't <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/" title="imdb.com">bet</a> [imdb.com] on that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can always hope the current crop of Neanderthals will be bred out as their namegivers had.I would n't bet [ imdb.com ] on that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can always hope the current crop of Neanderthals will be bred out as their namegivers had.I wouldn't bet [imdb.com] on that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332690</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1631204_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31338230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31335804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1631204_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31336206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31334496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1631204_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31347786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1631204_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1631204_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31334456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1631204_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31335004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1631204_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1631204_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31336530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1631204_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31337208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1631204_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31338568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31336886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31334070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1631204_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31347172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1631204_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31336584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31334214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1631204_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31335764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1631204_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1631204_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31336242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1631204_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31336056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1631204_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31340672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1631204_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31342222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31335804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1631204_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1631204.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31334496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31336206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1631204.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31336056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31336530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31336242
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1631204.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31334070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31336886
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31338568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1631204.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1631204.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31335804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31338230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31342222
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1631204.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31335462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1631204.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31332808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333290
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31335764
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333086
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333330
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31334456
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333976
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31335004
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31347172
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31337208
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31347786
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31334214
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31336584
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31340672
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1631204.31333012
</commentlist>
</conversation>
