<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_14_0140204</id>
	<title>Scientists Wonder What Fingerprints Are For</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1244981340000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"The BBC reports that scientists say they have <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8093134.stm">disproved the theory that fingerprints improve grip by increasing friction</a> between people's fingers and the surface they are holding. Dr Roland Ennos designed a machine which enabled him to measure the amount of friction generated by a fingerprint when it was in contact with an acrylic glass at varying levels of pressure. The results showed that friction levels increased by a much smaller amount than had been anticipated, debunking the hypothesis that fingerprints provide an improved grip. Ennos believes that fingerprints may have evolved to grip onto rough surfaces, like tree bark; the ridges may allow our skin to stretch and deform more easily, protecting it from damage; or they may allow water trapped between our finger pads and the surface to drain away and <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090612092729.htm">improve surface contact in wet conditions</a>. Other researchers have suggested that the ridges could increase our fingerpads' touch sensitivity."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " The BBC reports that scientists say they have disproved the theory that fingerprints improve grip by increasing friction between people 's fingers and the surface they are holding .
Dr Roland Ennos designed a machine which enabled him to measure the amount of friction generated by a fingerprint when it was in contact with an acrylic glass at varying levels of pressure .
The results showed that friction levels increased by a much smaller amount than had been anticipated , debunking the hypothesis that fingerprints provide an improved grip .
Ennos believes that fingerprints may have evolved to grip onto rough surfaces , like tree bark ; the ridges may allow our skin to stretch and deform more easily , protecting it from damage ; or they may allow water trapped between our finger pads and the surface to drain away and improve surface contact in wet conditions .
Other researchers have suggested that the ridges could increase our fingerpads ' touch sensitivity .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "The BBC reports that scientists say they have disproved the theory that fingerprints improve grip by increasing friction between people's fingers and the surface they are holding.
Dr Roland Ennos designed a machine which enabled him to measure the amount of friction generated by a fingerprint when it was in contact with an acrylic glass at varying levels of pressure.
The results showed that friction levels increased by a much smaller amount than had been anticipated, debunking the hypothesis that fingerprints provide an improved grip.
Ennos believes that fingerprints may have evolved to grip onto rough surfaces, like tree bark; the ridges may allow our skin to stretch and deform more easily, protecting it from damage; or they may allow water trapped between our finger pads and the surface to drain away and improve surface contact in wet conditions.
Other researchers have suggested that the ridges could increase our fingerpads' touch sensitivity.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327335</id>
	<title>the overlords</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245002700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously the aliens who seeded our planet millions of years ago wanted some way to identify which strains eventually became most successful.</p><p>That's because the original 512 genetic strains dumped on our planet were created as part of a lottery...so there's a lot of cold stinky alien cash riding on the results of this seeding.</p><p>My research shows they are arriving around 03:14:07 January 19, 2038 UTC to perform the final census.</p><p>Occam's razor should be applied in these situations so people don't run off on odd whimsical tangents. This is all so obvious when you stop and take the time to ponder it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously the aliens who seeded our planet millions of years ago wanted some way to identify which strains eventually became most successful.That 's because the original 512 genetic strains dumped on our planet were created as part of a lottery...so there 's a lot of cold stinky alien cash riding on the results of this seeding.My research shows they are arriving around 03 : 14 : 07 January 19 , 2038 UTC to perform the final census.Occam 's razor should be applied in these situations so people do n't run off on odd whimsical tangents .
This is all so obvious when you stop and take the time to ponder it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously the aliens who seeded our planet millions of years ago wanted some way to identify which strains eventually became most successful.That's because the original 512 genetic strains dumped on our planet were created as part of a lottery...so there's a lot of cold stinky alien cash riding on the results of this seeding.My research shows they are arriving around 03:14:07 January 19, 2038 UTC to perform the final census.Occam's razor should be applied in these situations so people don't run off on odd whimsical tangents.
This is all so obvious when you stop and take the time to ponder it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325849</id>
	<title>FP!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244985240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Huh? First post? No no no, Finger Prints!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?
First post ?
No no no , Finger Prints !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?
First post?
No no no, Finger Prints!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327789</id>
	<title>Re:Different finger prints</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1245007260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even without errors in copying the genetic code, people get unique finger prints.  The overall pattern and general style will end up the same, but they're still unique, even between twins with identical DNA.  Reminds me of the markings on the cloned cat.  The clone was a calico, just like the original, but that seemly random pattern in a calico's fur?  Turns out, it actually <i>is</i> somewhat random.  Identical DNA doesn't produce identical fingerprints either...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even without errors in copying the genetic code , people get unique finger prints .
The overall pattern and general style will end up the same , but they 're still unique , even between twins with identical DNA .
Reminds me of the markings on the cloned cat .
The clone was a calico , just like the original , but that seemly random pattern in a calico 's fur ?
Turns out , it actually is somewhat random .
Identical DNA does n't produce identical fingerprints either.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even without errors in copying the genetic code, people get unique finger prints.
The overall pattern and general style will end up the same, but they're still unique, even between twins with identical DNA.
Reminds me of the markings on the cloned cat.
The clone was a calico, just like the original, but that seemly random pattern in a calico's fur?
Turns out, it actually is somewhat random.
Identical DNA doesn't produce identical fingerprints either...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28369023</id>
	<title>Re:tactile sensation</title>
	<author>Deliveranc3</author>
	<datestamp>1245253620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could it also be hardiness? Fingers seem like an obvious avenue for infection.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could it also be hardiness ?
Fingers seem like an obvious avenue for infection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could it also be hardiness?
Fingers seem like an obvious avenue for infection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326275</id>
	<title>Re:Primates</title>
	<author>bluesatin</author>
	<datestamp>1244991420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well the main route for evolution to occur (survival of the fittest) is pretty much dead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well the main route for evolution to occur ( survival of the fittest ) is pretty much dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well the main route for evolution to occur (survival of the fittest) is pretty much dead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28334207</id>
	<title>Wait a minute...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245075480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...how does testing fingerprints against fingerprints get us anywhere?</p><p>Until they conduct a test comparing the friction of those -with- fingerprints and those -without-, they haven't really tested if fingerprints improve friction or don't.</p><p>My fingertips are almost all scarred from eczema as a child, leaving them quite smooth.  I would be happy to volunteer in this study.  I find I can't seem to hold onto smooth surfaces nearly as easily as others can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...how does testing fingerprints against fingerprints get us anywhere ? Until they conduct a test comparing the friction of those -with- fingerprints and those -without- , they have n't really tested if fingerprints improve friction or do n't.My fingertips are almost all scarred from eczema as a child , leaving them quite smooth .
I would be happy to volunteer in this study .
I find I ca n't seem to hold onto smooth surfaces nearly as easily as others can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...how does testing fingerprints against fingerprints get us anywhere?Until they conduct a test comparing the friction of those -with- fingerprints and those -without-, they haven't really tested if fingerprints improve friction or don't.My fingertips are almost all scarred from eczema as a child, leaving them quite smooth.
I would be happy to volunteer in this study.
I find I can't seem to hold onto smooth surfaces nearly as easily as others can.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326535</id>
	<title>Re:Bad science or bad journalism?</title>
	<author>TinBromide</author>
	<datestamp>1244994660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmm, so TFA says that the myth of fingerprints improving grip is busted, and then begin to posit that fingerprints improve grip? I call bad journalism, probably because the paper states other things to test, doesn't mention the myth, and the journalist wanted to go with the science busting myth meme that has been so popular since mythbusters premiered.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , so TFA says that the myth of fingerprints improving grip is busted , and then begin to posit that fingerprints improve grip ?
I call bad journalism , probably because the paper states other things to test , does n't mention the myth , and the journalist wanted to go with the science busting myth meme that has been so popular since mythbusters premiered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, so TFA says that the myth of fingerprints improving grip is busted, and then begin to posit that fingerprints improve grip?
I call bad journalism, probably because the paper states other things to test, doesn't mention the myth, and the journalist wanted to go with the science busting myth meme that has been so popular since mythbusters premiered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28331351</id>
	<title>Re:Primates</title>
	<author>metaforest</author>
	<datestamp>1244995440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"In fact, the grip upon the skin of a member of the opposite sex would seem far more immediately useful to a developing species"</i></p><p>Or a good firm grip on a prey animal.  Our paws aren't really decked out to hold prey the way many most are, we lack hooked claws....   So having a firm, enclosing, grip seems like a really good trait to select for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In fact , the grip upon the skin of a member of the opposite sex would seem far more immediately useful to a developing species " Or a good firm grip on a prey animal .
Our paws are n't really decked out to hold prey the way many most are , we lack hooked claws.... So having a firm , enclosing , grip seems like a really good trait to select for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In fact, the grip upon the skin of a member of the opposite sex would seem far more immediately useful to a developing species"Or a good firm grip on a prey animal.
Our paws aren't really decked out to hold prey the way many most are, we lack hooked claws....   So having a firm, enclosing, grip seems like a really good trait to select for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327949</id>
	<title>Xenu</title>
	<author>Is0m0rph</author>
	<datestamp>1245008520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's so Xenu knows who is who!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's so Xenu knows who is who !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's so Xenu knows who is who!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326035</id>
	<title>Re:Primates</title>
	<author>Threni</author>
	<datestamp>1244988300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fingerprints we have now may be little use for increasing friction, but perhaps at some point in the past before they'd evolved away they'd have been been more pronounced, and would have trapped sticky dirt within more efficiently than todays generally cleaner hands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fingerprints we have now may be little use for increasing friction , but perhaps at some point in the past before they 'd evolved away they 'd have been been more pronounced , and would have trapped sticky dirt within more efficiently than todays generally cleaner hands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fingerprints we have now may be little use for increasing friction, but perhaps at some point in the past before they'd evolved away they'd have been been more pronounced, and would have trapped sticky dirt within more efficiently than todays generally cleaner hands.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326021</id>
	<title>Putting half of your post in the subject</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244988180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Makes me want to stab you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Makes me want to stab you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Makes me want to stab you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28331389</id>
	<title>Re:It's wet grip</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244995800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely brilliant! Using the brain god gave, to also work out why he gave you fingerprints.<br>That's what I call Intelligent Design!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely brilliant !
Using the brain god gave , to also work out why he gave you fingerprints.That 's what I call Intelligent Design !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely brilliant!
Using the brain god gave, to also work out why he gave you fingerprints.That's what I call Intelligent Design!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327945</id>
	<title>Easier grip loss detection</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1245008520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with the multiple reasons - e.g. better grip over rougher surfaces.<br><br>But maybe the ridges also allow you to more easily detect that you are losing your grip (sliding) while still allowing the skin to be/grow thicker (calluses) and more resistant to wear and tear.<br><br>Should be quite important to most primates to detect that they are losing their grip on stuff.<br><br>Slippage-detection might even be more important than having better grip in the first place. Since you can often increase grip by increasing the force. e.g. "Uh oh, I'm slipping, better hold on tighter - and look for something else to grab on, quick!".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with the multiple reasons - e.g .
better grip over rougher surfaces.But maybe the ridges also allow you to more easily detect that you are losing your grip ( sliding ) while still allowing the skin to be/grow thicker ( calluses ) and more resistant to wear and tear.Should be quite important to most primates to detect that they are losing their grip on stuff.Slippage-detection might even be more important than having better grip in the first place .
Since you can often increase grip by increasing the force .
e.g. " Uh oh , I 'm slipping , better hold on tighter - and look for something else to grab on , quick !
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with the multiple reasons - e.g.
better grip over rougher surfaces.But maybe the ridges also allow you to more easily detect that you are losing your grip (sliding) while still allowing the skin to be/grow thicker (calluses) and more resistant to wear and tear.Should be quite important to most primates to detect that they are losing their grip on stuff.Slippage-detection might even be more important than having better grip in the first place.
Since you can often increase grip by increasing the force.
e.g. "Uh oh, I'm slipping, better hold on tighter - and look for something else to grab on, quick!
".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327799</id>
	<title>Re:Primates</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245007380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It evolved to make murderers easier to catch?  Did there used to be a problem with apes murdering each other, so nature evolved knowing that one day we would smear ink on a suspects finger in order to make a copy of it on paper?  Maybe the fingerprints originated with the single cell blob we all originated from.  Or perhaps we can just make things easy and ask our Creator one day when we see Him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It evolved to make murderers easier to catch ?
Did there used to be a problem with apes murdering each other , so nature evolved knowing that one day we would smear ink on a suspects finger in order to make a copy of it on paper ?
Maybe the fingerprints originated with the single cell blob we all originated from .
Or perhaps we can just make things easy and ask our Creator one day when we see Him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It evolved to make murderers easier to catch?
Did there used to be a problem with apes murdering each other, so nature evolved knowing that one day we would smear ink on a suspects finger in order to make a copy of it on paper?
Maybe the fingerprints originated with the single cell blob we all originated from.
Or perhaps we can just make things easy and ask our Creator one day when we see Him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328231</id>
	<title>teleological thinking...</title>
	<author>spiffmastercow</author>
	<datestamp>1245010440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Despite the advances made in evolutionary science, there still persists this belief that everything has a reason.  This is a legacy meme from ancient religions and schools of philosophy.  Everything does NOT need to have a teleological cause.  It might be that fingerprints developed because they rendered some advantage, or it might be that they happened randomly, and persisted because they did not cause a disadvantage.  You're scientists, so quit with the magical thinking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite the advances made in evolutionary science , there still persists this belief that everything has a reason .
This is a legacy meme from ancient religions and schools of philosophy .
Everything does NOT need to have a teleological cause .
It might be that fingerprints developed because they rendered some advantage , or it might be that they happened randomly , and persisted because they did not cause a disadvantage .
You 're scientists , so quit with the magical thinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite the advances made in evolutionary science, there still persists this belief that everything has a reason.
This is a legacy meme from ancient religions and schools of philosophy.
Everything does NOT need to have a teleological cause.
It might be that fingerprints developed because they rendered some advantage, or it might be that they happened randomly, and persisted because they did not cause a disadvantage.
You're scientists, so quit with the magical thinking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28334213</id>
	<title>Yup. E.g What are blue eyes for?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245075540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327717</id>
	<title>Re:Primates</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1245006600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Dogs have noseprints that are as unique as fingerprints (and in fact are legal ID for dogs in Canada).</p></div></blockquote><p>Dog's are very protective of their nose because they depend on it. It has a lot of nerve cells. How do you get a good print from a wiggly dog? Do they use ink? The smell alone would probably drive Fido crackers. (Or do they trick it into running into a clean patio door, like my dumb dog always did?)</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dogs have noseprints that are as unique as fingerprints ( and in fact are legal ID for dogs in Canada ) .Dog 's are very protective of their nose because they depend on it .
It has a lot of nerve cells .
How do you get a good print from a wiggly dog ?
Do they use ink ?
The smell alone would probably drive Fido crackers .
( Or do they trick it into running into a clean patio door , like my dumb dog always did ?
)    </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dogs have noseprints that are as unique as fingerprints (and in fact are legal ID for dogs in Canada).Dog's are very protective of their nose because they depend on it.
It has a lot of nerve cells.
How do you get a good print from a wiggly dog?
Do they use ink?
The smell alone would probably drive Fido crackers.
(Or do they trick it into running into a clean patio door, like my dumb dog always did?
)
   
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327197</id>
	<title>Re:CSI may have an alternate hypothesis to their u</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1245001380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you know there's not using an auto-balancing centrifuge? I mean, I don't watch the show myself, so maybe I'm way off base, but it sounds like a dumb complaint to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you know there 's not using an auto-balancing centrifuge ?
I mean , I do n't watch the show myself , so maybe I 'm way off base , but it sounds like a dumb complaint to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you know there's not using an auto-balancing centrifuge?
I mean, I don't watch the show myself, so maybe I'm way off base, but it sounds like a dumb complaint to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28331399</id>
	<title>Re:Primates</title>
	<author>executivechaos</author>
	<datestamp>1244995920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Of course they don't ask why people have unique finger prints</i> <br> <br>

The passing over of amniotic fluid inside the womb, over a fetus determines fingerprint array during fetal development. <br> <br>

Each mother will of course...swash amniotic fluid differently over each fetus. <br> <br>

This has been researched and shown.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course they do n't ask why people have unique finger prints The passing over of amniotic fluid inside the womb , over a fetus determines fingerprint array during fetal development .
Each mother will of course...swash amniotic fluid differently over each fetus .
This has been researched and shown .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course they don't ask why people have unique finger prints  

The passing over of amniotic fluid inside the womb, over a fetus determines fingerprint array during fetal development.
Each mother will of course...swash amniotic fluid differently over each fetus.
This has been researched and shown.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327183</id>
	<title>Well, duh!</title>
	<author>toriver</author>
	<datestamp>1245001260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are there as a tag system so that our alien slave masters can register their property. Don't everyone know that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are there as a tag system so that our alien slave masters can register their property .
Do n't everyone know that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are there as a tag system so that our alien slave masters can register their property.
Don't everyone know that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326939</id>
	<title>Re:Bad science or bad journalism?</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1244999280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They may have more value in gripping *rough* surfaces, for the same reason that serrated knives stay sharp longer than smooth-edged knives -- only a small amount of the skin (or knife edge) ever comes in contact with abrasive hard surfaces, therefore improving skin (and knife) endurance. Also, it's easier to grip rough surfaces (as occur in nature) if the gripper isn't entirely smooth.</p><p>But even after all that.. it's still extremely trivial as it would affect everyday life; I'd guess well below any threshold that would affect survival. So I'll stick with my own theory (posted above) that it's just a developmental artifact of normal skin, and has no dedicated function.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They may have more value in gripping * rough * surfaces , for the same reason that serrated knives stay sharp longer than smooth-edged knives -- only a small amount of the skin ( or knife edge ) ever comes in contact with abrasive hard surfaces , therefore improving skin ( and knife ) endurance .
Also , it 's easier to grip rough surfaces ( as occur in nature ) if the gripper is n't entirely smooth.But even after all that.. it 's still extremely trivial as it would affect everyday life ; I 'd guess well below any threshold that would affect survival .
So I 'll stick with my own theory ( posted above ) that it 's just a developmental artifact of normal skin , and has no dedicated function .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They may have more value in gripping *rough* surfaces, for the same reason that serrated knives stay sharp longer than smooth-edged knives -- only a small amount of the skin (or knife edge) ever comes in contact with abrasive hard surfaces, therefore improving skin (and knife) endurance.
Also, it's easier to grip rough surfaces (as occur in nature) if the gripper isn't entirely smooth.But even after all that.. it's still extremely trivial as it would affect everyday life; I'd guess well below any threshold that would affect survival.
So I'll stick with my own theory (posted above) that it's just a developmental artifact of normal skin, and has no dedicated function.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28330279</id>
	<title>Re:Primates</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244984280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So maybe finger prints improve grip with smooth timber surfaces.</p></div></blockquote><p>

So then your hypothesis is that long ago some mutant freak with fingerprints did not fall to his death, while his smooth-fingered compatriot did, and thus the mutant was able to mate and reproduce?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So maybe finger prints improve grip with smooth timber surfaces .
So then your hypothesis is that long ago some mutant freak with fingerprints did not fall to his death , while his smooth-fingered compatriot did , and thus the mutant was able to mate and reproduce ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So maybe finger prints improve grip with smooth timber surfaces.
So then your hypothesis is that long ago some mutant freak with fingerprints did not fall to his death, while his smooth-fingered compatriot did, and thus the mutant was able to mate and reproduce?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326339</id>
	<title>evolution...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244992080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that's the problem i have with evolution. i find it hard to believe that people born with a few extra ridges in their fingertips were so improved that they dominated the species so we all have them. And troll me if you want, but when did a birds body get the intelligence to start growing feathers even though for hundreds of generations the feathers must have been completely useless?</p><p>And whats up with the big bang?! Who made that shit up?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's the problem i have with evolution .
i find it hard to believe that people born with a few extra ridges in their fingertips were so improved that they dominated the species so we all have them .
And troll me if you want , but when did a birds body get the intelligence to start growing feathers even though for hundreds of generations the feathers must have been completely useless ? And whats up with the big bang ? !
Who made that shit up ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's the problem i have with evolution.
i find it hard to believe that people born with a few extra ridges in their fingertips were so improved that they dominated the species so we all have them.
And troll me if you want, but when did a birds body get the intelligence to start growing feathers even though for hundreds of generations the feathers must have been completely useless?And whats up with the big bang?!
Who made that shit up?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326793</id>
	<title>Re:Putting half of your post in the subject</title>
	<author>Hal\_Porter</author>
	<datestamp>1244998020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude! If you kill him his buddies will track you down using forensic evidence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude !
If you kill him his buddies will track you down using forensic evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude!
If you kill him his buddies will track you down using forensic evidence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326723</id>
	<title>Re:what do you think?</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1244997120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just one more thing science can't answer. Of course the answer is obvious but no scientist would ever consider [i]that[/i].</p></div><p>Forgive me for feeding a troll, but I am assuming that the obvious answer is whatever religion your pappy taught you...So why would a god or devil or FSM care about fingerprints?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just one more thing science ca n't answer .
Of course the answer is obvious but no scientist would ever consider [ i ] that [ /i ] .Forgive me for feeding a troll , but I am assuming that the obvious answer is whatever religion your pappy taught you...So why would a god or devil or FSM care about fingerprints ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just one more thing science can't answer.
Of course the answer is obvious but no scientist would ever consider [i]that[/i].Forgive me for feeding a troll, but I am assuming that the obvious answer is whatever religion your pappy taught you...So why would a god or devil or FSM care about fingerprints?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326293</id>
	<title>Acrylic? Really?</title>
	<author>Forthan Red</author>
	<datestamp>1244991600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm guessing that there probably wasn't a whole lot of acrylic around during the evolutionary period when fingerprints developed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing that there probably was n't a whole lot of acrylic around during the evolutionary period when fingerprints developed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing that there probably wasn't a whole lot of acrylic around during the evolutionary period when fingerprints developed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28329429</id>
	<title>Re:tactile sensation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244975520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, and trivial to prove. Try sanding off your prints. Now touch a rough surface. Oh gees, you feels nothing! Kind of basic, yah.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and trivial to prove .
Try sanding off your prints .
Now touch a rough surface .
Oh gees , you feels nothing !
Kind of basic , yah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and trivial to prove.
Try sanding off your prints.
Now touch a rough surface.
Oh gees, you feels nothing!
Kind of basic, yah.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326233</id>
	<title>It's really quite obvious...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244991120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Humans are the only species who regularly consume large amounts of ice-cold beer. Fingerprints enhance the displacement of water, providing a firmer grip and thus increased consumption and less spillage. I for one am exceedingly thankful and have left my prints on cans and bottles throughout this world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Humans are the only species who regularly consume large amounts of ice-cold beer .
Fingerprints enhance the displacement of water , providing a firmer grip and thus increased consumption and less spillage .
I for one am exceedingly thankful and have left my prints on cans and bottles throughout this world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Humans are the only species who regularly consume large amounts of ice-cold beer.
Fingerprints enhance the displacement of water, providing a firmer grip and thus increased consumption and less spillage.
I for one am exceedingly thankful and have left my prints on cans and bottles throughout this world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328789</id>
	<title>Re:Primates</title>
	<author>WCguru42</author>
	<datestamp>1244970960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why presume they have a function? Evolution weeds out costly features. If fingerprints have little cost, it is wrong to assume they necessarily exist to serve some specific purpose.</p></div><p>Yet there's no reason to assume that they didn't hold a purpose.  There's really no way to prove that they held no purpose, but it is possible to test with some certainty whether they had a particular purpose (such as improved grip).  Maybe when there's no more hypotheses for what fingerprints could be useful for scientists will assign them to the barrel of "useless anomalies that have no purpose other than to keep scientists employed."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why presume they have a function ?
Evolution weeds out costly features .
If fingerprints have little cost , it is wrong to assume they necessarily exist to serve some specific purpose.Yet there 's no reason to assume that they did n't hold a purpose .
There 's really no way to prove that they held no purpose , but it is possible to test with some certainty whether they had a particular purpose ( such as improved grip ) .
Maybe when there 's no more hypotheses for what fingerprints could be useful for scientists will assign them to the barrel of " useless anomalies that have no purpose other than to keep scientists employed .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why presume they have a function?
Evolution weeds out costly features.
If fingerprints have little cost, it is wrong to assume they necessarily exist to serve some specific purpose.Yet there's no reason to assume that they didn't hold a purpose.
There's really no way to prove that they held no purpose, but it is possible to test with some certainty whether they had a particular purpose (such as improved grip).
Maybe when there's no more hypotheses for what fingerprints could be useful for scientists will assign them to the barrel of "useless anomalies that have no purpose other than to keep scientists employed.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325941</id>
	<title>Ridged for extra pleasure?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244986980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry.
</p><p>I'll get my coat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry .
I 'll get my coat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry.
I'll get my coat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326243</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe they're for nothing?</title>
	<author>funkatron</author>
	<datestamp>1244991180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If we have fingerprints, it's genetically possible to be born without, so it's very likely that that mutation existed in the history of evolution, and that one of those specimen procreated, creating that fingerprint-less type of monkey/man.</p> </div><p>I would actually question to what extent this is a possibility. Human skin has all sorts of textures and patterns, most of which we don't treat with any significance. It may be that smooth skin is actually difficult to produce by biological processes. This is a possibility that should at least be considered.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we have fingerprints , it 's genetically possible to be born without , so it 's very likely that that mutation existed in the history of evolution , and that one of those specimen procreated , creating that fingerprint-less type of monkey/man .
I would actually question to what extent this is a possibility .
Human skin has all sorts of textures and patterns , most of which we do n't treat with any significance .
It may be that smooth skin is actually difficult to produce by biological processes .
This is a possibility that should at least be considered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we have fingerprints, it's genetically possible to be born without, so it's very likely that that mutation existed in the history of evolution, and that one of those specimen procreated, creating that fingerprint-less type of monkey/man.
I would actually question to what extent this is a possibility.
Human skin has all sorts of textures and patterns, most of which we don't treat with any significance.
It may be that smooth skin is actually difficult to produce by biological processes.
This is a possibility that should at least be considered.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325979</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe they're for nothing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244987580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not everything has to have a purpose.</p></div><p>False.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not everything has to have a purpose.False .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not everything has to have a purpose.False.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326503</id>
	<title>Tree Rings</title>
	<author>PleaseFearMe</author>
	<datestamp>1244994180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For some reason, when I look at my fingerprints, I think of tree rings.  When we were little fetuses still growing fingers, perhaps there was something about how the skin extends itself that causes an oscillation pattern.  This would explain why all the ridges curve along the tip of the finger.  There are a few major forms of fingerprints that are caused randomly, which may be explained by the environment the hand area was in when the fingers were formed.  Maybe whorls are formed when a side of the developing finger was rubbing against something.  Arches seem to be the most natural shape, just skin pushing itself out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For some reason , when I look at my fingerprints , I think of tree rings .
When we were little fetuses still growing fingers , perhaps there was something about how the skin extends itself that causes an oscillation pattern .
This would explain why all the ridges curve along the tip of the finger .
There are a few major forms of fingerprints that are caused randomly , which may be explained by the environment the hand area was in when the fingers were formed .
Maybe whorls are formed when a side of the developing finger was rubbing against something .
Arches seem to be the most natural shape , just skin pushing itself out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For some reason, when I look at my fingerprints, I think of tree rings.
When we were little fetuses still growing fingers, perhaps there was something about how the skin extends itself that causes an oscillation pattern.
This would explain why all the ridges curve along the tip of the finger.
There are a few major forms of fingerprints that are caused randomly, which may be explained by the environment the hand area was in when the fingers were formed.
Maybe whorls are formed when a side of the developing finger was rubbing against something.
Arches seem to be the most natural shape, just skin pushing itself out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327517</id>
	<title>Re:Primates</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1245004620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you, I'm glad this is the first post listed.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Dr Roland Ennos designed a machine which enabled him to measure the amount of friction generated by a fingerprint when it was in contact with an acrylic glass at varying levels of pressure. The results showed that friction levels increased by a much smaller amount than had been anticipated, debunking the hypothesis that fingerprints provide an improved grip.</p></div><p>That's totally BS science.  That disproves the hypothesis that fingerprints provide improved grip <i>on acrylic glass</i>, not that fingerprints provide improved grip on other surfaces.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you , I 'm glad this is the first post listed.Dr Roland Ennos designed a machine which enabled him to measure the amount of friction generated by a fingerprint when it was in contact with an acrylic glass at varying levels of pressure .
The results showed that friction levels increased by a much smaller amount than had been anticipated , debunking the hypothesis that fingerprints provide an improved grip.That 's totally BS science .
That disproves the hypothesis that fingerprints provide improved grip on acrylic glass , not that fingerprints provide improved grip on other surfaces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you, I'm glad this is the first post listed.Dr Roland Ennos designed a machine which enabled him to measure the amount of friction generated by a fingerprint when it was in contact with an acrylic glass at varying levels of pressure.
The results showed that friction levels increased by a much smaller amount than had been anticipated, debunking the hypothesis that fingerprints provide an improved grip.That's totally BS science.
That disproves the hypothesis that fingerprints provide improved grip on acrylic glass, not that fingerprints provide improved grip on other surfaces.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325961</id>
	<title>it's hard...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244987340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...to suppress the knowledge of a designer, particularly with such a stupid idea as evolution!</htmltext>
<tokenext>...to suppress the knowledge of a designer , particularly with such a stupid idea as evolution !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...to suppress the knowledge of a designer, particularly with such a stupid idea as evolution!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28330635</id>
	<title>So our alien creators can track us</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244987880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Humanity was created by aliens literally more than dozens of years ago. When this happened, they wanted to be able to distinguish between two people without doing a DNA scan, since all you - er, us humans look alike.

So the aliens engineered us to have these useless fingerprints.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Humanity was created by aliens literally more than dozens of years ago .
When this happened , they wanted to be able to distinguish between two people without doing a DNA scan , since all you - er , us humans look alike .
So the aliens engineered us to have these useless fingerprints .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Humanity was created by aliens literally more than dozens of years ago.
When this happened, they wanted to be able to distinguish between two people without doing a DNA scan, since all you - er, us humans look alike.
So the aliens engineered us to have these useless fingerprints.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326027</id>
	<title>Different finger prints</title>
	<author>hansraj</author>
	<datestamp>1244988240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course they don't ask why people have unique finger prints. Maybe it evolved to make murderers easier to catch.</p></div><p>I would guess that the only question is why at all do we have finger prints. The uniqueness would then be expected since it would be much more complicated for a system giving rise to same print for everyone to evolve. Start with a system that produces finger prints (for whatever reason), and the usual error while copying the genetic code would certainly make sure that people get unique finger prints.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course they do n't ask why people have unique finger prints .
Maybe it evolved to make murderers easier to catch.I would guess that the only question is why at all do we have finger prints .
The uniqueness would then be expected since it would be much more complicated for a system giving rise to same print for everyone to evolve .
Start with a system that produces finger prints ( for whatever reason ) , and the usual error while copying the genetic code would certainly make sure that people get unique finger prints .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course they don't ask why people have unique finger prints.
Maybe it evolved to make murderers easier to catch.I would guess that the only question is why at all do we have finger prints.
The uniqueness would then be expected since it would be much more complicated for a system giving rise to same print for everyone to evolve.
Start with a system that produces finger prints (for whatever reason), and the usual error while copying the genetic code would certainly make sure that people get unique finger prints.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325919</id>
	<title>Re:Primates</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244986560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are probably multiple reasons for the fingerprints.</p><p>The skin has to be both flexible and durable at the same time, and gripping on moist surfaces should also be safe.</p><p>A flexible skin is also allowing for better dexterity and a finer resolution when sensing surfaces.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are probably multiple reasons for the fingerprints.The skin has to be both flexible and durable at the same time , and gripping on moist surfaces should also be safe.A flexible skin is also allowing for better dexterity and a finer resolution when sensing surfaces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are probably multiple reasons for the fingerprints.The skin has to be both flexible and durable at the same time, and gripping on moist surfaces should also be safe.A flexible skin is also allowing for better dexterity and a finer resolution when sensing surfaces.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326093</id>
	<title>It's obvious why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244989320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Book 'im Dano.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Book 'im Dano .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Book 'im Dano.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325881</id>
	<title>Maybe they're for nothing?</title>
	<author>Karganeth</author>
	<datestamp>1244985960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it takes an equal amount of resources for the body to grow a finger without fingerprints then it makes sense that they not meant for anything. Not everything has to have a purpose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it takes an equal amount of resources for the body to grow a finger without fingerprints then it makes sense that they not meant for anything .
Not everything has to have a purpose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it takes an equal amount of resources for the body to grow a finger without fingerprints then it makes sense that they not meant for anything.
Not everything has to have a purpose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28334023</id>
	<title>What about my SCROTUM print?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245073920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about my SCROTUM print?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about my SCROTUM print ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about my SCROTUM print?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28335597</id>
	<title>Re:Primates</title>
	<author>einhverfr</author>
	<datestamp>1245082860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah.  I thought that was a poorly designed experiment too.</p><p>Another element-- the same structures cover the palms of our hands.  It seems quite likely that the friction regarding a fully grasped object might pose different dynamics than looking just at fingers, and that a truly smooth surface like glass would certainly not see a major increase in friction.  To be honest, I am actually surprised that the glass showed ANY increase in friction......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
I thought that was a poorly designed experiment too.Another element-- the same structures cover the palms of our hands .
It seems quite likely that the friction regarding a fully grasped object might pose different dynamics than looking just at fingers , and that a truly smooth surface like glass would certainly not see a major increase in friction .
To be honest , I am actually surprised that the glass showed ANY increase in friction..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
I thought that was a poorly designed experiment too.Another element-- the same structures cover the palms of our hands.
It seems quite likely that the friction regarding a fully grasped object might pose different dynamics than looking just at fingers, and that a truly smooth surface like glass would certainly not see a major increase in friction.
To be honest, I am actually surprised that the glass showed ANY increase in friction......</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28332001</id>
	<title>Re:Primates</title>
	<author>dudpixel</author>
	<datestamp>1245002400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does evolution have to achieve any particular purpose?</p><p>If you're looking for a reason for any part of the human body, then you're looking for an intelligent creator.  Its as simple as that.</p><p>If we evolved then the only thing you can deduce about mutations is that they mustn't be deadly (ie. because otherwise the person with that mutation would not have survived to pass it on).  Other than that the mutations themselves are completely random and are caused by a FAULT in a cell reproducing itself.  Its the exception, not the norm.</p><p>Sure you can use "survival of the fittest" to explain why all OTHER mutations haven't worked out...but it doesn't explain why it occurred in the first place.</p><p>It occurred in the first place because one or more cells failed to copy themselves correctly.  Most mutations are bad.  Actually, I've heard it said that so few are good that you may as well consider them all bad.</p><p>If you think that fingerprints must have a purpose in order for us to have them, then I agree with you.  All parts of the human body have been shown to serve an important purpose, and one that is not always necessary for our survival.  If you're thinking it odd that evolution seems to be doing remarkably well getting it right, given the odds stacked against it (remember all mutations are literally MISTAKES and rare at that) then you're not alone.  Even the best efforts of mankind cannot create something nearly as efficient and as well-designed as the human body.  Actually, make that the human cell, or even a part of a human cell.  And yet people believe that it happened by chance?  We cant even replicate it ON PURPOSE.</p><p>So help me understand why there must be logic behind things like fingerprints if we evolved?  Evolution happens by chance, and chance does not follow intelligent reason.  Therefore if we evolved then its merely coincidence that we have fingerprints, nothing else.  I think its clear which side of the fence I'm on.  I cant get my head around evolution.  It just doesn't make sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does evolution have to achieve any particular purpose ? If you 're looking for a reason for any part of the human body , then you 're looking for an intelligent creator .
Its as simple as that.If we evolved then the only thing you can deduce about mutations is that they must n't be deadly ( ie .
because otherwise the person with that mutation would not have survived to pass it on ) .
Other than that the mutations themselves are completely random and are caused by a FAULT in a cell reproducing itself .
Its the exception , not the norm.Sure you can use " survival of the fittest " to explain why all OTHER mutations have n't worked out...but it does n't explain why it occurred in the first place.It occurred in the first place because one or more cells failed to copy themselves correctly .
Most mutations are bad .
Actually , I 've heard it said that so few are good that you may as well consider them all bad.If you think that fingerprints must have a purpose in order for us to have them , then I agree with you .
All parts of the human body have been shown to serve an important purpose , and one that is not always necessary for our survival .
If you 're thinking it odd that evolution seems to be doing remarkably well getting it right , given the odds stacked against it ( remember all mutations are literally MISTAKES and rare at that ) then you 're not alone .
Even the best efforts of mankind can not create something nearly as efficient and as well-designed as the human body .
Actually , make that the human cell , or even a part of a human cell .
And yet people believe that it happened by chance ?
We cant even replicate it ON PURPOSE.So help me understand why there must be logic behind things like fingerprints if we evolved ?
Evolution happens by chance , and chance does not follow intelligent reason .
Therefore if we evolved then its merely coincidence that we have fingerprints , nothing else .
I think its clear which side of the fence I 'm on .
I cant get my head around evolution .
It just does n't make sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does evolution have to achieve any particular purpose?If you're looking for a reason for any part of the human body, then you're looking for an intelligent creator.
Its as simple as that.If we evolved then the only thing you can deduce about mutations is that they mustn't be deadly (ie.
because otherwise the person with that mutation would not have survived to pass it on).
Other than that the mutations themselves are completely random and are caused by a FAULT in a cell reproducing itself.
Its the exception, not the norm.Sure you can use "survival of the fittest" to explain why all OTHER mutations haven't worked out...but it doesn't explain why it occurred in the first place.It occurred in the first place because one or more cells failed to copy themselves correctly.
Most mutations are bad.
Actually, I've heard it said that so few are good that you may as well consider them all bad.If you think that fingerprints must have a purpose in order for us to have them, then I agree with you.
All parts of the human body have been shown to serve an important purpose, and one that is not always necessary for our survival.
If you're thinking it odd that evolution seems to be doing remarkably well getting it right, given the odds stacked against it (remember all mutations are literally MISTAKES and rare at that) then you're not alone.
Even the best efforts of mankind cannot create something nearly as efficient and as well-designed as the human body.
Actually, make that the human cell, or even a part of a human cell.
And yet people believe that it happened by chance?
We cant even replicate it ON PURPOSE.So help me understand why there must be logic behind things like fingerprints if we evolved?
Evolution happens by chance, and chance does not follow intelligent reason.
Therefore if we evolved then its merely coincidence that we have fingerprints, nothing else.
I think its clear which side of the fence I'm on.
I cant get my head around evolution.
It just doesn't make sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325845</id>
	<title>Most contradictory summary EVER. (nt)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244985180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>nt</htmltext>
<tokenext>nt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nt</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325869</id>
	<title>Intelligent design</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244985720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's obvious fingerprints were designed by our creator to help the Police catch murderers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's obvious fingerprints were designed by our creator to help the Police catch murderers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's obvious fingerprints were designed by our creator to help the Police catch murderers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855</id>
	<title>Primates</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244985420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I noticed this at the zoo watching a bunch of monkeys swing from branch the branch in a cage. The tree branches they had been given had been worn smooth through long use and every time a monkey grabbed on to a smooth branch I felt a jab in my fingers in sympathy. There is something <b>bad</b> about grabbing a smooth object and relying on it to save your life.<br> <br>
So maybe finger prints improve grip with smooth timber surfaces. Testing against glass doesn't sound very realistic. We didn't evolve to grip glass. Or maybe (as the summary suggests) it is something to do with detecting the texture of a surface to find a place to grip.<br> <br>
Of course they don't ask why people have unique finger prints. Maybe it evolved to make murderers easier to catch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I noticed this at the zoo watching a bunch of monkeys swing from branch the branch in a cage .
The tree branches they had been given had been worn smooth through long use and every time a monkey grabbed on to a smooth branch I felt a jab in my fingers in sympathy .
There is something bad about grabbing a smooth object and relying on it to save your life .
So maybe finger prints improve grip with smooth timber surfaces .
Testing against glass does n't sound very realistic .
We did n't evolve to grip glass .
Or maybe ( as the summary suggests ) it is something to do with detecting the texture of a surface to find a place to grip .
Of course they do n't ask why people have unique finger prints .
Maybe it evolved to make murderers easier to catch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I noticed this at the zoo watching a bunch of monkeys swing from branch the branch in a cage.
The tree branches they had been given had been worn smooth through long use and every time a monkey grabbed on to a smooth branch I felt a jab in my fingers in sympathy.
There is something bad about grabbing a smooth object and relying on it to save your life.
So maybe finger prints improve grip with smooth timber surfaces.
Testing against glass doesn't sound very realistic.
We didn't evolve to grip glass.
Or maybe (as the summary suggests) it is something to do with detecting the texture of a surface to find a place to grip.
Of course they don't ask why people have unique finger prints.
Maybe it evolved to make murderers easier to catch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28332773</id>
	<title>Re:Primates</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245099300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question isn't about the uniqueness.  The unique layout of hair follicles on human heads isn't notable, but the fact that they have hair on their head is.</p><p>The fact that fingerprints are unique isn't particularly notable, however the fact that we have a fairly distinct type of skin on the ends of our digits is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is n't about the uniqueness .
The unique layout of hair follicles on human heads is n't notable , but the fact that they have hair on their head is.The fact that fingerprints are unique is n't particularly notable , however the fact that we have a fairly distinct type of skin on the ends of our digits is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question isn't about the uniqueness.
The unique layout of hair follicles on human heads isn't notable, but the fact that they have hair on their head is.The fact that fingerprints are unique isn't particularly notable, however the fact that we have a fairly distinct type of skin on the ends of our digits is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325947</id>
	<title>Re:Primates</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244987040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We didn't evolve to grip glass.</p><p>I DID A WET BEER BOTTLE</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We did n't evolve to grip glass.I DID A WET BEER BOTTLE</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We didn't evolve to grip glass.I DID A WET BEER BOTTLE</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325851</id>
	<title>Pleidians</title>
	<author>Sanat</author>
	<datestamp>1244985300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be there in the case of confusion of identity. They were placed there by our Pleidian Overlords.</p><p>This is a fairly true statement however very limiting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be there in the case of confusion of identity .
They were placed there by our Pleidian Overlords.This is a fairly true statement however very limiting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be there in the case of confusion of identity.
They were placed there by our Pleidian Overlords.This is a fairly true statement however very limiting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326055</id>
	<title>National Public Radio's Science Friday</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244988720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The USA's National Public Radio show, "Science  Friday" discussed this:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105310429&amp;ft=1&amp;f=5</p><p>The show talks about this result, and reveals that New world monkeys have similarly ridged<br>skin on the gripping side of their tails.  Touch sensitivity, and resistance to blistering are<br>posited as potential answers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The USA 's National Public Radio show , " Science Friday " discussed this :         http : //www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php ? storyId = 105310429&amp;ft = 1&amp;f = 5The show talks about this result , and reveals that New world monkeys have similarly ridgedskin on the gripping side of their tails .
Touch sensitivity , and resistance to blistering areposited as potential answers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The USA's National Public Radio show, "Science  Friday" discussed this:
        http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105310429&amp;ft=1&amp;f=5The show talks about this result, and reveals that New world monkeys have similarly ridgedskin on the gripping side of their tails.
Touch sensitivity, and resistance to blistering areposited as potential answers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327409</id>
	<title>Wow. These people are genius !</title>
	<author>Latinhypercube</author>
	<datestamp>1245003600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>NOT. Maybe they can prove what their asses are for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NOT .
Maybe they can prove what their asses are for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NOT.
Maybe they can prove what their asses are for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328513</id>
	<title>I have to ask</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1245012420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Dogs have noseprints that are as unique as fingerprints (and in fact are legal ID for dogs in Canada).</p></div><p>Uh... why exactly is Canada defining legal and illegal ways of identifying dogs?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dogs have noseprints that are as unique as fingerprints ( and in fact are legal ID for dogs in Canada ) .Uh... why exactly is Canada defining legal and illegal ways of identifying dogs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dogs have noseprints that are as unique as fingerprints (and in fact are legal ID for dogs in Canada).Uh... why exactly is Canada defining legal and illegal ways of identifying dogs?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326935</id>
	<title>Re:What fingerprints are for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244999280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, it the police that went back in time to start this evolution.  Interesting.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/me rubs chin.</p><p>I kind of like that idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , it the police that went back in time to start this evolution .
Interesting. /me rubs chin.I kind of like that idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, it the police that went back in time to start this evolution.
Interesting. /me rubs chin.I kind of like that idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326079</id>
	<title>The real question is:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244989020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do they have to be for something?<br>Evolution does not forbid random things, that are neither bad nor good for something.</p><p>Sometimes, humans try too much, to fit things into the artificial set of meta-rules that they did create, to describe the complex results of more basic and emergent rules. But those meta-rules have their own artifacts, that  are not present in the basic rules and therefore are not present in the world. Like there having to be a "reason" for everything. A human concept that should describe causality, but adds something more to it, which does not exist in reality.</p><p>Other than that, it is obvious, that they enhance the grip, even in situations with liquids.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do they have to be for something ? Evolution does not forbid random things , that are neither bad nor good for something.Sometimes , humans try too much , to fit things into the artificial set of meta-rules that they did create , to describe the complex results of more basic and emergent rules .
But those meta-rules have their own artifacts , that are not present in the basic rules and therefore are not present in the world .
Like there having to be a " reason " for everything .
A human concept that should describe causality , but adds something more to it , which does not exist in reality.Other than that , it is obvious , that they enhance the grip , even in situations with liquids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do they have to be for something?Evolution does not forbid random things, that are neither bad nor good for something.Sometimes, humans try too much, to fit things into the artificial set of meta-rules that they did create, to describe the complex results of more basic and emergent rules.
But those meta-rules have their own artifacts, that  are not present in the basic rules and therefore are not present in the world.
Like there having to be a "reason" for everything.
A human concept that should describe causality, but adds something more to it, which does not exist in reality.Other than that, it is obvious, that they enhance the grip, even in situations with liquids.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327509</id>
	<title>Re:tactile sensation</title>
	<author>djMouton</author>
	<datestamp>1245004500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thought of this earlier today while running an index finger across my MacBook's aluminum chassis. Intentional or not, those unibdies hum like Swarovski crystal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thought of this earlier today while running an index finger across my MacBook 's aluminum chassis .
Intentional or not , those unibdies hum like Swarovski crystal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thought of this earlier today while running an index finger across my MacBook's aluminum chassis.
Intentional or not, those unibdies hum like Swarovski crystal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28333751</id>
	<title>Re:It's wet grip</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1245070980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You'd think someone from the automotive industry would have pointed this out to the guy in TFA.<br> <br>"Tread disperses fluid. It's to improve grip in damp conditions, fool!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd think someone from the automotive industry would have pointed this out to the guy in TFA .
" Tread disperses fluid .
It 's to improve grip in damp conditions , fool !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd think someone from the automotive industry would have pointed this out to the guy in TFA.
"Tread disperses fluid.
It's to improve grip in damp conditions, fool!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327203</id>
	<title>Re:Bad science or bad journalism?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245001380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think we'd want to look at the methodology too. Something is odd about this one.</p><p>I worked a while with a chap who'd worn his pads smooth from his day-job making elm &amp; maple baskets. He had trouble with wrenches. There'd be a regular clank from a dropped wrench in the shop, and he'd have to curl his fingers around them more to pick up. Couldn't do the usual 'tip-grip' that you and I do to pick up a steel wrench. Ditto sockets, rulers, pens, and the like. There was nothing else odd about the chap, and he used to work as a mechanic without the trouble. The slippage was just an annoyance that came along after the wear problem.</p><p>I have a similar problem with one little finger where I destroyed the pad on a belt sander, and had a smooth section grow back. The un-printed area is slick. Can't really call it scar tissue anymore because that was about fifteen years ago. There's just no pad because the sides had to grow together in place.</p><p>Maybe there's a difference with pure flat surfaces dragged in Dr. Ennos's method, as opposed (sorry) to pressing the pads around a curved smooth surface? Maybe subtle surface moisture and dust content comes into play? Kudos to Dr. Ennos for applying science, but I suspect this experiment isn't going to be the last word, but rather an interesting start of a direction of inquiry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we 'd want to look at the methodology too .
Something is odd about this one.I worked a while with a chap who 'd worn his pads smooth from his day-job making elm &amp; maple baskets .
He had trouble with wrenches .
There 'd be a regular clank from a dropped wrench in the shop , and he 'd have to curl his fingers around them more to pick up .
Could n't do the usual 'tip-grip ' that you and I do to pick up a steel wrench .
Ditto sockets , rulers , pens , and the like .
There was nothing else odd about the chap , and he used to work as a mechanic without the trouble .
The slippage was just an annoyance that came along after the wear problem.I have a similar problem with one little finger where I destroyed the pad on a belt sander , and had a smooth section grow back .
The un-printed area is slick .
Ca n't really call it scar tissue anymore because that was about fifteen years ago .
There 's just no pad because the sides had to grow together in place.Maybe there 's a difference with pure flat surfaces dragged in Dr. Ennos 's method , as opposed ( sorry ) to pressing the pads around a curved smooth surface ?
Maybe subtle surface moisture and dust content comes into play ?
Kudos to Dr. Ennos for applying science , but I suspect this experiment is n't going to be the last word , but rather an interesting start of a direction of inquiry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we'd want to look at the methodology too.
Something is odd about this one.I worked a while with a chap who'd worn his pads smooth from his day-job making elm &amp; maple baskets.
He had trouble with wrenches.
There'd be a regular clank from a dropped wrench in the shop, and he'd have to curl his fingers around them more to pick up.
Couldn't do the usual 'tip-grip' that you and I do to pick up a steel wrench.
Ditto sockets, rulers, pens, and the like.
There was nothing else odd about the chap, and he used to work as a mechanic without the trouble.
The slippage was just an annoyance that came along after the wear problem.I have a similar problem with one little finger where I destroyed the pad on a belt sander, and had a smooth section grow back.
The un-printed area is slick.
Can't really call it scar tissue anymore because that was about fifteen years ago.
There's just no pad because the sides had to grow together in place.Maybe there's a difference with pure flat surfaces dragged in Dr. Ennos's method, as opposed (sorry) to pressing the pads around a curved smooth surface?
Maybe subtle surface moisture and dust content comes into play?
Kudos to Dr. Ennos for applying science, but I suspect this experiment isn't going to be the last word, but rather an interesting start of a direction of inquiry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328139</id>
	<title>Re:ummm where did captain obvious go?</title>
	<author>56</author>
	<datestamp>1245009840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In other news, a similar study into the purpose of the human eye has failed to draw any valid conclusions about their purpose. Scientists were unable to determine the exact purpose of the human eye, although more studies are planned for 2010.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , a similar study into the purpose of the human eye has failed to draw any valid conclusions about their purpose .
Scientists were unable to determine the exact purpose of the human eye , although more studies are planned for 2010 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, a similar study into the purpose of the human eye has failed to draw any valid conclusions about their purpose.
Scientists were unable to determine the exact purpose of the human eye, although more studies are planned for 2010.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328809</id>
	<title>Why does there have to be a reason at all?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244971080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some things just don't have a purpose. This study is just about as stupid as asking, "Why is water wet?" --- It is what it is. Perhaps, the better question is, "Why do we have skin?" but we all know the answer to that. Prints are just another outcome without reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some things just do n't have a purpose .
This study is just about as stupid as asking , " Why is water wet ?
" --- It is what it is .
Perhaps , the better question is , " Why do we have skin ?
" but we all know the answer to that .
Prints are just another outcome without reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some things just don't have a purpose.
This study is just about as stupid as asking, "Why is water wet?
" --- It is what it is.
Perhaps, the better question is, "Why do we have skin?
" but we all know the answer to that.
Prints are just another outcome without reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28330299</id>
	<title>Spandrels</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244984520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/wescourses/2004s/ees227/01/spandrels.html</p><p>"The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme</p><p>Stephen Jay Gould and Richard C. Lewontin</p><p>Republished from the original with the kind permission of The Royal Society of London: Gould, S. J. And Lewontin, R. C., "The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique Of The Adaptationist Programme," Proceedings Of The Royal Society of London, Series B, Vol. 205, No. 1161 (1979), Pp. 581-598.</p><p>An adaptationist programme has dominated evolutionary thought in England and the United States during the past forty years. It is based on faith in the power of natural selection as an optimizing agent. It proceeds by breaking an organism into unitary "traits" and proposing an adaptive story for each considered separately. Trade-offs among competing selective demands exert the only brake upon perfection; non-optimality is thereby rendered as a result of adaptation as well. We criticize this approach and attempt to reassert a competing notion (long popular in continental Europe) that organisms must be analyzed as integrated wholes, with Baupl&#195;ne so constrained by phyletic heritage, pathways of development, and general architecture that the constraints themselves become more interesting and more important in delimiting pathways of change than the selective force that may mediate change when it occurs. We fault the adaptationist programme for its failure to distinguish current utility from reasons for origin (male tyrannosaurs may have used their diminutive front legs to titillate female partners, but this will not explain why they got so small); for its unwillingness to consider alternatives to adaptive stories; for its reliance upon plausibility alone as a criterion for accepting speculative tales; and for its failure to consider adequately such competing themes as random fixation of alleles, production of non-adaptive structures by developmental correlation with selected features (allometry, pleiotropy, material compensation, mechanically forced correlation), the separability of adaptation and selection, multiple adaptive peaks, and current utility as an epiphenomenon of nonadaptive structures. We support darwin's own pluralistic approach to identifying the agents of evolutionary change.</p><p>1. Introduction</p><p>The great central dome of St. Mark's Cathedral in Venice presents in its mosaic design a detailed iconography expressing the mainstays of Christian faith. Three circles of figures radiate out from a central image of Christ: angels, disciples, and virtues. Each circle is divided into quadrants, even though the dome itself is radially symmetrical in structure. Each quadrant meets one of the four spandrels in the arches below the dome. Spandrels-the tapering triangular spaces formed by the intersection of two rounded arches at right angles are necessary architectural byproducts of mounting a dome on rounded arches. Each spandrel contains a design admirably fitted into its tapering space. An evangelist sits in the upper part flanked by the heavenly cities. Below, a man representing one of the four biblical rivers (Tigris, Euphrates, Indus, and Nile) pours water from a pitcher in the narrowing space below his feet.</p><p>(this image at www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ ~suchii/spandrel.html)</p><p>The design is so elaborate, harmonious, and purposeful that we are tempted to view it as the starting point of any analysis, as the cause in some sense of the surrounding architecture. But this would invert the proper path of analysis. The system begins with an architectural constraint: the necessary four spandrels and their tapering triangular form. They provide a space in which the mosaicists worked; they set the quadripartite symmetry of the dome above.</p><p>Such architectural constraints abound, and we find them easy to understand because we do not impose our biological biases upon them. Every fan-vaulted ceiling must have a series of open spaces along the midline of the va</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/wescourses/2004s/ees227/01/spandrels.html " The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm : A Critique of the Adaptationist ProgrammeStephen Jay Gould and Richard C. LewontinRepublished from the original with the kind permission of The Royal Society of London : Gould , S. J. And Lewontin , R. C. , " The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm : A Critique Of The Adaptationist Programme , " Proceedings Of The Royal Society of London , Series B , Vol .
205 , No .
1161 ( 1979 ) , Pp .
581-598.An adaptationist programme has dominated evolutionary thought in England and the United States during the past forty years .
It is based on faith in the power of natural selection as an optimizing agent .
It proceeds by breaking an organism into unitary " traits " and proposing an adaptive story for each considered separately .
Trade-offs among competing selective demands exert the only brake upon perfection ; non-optimality is thereby rendered as a result of adaptation as well .
We criticize this approach and attempt to reassert a competing notion ( long popular in continental Europe ) that organisms must be analyzed as integrated wholes , with Baupl   ne so constrained by phyletic heritage , pathways of development , and general architecture that the constraints themselves become more interesting and more important in delimiting pathways of change than the selective force that may mediate change when it occurs .
We fault the adaptationist programme for its failure to distinguish current utility from reasons for origin ( male tyrannosaurs may have used their diminutive front legs to titillate female partners , but this will not explain why they got so small ) ; for its unwillingness to consider alternatives to adaptive stories ; for its reliance upon plausibility alone as a criterion for accepting speculative tales ; and for its failure to consider adequately such competing themes as random fixation of alleles , production of non-adaptive structures by developmental correlation with selected features ( allometry , pleiotropy , material compensation , mechanically forced correlation ) , the separability of adaptation and selection , multiple adaptive peaks , and current utility as an epiphenomenon of nonadaptive structures .
We support darwin 's own pluralistic approach to identifying the agents of evolutionary change.1 .
IntroductionThe great central dome of St. Mark 's Cathedral in Venice presents in its mosaic design a detailed iconography expressing the mainstays of Christian faith .
Three circles of figures radiate out from a central image of Christ : angels , disciples , and virtues .
Each circle is divided into quadrants , even though the dome itself is radially symmetrical in structure .
Each quadrant meets one of the four spandrels in the arches below the dome .
Spandrels-the tapering triangular spaces formed by the intersection of two rounded arches at right angles are necessary architectural byproducts of mounting a dome on rounded arches .
Each spandrel contains a design admirably fitted into its tapering space .
An evangelist sits in the upper part flanked by the heavenly cities .
Below , a man representing one of the four biblical rivers ( Tigris , Euphrates , Indus , and Nile ) pours water from a pitcher in the narrowing space below his feet .
( this image at www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ ~ suchii/spandrel.html ) The design is so elaborate , harmonious , and purposeful that we are tempted to view it as the starting point of any analysis , as the cause in some sense of the surrounding architecture .
But this would invert the proper path of analysis .
The system begins with an architectural constraint : the necessary four spandrels and their tapering triangular form .
They provide a space in which the mosaicists worked ; they set the quadripartite symmetry of the dome above.Such architectural constraints abound , and we find them easy to understand because we do not impose our biological biases upon them .
Every fan-vaulted ceiling must have a series of open spaces along the midline of the va</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/wescourses/2004s/ees227/01/spandrels.html"The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist ProgrammeStephen Jay Gould and Richard C. LewontinRepublished from the original with the kind permission of The Royal Society of London: Gould, S. J. And Lewontin, R. C., "The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique Of The Adaptationist Programme," Proceedings Of The Royal Society of London, Series B, Vol.
205, No.
1161 (1979), Pp.
581-598.An adaptationist programme has dominated evolutionary thought in England and the United States during the past forty years.
It is based on faith in the power of natural selection as an optimizing agent.
It proceeds by breaking an organism into unitary "traits" and proposing an adaptive story for each considered separately.
Trade-offs among competing selective demands exert the only brake upon perfection; non-optimality is thereby rendered as a result of adaptation as well.
We criticize this approach and attempt to reassert a competing notion (long popular in continental Europe) that organisms must be analyzed as integrated wholes, with BauplÃne so constrained by phyletic heritage, pathways of development, and general architecture that the constraints themselves become more interesting and more important in delimiting pathways of change than the selective force that may mediate change when it occurs.
We fault the adaptationist programme for its failure to distinguish current utility from reasons for origin (male tyrannosaurs may have used their diminutive front legs to titillate female partners, but this will not explain why they got so small); for its unwillingness to consider alternatives to adaptive stories; for its reliance upon plausibility alone as a criterion for accepting speculative tales; and for its failure to consider adequately such competing themes as random fixation of alleles, production of non-adaptive structures by developmental correlation with selected features (allometry, pleiotropy, material compensation, mechanically forced correlation), the separability of adaptation and selection, multiple adaptive peaks, and current utility as an epiphenomenon of nonadaptive structures.
We support darwin's own pluralistic approach to identifying the agents of evolutionary change.1.
IntroductionThe great central dome of St. Mark's Cathedral in Venice presents in its mosaic design a detailed iconography expressing the mainstays of Christian faith.
Three circles of figures radiate out from a central image of Christ: angels, disciples, and virtues.
Each circle is divided into quadrants, even though the dome itself is radially symmetrical in structure.
Each quadrant meets one of the four spandrels in the arches below the dome.
Spandrels-the tapering triangular spaces formed by the intersection of two rounded arches at right angles are necessary architectural byproducts of mounting a dome on rounded arches.
Each spandrel contains a design admirably fitted into its tapering space.
An evangelist sits in the upper part flanked by the heavenly cities.
Below, a man representing one of the four biblical rivers (Tigris, Euphrates, Indus, and Nile) pours water from a pitcher in the narrowing space below his feet.
(this image at www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ ~suchii/spandrel.html)The design is so elaborate, harmonious, and purposeful that we are tempted to view it as the starting point of any analysis, as the cause in some sense of the surrounding architecture.
But this would invert the proper path of analysis.
The system begins with an architectural constraint: the necessary four spandrels and their tapering triangular form.
They provide a space in which the mosaicists worked; they set the quadripartite symmetry of the dome above.Such architectural constraints abound, and we find them easy to understand because we do not impose our biological biases upon them.
Every fan-vaulted ceiling must have a series of open spaces along the midline of the va</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326403</id>
	<title>Re:Primates</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1244992860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We didn't evolve to grip glass.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes we did. The better you can hold your glass, the more alcohol you are able to drink. The more alcohol you drink, the more likely you are to end up with some ugly girl who also was able to drink herself unconscious.</p><p>Now imagine that you would drop your glass before you are at that point. You would never be drunk enough to go with THAT girl and she won't go home with YOU.</p><p>Without fingerprints, we would be extinct by now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We did n't evolve to grip glass.Yes we did .
The better you can hold your glass , the more alcohol you are able to drink .
The more alcohol you drink , the more likely you are to end up with some ugly girl who also was able to drink herself unconscious.Now imagine that you would drop your glass before you are at that point .
You would never be drunk enough to go with THAT girl and she wo n't go home with YOU.Without fingerprints , we would be extinct by now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We didn't evolve to grip glass.Yes we did.
The better you can hold your glass, the more alcohol you are able to drink.
The more alcohol you drink, the more likely you are to end up with some ugly girl who also was able to drink herself unconscious.Now imagine that you would drop your glass before you are at that point.
You would never be drunk enough to go with THAT girl and she won't go home with YOU.Without fingerprints, we would be extinct by now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28331755</id>
	<title>Fingerprints have been around a long time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244999460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I take issue with the folks that ask why do fingerprints have to do anything.  Even if they were ever a "neutral" mutation.  Nature has an insidious habit of stumbling into situations where they do provide a benefit. They have been preserved, even have flourished.  We have them and we will find more uses for them.  It's like "junk" DNA.  If we ask the right question we find this stuff that does not transcribe still plays an important role in the way genes are expressed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I take issue with the folks that ask why do fingerprints have to do anything .
Even if they were ever a " neutral " mutation .
Nature has an insidious habit of stumbling into situations where they do provide a benefit .
They have been preserved , even have flourished .
We have them and we will find more uses for them .
It 's like " junk " DNA .
If we ask the right question we find this stuff that does not transcribe still plays an important role in the way genes are expressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I take issue with the folks that ask why do fingerprints have to do anything.
Even if they were ever a "neutral" mutation.
Nature has an insidious habit of stumbling into situations where they do provide a benefit.
They have been preserved, even have flourished.
We have them and we will find more uses for them.
It's like "junk" DNA.
If we ask the right question we find this stuff that does not transcribe still plays an important role in the way genes are expressed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327297</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe they're for nothing?</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1245002340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe that particular mutation hasn't happened yet, or it happened along with some other mutation that was detrimental to survival.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe that particular mutation has n't happened yet , or it happened along with some other mutation that was detrimental to survival .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe that particular mutation hasn't happened yet, or it happened along with some other mutation that was detrimental to survival.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327817</id>
	<title>Re:Primates</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1245007560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The whole question also shows a profound ignorance of the rest of the animal kingdom:</p><p>Dogs have noseprints that are as unique as fingerprints (and in fact are legal ID for dogs in Canada). Why is this? Probably no reason at all, other than quirks of individual cell layout in the skin layer.</p><p>Chickens have similar uniqueness in the surface of their combs. Why? Likewise, probably no reason, other than it's just a trivial quirk of how the skin cells piled up in a given individual.</p></div><p>And none of this is at all relevant to the question at hand, since the study was not in any way concerned with the uniqueness of fingerprints.  Your reply shows a profound ignorance of reading comprehension.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole question also shows a profound ignorance of the rest of the animal kingdom : Dogs have noseprints that are as unique as fingerprints ( and in fact are legal ID for dogs in Canada ) .
Why is this ?
Probably no reason at all , other than quirks of individual cell layout in the skin layer.Chickens have similar uniqueness in the surface of their combs .
Why ? Likewise , probably no reason , other than it 's just a trivial quirk of how the skin cells piled up in a given individual.And none of this is at all relevant to the question at hand , since the study was not in any way concerned with the uniqueness of fingerprints .
Your reply shows a profound ignorance of reading comprehension .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole question also shows a profound ignorance of the rest of the animal kingdom:Dogs have noseprints that are as unique as fingerprints (and in fact are legal ID for dogs in Canada).
Why is this?
Probably no reason at all, other than quirks of individual cell layout in the skin layer.Chickens have similar uniqueness in the surface of their combs.
Why? Likewise, probably no reason, other than it's just a trivial quirk of how the skin cells piled up in a given individual.And none of this is at all relevant to the question at hand, since the study was not in any way concerned with the uniqueness of fingerprints.
Your reply shows a profound ignorance of reading comprehension.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326005</id>
	<title>ummm where did captain obvious go?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244988060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Other researchers have suggested that the ridges could increase our fingerpads' touch sensitivity."<br><br>from TFA (sorry i can figure out how to use the quote function<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/)<br><br>how is this not obvious? where he have some sort of ridge like pattern (hands, feet) we have more sensitive nerves there. The ridges increase surface area of our skin which means we can feel more using up less volume<br><br>the star nosed mole is the perfect example of increased surface area for more touch sensitivity.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Other researchers have suggested that the ridges could increase our fingerpads ' touch sensitivity .
" from TFA ( sorry i can figure out how to use the quote function : / ) how is this not obvious ?
where he have some sort of ridge like pattern ( hands , feet ) we have more sensitive nerves there .
The ridges increase surface area of our skin which means we can feel more using up less volumethe star nosed mole is the perfect example of increased surface area for more touch sensitivity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Other researchers have suggested that the ridges could increase our fingerpads' touch sensitivity.
"from TFA (sorry i can figure out how to use the quote function :/)how is this not obvious?
where he have some sort of ridge like pattern (hands, feet) we have more sensitive nerves there.
The ridges increase surface area of our skin which means we can feel more using up less volumethe star nosed mole is the perfect example of increased surface area for more touch sensitivity.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326507</id>
	<title>Sexy</title>
	<author>Demonantis</author>
	<datestamp>1244994240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fingerprints might not have any use. There could be a multitude of reasons why people have them. People could find them sexy or fear anyone that doesn't have them. They could simple be a by product of another mutation that benefited humans. Evolution is a fun random thing without any real directional purpose. Some times yes mutations are beneficial other times not. People have a lot of trouble understanding that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fingerprints might not have any use .
There could be a multitude of reasons why people have them .
People could find them sexy or fear anyone that does n't have them .
They could simple be a by product of another mutation that benefited humans .
Evolution is a fun random thing without any real directional purpose .
Some times yes mutations are beneficial other times not .
People have a lot of trouble understanding that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fingerprints might not have any use.
There could be a multitude of reasons why people have them.
People could find them sexy or fear anyone that doesn't have them.
They could simple be a by product of another mutation that benefited humans.
Evolution is a fun random thing without any real directional purpose.
Some times yes mutations are beneficial other times not.
People have a lot of trouble understanding that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28333875</id>
	<title>Grip</title>
	<author>Andypcguy</author>
	<datestamp>1245072420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I worked in a warehouse for a summer working 70-80 hours a week.  I handled cardboard boxes 16-18 hours a day.  After the first week my fingertips were worn smooth.  I had no fingerprints and I found it more difficult to pick things up.  I ended up buying some gloves with little rubber knobs and they helped.  My fingerprints grew back and I could pick up boxes again.  From them on I wore gloves with some type of gripping aid.  They usually only lasted about a week.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked in a warehouse for a summer working 70-80 hours a week .
I handled cardboard boxes 16-18 hours a day .
After the first week my fingertips were worn smooth .
I had no fingerprints and I found it more difficult to pick things up .
I ended up buying some gloves with little rubber knobs and they helped .
My fingerprints grew back and I could pick up boxes again .
From them on I wore gloves with some type of gripping aid .
They usually only lasted about a week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked in a warehouse for a summer working 70-80 hours a week.
I handled cardboard boxes 16-18 hours a day.
After the first week my fingertips were worn smooth.
I had no fingerprints and I found it more difficult to pick things up.
I ended up buying some gloves with little rubber knobs and they helped.
My fingerprints grew back and I could pick up boxes again.
From them on I wore gloves with some type of gripping aid.
They usually only lasted about a week.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326105</id>
	<title>Finally an answer!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244989560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't tell you how many times I've been out back, trying to climb up my  giant sheet of plexiglass, wondering why I just can't seem to get a good grip.</p><p>Now I know! Thank you, "scientists"!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't tell you how many times I 've been out back , trying to climb up my giant sheet of plexiglass , wondering why I just ca n't seem to get a good grip.Now I know !
Thank you , " scientists " !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't tell you how many times I've been out back, trying to climb up my  giant sheet of plexiglass, wondering why I just can't seem to get a good grip.Now I know!
Thank you, "scientists"!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325897</id>
	<title>What fingerprints are for</title>
	<author>Rik Sweeney</author>
	<datestamp>1244986260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're for US immigration to scan. Other than that they serve no other purpose, like wasps.</p><p>Seriously though, did you know that identical twins have different fingerprints? Not so identical after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're for US immigration to scan .
Other than that they serve no other purpose , like wasps.Seriously though , did you know that identical twins have different fingerprints ?
Not so identical after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're for US immigration to scan.
Other than that they serve no other purpose, like wasps.Seriously though, did you know that identical twins have different fingerprints?
Not so identical after all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327599</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe they're for nothing?</title>
	<author>Alarindris</author>
	<datestamp>1245005280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a special purpose!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a special purpose !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a special purpose!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327677</id>
	<title>Re:Intelligent design</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245006120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well that's why we have DNA, isn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well that 's why we have DNA , is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well that's why we have DNA, isn't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326129</id>
	<title>Re:Primates</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1244989800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or maybe it didn't evolve that way for any particular reason.</p><p>These sort of studies assume we have now evolved to perfection.  But that suggests there will be no further evolution, which I don't think is the case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or maybe it did n't evolve that way for any particular reason.These sort of studies assume we have now evolved to perfection .
But that suggests there will be no further evolution , which I do n't think is the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or maybe it didn't evolve that way for any particular reason.These sort of studies assume we have now evolved to perfection.
But that suggests there will be no further evolution, which I don't think is the case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328985</id>
	<title>our big brain</title>
	<author>davygrvy</author>
	<datestamp>1244972400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I want better grip, I where those sticky rubber work gloves.  Has our brain power negated all bodily evolution?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I want better grip , I where those sticky rubber work gloves .
Has our brain power negated all bodily evolution ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I want better grip, I where those sticky rubber work gloves.
Has our brain power negated all bodily evolution?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326207</id>
	<title>It seems pretty apparent...</title>
	<author>gbickford</author>
	<datestamp>1244990820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>Celestial barcodes.</b> The gods are thinking of moving towards an RFID based solution but for now it works.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Celestial barcodes .
The gods are thinking of moving towards an RFID based solution but for now it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Celestial barcodes.
The gods are thinking of moving towards an RFID based solution but for now it works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325971</id>
	<title>Someplace for the oil to go?</title>
	<author>TREE</author>
	<datestamp>1244987460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe they work like treads on car tires... let there be someplace for liquids to move *away* from to improve grip. Or, maybe having "with oil" and "without oil" surfaces that can be selected by varying grip allows gripping different types of surfaces.</p><p>Also, grip isn't the only thing hands do. Wiping or scrubbing with your fingers requires some level of abrasiveness.</p><p>I suspect that there may be a connection between building calluses and having prints. Possibly, prints are just the way we make "tough" skin that is more resistant to injury.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they work like treads on car tires... let there be someplace for liquids to move * away * from to improve grip .
Or , maybe having " with oil " and " without oil " surfaces that can be selected by varying grip allows gripping different types of surfaces.Also , grip is n't the only thing hands do .
Wiping or scrubbing with your fingers requires some level of abrasiveness.I suspect that there may be a connection between building calluses and having prints .
Possibly , prints are just the way we make " tough " skin that is more resistant to injury .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they work like treads on car tires... let there be someplace for liquids to move *away* from to improve grip.
Or, maybe having "with oil" and "without oil" surfaces that can be selected by varying grip allows gripping different types of surfaces.Also, grip isn't the only thing hands do.
Wiping or scrubbing with your fingers requires some level of abrasiveness.I suspect that there may be a connection between building calluses and having prints.
Possibly, prints are just the way we make "tough" skin that is more resistant to injury.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28343631</id>
	<title>Re:ummm where did captain obvious go?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245080280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how did you show the tags as they are? i mean without the text being formatted?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how did you show the tags as they are ?
i mean without the text being formatted ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how did you show the tags as they are?
i mean without the text being formatted?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328063</id>
	<title>Is this really news?</title>
	<author>crmarvin42</author>
	<datestamp>1245009420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IIRC, there was an article on either Slashdot or Arstechnica where evidence was presented that at least one real role of fingerprints is to increase tactile sensitivity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IIRC , there was an article on either Slashdot or Arstechnica where evidence was presented that at least one real role of fingerprints is to increase tactile sensitivity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIRC, there was an article on either Slashdot or Arstechnica where evidence was presented that at least one real role of fingerprints is to increase tactile sensitivity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325995</id>
	<title>Re:what do you think?</title>
	<author>dilvish\_the\_damned</author>
	<datestamp>1244987820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just one more thing science can't answer. Of course the answer is obvious but no scientist would ever consider [i]that[/i].</p></div><p>Obviously its so God can sort you out later.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just one more thing science ca n't answer .
Of course the answer is obvious but no scientist would ever consider [ i ] that [ /i ] .Obviously its so God can sort you out later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just one more thing science can't answer.
Of course the answer is obvious but no scientist would ever consider [i]that[/i].Obviously its so God can sort you out later.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28331713</id>
	<title>Diff Rep Success</title>
	<author>RancidPeanutOil</author>
	<datestamp>1244998920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to be crass, but this is one of those situations where differential reproductive success <em>directly</em> impacts the evolution of a trait - the scientists should have tested it on the hair and skin on the backs and sides of female primates and/or whatever surface female primates grab onto while 'making sweet sweet love'. No grip, no offspring. Branches? Acrylic? What? Whatever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to be crass , but this is one of those situations where differential reproductive success directly impacts the evolution of a trait - the scientists should have tested it on the hair and skin on the backs and sides of female primates and/or whatever surface female primates grab onto while 'making sweet sweet love' .
No grip , no offspring .
Branches ? Acrylic ?
What ? Whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to be crass, but this is one of those situations where differential reproductive success directly impacts the evolution of a trait - the scientists should have tested it on the hair and skin on the backs and sides of female primates and/or whatever surface female primates grab onto while 'making sweet sweet love'.
No grip, no offspring.
Branches? Acrylic?
What? Whatever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326785</id>
	<title>Re:What fingerprints are for</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1244997900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Other than that they serve no other purpose, like wasps.</i></p><p>Hey, if it weren't for WASPs, who would shop at The Gap or Banana Republic? Who would buy purse-sized dogs? And who would keep psychotherapists and badminton set manufacturers in business?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Other than that they serve no other purpose , like wasps.Hey , if it were n't for WASPs , who would shop at The Gap or Banana Republic ?
Who would buy purse-sized dogs ?
And who would keep psychotherapists and badminton set manufacturers in business ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other than that they serve no other purpose, like wasps.Hey, if it weren't for WASPs, who would shop at The Gap or Banana Republic?
Who would buy purse-sized dogs?
And who would keep psychotherapists and badminton set manufacturers in business?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327163</id>
	<title>Related News</title>
	<author>kandela</author>
	<datestamp>1245001020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <b>In Related News</b> </p><p> <i>The Beauty industry</i> say that regardless of functionality, they will soon develop fingerprint smoothing hand cream; to go with pore-less look foundation. Soon you will be able to say goodbye to unsightly fingerprints.</p><p> <i>Creationists</i> say they are not surprised and that God gave us fingerprints because he wanted right wing governments to be able to keep track of unbelievers better. They note that no angel has ever been known to have finger-prints.</p><p> <i>Palm readers</i> everywhere say that this truth had already been revealed to them through years of study. <i>Sceptics</i> countered that it is easy to say that after the study has been released.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Related News The Beauty industry say that regardless of functionality , they will soon develop fingerprint smoothing hand cream ; to go with pore-less look foundation .
Soon you will be able to say goodbye to unsightly fingerprints .
Creationists say they are not surprised and that God gave us fingerprints because he wanted right wing governments to be able to keep track of unbelievers better .
They note that no angel has ever been known to have finger-prints .
Palm readers everywhere say that this truth had already been revealed to them through years of study .
Sceptics countered that it is easy to say that after the study has been released .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> In Related News  The Beauty industry say that regardless of functionality, they will soon develop fingerprint smoothing hand cream; to go with pore-less look foundation.
Soon you will be able to say goodbye to unsightly fingerprints.
Creationists say they are not surprised and that God gave us fingerprints because he wanted right wing governments to be able to keep track of unbelievers better.
They note that no angel has ever been known to have finger-prints.
Palm readers everywhere say that this truth had already been revealed to them through years of study.
Sceptics countered that it is easy to say that after the study has been released.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326771</id>
	<title>Re:Primates</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244997840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or maybe people would just be better looking...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or maybe people would just be better looking.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or maybe people would just be better looking...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326995</id>
	<title>Surely it's way skin grows?</title>
	<author>improfane</author>
	<datestamp>1244999700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I imagine fingerprints are just the way the cells happen to divide and the unique pattern is just the result of random growth.</p><p>It's like if you look at the back of your had, you see slight lines everywhere, that makes your skin look like scales. It serves no purpose; it is an artefact of growth.</p><p>This is an armchair theory though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I imagine fingerprints are just the way the cells happen to divide and the unique pattern is just the result of random growth.It 's like if you look at the back of your had , you see slight lines everywhere , that makes your skin look like scales .
It serves no purpose ; it is an artefact of growth.This is an armchair theory though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I imagine fingerprints are just the way the cells happen to divide and the unique pattern is just the result of random growth.It's like if you look at the back of your had, you see slight lines everywhere, that makes your skin look like scales.
It serves no purpose; it is an artefact of growth.This is an armchair theory though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327185</id>
	<title>Blood</title>
	<author>Silviiro</author>
	<datestamp>1245001260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Odd how they neglect to remember that the dermal papillae also serve to expose more epithelial tissue to the blood supply easier. Did they forget to read their High School Anatomy book?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Odd how they neglect to remember that the dermal papillae also serve to expose more epithelial tissue to the blood supply easier .
Did they forget to read their High School Anatomy book ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Odd how they neglect to remember that the dermal papillae also serve to expose more epithelial tissue to the blood supply easier.
Did they forget to read their High School Anatomy book?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327715</id>
	<title>Re:Primates</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1245006600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why presume they have a function? Evolution weeds out costly features. If fingerprints have little cost, it is wrong to assume they necessarily exist to serve some specific purpose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why presume they have a function ?
Evolution weeds out costly features .
If fingerprints have little cost , it is wrong to assume they necessarily exist to serve some specific purpose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why presume they have a function?
Evolution weeds out costly features.
If fingerprints have little cost, it is wrong to assume they necessarily exist to serve some specific purpose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28331967</id>
	<title>Ridges convert tangential forces into pressure dif</title>
	<author>dbgustavson</author>
	<datestamp>1245002040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The ridges tilt when there are sideways components of force, resulting in pressure differences between the two sides of each ridge. The skin has only pressure force sensors, no tangential force sensors, so the ridges allow sensing tangential forces without needing some new kind of nerve/sensor system. That is important for gentle gripping, for example, so you can tell when a tighter grip is needed to prevent slipping. So the pressure sums or averages give the total normal force, and the local differences give the tangential components of the force.
Useful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ridges tilt when there are sideways components of force , resulting in pressure differences between the two sides of each ridge .
The skin has only pressure force sensors , no tangential force sensors , so the ridges allow sensing tangential forces without needing some new kind of nerve/sensor system .
That is important for gentle gripping , for example , so you can tell when a tighter grip is needed to prevent slipping .
So the pressure sums or averages give the total normal force , and the local differences give the tangential components of the force .
Useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ridges tilt when there are sideways components of force, resulting in pressure differences between the two sides of each ridge.
The skin has only pressure force sensors, no tangential force sensors, so the ridges allow sensing tangential forces without needing some new kind of nerve/sensor system.
That is important for gentle gripping, for example, so you can tell when a tighter grip is needed to prevent slipping.
So the pressure sums or averages give the total normal force, and the local differences give the tangential components of the force.
Useful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328187</id>
	<title>Re:fingerprints don't provide an improved grip?</title>
	<author>Thiez</author>
	<datestamp>1245010080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; its most likely something once useful that is on the way out. Evolution doesn't happen overnight.</p><p>Unless NOT having fingerprints is more useful than having them (and the difference in 'usefulness' is a significant one), they is no pressure to get rid of them, meaning we may just keep them indefinitely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; its most likely something once useful that is on the way out .
Evolution does n't happen overnight.Unless NOT having fingerprints is more useful than having them ( and the difference in 'usefulness ' is a significant one ) , they is no pressure to get rid of them , meaning we may just keep them indefinitely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; its most likely something once useful that is on the way out.
Evolution doesn't happen overnight.Unless NOT having fingerprints is more useful than having them (and the difference in 'usefulness' is a significant one), they is no pressure to get rid of them, meaning we may just keep them indefinitely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28330575</id>
	<title>Er, not.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1244987340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are animals that have very few offspring, but for several reasons are very good at defending them.</p><p>Quantity  only works where the quality of the parenting is relatively  poor (fish, insects, etc).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are animals that have very few offspring , but for several reasons are very good at defending them.Quantity only works where the quality of the parenting is relatively poor ( fish , insects , etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are animals that have very few offspring, but for several reasons are very good at defending them.Quantity  only works where the quality of the parenting is relatively  poor (fish, insects, etc).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328173</id>
	<title>It's wet grip</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1245009960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've had the experience of having no fingerprints for a time.  I worked at UPS unloading trucks; one of the customers shipped many thousands of small boxes just before the end of the year; the boxes were the precise size that the only way to grip them was with the pads of fingers and thumb (I'm looking at you, Daytimers!).  A large portion of those boxes passed through my hands.  Shortly after I started work there, I noticed that I was having trouble gripping items that were wet - a water glass with condensation on it would routinely slip through my fingers.  When I examined my hands I saw that the ridges of my fingerprints were basically worn away.  I wore gloves for a bit while working and the problem cleared itself up.</p><p>Another illustration would be to look at the skiving on the bottom of a pair of deck shoes.  On a dry surface, they offer no advantage whatsoever, but on a wet surface the difference in grip is remarkable.  Or for that matter tire treads - a set of slicks is the absolute best way to maximize grip - unless it's wet, at which point they become the WORST configuration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've had the experience of having no fingerprints for a time .
I worked at UPS unloading trucks ; one of the customers shipped many thousands of small boxes just before the end of the year ; the boxes were the precise size that the only way to grip them was with the pads of fingers and thumb ( I 'm looking at you , Daytimers ! ) .
A large portion of those boxes passed through my hands .
Shortly after I started work there , I noticed that I was having trouble gripping items that were wet - a water glass with condensation on it would routinely slip through my fingers .
When I examined my hands I saw that the ridges of my fingerprints were basically worn away .
I wore gloves for a bit while working and the problem cleared itself up.Another illustration would be to look at the skiving on the bottom of a pair of deck shoes .
On a dry surface , they offer no advantage whatsoever , but on a wet surface the difference in grip is remarkable .
Or for that matter tire treads - a set of slicks is the absolute best way to maximize grip - unless it 's wet , at which point they become the WORST configuration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've had the experience of having no fingerprints for a time.
I worked at UPS unloading trucks; one of the customers shipped many thousands of small boxes just before the end of the year; the boxes were the precise size that the only way to grip them was with the pads of fingers and thumb (I'm looking at you, Daytimers!).
A large portion of those boxes passed through my hands.
Shortly after I started work there, I noticed that I was having trouble gripping items that were wet - a water glass with condensation on it would routinely slip through my fingers.
When I examined my hands I saw that the ridges of my fingerprints were basically worn away.
I wore gloves for a bit while working and the problem cleared itself up.Another illustration would be to look at the skiving on the bottom of a pair of deck shoes.
On a dry surface, they offer no advantage whatsoever, but on a wet surface the difference in grip is remarkable.
Or for that matter tire treads - a set of slicks is the absolute best way to maximize grip - unless it's wet, at which point they become the WORST configuration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327739</id>
	<title>Another way to figure out what fingerprints are fo</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1245006900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look at which other species have fingerprints.</p><p>Is it just apes?</p><p>Do dogs/cats have individual paw prints?</p><p>Do Horses have hoof prints?</p><p>Do the tip of our nails have nailprints that would distinguish them if we looked close enough?</p><p>Do octopus suckers have fingerprints?</p><p>It could just be background noise.</p><p>They could be vestigial.</p><p>They could be an echo of the growth process since they are on the tips of our fingers and toes.</p><p>Would we find similar swirly distortions on the tips of dog tails, fish flukes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at which other species have fingerprints.Is it just apes ? Do dogs/cats have individual paw prints ? Do Horses have hoof prints ? Do the tip of our nails have nailprints that would distinguish them if we looked close enough ? Do octopus suckers have fingerprints ? It could just be background noise.They could be vestigial.They could be an echo of the growth process since they are on the tips of our fingers and toes.Would we find similar swirly distortions on the tips of dog tails , fish flukes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at which other species have fingerprints.Is it just apes?Do dogs/cats have individual paw prints?Do Horses have hoof prints?Do the tip of our nails have nailprints that would distinguish them if we looked close enough?Do octopus suckers have fingerprints?It could just be background noise.They could be vestigial.They could be an echo of the growth process since they are on the tips of our fingers and toes.Would we find similar swirly distortions on the tips of dog tails, fish flukes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326295</id>
	<title>Re:Intelligent design</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244991660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fingerprints were "created" by the Creator (call it God, Yavh&#195;&#169;, Void, etc. depending onto your religion and language) in the same maner as we place unique chips ("created" by ourselves) to laboratory rats: to study and test each one independently of others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fingerprints were " created " by the Creator ( call it God , Yavh     , Void , etc .
depending onto your religion and language ) in the same maner as we place unique chips ( " created " by ourselves ) to laboratory rats : to study and test each one independently of others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fingerprints were "created" by the Creator (call it God, YavhÃ©, Void, etc.
depending onto your religion and language) in the same maner as we place unique chips ("created" by ourselves) to laboratory rats: to study and test each one independently of others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326409</id>
	<title>Simple really</title>
	<author>xednieht</author>
	<datestamp>1244992920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fingerprints are for creating jobs for law enforcement, all part of the master plan.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fingerprints are for creating jobs for law enforcement , all part of the master plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fingerprints are for creating jobs for law enforcement, all part of the master plan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28329475</id>
	<title>Sexy fingerprints</title>
	<author>stupidflanders</author>
	<datestamp>1244976060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Man, look at the fingerprints on her!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , look at the fingerprints on her !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, look at the fingerprints on her!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328753</id>
	<title>Re:what do you think?</title>
	<author>css-hack</author>
	<datestamp>1244970720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To all of my sibling posters: I do believe you've just been trolled.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To all of my sibling posters : I do believe you 've just been trolled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To all of my sibling posters: I do believe you've just been trolled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328081</id>
	<title>Re:Primates</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1245009540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; More likely it's just an artifact of how skin develops.<br><br>But most of us only have the ridge patterns on skin in specific parts of the body. The skin on other parts of the body lack the ridges.<br><br>I doubt it's harder to grow thick skin that is without ridges. You can get nonridged calluses on other parts of your body.<br><br>Maybe the ridges allow the layers of thick skin (calluses) to better interlock and distribute forces (rather than rubbing/sliding off more easily in layers), in places where it might be important - such as hands and feet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; More likely it 's just an artifact of how skin develops.But most of us only have the ridge patterns on skin in specific parts of the body .
The skin on other parts of the body lack the ridges.I doubt it 's harder to grow thick skin that is without ridges .
You can get nonridged calluses on other parts of your body.Maybe the ridges allow the layers of thick skin ( calluses ) to better interlock and distribute forces ( rather than rubbing/sliding off more easily in layers ) , in places where it might be important - such as hands and feet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; More likely it's just an artifact of how skin develops.But most of us only have the ridge patterns on skin in specific parts of the body.
The skin on other parts of the body lack the ridges.I doubt it's harder to grow thick skin that is without ridges.
You can get nonridged calluses on other parts of your body.Maybe the ridges allow the layers of thick skin (calluses) to better interlock and distribute forces (rather than rubbing/sliding off more easily in layers), in places where it might be important - such as hands and feet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326735</id>
	<title>Re:Primates</title>
	<author>Hal\_Porter</author>
	<datestamp>1244997240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see why them being unique is so surprising. Faces are unique after all. All of us have a unique genome, apart from identical twins. Still even twins have different fingerprints and hair follicles and so on are in different places. I guess when embryos develop the process for skin folding and hair follicle development is slightly random - i.e. the genes encode the probability of a fair follicle, not its exact location.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see why them being unique is so surprising .
Faces are unique after all .
All of us have a unique genome , apart from identical twins .
Still even twins have different fingerprints and hair follicles and so on are in different places .
I guess when embryos develop the process for skin folding and hair follicle development is slightly random - i.e .
the genes encode the probability of a fair follicle , not its exact location .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see why them being unique is so surprising.
Faces are unique after all.
All of us have a unique genome, apart from identical twins.
Still even twins have different fingerprints and hair follicles and so on are in different places.
I guess when embryos develop the process for skin folding and hair follicle development is slightly random - i.e.
the genes encode the probability of a fair follicle, not its exact location.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28332295</id>
	<title>Everything has a purpose?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245006480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just took at my body and from head to toe and i see a purpose for every part on me. I'm sure there is a purpose for finger prints. anyways, we do use them for identification, isn't that a purpose? plus imagine if your fingertips were perfectly smooth, you wouldn't be able to feel things in as much detail. I think everything has a reason, we just haven't found out why yet. We act like we know everything yet we can only explain a fraction of the phenomena that goes on in this world not to mention the rest of the universe. others are happy with just saying "oh its random." If everything is random then nothing is random.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just took at my body and from head to toe and i see a purpose for every part on me .
I 'm sure there is a purpose for finger prints .
anyways , we do use them for identification , is n't that a purpose ?
plus imagine if your fingertips were perfectly smooth , you would n't be able to feel things in as much detail .
I think everything has a reason , we just have n't found out why yet .
We act like we know everything yet we can only explain a fraction of the phenomena that goes on in this world not to mention the rest of the universe .
others are happy with just saying " oh its random .
" If everything is random then nothing is random .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just took at my body and from head to toe and i see a purpose for every part on me.
I'm sure there is a purpose for finger prints.
anyways, we do use them for identification, isn't that a purpose?
plus imagine if your fingertips were perfectly smooth, you wouldn't be able to feel things in as much detail.
I think everything has a reason, we just haven't found out why yet.
We act like we know everything yet we can only explain a fraction of the phenomena that goes on in this world not to mention the rest of the universe.
others are happy with just saying "oh its random.
" If everything is random then nothing is random.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28331325</id>
	<title>Can you say toe prints?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244995260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a waste of a study if you didn't include toe prints.  Who picks up a glass with their feet except my ape masters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a waste of a study if you did n't include toe prints .
Who picks up a glass with their feet except my ape masters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a waste of a study if you didn't include toe prints.
Who picks up a glass with their feet except my ape masters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326565</id>
	<title>Re:What fingerprints are for</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1244995020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which may seem to imply that fingerprints are formed during development and are not determined by genetics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which may seem to imply that fingerprints are formed during development and are not determined by genetics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which may seem to imply that fingerprints are formed during development and are not determined by genetics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28339927</id>
	<title>Wrong Material Stupid!</title>
	<author>immcintosh</author>
	<datestamp>1245057300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because humans evolved needing to hold onto acrylic glass?  Can anybody name ONE natural substance even remotely like acrylic glass?  Come back with a model of how fingerprints affect friction on substances like plant material or rock, then maybe this will be credible...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because humans evolved needing to hold onto acrylic glass ?
Can anybody name ONE natural substance even remotely like acrylic glass ?
Come back with a model of how fingerprints affect friction on substances like plant material or rock , then maybe this will be credible.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because humans evolved needing to hold onto acrylic glass?
Can anybody name ONE natural substance even remotely like acrylic glass?
Come back with a model of how fingerprints affect friction on substances like plant material or rock, then maybe this will be credible...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325861</id>
	<title>what do you think?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244985600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just one more thing science can't answer. Of course the answer is obvious but no scientist would ever consider [i]that[/i].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just one more thing science ca n't answer .
Of course the answer is obvious but no scientist would ever consider [ i ] that [ /i ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just one more thing science can't answer.
Of course the answer is obvious but no scientist would ever consider [i]that[/i].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28342465</id>
	<title>Re:I have to ask</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245070620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Dogs have noseprints that are as unique as fingerprints (and in fact are legal ID for dogs in Canada).</p></div><p>Uh... why exactly is Canada defining legal and illegal ways of identifying dogs?</p></div><p>Perhaps you jest, but the question is flawed. A "legal way" to do something simply means that the law defines "a way". It doesn't follow that the law forbids other ways. This is merely the way that the law recognizes: <i>Do you want to prove that Fido is Fido and not any other, you do it like so.</i> That's it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dogs have noseprints that are as unique as fingerprints ( and in fact are legal ID for dogs in Canada ) .Uh... why exactly is Canada defining legal and illegal ways of identifying dogs ? Perhaps you jest , but the question is flawed .
A " legal way " to do something simply means that the law defines " a way " .
It does n't follow that the law forbids other ways .
This is merely the way that the law recognizes : Do you want to prove that Fido is Fido and not any other , you do it like so .
That 's it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dogs have noseprints that are as unique as fingerprints (and in fact are legal ID for dogs in Canada).Uh... why exactly is Canada defining legal and illegal ways of identifying dogs?Perhaps you jest, but the question is flawed.
A "legal way" to do something simply means that the law defines "a way".
It doesn't follow that the law forbids other ways.
This is merely the way that the law recognizes: Do you want to prove that Fido is Fido and not any other, you do it like so.
That's it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328705</id>
	<title>conserved features</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1244970420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Or maybe it didn't evolve that way for any particular reason.</p></div><p>The fact that <a href="http://www.wonderquest.com/Fingerprints.htm" title="wonderquest.com">fingerprints are so conserved among primates, and some even have them on their tails</a> [wonderquest.com] which they use to grip trees as well, to me that suggests it's a functional feature.  Were humans the only ones with fingerprints I would agree that it might not be an evolved feature.</p><p>We use fingerprints for identifying criminals, but clearly that's not what they were evolved for.  In the absence of the conservation, had the friction studies shown a positive result, that still would not have meant it was evolved for that purpose.  But the fact that primates have kept fingerprints around through multiple speciation events really makes it seem like it had some function.  There's also the possibility that it is somehow necessary to develop fingerprints in order to develop primate fingers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or maybe it did n't evolve that way for any particular reason.The fact that fingerprints are so conserved among primates , and some even have them on their tails [ wonderquest.com ] which they use to grip trees as well , to me that suggests it 's a functional feature .
Were humans the only ones with fingerprints I would agree that it might not be an evolved feature.We use fingerprints for identifying criminals , but clearly that 's not what they were evolved for .
In the absence of the conservation , had the friction studies shown a positive result , that still would not have meant it was evolved for that purpose .
But the fact that primates have kept fingerprints around through multiple speciation events really makes it seem like it had some function .
There 's also the possibility that it is somehow necessary to develop fingerprints in order to develop primate fingers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or maybe it didn't evolve that way for any particular reason.The fact that fingerprints are so conserved among primates, and some even have them on their tails [wonderquest.com] which they use to grip trees as well, to me that suggests it's a functional feature.
Were humans the only ones with fingerprints I would agree that it might not be an evolved feature.We use fingerprints for identifying criminals, but clearly that's not what they were evolved for.
In the absence of the conservation, had the friction studies shown a positive result, that still would not have meant it was evolved for that purpose.
But the fact that primates have kept fingerprints around through multiple speciation events really makes it seem like it had some function.
There's also the possibility that it is somehow necessary to develop fingerprints in order to develop primate fingers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328685</id>
	<title>Re:Ridged for extra pleasure?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244970300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ack!!  go back to the "The Register"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ack ! !
go back to the " The Register "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ack!!
go back to the "The Register"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325941</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28343295</id>
	<title>Re:Primates</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1245077160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Survival of the fittest was never a formal elucidation of the theory of evolution. I think the basic definition these days is, survival of those who weren't killed by their mutations, or, survival of those not so bad off that they could actually reproduce.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Survival of the fittest was never a formal elucidation of the theory of evolution .
I think the basic definition these days is , survival of those who were n't killed by their mutations , or , survival of those not so bad off that they could actually reproduce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Survival of the fittest was never a formal elucidation of the theory of evolution.
I think the basic definition these days is, survival of those who weren't killed by their mutations, or, survival of those not so bad off that they could actually reproduce.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325871</id>
	<title>CSI may have an alternate hypothesis to their use.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244985720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I also love how they never counterweight their centrifuges.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I also love how they never counterweight their centrifuges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also love how they never counterweight their centrifuges.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326075</id>
	<title>Bad science or bad journalism?</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1244988900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With articles such as this, it's hard to tell whether we're being subjected to bad science or bad journalism. Both the summary and TFA quite categorically state that the "myth" of fingerprints being used to improve grip has been disproven. They then go on to describe how this experiment tested whether fingerprints helped when grasping an extremely smooth surface, and found out that they didn't (well okay, actually they did, but not by very much).</p><p>Finally, some alternate hypotheses as to why fingerprints evolved are posited, the first of which is: they may improve grip on rough surfaces. Not acrylic glass or anything, but those other kind of surfaces - you know, the type that actually occur in nature.</p><p>I'm pretty sure I don't know much more now than I did before I read the article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With articles such as this , it 's hard to tell whether we 're being subjected to bad science or bad journalism .
Both the summary and TFA quite categorically state that the " myth " of fingerprints being used to improve grip has been disproven .
They then go on to describe how this experiment tested whether fingerprints helped when grasping an extremely smooth surface , and found out that they did n't ( well okay , actually they did , but not by very much ) .Finally , some alternate hypotheses as to why fingerprints evolved are posited , the first of which is : they may improve grip on rough surfaces .
Not acrylic glass or anything , but those other kind of surfaces - you know , the type that actually occur in nature.I 'm pretty sure I do n't know much more now than I did before I read the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With articles such as this, it's hard to tell whether we're being subjected to bad science or bad journalism.
Both the summary and TFA quite categorically state that the "myth" of fingerprints being used to improve grip has been disproven.
They then go on to describe how this experiment tested whether fingerprints helped when grasping an extremely smooth surface, and found out that they didn't (well okay, actually they did, but not by very much).Finally, some alternate hypotheses as to why fingerprints evolved are posited, the first of which is: they may improve grip on rough surfaces.
Not acrylic glass or anything, but those other kind of surfaces - you know, the type that actually occur in nature.I'm pretty sure I don't know much more now than I did before I read the article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327499</id>
	<title>Re:God</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1245004380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now why do we have unique identifiers that also allows us to be tracked easily?</p></div><p>Why does a bullet have a pattern of scratches on it that sometimes* allows it to be tracked back to the gun that fired it? Nobody designed that in - its just an unintended consequence of being unable to make two gun barrels absolutely identical that happens to have a practical upshot.

</p><p>(* Maybe not quite so unerringly as on CSI, but...)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now why do we have unique identifiers that also allows us to be tracked easily ? Why does a bullet have a pattern of scratches on it that sometimes * allows it to be tracked back to the gun that fired it ?
Nobody designed that in - its just an unintended consequence of being unable to make two gun barrels absolutely identical that happens to have a practical upshot .
( * Maybe not quite so unerringly as on CSI , but... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now why do we have unique identifiers that also allows us to be tracked easily?Why does a bullet have a pattern of scratches on it that sometimes* allows it to be tracked back to the gun that fired it?
Nobody designed that in - its just an unintended consequence of being unable to make two gun barrels absolutely identical that happens to have a practical upshot.
(* Maybe not quite so unerringly as on CSI, but...)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326769</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28330637</id>
	<title>Re:I have to ask</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1244987880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Canadian Pedigree Act covers the Canadian Kennel Club, which in turn requires that dogs registered with them be positively ID'd, either through noseprint or tattoo. I believe they provide the noseprint kits, as a service for people who can't get the dog tattoo'd (which can be expensive if you can't do it yourself).</p><p>At any rate, the upshot is that it is a legal method of identifying an individual dog that is registered in Canada.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Canadian Pedigree Act covers the Canadian Kennel Club , which in turn requires that dogs registered with them be positively ID 'd , either through noseprint or tattoo .
I believe they provide the noseprint kits , as a service for people who ca n't get the dog tattoo 'd ( which can be expensive if you ca n't do it yourself ) .At any rate , the upshot is that it is a legal method of identifying an individual dog that is registered in Canada .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Canadian Pedigree Act covers the Canadian Kennel Club, which in turn requires that dogs registered with them be positively ID'd, either through noseprint or tattoo.
I believe they provide the noseprint kits, as a service for people who can't get the dog tattoo'd (which can be expensive if you can't do it yourself).At any rate, the upshot is that it is a legal method of identifying an individual dog that is registered in Canada.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28333771</id>
	<title>Re:tactile sensation</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1245071220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, they are to read Braille?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , they are to read Braille ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, they are to read Braille?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28331015</id>
	<title>Re:It's wet grip</title>
	<author>iggymanz</author>
	<datestamp>1244991900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>did you take advantage of your temporary affliction and commit crimes without gloves?</htmltext>
<tokenext>did you take advantage of your temporary affliction and commit crimes without gloves ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>did you take advantage of your temporary affliction and commit crimes without gloves?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326523</id>
	<title>Re:Primates</title>
	<author>TinBromide</author>
	<datestamp>1244994420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>for right now, some people are the pinnacle of human evolution, until human evolution evolves and leaves those without wisdom teeth in the dust. <br> <br>You can look at individual mutations as alpha builds, communities with the same mutation as unstable beta builds, and traits shared by the entire (well, to like 5 nines) population as stable release. Simply because there will be a future build of debian doesn't mean I can't use lenny stable to satisfaction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>for right now , some people are the pinnacle of human evolution , until human evolution evolves and leaves those without wisdom teeth in the dust .
You can look at individual mutations as alpha builds , communities with the same mutation as unstable beta builds , and traits shared by the entire ( well , to like 5 nines ) population as stable release .
Simply because there will be a future build of debian does n't mean I ca n't use lenny stable to satisfaction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for right now, some people are the pinnacle of human evolution, until human evolution evolves and leaves those without wisdom teeth in the dust.
You can look at individual mutations as alpha builds, communities with the same mutation as unstable beta builds, and traits shared by the entire (well, to like 5 nines) population as stable release.
Simply because there will be a future build of debian doesn't mean I can't use lenny stable to satisfaction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326881</id>
	<title>Re:Primates</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244998920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly -- why does it have to be for any particular use? More likely it's just an artifact of how skin develops. People forget that many traits didn't evolve for a specific purpose, but rather, were random mutations that were not selected against, becauee they did the species no harm.</p><p>The whole question also shows a profound ignorance of the rest of the animal kingdom:</p><p>Dogs have noseprints that are as unique as fingerprints (and in fact are legal ID for dogs in Canada). Why is this? Probably no reason at all, other than quirks of individual cell layout in the skin layer.</p><p>Chickens have similar uniqueness in the surface of their combs. Why? Likewise, probably no reason, other than it's just a trivial quirk of how the skin cells piled up in a given individual.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly -- why does it have to be for any particular use ?
More likely it 's just an artifact of how skin develops .
People forget that many traits did n't evolve for a specific purpose , but rather , were random mutations that were not selected against , becauee they did the species no harm.The whole question also shows a profound ignorance of the rest of the animal kingdom : Dogs have noseprints that are as unique as fingerprints ( and in fact are legal ID for dogs in Canada ) .
Why is this ?
Probably no reason at all , other than quirks of individual cell layout in the skin layer.Chickens have similar uniqueness in the surface of their combs .
Why ? Likewise , probably no reason , other than it 's just a trivial quirk of how the skin cells piled up in a given individual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly -- why does it have to be for any particular use?
More likely it's just an artifact of how skin develops.
People forget that many traits didn't evolve for a specific purpose, but rather, were random mutations that were not selected against, becauee they did the species no harm.The whole question also shows a profound ignorance of the rest of the animal kingdom:Dogs have noseprints that are as unique as fingerprints (and in fact are legal ID for dogs in Canada).
Why is this?
Probably no reason at all, other than quirks of individual cell layout in the skin layer.Chickens have similar uniqueness in the surface of their combs.
Why? Likewise, probably no reason, other than it's just a trivial quirk of how the skin cells piled up in a given individual.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328935</id>
	<title>Re:ummm where did captain obvious go?</title>
	<author>Jeff DeMaagd</author>
	<datestamp>1244972040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But is it truly obvious?  It needs to be tested.  If it's not tested in some manner, then it's not science.  There are times when common sense isn't, and it doesn't apply to the circumstance.  We don't make progress in true understanding unless the knowledge is tested in some way to prove whether we know something or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But is it truly obvious ?
It needs to be tested .
If it 's not tested in some manner , then it 's not science .
There are times when common sense is n't , and it does n't apply to the circumstance .
We do n't make progress in true understanding unless the knowledge is tested in some way to prove whether we know something or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But is it truly obvious?
It needs to be tested.
If it's not tested in some manner, then it's not science.
There are times when common sense isn't, and it doesn't apply to the circumstance.
We don't make progress in true understanding unless the knowledge is tested in some way to prove whether we know something or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326033</id>
	<title>Wanking</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1244988300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is not a city in China.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is not a city in China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is not a city in China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325911</id>
	<title>Prevent excess masturbation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244986380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then we invented lube</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then we invented lube</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then we invented lube</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325949</id>
	<title>tactile sensation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244987040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a fair amount of evidence that they increase tactile sensitivity.  We have nerves that are sensitive to specific vibrational frequencies.  As fingerprints run over edges, then generate vibrations at frequencies we have maximal sensitivity for.</p><p>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5920/1503</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a fair amount of evidence that they increase tactile sensitivity .
We have nerves that are sensitive to specific vibrational frequencies .
As fingerprints run over edges , then generate vibrations at frequencies we have maximal sensitivity for.http : //www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5920/1503</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a fair amount of evidence that they increase tactile sensitivity.
We have nerves that are sensitive to specific vibrational frequencies.
As fingerprints run over edges, then generate vibrations at frequencies we have maximal sensitivity for.http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5920/1503</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28339505</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe they're for nothing?</title>
	<author>z-j-y</author>
	<datestamp>1245098880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your conclusion will not get you any funding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your conclusion will not get you any funding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your conclusion will not get you any funding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327195</id>
	<title>Re:Primates</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1245001320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Of course they don't ask why people have unique finger prints. Maybe it evolved to make murderers easier to catch.</p></div></blockquote><p>Because there's no <i>dis</i>advantage to having unique prints. Multiple genes probably affect fingerprint patterns, and without any selective pressure, the patterns would drift around randomly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course they do n't ask why people have unique finger prints .
Maybe it evolved to make murderers easier to catch.Because there 's no disadvantage to having unique prints .
Multiple genes probably affect fingerprint patterns , and without any selective pressure , the patterns would drift around randomly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course they don't ask why people have unique finger prints.
Maybe it evolved to make murderers easier to catch.Because there's no disadvantage to having unique prints.
Multiple genes probably affect fingerprint patterns, and without any selective pressure, the patterns would drift around randomly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28332229</id>
	<title>Re:Primates</title>
	<author>jalvarez13</author>
	<datestamp>1245005700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Or maybe it didn't evolve that way for any particular reason.</p><p>These sort of studies assume we have now evolved to perfection.  But that suggests there will be no further evolution, which I don't think is the case.</p></div><p>I agree, to assume that evolution is heading somewhere is nonsense. To say we have reached a state of "perfection" is absurd...</p><p>However, I think there will be no more evolution for human beings, at least in the traditional sense. Evolution of a species involves domination of the new individuals over the rest and probably replacement (or displacement). For this to happen, the "evolved" must reproduce themselves at a faster rate than the others, but this behavior does not appear in humans in present times. If you are smarter, taller, faster, wealthier, etc. it doesn't translate into a more numerous offspring.</p><p>What does happen is that people with traits that would have prevented them from procreating in the past, do get to have children today. Therefore, instead of evolution we have something more similar to dissemination (of genes) that would not have happened earlier...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or maybe it did n't evolve that way for any particular reason.These sort of studies assume we have now evolved to perfection .
But that suggests there will be no further evolution , which I do n't think is the case.I agree , to assume that evolution is heading somewhere is nonsense .
To say we have reached a state of " perfection " is absurd...However , I think there will be no more evolution for human beings , at least in the traditional sense .
Evolution of a species involves domination of the new individuals over the rest and probably replacement ( or displacement ) .
For this to happen , the " evolved " must reproduce themselves at a faster rate than the others , but this behavior does not appear in humans in present times .
If you are smarter , taller , faster , wealthier , etc .
it does n't translate into a more numerous offspring.What does happen is that people with traits that would have prevented them from procreating in the past , do get to have children today .
Therefore , instead of evolution we have something more similar to dissemination ( of genes ) that would not have happened earlier.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or maybe it didn't evolve that way for any particular reason.These sort of studies assume we have now evolved to perfection.
But that suggests there will be no further evolution, which I don't think is the case.I agree, to assume that evolution is heading somewhere is nonsense.
To say we have reached a state of "perfection" is absurd...However, I think there will be no more evolution for human beings, at least in the traditional sense.
Evolution of a species involves domination of the new individuals over the rest and probably replacement (or displacement).
For this to happen, the "evolved" must reproduce themselves at a faster rate than the others, but this behavior does not appear in humans in present times.
If you are smarter, taller, faster, wealthier, etc.
it doesn't translate into a more numerous offspring.What does happen is that people with traits that would have prevented them from procreating in the past, do get to have children today.
Therefore, instead of evolution we have something more similar to dissemination (of genes) that would not have happened earlier...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28337001</id>
	<title>Blame the Government</title>
	<author>SeeSp0tRun</author>
	<datestamp>1245088680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone knows the government made fingerprints to keep tabs on its' citizens.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows the government made fingerprints to keep tabs on its ' citizens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows the government made fingerprints to keep tabs on its' citizens.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326725</id>
	<title>md5sum /dev/human /dev/fingerprint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244997120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fingerprints are the md5sum of our DNA code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fingerprints are the md5sum of our DNA code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fingerprints are the md5sum of our DNA code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328423</id>
	<title>Re:Primates</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245011820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Survival of the most unable to keep it in their pants.<br> <br>

My fiancee and I used to be "no more than 3 children, we want to be an example for others not to overpopulate the Earth".<br> <br>

Then we saw octomom.<br> <br>

We're going to fuck like rabbits after we get married for 20 years now to try to offset idiots like her. When starvation hits because the Earth can no longer support the number of humans on it, the smart humans hopefully won't be outnumbered as much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Survival of the most unable to keep it in their pants .
My fiancee and I used to be " no more than 3 children , we want to be an example for others not to overpopulate the Earth " .
Then we saw octomom .
We 're going to fuck like rabbits after we get married for 20 years now to try to offset idiots like her .
When starvation hits because the Earth can no longer support the number of humans on it , the smart humans hopefully wo n't be outnumbered as much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Survival of the most unable to keep it in their pants.
My fiancee and I used to be "no more than 3 children, we want to be an example for others not to overpopulate the Earth".
Then we saw octomom.
We're going to fuck like rabbits after we get married for 20 years now to try to offset idiots like her.
When starvation hits because the Earth can no longer support the number of humans on it, the smart humans hopefully won't be outnumbered as much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327271</id>
	<title>Re:Intelligent design</title>
	<author>Anne Thwacks</author>
	<datestamp>1245002220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No - they were designed to prevent us from being mistaken for the Kray Brothers or Jack the Ripper. Its more inteeligent than you think<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>No - they were designed to prevent us from being mistaken for the Kray Brothers or Jack the Ripper .
Its more inteeligent than you think : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No - they were designed to prevent us from being mistaken for the Kray Brothers or Jack the Ripper.
Its more inteeligent than you think :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28330447</id>
	<title>They enhance touch perception - known for 50 years</title>
	<author>m-kirkcaldie</author>
	<datestamp>1244986200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't believe it when I see articles debating the purpose of fingerprints. They are mechanical amplifiers for vibration in the skin, thus enhancing touch perception; it's been known for 50-70 years that the ridges form a specific arrangement with the sensory fibre endings. In fact the ridges are CREATED by interactions between the developing skin and the nerve fibres which innervate it to provide touch sensation - this is why some nervous system defects result in abnormal fingerprints (e.g. Down syndrome). The only "Scientists [who] Wonder What Fingerprints Are For" are those unaware of the basic literature in the field.
Here's a starting point:
<a href="http://stke.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;323/5920/1503" title="sciencemag.org" rel="nofollow">http://stke.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;323/5920/1503</a> [sciencemag.org]
Hope that helps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe it when I see articles debating the purpose of fingerprints .
They are mechanical amplifiers for vibration in the skin , thus enhancing touch perception ; it 's been known for 50-70 years that the ridges form a specific arrangement with the sensory fibre endings .
In fact the ridges are CREATED by interactions between the developing skin and the nerve fibres which innervate it to provide touch sensation - this is why some nervous system defects result in abnormal fingerprints ( e.g .
Down syndrome ) .
The only " Scientists [ who ] Wonder What Fingerprints Are For " are those unaware of the basic literature in the field .
Here 's a starting point : http : //stke.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci ; 323/5920/1503 [ sciencemag.org ] Hope that helps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe it when I see articles debating the purpose of fingerprints.
They are mechanical amplifiers for vibration in the skin, thus enhancing touch perception; it's been known for 50-70 years that the ridges form a specific arrangement with the sensory fibre endings.
In fact the ridges are CREATED by interactions between the developing skin and the nerve fibres which innervate it to provide touch sensation - this is why some nervous system defects result in abnormal fingerprints (e.g.
Down syndrome).
The only "Scientists [who] Wonder What Fingerprints Are For" are those unaware of the basic literature in the field.
Here's a starting point:
http://stke.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;323/5920/1503 [sciencemag.org]
Hope that helps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28330513</id>
	<title>Fingerprints don't increase grip?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244986800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a textured surface doesn't increase traction, why do they bother putting treads on tires?  Wouldn't smooth tires work just as well?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a textured surface does n't increase traction , why do they bother putting treads on tires ?
Would n't smooth tires work just as well ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a textured surface doesn't increase traction, why do they bother putting treads on tires?
Wouldn't smooth tires work just as well?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327375</id>
	<title>Protection and Touch</title>
	<author>branboom</author>
	<datestamp>1245003180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i believe it provides protection against minor cuts, an alternative to thick skin. And provided feedback in assessing textures.</htmltext>
<tokenext>i believe it provides protection against minor cuts , an alternative to thick skin .
And provided feedback in assessing textures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i believe it provides protection against minor cuts, an alternative to thick skin.
And provided feedback in assessing textures.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328091</id>
	<title>Re:Bad science or bad journalism?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245009600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, these guys are idiots. They did not make a dynamic "wet" testing.<br>The groves help to get <b>primary</b> grip on surface layer with water film . After the water is expelled, the "static" measurement will not give you big difference. But given time to expel the water and get the "direct" contact between the surfaces, the grooves help a lot. Any driver (cyclist, motorbike driver) will tell you that groves do not improve grip on a dry surface. But try to drive on slicks during the rain and you know what  the groves are for.<br>And "outdoor" humans (and pre-humans) had to catch and handle wet things pretty often.<br>They had to walk (you have prints on feet too) , more accent ancestors had to hang catch a wet branch without falling on their asses.<br>And this days it helps to hold a wet pint of Guinness.<br>And yes, I am a physicist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , these guys are idiots .
They did not make a dynamic " wet " testing.The groves help to get primary grip on surface layer with water film .
After the water is expelled , the " static " measurement will not give you big difference .
But given time to expel the water and get the " direct " contact between the surfaces , the grooves help a lot .
Any driver ( cyclist , motorbike driver ) will tell you that groves do not improve grip on a dry surface .
But try to drive on slicks during the rain and you know what the groves are for.And " outdoor " humans ( and pre-humans ) had to catch and handle wet things pretty often.They had to walk ( you have prints on feet too ) , more accent ancestors had to hang catch a wet branch without falling on their asses.And this days it helps to hold a wet pint of Guinness.And yes , I am a physicist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, these guys are idiots.
They did not make a dynamic "wet" testing.The groves help to get primary grip on surface layer with water film .
After the water is expelled, the "static" measurement will not give you big difference.
But given time to expel the water and get the "direct" contact between the surfaces, the grooves help a lot.
Any driver (cyclist, motorbike driver) will tell you that groves do not improve grip on a dry surface.
But try to drive on slicks during the rain and you know what  the groves are for.And "outdoor" humans (and pre-humans) had to catch and handle wet things pretty often.They had to walk (you have prints on feet too) , more accent ancestors had to hang catch a wet branch without falling on their asses.And this days it helps to hold a wet pint of Guinness.And yes, I am a physicist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28329413</id>
	<title>Obvious!</title>
	<author>AmigaMMC</author>
	<datestamp>1244975400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since we were genetically engineered by an extraterrestrial civilization they designed fingerprints in our DNA so that they could catalog us for later use.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since we were genetically engineered by an extraterrestrial civilization they designed fingerprints in our DNA so that they could catalog us for later use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since we were genetically engineered by an extraterrestrial civilization they designed fingerprints in our DNA so that they could catalog us for later use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326769</id>
	<title>God</title>
	<author>noname444</author>
	<datestamp>1244997780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Theists are always using the wrong arguments when the try to disprove atheists. They're all about how well bananas fit in the hand and whatnot. That kind of stuff is easily explained by evolution.</p><p>Now this, on the other hand, is a good argument. We're all equipped with unique signatures for easy identification, and not only that. We leave a trail where ever we've been so we can be tracked using the same unique identifiers. They provide no apparent benefit, the identification/tracking part can clearly not be attributed to evolution since we figured out how to use it only a couple of thousand years ago.</p><p>Now why do we have unique identifiers that also allows us to be tracked easily?</p><p>I'm an atheist, but this is the kind of stuff that makes the debate interesting.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)<br>(I guess it's a "good" argument for intelligent design, but not really for an omnipotent, omniscient deity)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Theists are always using the wrong arguments when the try to disprove atheists .
They 're all about how well bananas fit in the hand and whatnot .
That kind of stuff is easily explained by evolution.Now this , on the other hand , is a good argument .
We 're all equipped with unique signatures for easy identification , and not only that .
We leave a trail where ever we 've been so we can be tracked using the same unique identifiers .
They provide no apparent benefit , the identification/tracking part can clearly not be attributed to evolution since we figured out how to use it only a couple of thousand years ago.Now why do we have unique identifiers that also allows us to be tracked easily ? I 'm an atheist , but this is the kind of stuff that makes the debate interesting .
; ) ( I guess it 's a " good " argument for intelligent design , but not really for an omnipotent , omniscient deity )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theists are always using the wrong arguments when the try to disprove atheists.
They're all about how well bananas fit in the hand and whatnot.
That kind of stuff is easily explained by evolution.Now this, on the other hand, is a good argument.
We're all equipped with unique signatures for easy identification, and not only that.
We leave a trail where ever we've been so we can be tracked using the same unique identifiers.
They provide no apparent benefit, the identification/tracking part can clearly not be attributed to evolution since we figured out how to use it only a couple of thousand years ago.Now why do we have unique identifiers that also allows us to be tracked easily?I'm an atheist, but this is the kind of stuff that makes the debate interesting.
;)(I guess it's a "good" argument for intelligent design, but not really for an omnipotent, omniscient deity)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326755</id>
	<title>Re:what do you think?</title>
	<author>Hal\_Porter</author>
	<datestamp>1244997420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just one more thing science can't answer. Of course the answer is obvious but no scientist would ever consider [i]that[/i].</p></div><p>Just a tip: we speak HTML here. We don't look kindly on outsiders coming in here and speaking BBCode.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just one more thing science ca n't answer .
Of course the answer is obvious but no scientist would ever consider [ i ] that [ /i ] .Just a tip : we speak HTML here .
We do n't look kindly on outsiders coming in here and speaking BBCode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just one more thing science can't answer.
Of course the answer is obvious but no scientist would ever consider [i]that[/i].Just a tip: we speak HTML here.
We don't look kindly on outsiders coming in here and speaking BBCode.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327769</id>
	<title>sounds to me that they are just guessing</title>
	<author>Khashishi</author>
	<datestamp>1245007140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean, these are just theories that you and I could come up with in a brainstorm session.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , these are just theories that you and I could come up with in a brainstorm session .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, these are just theories that you and I could come up with in a brainstorm session.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326585</id>
	<title>Re:ummm where did captain obvious go?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244995320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correlation is not causation, we also use (or used to use) these parts to move. There could easily be something else that causes both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correlation is not causation , we also use ( or used to use ) these parts to move .
There could easily be something else that causes both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correlation is not causation, we also use (or used to use) these parts to move.
There could easily be something else that causes both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326039</id>
	<title>Re:what do you think?</title>
	<author>master5o1</author>
	<datestamp>1244988300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I always thought it might be to give me more pleasure while I fap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always thought it might be to give me more pleasure while I fap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always thought it might be to give me more pleasure while I fap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326025</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe they're for nothing?</title>
	<author>aplusjimages</author>
	<datestamp>1244988240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not everything has to have a purpose.</p></div><p>
Sometimes parents can be mean.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not everything has to have a purpose .
Sometimes parents can be mean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not everything has to have a purpose.
Sometimes parents can be mean.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325917</id>
	<title>Re:what do you think?</title>
	<author>Mascot</author>
	<datestamp>1244986500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Just one more thing science can't answer. Of course the answer is obvious but no scientist would ever consider that.</p></div></blockquote><p>Agreed. I'm not a scientist and to me the answer is as obvious as it is to you.</p><p>It is clearly a case of aliens genetically modifying the species to easily identify individuals; we do the same in tagging wildlife.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just one more thing science ca n't answer .
Of course the answer is obvious but no scientist would ever consider that.Agreed .
I 'm not a scientist and to me the answer is as obvious as it is to you.It is clearly a case of aliens genetically modifying the species to easily identify individuals ; we do the same in tagging wildlife .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just one more thing science can't answer.
Of course the answer is obvious but no scientist would ever consider that.Agreed.
I'm not a scientist and to me the answer is as obvious as it is to you.It is clearly a case of aliens genetically modifying the species to easily identify individuals; we do the same in tagging wildlife.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325997</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe they're for nothing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244987880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If fingerprints had no value (to survive/reproduce) in any way, species with and without fingerprints would be equal in the natural selection.
<br>
That would imply that when a monkey would be born without those (genetic mutation somewhere), there would be no reason for him to be less likely to survive and reproduce than his peers having fingerprints, and when he would procreate, it would create a variation of those monkeys having no fingerprints.
<br> <br>
If we have fingerprints, it's genetically possible to be born without, so it's very likely that that mutation existed in the history of evolution, and that one of those specimen procreated, creating that fingerprint-less type of monkey/man.
<br> <br>
My point is : if it's likely to have happened that way, the only reason not to have any fingerprint-less man or monkey on earth, is that at one moment in evolution, fingerprints gave an advantage to increase the survival and reproduction rate over the other alternatives.<br> <br>
I may be wrong, but that's how I understood the Darwinian model in science class...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If fingerprints had no value ( to survive/reproduce ) in any way , species with and without fingerprints would be equal in the natural selection .
That would imply that when a monkey would be born without those ( genetic mutation somewhere ) , there would be no reason for him to be less likely to survive and reproduce than his peers having fingerprints , and when he would procreate , it would create a variation of those monkeys having no fingerprints .
If we have fingerprints , it 's genetically possible to be born without , so it 's very likely that that mutation existed in the history of evolution , and that one of those specimen procreated , creating that fingerprint-less type of monkey/man .
My point is : if it 's likely to have happened that way , the only reason not to have any fingerprint-less man or monkey on earth , is that at one moment in evolution , fingerprints gave an advantage to increase the survival and reproduction rate over the other alternatives .
I may be wrong , but that 's how I understood the Darwinian model in science class.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If fingerprints had no value (to survive/reproduce) in any way, species with and without fingerprints would be equal in the natural selection.
That would imply that when a monkey would be born without those (genetic mutation somewhere), there would be no reason for him to be less likely to survive and reproduce than his peers having fingerprints, and when he would procreate, it would create a variation of those monkeys having no fingerprints.
If we have fingerprints, it's genetically possible to be born without, so it's very likely that that mutation existed in the history of evolution, and that one of those specimen procreated, creating that fingerprint-less type of monkey/man.
My point is : if it's likely to have happened that way, the only reason not to have any fingerprint-less man or monkey on earth, is that at one moment in evolution, fingerprints gave an advantage to increase the survival and reproduction rate over the other alternatives.
I may be wrong, but that's how I understood the Darwinian model in science class...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325903</id>
	<title>Its for biometric authentication</title>
	<author>dogganos</author>
	<datestamp>1244986320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you idiot!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you idiot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you idiot!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328669</id>
	<title>Re:Primates</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1244970180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> People forget that many traits didn't evolve for a specific purpose, but rather, were random mutations that were not selected against, because they did the species no harm.</p> </div><p>Random mutations are also selected FOR.  Any mutation that gets its owner a better chance to reproduce is VASTLY more likely to persist than is one that is merely harmless.</p><p>In fact, the concepts of "mutations not selected against" is, by itself, insufficient to describe differentiation.</p><p>A useless, but not harmful mutation would extinguish within the population by shear weight of numbers given sufficient time.</p><p>The fact that finger prints are virtually universal suggests their <b>absence</b> is what was selected against.</p><p>To me it seems highly unlikely that <b> acrylic glass</b> would have played any part in this selection.</p><p>In fact, the grip upon the skin of a member of the opposite sex would seem far more immediately useful to a developing species.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People forget that many traits did n't evolve for a specific purpose , but rather , were random mutations that were not selected against , because they did the species no harm .
Random mutations are also selected FOR .
Any mutation that gets its owner a better chance to reproduce is VASTLY more likely to persist than is one that is merely harmless.In fact , the concepts of " mutations not selected against " is , by itself , insufficient to describe differentiation.A useless , but not harmful mutation would extinguish within the population by shear weight of numbers given sufficient time.The fact that finger prints are virtually universal suggests their absence is what was selected against.To me it seems highly unlikely that acrylic glass would have played any part in this selection.In fact , the grip upon the skin of a member of the opposite sex would seem far more immediately useful to a developing species .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> People forget that many traits didn't evolve for a specific purpose, but rather, were random mutations that were not selected against, because they did the species no harm.
Random mutations are also selected FOR.
Any mutation that gets its owner a better chance to reproduce is VASTLY more likely to persist than is one that is merely harmless.In fact, the concepts of "mutations not selected against" is, by itself, insufficient to describe differentiation.A useless, but not harmful mutation would extinguish within the population by shear weight of numbers given sufficient time.The fact that finger prints are virtually universal suggests their absence is what was selected against.To me it seems highly unlikely that  acrylic glass would have played any part in this selection.In fact, the grip upon the skin of a member of the opposite sex would seem far more immediately useful to a developing species.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326717</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe they're for nothing?</title>
	<author>dogeatery</author>
	<datestamp>1244997000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Though I don't believe they are for nothing, it's possible that they are.  IANABiologist, but I recall The Selfish Gene:  Successful genes are those that work well with others (if a pigeon was born with extra legs but no wings, his coloration would give him away to predators on the ground, for example.)  If an evolutionary-stable trait (one which  is connected to the (for our purposes here, useless) expression of fingerprints, then over a long period of time fingerprints would have become universally common simply because it plays well with others (doesn't get in the way, possibly helps continue replication in the future).<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sure to be corrected</htmltext>
<tokenext>Though I do n't believe they are for nothing , it 's possible that they are .
IANABiologist , but I recall The Selfish Gene : Successful genes are those that work well with others ( if a pigeon was born with extra legs but no wings , his coloration would give him away to predators on the ground , for example .
) If an evolutionary-stable trait ( one which is connected to the ( for our purposes here , useless ) expression of fingerprints , then over a long period of time fingerprints would have become universally common simply because it plays well with others ( does n't get in the way , possibly helps continue replication in the future ) .
/sure to be corrected</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though I don't believe they are for nothing, it's possible that they are.
IANABiologist, but I recall The Selfish Gene:  Successful genes are those that work well with others (if a pigeon was born with extra legs but no wings, his coloration would give him away to predators on the ground, for example.
)  If an evolutionary-stable trait (one which  is connected to the (for our purposes here, useless) expression of fingerprints, then over a long period of time fingerprints would have become universally common simply because it plays well with others (doesn't get in the way, possibly helps continue replication in the future).
/sure to be corrected</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326399</id>
	<title>Re:Primates</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244992800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Of course they don't ask why people have unique finger prints."</p><p>What are the other unique features? Vein patterns and eye color patterns are as unique as finger prints. The odds are the uniqueness is a function of growth unrelated to purpose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Of course they do n't ask why people have unique finger prints .
" What are the other unique features ?
Vein patterns and eye color patterns are as unique as finger prints .
The odds are the uniqueness is a function of growth unrelated to purpose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Of course they don't ask why people have unique finger prints.
"What are the other unique features?
Vein patterns and eye color patterns are as unique as finger prints.
The odds are the uniqueness is a function of growth unrelated to purpose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327727</id>
	<title>Re:ummm where did captain obvious go?</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1245006720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&lt;quote&gt;quote goes here&lt;/quote&gt;</p><p>If you copy and paste that you'll get this:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>quote goes here</p></div><p>You can also do &lt;b&gt;bold&lt;/b&gt;, &lt;i&gt;italic&lt;/i&gt;, and a few other basic things:</p><p>You can also do <b>bold</b>, <i>italic</i>, and a few other basic things.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>quote goes hereIf you copy and paste that you 'll get this : quote goes hereYou can also do bold , italic , and a few other basic things : You can also do bold , italic , and a few other basic things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>quote goes hereIf you copy and paste that you'll get this:quote goes hereYou can also do bold, italic, and a few other basic things:You can also do bold, italic, and a few other basic things.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327081</id>
	<title>Creationst view</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245000300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are there to make it easy for our Fingerprint-taking Overlords to monitor and control us</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are there to make it easy for our Fingerprint-taking Overlords to monitor and control us</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are there to make it easy for our Fingerprint-taking Overlords to monitor and control us</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28333993</id>
	<title>It is to sign prayers..</title>
	<author>Douglas Goodall</author>
	<datestamp>1245073500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you hold your hands together and pray, the fingerprints sign the prayer so God knows who it came from. That is why you hold your hands in front of your face in the usual pose. The prayer passes over both hands on it's way to God.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you hold your hands together and pray , the fingerprints sign the prayer so God knows who it came from .
That is why you hold your hands in front of your face in the usual pose .
The prayer passes over both hands on it 's way to God .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you hold your hands together and pray, the fingerprints sign the prayer so God knows who it came from.
That is why you hold your hands in front of your face in the usual pose.
The prayer passes over both hands on it's way to God.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28329193</id>
	<title>Re:God</title>
	<author>Starcub</author>
	<datestamp>1244973660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Theists are always using the wrong arguments when the try to disprove atheists. They're all about how well bananas fit in the hand and whatnot. That kind of stuff is easily explained by evolution.
<br>  <br> 
Now this, on the other hand, is a good argument.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Why fingerprints though, as opposed to say, dental imprints?  Surely there are other ways to uniquely ID people, some of which we probably don't know about yet; of what significance is one over another?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Theists are always using the wrong arguments when the try to disprove atheists .
They 're all about how well bananas fit in the hand and whatnot .
That kind of stuff is easily explained by evolution .
Now this , on the other hand , is a good argument .
Why fingerprints though , as opposed to say , dental imprints ?
Surely there are other ways to uniquely ID people , some of which we probably do n't know about yet ; of what significance is one over another ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theists are always using the wrong arguments when the try to disprove atheists.
They're all about how well bananas fit in the hand and whatnot.
That kind of stuff is easily explained by evolution.
Now this, on the other hand, is a good argument.
Why fingerprints though, as opposed to say, dental imprints?
Surely there are other ways to uniquely ID people, some of which we probably don't know about yet; of what significance is one over another?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326769</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326567</id>
	<title>Re:Primates</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244995080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really.  Survival of the fittest means survival of those most able to have lots of children, and that's as valid now as it has ever been.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
Survival of the fittest means survival of those most able to have lots of children , and that 's as valid now as it has ever been .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
Survival of the fittest means survival of those most able to have lots of children, and that's as valid now as it has ever been.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326463</id>
	<title>Re:Intelligent design</title>
	<author>mark-t</author>
	<datestamp>1244993640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Close... they were designed by our creators so that \_they\_ could tell us apart... because otherwise we all look too much alike to them.  Like a field of daisies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Close... they were designed by our creators so that \ _they \ _ could tell us apart... because otherwise we all look too much alike to them .
Like a field of daisies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Close... they were designed by our creators so that \_they\_ could tell us apart... because otherwise we all look too much alike to them.
Like a field of daisies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28333933</id>
	<title>So - no neolithic acrylic...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245072900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The presence of "print" ridges and valleys on the human hand extends to the entire gripping surface and, arguably, a small area just beyond. They clearly have a key role in gripping, touch or both, but I'm not sure how useful it is to show that they don't help much with friction on the sort of overly-smooth surface that rarely occurs naturally.</p><p>For what it's worth, mind, my vote is for a "cat's whiskers" sort of sensory function - that having raised ridges increases skin distortion as objects are touched, which in turn increases sensitivity, precision and discrimination in the hand as an organ of touch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The presence of " print " ridges and valleys on the human hand extends to the entire gripping surface and , arguably , a small area just beyond .
They clearly have a key role in gripping , touch or both , but I 'm not sure how useful it is to show that they do n't help much with friction on the sort of overly-smooth surface that rarely occurs naturally.For what it 's worth , mind , my vote is for a " cat 's whiskers " sort of sensory function - that having raised ridges increases skin distortion as objects are touched , which in turn increases sensitivity , precision and discrimination in the hand as an organ of touch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The presence of "print" ridges and valleys on the human hand extends to the entire gripping surface and, arguably, a small area just beyond.
They clearly have a key role in gripping, touch or both, but I'm not sure how useful it is to show that they don't help much with friction on the sort of overly-smooth surface that rarely occurs naturally.For what it's worth, mind, my vote is for a "cat's whiskers" sort of sensory function - that having raised ridges increases skin distortion as objects are touched, which in turn increases sensitivity, precision and discrimination in the hand as an organ of touch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28335197</id>
	<title>Re:ummm where did captain obvious go?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245080880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>On my keyboard, the quote function is just to the left of the Enter key (you have to hold the shift key at the same time).</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On my keyboard , the quote function is just to the left of the Enter key ( you have to hold the shift key at the same time ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On my keyboard, the quote function is just to the left of the Enter key (you have to hold the shift key at the same time).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326063</id>
	<title>Many things</title>
	<author>bytesex</author>
	<datestamp>1244988780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More grip, larger surface, which means more flexibility, more nerve-endings - more sensitivity, better warmth-exchange, 'folded-up-ness', which means more protection from wounds, easier to clean (like footprints, the mud just falls out), 'little bits that stick out' - meaning more sensitivity again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More grip , larger surface , which means more flexibility , more nerve-endings - more sensitivity , better warmth-exchange , 'folded-up-ness ' , which means more protection from wounds , easier to clean ( like footprints , the mud just falls out ) , 'little bits that stick out ' - meaning more sensitivity again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More grip, larger surface, which means more flexibility, more nerve-endings - more sensitivity, better warmth-exchange, 'folded-up-ness', which means more protection from wounds, easier to clean (like footprints, the mud just falls out), 'little bits that stick out' - meaning more sensitivity again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326163</id>
	<title>fingerprints don't provide an improved grip?</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1244990100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what? Who is to say they aren't slowly evolving away and they were much more pronounced in the past when we needed it living out in the wild?</p><p>Much like an appendix, its most likely something once useful that is on the way out. Evolution doesn't happen overnight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what ?
Who is to say they are n't slowly evolving away and they were much more pronounced in the past when we needed it living out in the wild ? Much like an appendix , its most likely something once useful that is on the way out .
Evolution does n't happen overnight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what?
Who is to say they aren't slowly evolving away and they were much more pronounced in the past when we needed it living out in the wild?Much like an appendix, its most likely something once useful that is on the way out.
Evolution doesn't happen overnight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327211</id>
	<title>I would question the experiment</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1245001500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because there is so much other evidence to show that fingerprints do help.  The stupidest example is rubber gloves.  Rubber gloves are often made with an increased surface area about the finger tips to help in gripping, and I think there are those who have had burns and stuff on their hands where their fingerprints are gone also have a harder time of gripping.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because there is so much other evidence to show that fingerprints do help .
The stupidest example is rubber gloves .
Rubber gloves are often made with an increased surface area about the finger tips to help in gripping , and I think there are those who have had burns and stuff on their hands where their fingerprints are gone also have a harder time of gripping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because there is so much other evidence to show that fingerprints do help.
The stupidest example is rubber gloves.
Rubber gloves are often made with an increased surface area about the finger tips to help in gripping, and I think there are those who have had burns and stuff on their hands where their fingerprints are gone also have a harder time of gripping.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28342415</id>
	<title>Intelligent Design</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1245070260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously God designed them so that we couldn't get away with crimes after 1892.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously God designed them so that we could n't get away with crimes after 1892 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously God designed them so that we couldn't get away with crimes after 1892.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327067</id>
	<title>Don't over think this...</title>
	<author>barfy</author>
	<datestamp>1245000240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our original alien creators gave us fingerprints for identification purposes.  Just because we had lost that information before we regained it, doesn't change anything.  It is for ID purposes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our original alien creators gave us fingerprints for identification purposes .
Just because we had lost that information before we regained it , does n't change anything .
It is for ID purposes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our original alien creators gave us fingerprints for identification purposes.
Just because we had lost that information before we regained it, doesn't change anything.
It is for ID purposes...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326173</id>
	<title>my guess</title>
	<author>purpleque</author>
	<datestamp>1244990280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am going to go with...They are for increasing touch sensations on the fingertips to increase detection of differences and variations in textures of objects.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am going to go with...They are for increasing touch sensations on the fingertips to increase detection of differences and variations in textures of objects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am going to go with...They are for increasing touch sensations on the fingertips to increase detection of differences and variations in textures of objects.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326103</id>
	<title>Dr. Ennos actually prefers another theory</title>
	<author>Cryp2Nite</author>
	<datestamp>1244989560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"My preferred theory is that they allow the skin to deform and thus stop blistering. That is why we get blisters on the smooth parts of our hands and feet and not the ridged areas: our fingerpads, palms and soles."</p><p><a href="http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/display/?id=4715" title="manchester.ac.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/display/?id=4715</a> [manchester.ac.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" My preferred theory is that they allow the skin to deform and thus stop blistering .
That is why we get blisters on the smooth parts of our hands and feet and not the ridged areas : our fingerpads , palms and soles .
" http : //www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/display/ ? id = 4715 [ manchester.ac.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"My preferred theory is that they allow the skin to deform and thus stop blistering.
That is why we get blisters on the smooth parts of our hands and feet and not the ridged areas: our fingerpads, palms and soles.
"http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/display/?id=4715 [manchester.ac.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326309</id>
	<title>five fingers</title>
	<author>eric-x</author>
	<datestamp>1244991780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this the same question as why we have 5 fingers on each hand instead of 4 or 6?<br>Evolution won't remove/change features if it isn't a disadvantage for the survival.<br>So perhaps you have to look at species way before humans and monkeys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this the same question as why we have 5 fingers on each hand instead of 4 or 6 ? Evolution wo n't remove/change features if it is n't a disadvantage for the survival.So perhaps you have to look at species way before humans and monkeys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this the same question as why we have 5 fingers on each hand instead of 4 or 6?Evolution won't remove/change features if it isn't a disadvantage for the survival.So perhaps you have to look at species way before humans and monkeys.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28329363</id>
	<title>WHAT???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244974920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Other researchers have suggested that the ridges could increase our fingerpads' touch sensitivity."</p><p>Yeah, because we knew back then how we would control the cursor on our laptops.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Other researchers have suggested that the ridges could increase our fingerpads ' touch sensitivity .
" Yeah , because we knew back then how we would control the cursor on our laptops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Other researchers have suggested that the ridges could increase our fingerpads' touch sensitivity.
"Yeah, because we knew back then how we would control the cursor on our laptops.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28369023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28339505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28334213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28332773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28331389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28343295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28331399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28329429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28331015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28333771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327599
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28333751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28330637
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28332229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28332001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28335197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28335597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28329475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28343631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28342465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28330279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28330575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28329193
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_0140204_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28331351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_0140204.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325997
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326243
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326717
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28339505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327599
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_0140204.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327727
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28343631
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28335197
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_0140204.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326063
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_0140204.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325971
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_0140204.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328809
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_0140204.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326103
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_0140204.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328187
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_0140204.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325995
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326033
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_0140204.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28330513
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_0140204.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325871
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326021
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327197
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_0140204.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325845
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_0140204.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28334213
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_0140204.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326725
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_0140204.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328173
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28333751
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28331015
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28331389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28331399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28335597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325919
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28330279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326403
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327715
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326129
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326523
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28332229
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326881
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28332773
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327817
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328081
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328513
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28330637
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28342465
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328669
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28331351
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327717
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28332001
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326275
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326567
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328423
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28329475
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28343295
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28330575
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326027
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327517
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_0140204.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327203
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_0140204.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326565
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326935
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_0140204.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325911
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_0140204.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28329429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28333771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28369023
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_0140204.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28328685
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_0140204.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28329193
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327499
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_0140204.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28329413
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_0140204.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28325869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28327677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_0140204.28326463
</commentlist>
</conversation>
