<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_24_2217212</id>
	<title>DNA Suggests Three Basic Human Groups</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1245842040000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.anus.com/metal" rel="nofollow">Death Metal</a> writes <i>"All of Earth's people, according to a new analysis of the genomes of 53 populations, fall into just <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/21/AR2009062101726.html?wprss=rss\_nation">three genetic groups</a>. They are the products of the first and most important journey our species made &mdash; the walk out of Africa about 70,000 years ago by a small fraction of ancestral Homo sapiens."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Death Metal writes " All of Earth 's people , according to a new analysis of the genomes of 53 populations , fall into just three genetic groups .
They are the products of the first and most important journey our species made    the walk out of Africa about 70,000 years ago by a small fraction of ancestral Homo sapiens .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Death Metal writes "All of Earth's people, according to a new analysis of the genomes of 53 populations, fall into just three genetic groups.
They are the products of the first and most important journey our species made — the walk out of Africa about 70,000 years ago by a small fraction of ancestral Homo sapiens.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28463253</id>
	<title>Re:You mean the three sons of Noah?</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1245869820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, no, there are 3 types of people in the world, those that can count and those that cant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , no , there are 3 types of people in the world , those that can count and those that cant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, no, there are 3 types of people in the world, those that can count and those that cant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28466847</id>
	<title>Re:You mean the three sons of Noah?</title>
	<author>gtall</author>
	<datestamp>1245947160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, regardless of any trace of Neanderthal genes still present, one thing we know about humans is that if it looks...uh...screwable...someone, somewhere, sometime will have tried it. Just wander around the internet for examples today of just how out of the box some people think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , regardless of any trace of Neanderthal genes still present , one thing we know about humans is that if it looks...uh...screwable...someone , somewhere , sometime will have tried it .
Just wander around the internet for examples today of just how out of the box some people think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, regardless of any trace of Neanderthal genes still present, one thing we know about humans is that if it looks...uh...screwable...someone, somewhere, sometime will have tried it.
Just wander around the internet for examples today of just how out of the box some people think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28462181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465033</id>
	<title>Re:Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid</title>
	<author>Smelly Jeffrey</author>
	<datestamp>1245937020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember learning about these three groups back in high school.  Later in life, when I brought the topic up, people thought I was some kind of racist, or worse.  I am glad to learn that I am in the right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember learning about these three groups back in high school .
Later in life , when I brought the topic up , people thought I was some kind of racist , or worse .
I am glad to learn that I am in the right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember learning about these three groups back in high school.
Later in life, when I brought the topic up, people thought I was some kind of racist, or worse.
I am glad to learn that I am in the right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461197</id>
	<title>Re:You mean the three sons of Noah?</title>
	<author>youngone</author>
	<datestamp>1245850620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Come on guys, this is totally wrong. There are really 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary, and those who don't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on guys , this is totally wrong .
There are really 10 types of people in the world , those who understand binary , and those who do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on guys, this is totally wrong.
There are really 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary, and those who don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461495</id>
	<title>Re:Article asserts three things; none yet proven t</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1245853200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>2. We expected that the genomes of different ethnic groups would be very different. They aren't.</i> </p><p>It's hard to say this is true or false yet, because we simply don't know how functionally significant these differences are. Two genomes may look very similar, yet be very different in many very significant ways.</p></div><p>Well, the interesting thing they point out was that it was expected that pygmies would have a common gene (or at least a very limited set) that caused them to be short, when in fact, they have a large variety of genes that cause them to be short.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 .
We expected that the genomes of different ethnic groups would be very different .
They are n't .
It 's hard to say this is true or false yet , because we simply do n't know how functionally significant these differences are .
Two genomes may look very similar , yet be very different in many very significant ways.Well , the interesting thing they point out was that it was expected that pygmies would have a common gene ( or at least a very limited set ) that caused them to be short , when in fact , they have a large variety of genes that cause them to be short .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 2.
We expected that the genomes of different ethnic groups would be very different.
They aren't.
It's hard to say this is true or false yet, because we simply don't know how functionally significant these differences are.
Two genomes may look very similar, yet be very different in many very significant ways.Well, the interesting thing they point out was that it was expected that pygmies would have a common gene (or at least a very limited set) that caused them to be short, when in fact, they have a large variety of genes that cause them to be short.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460859</id>
	<title>A "well duh" moment..</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1245848160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ya i agree, Captain Obvious strikes again, and got tons of funding to do it.</p><p>What is next, 1/2 a million to find out men don't like condoms? oh wait, that was last week..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya i agree , Captain Obvious strikes again , and got tons of funding to do it.What is next , 1/2 a million to find out men do n't like condoms ?
oh wait , that was last week. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya i agree, Captain Obvious strikes again, and got tons of funding to do it.What is next, 1/2 a million to find out men don't like condoms?
oh wait, that was last week..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461239</id>
	<title>Re:i thought</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245850920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow. Whoever modded that guy down deserves a major whoosh.</p><p>I'l clarify the joke for you.</p><p>"There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary, and those who don't".</p><p>Apparently the mods need to touch up on their binary math. I won't spoil it for you with the punch line, but you can find it on Google if you have too much trouble figuring it out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
Whoever modded that guy down deserves a major whoosh.I'l clarify the joke for you .
" There are 10 kinds of people .
Those who understand binary , and those who do n't " .Apparently the mods need to touch up on their binary math .
I wo n't spoil it for you with the punch line , but you can find it on Google if you have too much trouble figuring it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
Whoever modded that guy down deserves a major whoosh.I'l clarify the joke for you.
"There are 10 kinds of people.
Those who understand binary, and those who don't".Apparently the mods need to touch up on their binary math.
I won't spoil it for you with the punch line, but you can find it on Google if you have too much trouble figuring it out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28463991</id>
	<title>I always knew it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245922140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is us, then there are the niggers and the chinks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is us , then there are the niggers and the chinks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is us, then there are the niggers and the chinks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28466367</id>
	<title>Interbreeding History of H. Sapiens.</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1245944760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>H. Sapiens in Europpe Interbred with the Neanderthals to make Europeans.</p><p>H. Sapiens in East Asia interbred with H. Erectus to make Asians.</p><p>and</p><p>H. Sapiens in Africa didn't interbreed at all.</p><p>So one could say that Africans have the purest form of Homo Sapiens...   But the Extra diversity from breeding with other offshoots of our ancestors had advantages too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>H. Sapiens in Europpe Interbred with the Neanderthals to make Europeans.H .
Sapiens in East Asia interbred with H. Erectus to make Asians.andH .
Sapiens in Africa did n't interbreed at all.So one could say that Africans have the purest form of Homo Sapiens... But the Extra diversity from breeding with other offshoots of our ancestors had advantages too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>H. Sapiens in Europpe Interbred with the Neanderthals to make Europeans.H.
Sapiens in East Asia interbred with H. Erectus to make Asians.andH.
Sapiens in Africa didn't interbreed at all.So one could say that Africans have the purest form of Homo Sapiens...   But the Extra diversity from breeding with other offshoots of our ancestors had advantages too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28475073</id>
	<title>Data please..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245935160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The author of the article refrains from offering any sort of data whatsoever.  He even neglects to reference sources.  It's junk reporting.</p><p>I suppose there are two types of people: those who can do science, and those who can't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The author of the article refrains from offering any sort of data whatsoever .
He even neglects to reference sources .
It 's junk reporting.I suppose there are two types of people : those who can do science , and those who ca n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The author of the article refrains from offering any sort of data whatsoever.
He even neglects to reference sources.
It's junk reporting.I suppose there are two types of people: those who can do science, and those who can't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460951</id>
	<title>Re:confirmation of previous grouping</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1245848820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's not really the same thing, that was classifying human remains via the rough shape of the skull. This is a bit more personal than that is. You may very well be correct, it's just that basing it on genetics is far more likely to have some sort of meaningful accuracy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not really the same thing , that was classifying human remains via the rough shape of the skull .
This is a bit more personal than that is .
You may very well be correct , it 's just that basing it on genetics is far more likely to have some sort of meaningful accuracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not really the same thing, that was classifying human remains via the rough shape of the skull.
This is a bit more personal than that is.
You may very well be correct, it's just that basing it on genetics is far more likely to have some sort of meaningful accuracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28464149</id>
	<title>Re:You mean the three sons of Noah?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245924000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I personally divide the three types into:</p><ol> <li>People who are too smart for their own good,</li><li>People which have roughly my IQ, and</li><li>Idiots.</li></ol><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally divide the three types into : People who are too smart for their own good,People which have roughly my IQ , andIdiots .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally divide the three types into: People who are too smart for their own good,People which have roughly my IQ, andIdiots.
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28463253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461095</id>
	<title>Re:You mean the three sons of Noah?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245849900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons\_of\_Noah" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Three Sons of Noah</a> [wikipedia.org] are supposed to be the ancestors of us all.</p></div><p>Ya, blah blah.</p><p>I saw a recent study of DNA from around the planet, and tied in with some paleontology. Remember that whole "homo sapien came from the Fertile Crescent, long after the other sapien varients were gone" theory? Turns out (like most logically people suspected) that it's pretty much B.S.<br>We've made some recent finds that show that homo sapien did indeed live at the same time several other Homo variants were alive. The immediate response by the "fertile crescent" proponents simply said "well, then the Homo sapiens must have just killed the ones they ran into. all of them, completely wiped out.". To which the logical people said "bullshit".</p><p>Welp, turns out after doing some even more recent DNA testing, that Homo Sapiens probably didn't wipe out the other Homo variants at all- they had sex with them &amp; absorbed them over time into their own genetic pool. A good bit of the regionalized diversity amongst homo sapiens is due originally to which other Homo variants were in that general region.</p><p>So no, we didn't come from "the fertile crescent". Homo sapiens are a result of several different Homo variants breeding with other variants, so we don't HAVE a common point of origin for our species. Which makes a hell of a lot more sense than the idea that we just suddenly showed up and sprouted an entire diverse genetic pool from two people, or three, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Three Sons of Noah [ wikipedia.org ] are supposed to be the ancestors of us all.Ya , blah blah.I saw a recent study of DNA from around the planet , and tied in with some paleontology .
Remember that whole " homo sapien came from the Fertile Crescent , long after the other sapien varients were gone " theory ?
Turns out ( like most logically people suspected ) that it 's pretty much B.S.We 've made some recent finds that show that homo sapien did indeed live at the same time several other Homo variants were alive .
The immediate response by the " fertile crescent " proponents simply said " well , then the Homo sapiens must have just killed the ones they ran into .
all of them , completely wiped out. " .
To which the logical people said " bullshit " .Welp , turns out after doing some even more recent DNA testing , that Homo Sapiens probably did n't wipe out the other Homo variants at all- they had sex with them &amp; absorbed them over time into their own genetic pool .
A good bit of the regionalized diversity amongst homo sapiens is due originally to which other Homo variants were in that general region.So no , we did n't come from " the fertile crescent " .
Homo sapiens are a result of several different Homo variants breeding with other variants , so we do n't HAVE a common point of origin for our species .
Which makes a hell of a lot more sense than the idea that we just suddenly showed up and sprouted an entire diverse genetic pool from two people , or three , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Three Sons of Noah [wikipedia.org] are supposed to be the ancestors of us all.Ya, blah blah.I saw a recent study of DNA from around the planet, and tied in with some paleontology.
Remember that whole "homo sapien came from the Fertile Crescent, long after the other sapien varients were gone" theory?
Turns out (like most logically people suspected) that it's pretty much B.S.We've made some recent finds that show that homo sapien did indeed live at the same time several other Homo variants were alive.
The immediate response by the "fertile crescent" proponents simply said "well, then the Homo sapiens must have just killed the ones they ran into.
all of them, completely wiped out.".
To which the logical people said "bullshit".Welp, turns out after doing some even more recent DNA testing, that Homo Sapiens probably didn't wipe out the other Homo variants at all- they had sex with them &amp; absorbed them over time into their own genetic pool.
A good bit of the regionalized diversity amongst homo sapiens is due originally to which other Homo variants were in that general region.So no, we didn't come from "the fertile crescent".
Homo sapiens are a result of several different Homo variants breeding with other variants, so we don't HAVE a common point of origin for our species.
Which makes a hell of a lot more sense than the idea that we just suddenly showed up and sprouted an entire diverse genetic pool from two people, or three, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28467763</id>
	<title>Re:confirmation of previous grouping</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1245951060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You may very well be correct, it's just that basing it on genetics is far more likely to have some sort of meaningful accuracy.</p></div></blockquote><p>Meaningful accuracy? The genomes of racial groups differ by less than one tenth of one percent or less(0.001). I'm sure that even cranial measurements, despite their crudeness, could probably pass this level of difference between selected groups.</p><p>Your faith in the objectiveness and reliability of genetic studies is just that. Faith. And rather blind faith at that. Just because a study or proposal or experiment has the adjective "genetic" attached to it does not mean that it is any more likely to deliver "deeper" or more accurate insights.</p><p>This study has, almost certainly arbitrarily (google clustering methods), divided humanity into three groups based on "objective" measurements. White, Black and Asian. And what is the reason for this division? Look at a map. The Sahara desert, the Siberian wilderness, the Tibetan plateau along with various oceans explain it. If the study had decided to increase the number of clusters or performed some more statistical hocus-pocus, perhaps they could have inferred the existence of the Straights of Gibraltar or Isthmus of Panama.</p><p>But they didn't. They inferred the existence of three "races". Races which conveniently correspond to some biblical notion of thee sons of Noah. A notion which, by the sheer number of comments discussing it seems to be quite a popular one among Americans. And lo! Which university does this study hail from? <i>The University of Chicago</i>. Chicago, Illinois.</p><p>To be frank, this study has all the hallmarks of being the end result of a long effort by an American researcher to confirm an antiquated religious view of the races in the world. While it is not quite as obtuse as studies done by young earth creationists and the like, I have little doubt that it hails from, if not the same stock of researcher, then at least from one of the same sympathies.</p><p>It's possible I'm wronging good researchers here, who have some to honest conclusions. But I doubt it. Americans, as a culture, are hopelessly mired in Abrahamic mythologies. Including those who profess atheism or are otherwise less religious. Just look at the topic in the first major thread in this story. Look at the sheer amount of comments <i>taking the connection quite seriously</i>. I don't think I've ever heard of Shem, Ham, and Japheth before, but I'm willing to bet that a large proportion of Americans, including the researchers who conducted this study, have heard and remembered a good deal.</p><p>Always, always, always consider the source.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You may very well be correct , it 's just that basing it on genetics is far more likely to have some sort of meaningful accuracy.Meaningful accuracy ?
The genomes of racial groups differ by less than one tenth of one percent or less ( 0.001 ) .
I 'm sure that even cranial measurements , despite their crudeness , could probably pass this level of difference between selected groups.Your faith in the objectiveness and reliability of genetic studies is just that .
Faith. And rather blind faith at that .
Just because a study or proposal or experiment has the adjective " genetic " attached to it does not mean that it is any more likely to deliver " deeper " or more accurate insights.This study has , almost certainly arbitrarily ( google clustering methods ) , divided humanity into three groups based on " objective " measurements .
White , Black and Asian .
And what is the reason for this division ?
Look at a map .
The Sahara desert , the Siberian wilderness , the Tibetan plateau along with various oceans explain it .
If the study had decided to increase the number of clusters or performed some more statistical hocus-pocus , perhaps they could have inferred the existence of the Straights of Gibraltar or Isthmus of Panama.But they did n't .
They inferred the existence of three " races " .
Races which conveniently correspond to some biblical notion of thee sons of Noah .
A notion which , by the sheer number of comments discussing it seems to be quite a popular one among Americans .
And lo !
Which university does this study hail from ?
The University of Chicago .
Chicago , Illinois.To be frank , this study has all the hallmarks of being the end result of a long effort by an American researcher to confirm an antiquated religious view of the races in the world .
While it is not quite as obtuse as studies done by young earth creationists and the like , I have little doubt that it hails from , if not the same stock of researcher , then at least from one of the same sympathies.It 's possible I 'm wronging good researchers here , who have some to honest conclusions .
But I doubt it .
Americans , as a culture , are hopelessly mired in Abrahamic mythologies .
Including those who profess atheism or are otherwise less religious .
Just look at the topic in the first major thread in this story .
Look at the sheer amount of comments taking the connection quite seriously .
I do n't think I 've ever heard of Shem , Ham , and Japheth before , but I 'm willing to bet that a large proportion of Americans , including the researchers who conducted this study , have heard and remembered a good deal.Always , always , always consider the source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may very well be correct, it's just that basing it on genetics is far more likely to have some sort of meaningful accuracy.Meaningful accuracy?
The genomes of racial groups differ by less than one tenth of one percent or less(0.001).
I'm sure that even cranial measurements, despite their crudeness, could probably pass this level of difference between selected groups.Your faith in the objectiveness and reliability of genetic studies is just that.
Faith. And rather blind faith at that.
Just because a study or proposal or experiment has the adjective "genetic" attached to it does not mean that it is any more likely to deliver "deeper" or more accurate insights.This study has, almost certainly arbitrarily (google clustering methods), divided humanity into three groups based on "objective" measurements.
White, Black and Asian.
And what is the reason for this division?
Look at a map.
The Sahara desert, the Siberian wilderness, the Tibetan plateau along with various oceans explain it.
If the study had decided to increase the number of clusters or performed some more statistical hocus-pocus, perhaps they could have inferred the existence of the Straights of Gibraltar or Isthmus of Panama.But they didn't.
They inferred the existence of three "races".
Races which conveniently correspond to some biblical notion of thee sons of Noah.
A notion which, by the sheer number of comments discussing it seems to be quite a popular one among Americans.
And lo!
Which university does this study hail from?
The University of Chicago.
Chicago, Illinois.To be frank, this study has all the hallmarks of being the end result of a long effort by an American researcher to confirm an antiquated religious view of the races in the world.
While it is not quite as obtuse as studies done by young earth creationists and the like, I have little doubt that it hails from, if not the same stock of researcher, then at least from one of the same sympathies.It's possible I'm wronging good researchers here, who have some to honest conclusions.
But I doubt it.
Americans, as a culture, are hopelessly mired in Abrahamic mythologies.
Including those who profess atheism or are otherwise less religious.
Just look at the topic in the first major thread in this story.
Look at the sheer amount of comments taking the connection quite seriously.
I don't think I've ever heard of Shem, Ham, and Japheth before, but I'm willing to bet that a large proportion of Americans, including the researchers who conducted this study, have heard and remembered a good deal.Always, always, always consider the source.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460577</id>
	<title>Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid</title>
	<author>Old Wolf</author>
	<datestamp>1245846480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hasn't this been known for a long time? TFA described the three groups but didn't use these terms -- rampant political correctness, sigh..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has n't this been known for a long time ?
TFA described the three groups but did n't use these terms -- rampant political correctness , sigh. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hasn't this been known for a long time?
TFA described the three groups but didn't use these terms -- rampant political correctness, sigh..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460581</id>
	<title>Fantasies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245846480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Evolution. Pure fantasy pretending to be science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Evolution .
Pure fantasy pretending to be science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evolution.
Pure fantasy pretending to be science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28468343</id>
	<title>I guess Roger Waters had it right all along</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245953220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems I better bust out my copy of Animals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems I better bust out my copy of Animals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems I better bust out my copy of Animals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461611</id>
	<title>Re:Article asserts three things; none yet proven t</title>
	<author>jd</author>
	<datestamp>1245854160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the first question is complicated by the fact that mutations in the genome will follow some sort of time-directed graph but simply counting the nodes in the graph doesn't truly reflect the number of clusters as most of those are clusters within other clusters and not truly independent groups.</p><p>The second question is complicated by the fact that we have very, very limited genetic data to work on. There are various genome projects out there, but the largest one that actually studies human history on this sort of timescale - the National Geographics "Genographics" project - only looks at 12 STRs in the Y chromosome, it makes no effort to look at anything else. All the other projects are just too small to have collected a meaningful sample size. For now, anyway.</p><p>The third point suffers from the same problem. A lot of these projects have a hundred complete genomes sampled or less. Out of a population of 7 billion. Studying a full genome is expensive - a single test can run into the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. The Genographic Project has collected 100,000 samples (give or take) and is barely scratching the surface. Nobody is going to throw a billion dollars into full genome decodes to settle the question of the reality of ethnicity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the first question is complicated by the fact that mutations in the genome will follow some sort of time-directed graph but simply counting the nodes in the graph does n't truly reflect the number of clusters as most of those are clusters within other clusters and not truly independent groups.The second question is complicated by the fact that we have very , very limited genetic data to work on .
There are various genome projects out there , but the largest one that actually studies human history on this sort of timescale - the National Geographics " Genographics " project - only looks at 12 STRs in the Y chromosome , it makes no effort to look at anything else .
All the other projects are just too small to have collected a meaningful sample size .
For now , anyway.The third point suffers from the same problem .
A lot of these projects have a hundred complete genomes sampled or less .
Out of a population of 7 billion .
Studying a full genome is expensive - a single test can run into the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars .
The Genographic Project has collected 100,000 samples ( give or take ) and is barely scratching the surface .
Nobody is going to throw a billion dollars into full genome decodes to settle the question of the reality of ethnicity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the first question is complicated by the fact that mutations in the genome will follow some sort of time-directed graph but simply counting the nodes in the graph doesn't truly reflect the number of clusters as most of those are clusters within other clusters and not truly independent groups.The second question is complicated by the fact that we have very, very limited genetic data to work on.
There are various genome projects out there, but the largest one that actually studies human history on this sort of timescale - the National Geographics "Genographics" project - only looks at 12 STRs in the Y chromosome, it makes no effort to look at anything else.
All the other projects are just too small to have collected a meaningful sample size.
For now, anyway.The third point suffers from the same problem.
A lot of these projects have a hundred complete genomes sampled or less.
Out of a population of 7 billion.
Studying a full genome is expensive - a single test can run into the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars.
The Genographic Project has collected 100,000 samples (give or take) and is barely scratching the surface.
Nobody is going to throw a billion dollars into full genome decodes to settle the question of the reality of ethnicity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461481</id>
	<title>what about melanesians?</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1245853080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>papua new guineans, irian jayans, fijians, aeta, etc...</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanesian" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanesian</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negrito" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negrito</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>non-malay natives of southeast asian are most definitely not mongoloid, and most definitely not african or caucasian</p><p>they have to be another group entirely</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>papua new guineans , irian jayans , fijians , aeta , etc...http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanesian [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negrito [ wikipedia.org ] non-malay natives of southeast asian are most definitely not mongoloid , and most definitely not african or caucasianthey have to be another group entirely</tokentext>
<sentencetext>papua new guineans, irian jayans, fijians, aeta, etc...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanesian [wikipedia.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negrito [wikipedia.org]non-malay natives of southeast asian are most definitely not mongoloid, and most definitely not african or caucasianthey have to be another group entirely</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465031</id>
	<title>Re:You mean the three sons of Noah?</title>
	<author>E IS mC(Square)</author>
	<datestamp>1245937020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, there are four types of people in the world:
<br>1. Those who keep on repeating "10 types - binary" joke.
<br>2. Those who loves telling "3 kinds - can not count" joke repeatedly.
<br>3. People who hate above mentioned jokes and whine about it.
<br>4. Everybody else who does not give fuck.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , there are four types of people in the world : 1 .
Those who keep on repeating " 10 types - binary " joke .
2. Those who loves telling " 3 kinds - can not count " joke repeatedly .
3. People who hate above mentioned jokes and whine about it .
4. Everybody else who does not give fuck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, there are four types of people in the world:
1.
Those who keep on repeating "10 types - binary" joke.
2. Those who loves telling "3 kinds - can not count" joke repeatedly.
3. People who hate above mentioned jokes and whine about it.
4. Everybody else who does not give fuck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28463253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461395</id>
	<title>Re:Article asserts three things; none yet proven t</title>
	<author>Jstlook</author>
	<datestamp>1245852300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You forgot one point:<br>
Sources, data, and statistics are irrelevant.  Honestly, this story sounds like a bunch of tripe without an ounce of credibility for support.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot one point : Sources , data , and statistics are irrelevant .
Honestly , this story sounds like a bunch of tripe without an ounce of credibility for support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot one point:
Sources, data, and statistics are irrelevant.
Honestly, this story sounds like a bunch of tripe without an ounce of credibility for support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460745</id>
	<title>This changes everything</title>
	<author>DrGradus</author>
	<datestamp>1245847440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I always thought there were only 10 types of people.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always thought there were only 10 types of people .
Those who understand binary and those who do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always thought there were only 10 types of people.
Those who understand binary and those who don't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461097</id>
	<title>Idiots, Assholes, and Me.</title>
	<author>TheMiddleRoad</author>
	<datestamp>1245849900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those are the three groups.</p><p>Actually, I thought the article would say that there were Christians in one group, Muslims in the second, Hindus and everyone else in the third.  Of course Jews don't count as people.</p><p>Har har har har.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those are the three groups.Actually , I thought the article would say that there were Christians in one group , Muslims in the second , Hindus and everyone else in the third .
Of course Jews do n't count as people.Har har har har .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those are the three groups.Actually, I thought the article would say that there were Christians in one group, Muslims in the second, Hindus and everyone else in the third.
Of course Jews don't count as people.Har har har har.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461061</id>
	<title>Re:You mean the three sons of Noah?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245849600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Supports Heimdall as the God Rig much better!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Supports Heimdall as the God Rig much better !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Supports Heimdall as the God Rig much better!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460753</id>
	<title>Thanks for the insights!</title>
	<author>Futurepower(R)</author>
	<datestamp>1245847500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Valuable analysis. Mod to +10.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Valuable analysis .
Mod to + 10 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Valuable analysis.
Mod to +10.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28467837</id>
	<title>Re:You mean the three sons of Noah?</title>
	<author>PachmanP</author>
	<datestamp>1245951300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well acourding to TFA there's actually 2 types of people.<br>
01. Those who hate binary jokes<br>
10. Those that don't care<br>
11. Those for whom base in completely arbitrary and would use base 13 just for the hell of it if the numbers were high enough to make it matter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well acourding to TFA there 's actually 2 types of people .
01. Those who hate binary jokes 10 .
Those that do n't care 11 .
Those for whom base in completely arbitrary and would use base 13 just for the hell of it if the numbers were high enough to make it matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well acourding to TFA there's actually 2 types of people.
01. Those who hate binary jokes
10.
Those that don't care
11.
Those for whom base in completely arbitrary and would use base 13 just for the hell of it if the numbers were high enough to make it matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28463977</id>
	<title>Re:You mean the three sons of Noah?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245922020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry to contradict you, but there are in fact 10 types of people  in the world : those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those who think its binary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to contradict you , but there are in fact 10 types of people in the world : those who understand ternary , those who do n't , and those who think its binary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry to contradict you, but there are in fact 10 types of people  in the world : those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those who think its binary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461751</id>
	<title>Didn't anyone watch Battlestar Galactica???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245855180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't believe this wasn't the first comment:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 1.  Children of Caprica<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 2.  Cylons<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 3.  Indigenous humans of Earth</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe this was n't the first comment :     1 .
Children of Caprica     2 .
Cylons     3 .
Indigenous humans of Earth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe this wasn't the first comment:
    1.
Children of Caprica
    2.
Cylons
    3.
Indigenous humans of Earth</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460533</id>
	<title>confirmation of previous grouping</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245846300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I take a general offense to the nature of this article, presenting this as though it is some sort of surprise. Researches along time ago classified people into 3 groups and this is merely genetic confirmation of the original findings. They classified people in 3 groups a long time ago, I suppose this is DNA confirmation of the initial categories: Negroid, Mongoloid, Caucasoid.</p><p>non-PC names these days I suppose, but that's what they were called.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I take a general offense to the nature of this article , presenting this as though it is some sort of surprise .
Researches along time ago classified people into 3 groups and this is merely genetic confirmation of the original findings .
They classified people in 3 groups a long time ago , I suppose this is DNA confirmation of the initial categories : Negroid , Mongoloid , Caucasoid.non-PC names these days I suppose , but that 's what they were called .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I take a general offense to the nature of this article, presenting this as though it is some sort of surprise.
Researches along time ago classified people into 3 groups and this is merely genetic confirmation of the original findings.
They classified people in 3 groups a long time ago, I suppose this is DNA confirmation of the initial categories: Negroid, Mongoloid, Caucasoid.non-PC names these days I suppose, but that's what they were called.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461877</id>
	<title>But theres only two groups</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245856320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Us and Them</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Us and Them</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Us and Them</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28469699</id>
	<title>Re:You mean the three sons of Noah?</title>
	<author>infinite9</author>
	<datestamp>1245958260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My wife and I adopted three children from three different ethnic groups when they were infants (less than 6 months).  They're all in the 3-4 age range now.  One is a mayan indian boy, one is a typically hispanic girl, and one is a vietnamese girl.  They look totally different from each other.  In spite of this, people keep asking us if they're natural triplets.  This of course is a great source of hilarity for my wife and me.  <br>Are they triplets?</p><p>Yes... man, was that a wild summer.<br>Are they all yours?</p><p>Shhhh, she doesn't know she's not the mother!<br>My favorite question is people asking whether they speak english.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My wife and I adopted three children from three different ethnic groups when they were infants ( less than 6 months ) .
They 're all in the 3-4 age range now .
One is a mayan indian boy , one is a typically hispanic girl , and one is a vietnamese girl .
They look totally different from each other .
In spite of this , people keep asking us if they 're natural triplets .
This of course is a great source of hilarity for my wife and me .
Are they triplets ? Yes... man , was that a wild summer.Are they all yours ? Shhhh , she does n't know she 's not the mother ! My favorite question is people asking whether they speak english .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My wife and I adopted three children from three different ethnic groups when they were infants (less than 6 months).
They're all in the 3-4 age range now.
One is a mayan indian boy, one is a typically hispanic girl, and one is a vietnamese girl.
They look totally different from each other.
In spite of this, people keep asking us if they're natural triplets.
This of course is a great source of hilarity for my wife and me.
Are they triplets?Yes... man, was that a wild summer.Are they all yours?Shhhh, she doesn't know she's not the mother!My favorite question is people asking whether they speak english.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28462813</id>
	<title>Honkeys, Spics, and Niggers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245864720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I knew all 3 kinds of people by the time I was 4 years old.</p><p>There were no chinks in town, so they just don't count.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I knew all 3 kinds of people by the time I was 4 years old.There were no chinks in town , so they just do n't count .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I knew all 3 kinds of people by the time I was 4 years old.There were no chinks in town, so they just don't count.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461541</id>
	<title>Re:confirmation of previous grouping</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245853680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mongoloid, he was a mongoloid. One chromosome to many<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mongoloid , he was a mongoloid .
One chromosome to many .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mongoloid, he was a mongoloid.
One chromosome to many ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460997</id>
	<title>Re:confirmation of previous grouping</title>
	<author>xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D</author>
	<datestamp>1245849120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did you miss the paragraph on the first page of the article where they explicitly said that this wasn't a new result and then proceeded to say what <i>was</i> the novel finding (subtle as it was)?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you miss the paragraph on the first page of the article where they explicitly said that this was n't a new result and then proceeded to say what was the novel finding ( subtle as it was ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you miss the paragraph on the first page of the article where they explicitly said that this wasn't a new result and then proceeded to say what was the novel finding (subtle as it was)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461785</id>
	<title>I don't know how well DNA is understood</title>
	<author>McNihil</author>
	<datestamp>1245855540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My current thinking leans towards the DNA being akin to a "compressed stream" of traits. Meaning that looking at the individual GATACA's is like looking at the the individual characters in a gzip archive or something. Things MAY look very similar and especially if there is a lot of CRC elements sprinkled inside the stream for auto correction.</p><p>Thinking that evolution is better than our own brains leads me further to think that the compression algorithm is unbelievably good... nay... "perfect."</p><p>We would have very bad mutations much more often than we have otherwise.</p><p>IAMAG &amp; IAMAS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My current thinking leans towards the DNA being akin to a " compressed stream " of traits .
Meaning that looking at the individual GATACA 's is like looking at the the individual characters in a gzip archive or something .
Things MAY look very similar and especially if there is a lot of CRC elements sprinkled inside the stream for auto correction.Thinking that evolution is better than our own brains leads me further to think that the compression algorithm is unbelievably good... nay... " perfect .
" We would have very bad mutations much more often than we have otherwise.IAMAG &amp; IAMAS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My current thinking leans towards the DNA being akin to a "compressed stream" of traits.
Meaning that looking at the individual GATACA's is like looking at the the individual characters in a gzip archive or something.
Things MAY look very similar and especially if there is a lot of CRC elements sprinkled inside the stream for auto correction.Thinking that evolution is better than our own brains leads me further to think that the compression algorithm is unbelievably good... nay... "perfect.
"We would have very bad mutations much more often than we have otherwise.IAMAG &amp; IAMAS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460613</id>
	<title>Three groups we've all seen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245846660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Science nerds, P.E. jocks, and the Marketing schmoozers</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Science nerds , P.E .
jocks , and the Marketing schmoozers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Science nerds, P.E.
jocks, and the Marketing schmoozers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28462847</id>
	<title>Re:Article asserts three things; none yet proven t</title>
	<author>orkysoft</author>
	<datestamp>1245865080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(Statements like "siblings share half their genes" are super misleading.  Yes, you get half from Mom and half from Dad, but 99.9\% of those genes are the same anyway.)</p></div><p>I recently read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, who mentions this point, and explains that what is meant is the genes above those that all humans share.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Statements like " siblings share half their genes " are super misleading .
Yes , you get half from Mom and half from Dad , but 99.9 \ % of those genes are the same anyway .
) I recently read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins , who mentions this point , and explains that what is meant is the genes above those that all humans share .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Statements like "siblings share half their genes" are super misleading.
Yes, you get half from Mom and half from Dad, but 99.9\% of those genes are the same anyway.
)I recently read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, who mentions this point, and explains that what is meant is the genes above those that all humans share.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28464477</id>
	<title>Re:You mean the three sons of Noah?</title>
	<author>Rufty</author>
	<datestamp>1245928920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So the 3 sons of Noah were born 30000 years apart? RTFA</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the 3 sons of Noah were born 30000 years apart ?
RTFA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the 3 sons of Noah were born 30000 years apart?
RTFA</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461357</id>
	<title>Re:What's PC now?</title>
	<author>Eternauta3k</author>
	<datestamp>1245852000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right, there is no such thing as discrimination in current society.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , there is no such thing as discrimination in current society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, there is no such thing as discrimination in current society.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28462403</id>
	<title>three?</title>
	<author>WilyCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1245860100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>windows, mac, and linux users?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>windows , mac , and linux users ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>windows, mac, and linux users?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28471629</id>
	<title>Re:You mean the three sons of Noah?</title>
	<author>inject\_hotmail.com</author>
	<datestamp>1245922200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Actually, there are four types of people in the world:
1. Those who keep on repeating "10 types - binary" joke.
2. Those who loves telling "3 kinds - can not count" joke repeatedly.
3. People who hate above mentioned jokes and whine about it.
4. Everybody else who does not give fuck.</p></div><p>pedantic karma burning time<br>
<br>
There must be a 5th, because you don't fall into any of those categories...<br>
<br>
1. You didn't tell a binary joke,<br>
2. You didn't tell a 3 kinds joke,<br>
3. You didn't really spread any hate, or whine...really,<br>
4. Obviously you give a fuck, because you took the time to post something.<br>
<br>
So what's number 5?  Those that like to make lists about how other people don't know how many types there are, and give a fuck enough to post of slashdot?<br>
<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/pkbt
<br>
Unless you are a computer or some other type of being that knows how to use a computer...I hadn't really thought of that though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , there are four types of people in the world : 1 .
Those who keep on repeating " 10 types - binary " joke .
2. Those who loves telling " 3 kinds - can not count " joke repeatedly .
3. People who hate above mentioned jokes and whine about it .
4. Everybody else who does not give fuck.pedantic karma burning time There must be a 5th , because you do n't fall into any of those categories.. . 1. You did n't tell a binary joke , 2 .
You did n't tell a 3 kinds joke , 3 .
You did n't really spread any hate , or whine...really , 4 .
Obviously you give a fuck , because you took the time to post something .
So what 's number 5 ?
Those that like to make lists about how other people do n't know how many types there are , and give a fuck enough to post of slashdot ?
/pkbt Unless you are a computer or some other type of being that knows how to use a computer...I had n't really thought of that though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, there are four types of people in the world:
1.
Those who keep on repeating "10 types - binary" joke.
2. Those who loves telling "3 kinds - can not count" joke repeatedly.
3. People who hate above mentioned jokes and whine about it.
4. Everybody else who does not give fuck.pedantic karma burning time

There must be a 5th, because you don't fall into any of those categories...

1. You didn't tell a binary joke,
2.
You didn't tell a 3 kinds joke,
3.
You didn't really spread any hate, or whine...really,
4.
Obviously you give a fuck, because you took the time to post something.
So what's number 5?
Those that like to make lists about how other people don't know how many types there are, and give a fuck enough to post of slashdot?
/pkbt

Unless you are a computer or some other type of being that knows how to use a computer...I hadn't really thought of that though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460415</id>
	<title>Shem, Ham, and Japheth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245845760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now tell me something I DON'T know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now tell me something I DO N'T know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now tell me something I DON'T know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465377</id>
	<title>Re:Article asserts three things; none yet proven t</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1245939420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Native Americans" (and I hate that term, because they're no more "native" to the Americas than Europeans) are obviously of Asian descent. You don't need a DNA test for that, you could just look at them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Native Americans " ( and I hate that term , because they 're no more " native " to the Americas than Europeans ) are obviously of Asian descent .
You do n't need a DNA test for that , you could just look at them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Native Americans" (and I hate that term, because they're no more "native" to the Americas than Europeans) are obviously of Asian descent.
You don't need a DNA test for that, you could just look at them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28462695</id>
	<title>Harfoots, Stoors, and Fallohides.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245863160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wasn't it obvious?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't it obvious ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't it obvious?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465475</id>
	<title>Re:Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245940020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what the fuck is up with this rampant anti-political correctness rhetoric? since when was it so offensive to phrase yourself in a manner so as not offend anyone? In fact i have actually been told off by anti-PC geriatric for using the word "fuck". Although i do use the word cunt frequently, most females here don't find it offensive, because it is a common term of endearment used amongst males.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what the fuck is up with this rampant anti-political correctness rhetoric ?
since when was it so offensive to phrase yourself in a manner so as not offend anyone ?
In fact i have actually been told off by anti-PC geriatric for using the word " fuck " .
Although i do use the word cunt frequently , most females here do n't find it offensive , because it is a common term of endearment used amongst males .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what the fuck is up with this rampant anti-political correctness rhetoric?
since when was it so offensive to phrase yourself in a manner so as not offend anyone?
In fact i have actually been told off by anti-PC geriatric for using the word "fuck".
Although i do use the word cunt frequently, most females here don't find it offensive, because it is a common term of endearment used amongst males.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461035</id>
	<title>Re:Fantasies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245849480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> "In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point." -- Friedrich Nietzsche</p><p>Was the bottom quote of slashdot as of right now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point .
" -- Friedrich NietzscheWas the bottom quote of slashdot as of right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point.
" -- Friedrich NietzscheWas the bottom quote of slashdot as of right now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461703</id>
	<title>Re:Pointless article</title>
	<author>NoMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1245854820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>At the very least I find it hard to believe the Australian Aborigines aren't a distinct group since they separated from the rest of the race before Europeans left Africa.</p></div></blockquote><p>Err... no?</p><p>There's some circumstantial evidence to suggest that there may have been early humans in Australia 80~125,000 years ago. But the genetic &amp; archaeological evidence suggests that the arrival of the ancestors of current aboriginal Australians occurred 40~70,000 y.a.</p><p>In other words, there <i>may</i> have been humans in Australia before the group that colonised Europe and Asia left Africa, but modern Aborignal Australians would seem to be descendants of the first wave of <i>H. sapiens</i> to leave Africa and migrate along the equatorial line into southern Asia. This study doesn't contradict that at all (though it does a bit to challenge the prevailing view of the timing of the split between emergent African populations in the Middle East, and the European / Asian populations diverging from that.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At the very least I find it hard to believe the Australian Aborigines are n't a distinct group since they separated from the rest of the race before Europeans left Africa.Err... no ? There 's some circumstantial evidence to suggest that there may have been early humans in Australia 80 ~ 125,000 years ago .
But the genetic &amp; archaeological evidence suggests that the arrival of the ancestors of current aboriginal Australians occurred 40 ~ 70,000 y.a.In other words , there may have been humans in Australia before the group that colonised Europe and Asia left Africa , but modern Aborignal Australians would seem to be descendants of the first wave of H. sapiens to leave Africa and migrate along the equatorial line into southern Asia .
This study does n't contradict that at all ( though it does a bit to challenge the prevailing view of the timing of the split between emergent African populations in the Middle East , and the European / Asian populations diverging from that .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the very least I find it hard to believe the Australian Aborigines aren't a distinct group since they separated from the rest of the race before Europeans left Africa.Err... no?There's some circumstantial evidence to suggest that there may have been early humans in Australia 80~125,000 years ago.
But the genetic &amp; archaeological evidence suggests that the arrival of the ancestors of current aboriginal Australians occurred 40~70,000 y.a.In other words, there may have been humans in Australia before the group that colonised Europe and Asia left Africa, but modern Aborignal Australians would seem to be descendants of the first wave of H. sapiens to leave Africa and migrate along the equatorial line into southern Asia.
This study doesn't contradict that at all (though it does a bit to challenge the prevailing view of the timing of the split between emergent African populations in the Middle East, and the European / Asian populations diverging from that.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460593</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460765</id>
	<title>Re:You mean the three sons of Noah?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245847500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, I suppose the generations of inbreeding that would be required to make that work would explain why humans are so fucked up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I suppose the generations of inbreeding that would be required to make that work would explain why humans are so fucked up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I suppose the generations of inbreeding that would be required to make that work would explain why humans are so fucked up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460509</id>
	<title>3 types</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245846180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Slant<br>
2. Black<br>
3. Round Eye</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Slant 2 .
Black 3 .
Round Eye</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Slant
2.
Black
3.
Round Eye</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460545</id>
	<title>What's PC now?</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1245846360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if there's only three distinct ethnic groups, who's the minority now? It's very important for political correctness. Wait... Minorities are an invention of mass-delusions by the public...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if there 's only three distinct ethnic groups , who 's the minority now ?
It 's very important for political correctness .
Wait... Minorities are an invention of mass-delusions by the public.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if there's only three distinct ethnic groups, who's the minority now?
It's very important for political correctness.
Wait... Minorities are an invention of mass-delusions by the public...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461211</id>
	<title>Re:Article asserts three things; none yet proven t</title>
	<author>shadowofwind</author>
	<datestamp>1245850740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How close genetically are Indians (from India) to Chinese?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How close genetically are Indians ( from India ) to Chinese ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How close genetically are Indians (from India) to Chinese?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28474841</id>
	<title>Re:You mean the three sons of Noah?</title>
	<author>not-enough-info</author>
	<datestamp>1245934200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you mean you only have 1 wife?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you mean you only have 1 wife ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you mean you only have 1 wife?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28468251</id>
	<title>Re:You mean the three sons of Noah?</title>
	<author>LanMan04</author>
	<datestamp>1245952860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So 100 types of jokes then...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So 100 types of jokes then.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So 100 types of jokes then...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460949</id>
	<title>Binary</title>
	<author>billius</author>
	<datestamp>1245848760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Awww crap, there goes my joke about people knowing binary...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Awww crap , there goes my joke about people knowing binary.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Awww crap, there goes my joke about people knowing binary...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465177</id>
	<title>Re:Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid</title>
	<author>guanxi</author>
	<datestamp>1245937980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're criticizing an article for not using the terms you like? Who is being politically correct? Must we all think and talk like you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're criticizing an article for not using the terms you like ?
Who is being politically correct ?
Must we all think and talk like you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're criticizing an article for not using the terms you like?
Who is being politically correct?
Must we all think and talk like you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28463753</id>
	<title>Re:Article asserts three things; none yet proven t</title>
	<author>Michael Woodhams</author>
	<datestamp>1245962280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is hard to know how accurate your criticisms are without reading the article, which doesn't seem to be on the website yet (http://www.plosgenetics.org/). Given the limited information available, however, what you say is sensible.</p><p>As you note, you can pick your number of clusters, and the software will happily produce that many for you. However, some numbers of clusters are more natural than others - if the closest pair of clusters in the 3-cluster analysis are much more distant than the closest pair in a 4-cluster analysis, then there is some logic in picking 3 clusters as a natural number. (But two clusters would seem even more natural in the human data.) I think this analysis is about interbreeding between subpopulations: they're saying that (e.g.) within Africa, neighbouring populations frequently interbred, so that genes flowed easily throughout the African population, but there was very much less interbreeding between Africa and West Eurasia.</p><p>(Also, in your speculations about what the 4th, 5th etc clusters would be, you've forgotten the Australians, who have been here for about 40,000 years - by comparison, the Americans split off perhaps 13,000 years ago.)</p><p>(I have done population genetics and evolution research, but not specifically on human populations.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is hard to know how accurate your criticisms are without reading the article , which does n't seem to be on the website yet ( http : //www.plosgenetics.org/ ) .
Given the limited information available , however , what you say is sensible.As you note , you can pick your number of clusters , and the software will happily produce that many for you .
However , some numbers of clusters are more natural than others - if the closest pair of clusters in the 3-cluster analysis are much more distant than the closest pair in a 4-cluster analysis , then there is some logic in picking 3 clusters as a natural number .
( But two clusters would seem even more natural in the human data .
) I think this analysis is about interbreeding between subpopulations : they 're saying that ( e.g .
) within Africa , neighbouring populations frequently interbred , so that genes flowed easily throughout the African population , but there was very much less interbreeding between Africa and West Eurasia .
( Also , in your speculations about what the 4th , 5th etc clusters would be , you 've forgotten the Australians , who have been here for about 40,000 years - by comparison , the Americans split off perhaps 13,000 years ago .
) ( I have done population genetics and evolution research , but not specifically on human populations .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is hard to know how accurate your criticisms are without reading the article, which doesn't seem to be on the website yet (http://www.plosgenetics.org/).
Given the limited information available, however, what you say is sensible.As you note, you can pick your number of clusters, and the software will happily produce that many for you.
However, some numbers of clusters are more natural than others - if the closest pair of clusters in the 3-cluster analysis are much more distant than the closest pair in a 4-cluster analysis, then there is some logic in picking 3 clusters as a natural number.
(But two clusters would seem even more natural in the human data.
) I think this analysis is about interbreeding between subpopulations: they're saying that (e.g.
) within Africa, neighbouring populations frequently interbred, so that genes flowed easily throughout the African population, but there was very much less interbreeding between Africa and West Eurasia.
(Also, in your speculations about what the 4th, 5th etc clusters would be, you've forgotten the Australians, who have been here for about 40,000 years - by comparison, the Americans split off perhaps 13,000 years ago.
)(I have done population genetics and evolution research, but not specifically on human populations.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28464499</id>
	<title>For more detail see the BBC</title>
	<author>teh kurisu</author>
	<datestamp>1245929460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The BBC have an excellent documentary on this subject called <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00klf6j" title="bbc.co.uk">The Incredible Human Journey</a> [bbc.co.uk] up on the iPlayer at the moment.  Its focus isn't quite the same as the article's, as it discusses genetics only as a means to confirm or reject theories of how humans made their way around the planet, but it's definitely worth watching if you're in the UK or can use a UK proxy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC have an excellent documentary on this subject called The Incredible Human Journey [ bbc.co.uk ] up on the iPlayer at the moment .
Its focus is n't quite the same as the article 's , as it discusses genetics only as a means to confirm or reject theories of how humans made their way around the planet , but it 's definitely worth watching if you 're in the UK or can use a UK proxy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC have an excellent documentary on this subject called The Incredible Human Journey [bbc.co.uk] up on the iPlayer at the moment.
Its focus isn't quite the same as the article's, as it discusses genetics only as a means to confirm or reject theories of how humans made their way around the planet, but it's definitely worth watching if you're in the UK or can use a UK proxy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461341</id>
	<title>not exactly a revelation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245851880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This research typically stops at the point of agriculture and relatively fixed settlement of people, so modern population mixtures are not considered.</p><p>This is hardly recent news though, phylogenetic trees illustrating the clustering of haplogroups have been published for a decade or more (much more if you include the blood group analysis of Cavalli-Sforza et al)</p><p>Also remember that this research typically tracks Y haplotypes, so this represents direct male lineage only- this is highly correlated to overall populations but not 100\%</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This research typically stops at the point of agriculture and relatively fixed settlement of people , so modern population mixtures are not considered.This is hardly recent news though , phylogenetic trees illustrating the clustering of haplogroups have been published for a decade or more ( much more if you include the blood group analysis of Cavalli-Sforza et al ) Also remember that this research typically tracks Y haplotypes , so this represents direct male lineage only- this is highly correlated to overall populations but not 100 \ %</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This research typically stops at the point of agriculture and relatively fixed settlement of people, so modern population mixtures are not considered.This is hardly recent news though, phylogenetic trees illustrating the clustering of haplogroups have been published for a decade or more (much more if you include the blood group analysis of Cavalli-Sforza et al)Also remember that this research typically tracks Y haplotypes, so this represents direct male lineage only- this is highly correlated to overall populations but not 100\%</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461431</id>
	<title>Re:You mean the three sons of Noah?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245852660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please peddle your bronze age myths elsewhere... thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please peddle your bronze age myths elsewhere... thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please peddle your bronze age myths elsewhere... thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413</id>
	<title>You mean the three sons of Noah?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245845760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons\_of\_Noah" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Three Sons of Noah</a> [wikipedia.org] are supposed to be the ancestors of us all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Three Sons of Noah [ wikipedia.org ] are supposed to be the ancestors of us all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Three Sons of Noah [wikipedia.org] are supposed to be the ancestors of us all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465129</id>
	<title>Re:confirmation of previous grouping</title>
	<author>guanxi</author>
	<datestamp>1245937680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then you should have read the Fine Article. That's not what it says.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then you should have read the Fine Article .
That 's not what it says .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then you should have read the Fine Article.
That's not what it says.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28462639</id>
	<title>Re:Article asserts three things; none yet proven t</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245862500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As far as I can tell, this story attempts to make three points:</p><p>1. Human genomes tend to cluster into three groups: african, eurasian, and east asian.</p></div><p>Let's not ignore the fact that they picked these three populations in advance (from the <a href="http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000500" title="plosgenetics.org" rel="nofollow">original article</a> [plosgenetics.org]):</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In the following discussion, we focus on SNPs with extreme pairwise FST between three HGDP populations: the Yoruba, French and Han Chinese.</p></div><p>They then show in Figure 3 that selecting SNP that have very different distribution between these three populations also show similar distributions between African, Europe, and East Asia. However, squinting at the plot (my favourite method of statistical analysis), it looks as if these frequency distrubutions could as well be clines, partly obscured by an over-sampling of Chinese populations...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I can tell , this story attempts to make three points : 1 .
Human genomes tend to cluster into three groups : african , eurasian , and east asian.Let 's not ignore the fact that they picked these three populations in advance ( from the original article [ plosgenetics.org ] ) : In the following discussion , we focus on SNPs with extreme pairwise FST between three HGDP populations : the Yoruba , French and Han Chinese.They then show in Figure 3 that selecting SNP that have very different distribution between these three populations also show similar distributions between African , Europe , and East Asia .
However , squinting at the plot ( my favourite method of statistical analysis ) , it looks as if these frequency distrubutions could as well be clines , partly obscured by an over-sampling of Chinese populations.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I can tell, this story attempts to make three points:1.
Human genomes tend to cluster into three groups: african, eurasian, and east asian.Let's not ignore the fact that they picked these three populations in advance (from the original article [plosgenetics.org]):In the following discussion, we focus on SNPs with extreme pairwise FST between three HGDP populations: the Yoruba, French and Han Chinese.They then show in Figure 3 that selecting SNP that have very different distribution between these three populations also show similar distributions between African, Europe, and East Asia.
However, squinting at the plot (my favourite method of statistical analysis), it looks as if these frequency distrubutions could as well be clines, partly obscured by an over-sampling of Chinese populations...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28464791</id>
	<title>Re:You mean the three sons of Noah?</title>
	<author>hattig</author>
	<datestamp>1245934620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, if the great flood happened 40,000 years ago, and one of the brothers was 30,000 years older than the others at that time.</p><p>However at a basic level, in that area of the world, given limited travel, but probably enough long-distance travellers/explorers to get around, I imagine your typical middle-easterner would have seen: Black people (Africa); White people (Eurasia); Asian people (East Asia). Cue some story embellishments to the folk tales of pre-history, and you've got an explanation for the three types of people that they were aware of. A couple of thousand years later and you've got yourself a religion that integrated and refactored the folk tales into its creation and ancients myths.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , if the great flood happened 40,000 years ago , and one of the brothers was 30,000 years older than the others at that time.However at a basic level , in that area of the world , given limited travel , but probably enough long-distance travellers/explorers to get around , I imagine your typical middle-easterner would have seen : Black people ( Africa ) ; White people ( Eurasia ) ; Asian people ( East Asia ) .
Cue some story embellishments to the folk tales of pre-history , and you 've got an explanation for the three types of people that they were aware of .
A couple of thousand years later and you 've got yourself a religion that integrated and refactored the folk tales into its creation and ancients myths .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, if the great flood happened 40,000 years ago, and one of the brothers was 30,000 years older than the others at that time.However at a basic level, in that area of the world, given limited travel, but probably enough long-distance travellers/explorers to get around, I imagine your typical middle-easterner would have seen: Black people (Africa); White people (Eurasia); Asian people (East Asia).
Cue some story embellishments to the folk tales of pre-history, and you've got an explanation for the three types of people that they were aware of.
A couple of thousand years later and you've got yourself a religion that integrated and refactored the folk tales into its creation and ancients myths.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461257</id>
	<title>Remember, the B-Ark held:</title>
	<author>Mononoke</author>
	<datestamp>1245851100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Middle managers
<br>2. Hairdressers
<br>3. Telephone sanitizers</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Middle managers 2 .
Hairdressers 3 .
Telephone sanitizers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Middle managers
2.
Hairdressers
3.
Telephone sanitizers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460763</id>
	<title>Re:Pointless article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245847500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, it's like when you're told there's Three Stooges but then you find out about Shemp.  And Joe.  And...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it 's like when you 're told there 's Three Stooges but then you find out about Shemp .
And Joe .
And.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it's like when you're told there's Three Stooges but then you find out about Shemp.
And Joe.
And...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460593</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461599</id>
	<title>Re:Article asserts three things; none yet proven t</title>
	<author>gringer</author>
	<datestamp>1245854100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Generally speaking they<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/do/ cluster this way. Of course, you can make room for as few or as many clusters as you want-- if it was two, it'd be african/everything else.</p></div><p>People can be as different as you want them to be, and cluster in whatever way you want, as long as you're selective about what genetic or environmental markers you pick. Given any three people, there will be some marker that is the same in two of those people and different in the other person, just due to the sheer number of genetic and environmental features that exist.</p><p>This extends to populations, where being excessively selective about which features are picked to distinguish populations can lead to overfitting and false positive associations (i.e. what appears to be true for a subset of populations is not true for the total population). I can pick a set of genetic features that makes europeans appear to be more diverse than africans, even though that does not reflect what we expect from knowledge of the history of populations.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Generally speaking they /do/ cluster this way .
Of course , you can make room for as few or as many clusters as you want-- if it was two , it 'd be african/everything else.People can be as different as you want them to be , and cluster in whatever way you want , as long as you 're selective about what genetic or environmental markers you pick .
Given any three people , there will be some marker that is the same in two of those people and different in the other person , just due to the sheer number of genetic and environmental features that exist.This extends to populations , where being excessively selective about which features are picked to distinguish populations can lead to overfitting and false positive associations ( i.e .
what appears to be true for a subset of populations is not true for the total population ) .
I can pick a set of genetic features that makes europeans appear to be more diverse than africans , even though that does not reflect what we expect from knowledge of the history of populations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generally speaking they /do/ cluster this way.
Of course, you can make room for as few or as many clusters as you want-- if it was two, it'd be african/everything else.People can be as different as you want them to be, and cluster in whatever way you want, as long as you're selective about what genetic or environmental markers you pick.
Given any three people, there will be some marker that is the same in two of those people and different in the other person, just due to the sheer number of genetic and environmental features that exist.This extends to populations, where being excessively selective about which features are picked to distinguish populations can lead to overfitting and false positive associations (i.e.
what appears to be true for a subset of populations is not true for the total population).
I can pick a set of genetic features that makes europeans appear to be more diverse than africans, even though that does not reflect what we expect from knowledge of the history of populations.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461047</id>
	<title>Re:Article asserts three things; none yet proven t</title>
	<author>panthroman</author>
	<datestamp>1245849540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>2. We expected that the genomes of different ethnic groups would be very different. They aren't.</i> </p></div><p>Seriously, how surprised can we be?  We share 98\% of our DNA with chimps.  Hell, we share tons of DNA with <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071011142628.htm" title="sciencedaily.com">single-celled algae</a> [sciencedaily.com].

</p><p>Think of the genome as a computer program, and genes are little subs that do helpful things.  Lots of subs are sitting unused, abandoned, all over our genomes.  Lots are called at different times by barely-related parts of our 'human program'.  Very different programs can share lots of lines, lots of entire subs.  Very different creatures can share lots of DNA, lots of entire genes.</p><p>(Statements like "siblings share half their genes" are super misleading.  Yes, you get half from Mom and half from Dad, but 99.9\% of those genes are the same anyway.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 .
We expected that the genomes of different ethnic groups would be very different .
They are n't .
Seriously , how surprised can we be ?
We share 98 \ % of our DNA with chimps .
Hell , we share tons of DNA with single-celled algae [ sciencedaily.com ] .
Think of the genome as a computer program , and genes are little subs that do helpful things .
Lots of subs are sitting unused , abandoned , all over our genomes .
Lots are called at different times by barely-related parts of our 'human program' .
Very different programs can share lots of lines , lots of entire subs .
Very different creatures can share lots of DNA , lots of entire genes .
( Statements like " siblings share half their genes " are super misleading .
Yes , you get half from Mom and half from Dad , but 99.9 \ % of those genes are the same anyway .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 2.
We expected that the genomes of different ethnic groups would be very different.
They aren't.
Seriously, how surprised can we be?
We share 98\% of our DNA with chimps.
Hell, we share tons of DNA with single-celled algae [sciencedaily.com].
Think of the genome as a computer program, and genes are little subs that do helpful things.
Lots of subs are sitting unused, abandoned, all over our genomes.
Lots are called at different times by barely-related parts of our 'human program'.
Very different programs can share lots of lines, lots of entire subs.
Very different creatures can share lots of DNA, lots of entire genes.
(Statements like "siblings share half their genes" are super misleading.
Yes, you get half from Mom and half from Dad, but 99.9\% of those genes are the same anyway.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28462377</id>
	<title>Re:Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid</title>
	<author>akintayo</author>
	<datestamp>1245859860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the use of the term "Mongoloid" to describe Down Syndrome sufferers, limits its suitability for scientific discussion. Or any other forum where one does not wish to cause offense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the use of the term " Mongoloid " to describe Down Syndrome sufferers , limits its suitability for scientific discussion .
Or any other forum where one does not wish to cause offense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the use of the term "Mongoloid" to describe Down Syndrome sufferers, limits its suitability for scientific discussion.
Or any other forum where one does not wish to cause offense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28470649</id>
	<title>My theory is...</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1245961920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like Stargate SG1 would have you believe (yes it is just a tv show, but proves many variations are possible)...<br>We were all part of a greater  experiment to another culture, which sent 3 separate insemination payloads<br>and made sure to study them over time, that they have different geographical regions.</p><p>Some developed faster then others, others were more resilient, all based on an inherent design programmed<br>to get the quickest and best results from this test. Once the experiment is over, we are all going to be tossed out<br>along with the bath water.</p><p>BTW- I for one welcome our alien scientist overlords</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like Stargate SG1 would have you believe ( yes it is just a tv show , but proves many variations are possible ) ...We were all part of a greater experiment to another culture , which sent 3 separate insemination payloadsand made sure to study them over time , that they have different geographical regions.Some developed faster then others , others were more resilient , all based on an inherent design programmedto get the quickest and best results from this test .
Once the experiment is over , we are all going to be tossed outalong with the bath water.BTW- I for one welcome our alien scientist overlords</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like Stargate SG1 would have you believe (yes it is just a tv show, but proves many variations are possible)...We were all part of a greater  experiment to another culture, which sent 3 separate insemination payloadsand made sure to study them over time, that they have different geographical regions.Some developed faster then others, others were more resilient, all based on an inherent design programmedto get the quickest and best results from this test.
Once the experiment is over, we are all going to be tossed outalong with the bath water.BTW- I for one welcome our alien scientist overlords</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461715</id>
	<title>Wrong</title>
	<author>R3d M3rcury</author>
	<datestamp>1245854880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, there are only two groups:  Us and Them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , there are only two groups : Us and Them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, there are only two groups:  Us and Them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460689</id>
	<title>South Park did it...</title>
	<author>d\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1245847140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dicks, pussies and assholes</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dicks , pussies and assholes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dicks, pussies and assholes</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461329</id>
	<title>Re:You mean the three sons of Noah?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245851700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I clicked on the Wikipedia link to "Three Sons of Noah" and scrolled down to see the picture labeled "Shem, Ham and Japheth. Illustration by James Tissot 1904" and then it occurred to me that the long walk<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/separation from Africa has come full circle and moved on. That's a picture of three of the Credence Clearwater Revival band members. Now you can tell your edu-ma-cated friends that you know the \_purpose\_ behind this natural phenomenon<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it was meant to lead to American Rock! Now you REALLY heard it through the grape vine (insert rim shot here)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I clicked on the Wikipedia link to " Three Sons of Noah " and scrolled down to see the picture labeled " Shem , Ham and Japheth .
Illustration by James Tissot 1904 " and then it occurred to me that the long walk /separation from Africa has come full circle and moved on .
That 's a picture of three of the Credence Clearwater Revival band members .
Now you can tell your edu-ma-cated friends that you know the \ _purpose \ _ behind this natural phenomenon ... it was meant to lead to American Rock !
Now you REALLY heard it through the grape vine ( insert rim shot here )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I clicked on the Wikipedia link to "Three Sons of Noah" and scrolled down to see the picture labeled "Shem, Ham and Japheth.
Illustration by James Tissot 1904" and then it occurred to me that the long walk /separation from Africa has come full circle and moved on.
That's a picture of three of the Credence Clearwater Revival band members.
Now you can tell your edu-ma-cated friends that you know the \_purpose\_ behind this natural phenomenon ... it was meant to lead to American Rock!
Now you REALLY heard it through the grape vine (insert rim shot here)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465449</id>
	<title>Re:Racist nonsense</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1245939960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Once again proving the wisdom of the old song "Two Out of Three Ain't Bad." Meatloaf can teach us so much, if we only listen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again proving the wisdom of the old song " Two Out of Three Ai n't Bad .
" Meatloaf can teach us so much , if we only listen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again proving the wisdom of the old song "Two Out of Three Ain't Bad.
" Meatloaf can teach us so much, if we only listen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28462543</id>
	<title>The only question to be answered now</title>
	<author>Torodung</author>
	<datestamp>1245861420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow! Only three groups of humans. Then we have only one question left to answer:</p><p><b>Which group do we put on the B-Ark?</b></p><p>--<br>Toro</p><p>(My apologies to the late Adams-Douglas-Adams and his estate.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow !
Only three groups of humans .
Then we have only one question left to answer : Which group do we put on the B-Ark ? --Toro ( My apologies to the late Adams-Douglas-Adams and his estate .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow!
Only three groups of humans.
Then we have only one question left to answer:Which group do we put on the B-Ark?--Toro(My apologies to the late Adams-Douglas-Adams and his estate.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460713</id>
	<title>But how long will it last?</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1245847260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Advances in communication and transportation in the last century mean that members of these three groups are migrating away from the areas their ancestors lived in. I live in Australia but my ancestors came from England. My wife was born in Malaysia but her ancestors came from China. Our son is a mix of two of the groups defined by TFA.<br> <br>
Yesterday he brought home a school project to work on. Each child in the class has to fill in a page in a scrap book about themselves. His classmates come from England, Spain, China, Egypt, Australia (one Aboriginal boy) and Turkey. The next generation here will be even more mixed than the last.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Advances in communication and transportation in the last century mean that members of these three groups are migrating away from the areas their ancestors lived in .
I live in Australia but my ancestors came from England .
My wife was born in Malaysia but her ancestors came from China .
Our son is a mix of two of the groups defined by TFA .
Yesterday he brought home a school project to work on .
Each child in the class has to fill in a page in a scrap book about themselves .
His classmates come from England , Spain , China , Egypt , Australia ( one Aboriginal boy ) and Turkey .
The next generation here will be even more mixed than the last .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Advances in communication and transportation in the last century mean that members of these three groups are migrating away from the areas their ancestors lived in.
I live in Australia but my ancestors came from England.
My wife was born in Malaysia but her ancestors came from China.
Our son is a mix of two of the groups defined by TFA.
Yesterday he brought home a school project to work on.
Each child in the class has to fill in a page in a scrap book about themselves.
His classmates come from England, Spain, China, Egypt, Australia (one Aboriginal boy) and Turkey.
The next generation here will be even more mixed than the last.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465581</id>
	<title>Well, of COURSE there's three groups....</title>
	<author>Hasai</author>
	<datestamp>1245940560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....Those who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who wonder what happened.</p><p>];)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....Those who make things happen , those who watch things happen , and those who wonder what happened .
] ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....Those who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who wonder what happened.
];)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460781</id>
	<title>Re:South Park did it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245847680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure 'Team America: World Police' technically qualifies as South Park.  Having written a paper on South Park and Team America as compared to Gulliver's Travels and and the Beggar's Opera in my Jr. year of undergrad (damn was that like 4 years ago already?) for my Restoration and 18th Century Literature class (my contention being the so-called "golden age of satire" is a misnomer), I'm somewhat sensitive to the subtle differences in the projects.<br><br>(and frankly, that was probably the nerdiest under grad English paper that wasn't about Jules Verne ever written).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure 'Team America : World Police ' technically qualifies as South Park .
Having written a paper on South Park and Team America as compared to Gulliver 's Travels and and the Beggar 's Opera in my Jr. year of undergrad ( damn was that like 4 years ago already ?
) for my Restoration and 18th Century Literature class ( my contention being the so-called " golden age of satire " is a misnomer ) , I 'm somewhat sensitive to the subtle differences in the projects .
( and frankly , that was probably the nerdiest under grad English paper that was n't about Jules Verne ever written ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure 'Team America: World Police' technically qualifies as South Park.
Having written a paper on South Park and Team America as compared to Gulliver's Travels and and the Beggar's Opera in my Jr. year of undergrad (damn was that like 4 years ago already?
) for my Restoration and 18th Century Literature class (my contention being the so-called "golden age of satire" is a misnomer), I'm somewhat sensitive to the subtle differences in the projects.
(and frankly, that was probably the nerdiest under grad English paper that wasn't about Jules Verne ever written).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28478307</id>
	<title>Re:You mean the three sons of Noah?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245959040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you remember the 'Dilbert' strip where Dogbert is giving sensitivity training?</p><p>He points to a chart and says: "People basically fall into one of these four categories."</p><p>The chart has a 2x2 grid showing:</p><p>CUTE SMART    UGLY SMART<br>CUTE STUPID   UGLY STUPID</p><p>Dogbert, tail wagging, tells the audience "I notice all of you fall into this group here..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you remember the 'Dilbert ' strip where Dogbert is giving sensitivity training ? He points to a chart and says : " People basically fall into one of these four categories .
" The chart has a 2x2 grid showing : CUTE SMART UGLY SMARTCUTE STUPID UGLY STUPIDDogbert , tail wagging , tells the audience " I notice all of you fall into this group here... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you remember the 'Dilbert' strip where Dogbert is giving sensitivity training?He points to a chart and says: "People basically fall into one of these four categories.
"The chart has a 2x2 grid showing:CUTE SMART    UGLY SMARTCUTE STUPID   UGLY STUPIDDogbert, tail wagging, tells the audience "I notice all of you fall into this group here..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28464149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460883</id>
	<title>I've always known this.</title>
	<author>reboot246</author>
	<datestamp>1245848280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Three groups of people:<br><br>People who know me.<br>People who want to know me.<br>People I don't want to know, no matter which of the<br>above two groups they're in.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Three groups of people : People who know me.People who want to know me.People I do n't want to know , no matter which of theabove two groups they 're in .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Three groups of people:People who know me.People who want to know me.People I don't want to know, no matter which of theabove two groups they're in.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460979</id>
	<title>Racist nonsense</title>
	<author>Baldrson</author>
	<datestamp>1245849000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This can't be true because the president is a mulatto.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This ca n't be true because the president is a mulatto .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This can't be true because the president is a mulatto.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460505</id>
	<title>Article asserts three things; none yet proven true</title>
	<author>Raindance</author>
	<datestamp>1245846180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As far as I can tell, this story attempts to make three points:</p><p>1. Human genomes tend to cluster into three groups: african, eurasian, and east asian.</p><p>2. We expected that the genomes of different ethnic groups would be very different. They aren't.</p><p>3. Neutral drift is the major story in how ethic groups' genomes differ.</p><p>This pretty much follows the contours of the current orthodoxy in population genetics (with certain distinct exceptions).</p><p>So are these three points meaningfully true?</p><p><i>1. Human genomes tend to cluster into three groups: african, eurasian, and east asian.</i></p><p>Generally speaking they<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/do/ cluster this way. Of course, you can make room for as few or as many clusters as you want-- if it was two, it'd be african/everything else. Three, african/eurasian/east asian. Four, perhaps african/eurasian/east asian/naitive american. Five, perhaps west african/east african/eurasian/east asian/naitive american. From what I've read, the most elegant statistical clusters arise when you allow for four groups (splitting native americans off from east asians). Of course, this clustering gets more complex when you consider admixture populations (e.g., the majority of south america and mexico).</p><p><i>2. We expected that the genomes of different ethnic groups would be very different. They aren't.</i></p><p>It's hard to say this is true or false yet, because we simply don't know how functionally significant these differences are. Two genomes may look very similar, yet be very different in many very significant ways.</p><p><i>3. Neutral drift is the major story in how ethic groups' genomes differ.</i></p><p>This is code for a very contentious question-- are ethnic differences merely skin-deep? The fact is, we don't know yet. There's a lot of research that points to yes; there's a lot of research that points to no. The answer to this is undoubtedly going to turn out to be: yes and no, depending on the context and the threshold you look at.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I can tell , this story attempts to make three points : 1 .
Human genomes tend to cluster into three groups : african , eurasian , and east asian.2 .
We expected that the genomes of different ethnic groups would be very different .
They are n't.3 .
Neutral drift is the major story in how ethic groups ' genomes differ.This pretty much follows the contours of the current orthodoxy in population genetics ( with certain distinct exceptions ) .So are these three points meaningfully true ? 1 .
Human genomes tend to cluster into three groups : african , eurasian , and east asian.Generally speaking they /do/ cluster this way .
Of course , you can make room for as few or as many clusters as you want-- if it was two , it 'd be african/everything else .
Three , african/eurasian/east asian .
Four , perhaps african/eurasian/east asian/naitive american .
Five , perhaps west african/east african/eurasian/east asian/naitive american .
From what I 've read , the most elegant statistical clusters arise when you allow for four groups ( splitting native americans off from east asians ) .
Of course , this clustering gets more complex when you consider admixture populations ( e.g. , the majority of south america and mexico ) .2 .
We expected that the genomes of different ethnic groups would be very different .
They are n't.It 's hard to say this is true or false yet , because we simply do n't know how functionally significant these differences are .
Two genomes may look very similar , yet be very different in many very significant ways.3 .
Neutral drift is the major story in how ethic groups ' genomes differ.This is code for a very contentious question-- are ethnic differences merely skin-deep ?
The fact is , we do n't know yet .
There 's a lot of research that points to yes ; there 's a lot of research that points to no .
The answer to this is undoubtedly going to turn out to be : yes and no , depending on the context and the threshold you look at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I can tell, this story attempts to make three points:1.
Human genomes tend to cluster into three groups: african, eurasian, and east asian.2.
We expected that the genomes of different ethnic groups would be very different.
They aren't.3.
Neutral drift is the major story in how ethic groups' genomes differ.This pretty much follows the contours of the current orthodoxy in population genetics (with certain distinct exceptions).So are these three points meaningfully true?1.
Human genomes tend to cluster into three groups: african, eurasian, and east asian.Generally speaking they /do/ cluster this way.
Of course, you can make room for as few or as many clusters as you want-- if it was two, it'd be african/everything else.
Three, african/eurasian/east asian.
Four, perhaps african/eurasian/east asian/naitive american.
Five, perhaps west african/east african/eurasian/east asian/naitive american.
From what I've read, the most elegant statistical clusters arise when you allow for four groups (splitting native americans off from east asians).
Of course, this clustering gets more complex when you consider admixture populations (e.g., the majority of south america and mexico).2.
We expected that the genomes of different ethnic groups would be very different.
They aren't.It's hard to say this is true or false yet, because we simply don't know how functionally significant these differences are.
Two genomes may look very similar, yet be very different in many very significant ways.3.
Neutral drift is the major story in how ethic groups' genomes differ.This is code for a very contentious question-- are ethnic differences merely skin-deep?
The fact is, we don't know yet.
There's a lot of research that points to yes; there's a lot of research that points to no.
The answer to this is undoubtedly going to turn out to be: yes and no, depending on the context and the threshold you look at.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460955</id>
	<title>Re:confirmation of previous grouping</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1245848820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I take a general offense to the nature of this article, presenting this as though it is some sort of surprise.</p> </div><p>Then you misinterpreted it.  The suprise is at the degree of genomic similarity within the three groups.  The groupings you mentioned seem to have been validated, but they weren't based on genome studies.  Using those old "studies" you couldn't have said anything about the genetic similarity of two ethnicities within the, er, clades?  Maybe you could have/did assume, but that would have been without any evidence.</p><p>The suprise is not that there are 3 groups, the suprise is that there are 3 genetic groups.</p><p>(Terminology is a bit off because, well, I'm not in this field)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I take a general offense to the nature of this article , presenting this as though it is some sort of surprise .
Then you misinterpreted it .
The suprise is at the degree of genomic similarity within the three groups .
The groupings you mentioned seem to have been validated , but they were n't based on genome studies .
Using those old " studies " you could n't have said anything about the genetic similarity of two ethnicities within the , er , clades ?
Maybe you could have/did assume , but that would have been without any evidence.The suprise is not that there are 3 groups , the suprise is that there are 3 genetic groups .
( Terminology is a bit off because , well , I 'm not in this field )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I take a general offense to the nature of this article, presenting this as though it is some sort of surprise.
Then you misinterpreted it.
The suprise is at the degree of genomic similarity within the three groups.
The groupings you mentioned seem to have been validated, but they weren't based on genome studies.
Using those old "studies" you couldn't have said anything about the genetic similarity of two ethnicities within the, er, clades?
Maybe you could have/did assume, but that would have been without any evidence.The suprise is not that there are 3 groups, the suprise is that there are 3 genetic groups.
(Terminology is a bit off because, well, I'm not in this field)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28466437</id>
	<title>Silly Science</title>
	<author>jc42</author>
	<datestamp>1245945060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It might be interesting to read the original report, because the Washington Post article is Silly Science at its best (or maybe worst).</p><p>The "three groups" is especially silly, because near the end, they describe it as the result of a split 70,000 years ago (the main exodus from Africa), followed by a second split 40,000 years ago (European vs. Asian).  This isn't three groups, it's a three-level tree, with a two-way split in the trunk followed by a two-way split in one branch.  If you were to look at more levels of the tree (say, Asian vs. Polynesian or Amerindian), you'd get more than three groups.</p><p>And, of course, the other top-level branch is "African", which is actually the base of the tree of human clades.  It has been understood for some time that most of the genetic variance in humans is within Africa, with European and Asian branches several levels from the top.  There are several other "groups" in Africa that are higher-level splits than the Eurasion split of 70,000 years ago.</p><p>I'd be tempted to guess that the "three groups" idea was made up by the Post's writers, who probably can't count much higher.  They also probably don't have any concept of a genetic tree.  Possibly the researchers made a few comments about these two major splits, and the writers took it to be something terribly significant.</p><p>And it's mode much more complex when you consider that below the species level, you never have a strict tree.  All those subspecies/variety/race splits can and do interbreed, so within a species, the tree structure can never be much more than a rough approximation.  But this is probably too much complexity for a journalist.  And it just might be a major part of the explanation for much of the homogeneity that they write about.</p><p>There was a good comment on how science journalism works in <a href="http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1190" title="phdcomics.com">today's PHD Comics</a> [phdcomics.com].  It seems like a direct comment on this Washington Post article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It might be interesting to read the original report , because the Washington Post article is Silly Science at its best ( or maybe worst ) .The " three groups " is especially silly , because near the end , they describe it as the result of a split 70,000 years ago ( the main exodus from Africa ) , followed by a second split 40,000 years ago ( European vs. Asian ) . This is n't three groups , it 's a three-level tree , with a two-way split in the trunk followed by a two-way split in one branch .
If you were to look at more levels of the tree ( say , Asian vs. Polynesian or Amerindian ) , you 'd get more than three groups.And , of course , the other top-level branch is " African " , which is actually the base of the tree of human clades .
It has been understood for some time that most of the genetic variance in humans is within Africa , with European and Asian branches several levels from the top .
There are several other " groups " in Africa that are higher-level splits than the Eurasion split of 70,000 years ago.I 'd be tempted to guess that the " three groups " idea was made up by the Post 's writers , who probably ca n't count much higher .
They also probably do n't have any concept of a genetic tree .
Possibly the researchers made a few comments about these two major splits , and the writers took it to be something terribly significant.And it 's mode much more complex when you consider that below the species level , you never have a strict tree .
All those subspecies/variety/race splits can and do interbreed , so within a species , the tree structure can never be much more than a rough approximation .
But this is probably too much complexity for a journalist .
And it just might be a major part of the explanation for much of the homogeneity that they write about.There was a good comment on how science journalism works in today 's PHD Comics [ phdcomics.com ] .
It seems like a direct comment on this Washington Post article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might be interesting to read the original report, because the Washington Post article is Silly Science at its best (or maybe worst).The "three groups" is especially silly, because near the end, they describe it as the result of a split 70,000 years ago (the main exodus from Africa), followed by a second split 40,000 years ago (European vs. Asian).  This isn't three groups, it's a three-level tree, with a two-way split in the trunk followed by a two-way split in one branch.
If you were to look at more levels of the tree (say, Asian vs. Polynesian or Amerindian), you'd get more than three groups.And, of course, the other top-level branch is "African", which is actually the base of the tree of human clades.
It has been understood for some time that most of the genetic variance in humans is within Africa, with European and Asian branches several levels from the top.
There are several other "groups" in Africa that are higher-level splits than the Eurasion split of 70,000 years ago.I'd be tempted to guess that the "three groups" idea was made up by the Post's writers, who probably can't count much higher.
They also probably don't have any concept of a genetic tree.
Possibly the researchers made a few comments about these two major splits, and the writers took it to be something terribly significant.And it's mode much more complex when you consider that below the species level, you never have a strict tree.
All those subspecies/variety/race splits can and do interbreed, so within a species, the tree structure can never be much more than a rough approximation.
But this is probably too much complexity for a journalist.
And it just might be a major part of the explanation for much of the homogeneity that they write about.There was a good comment on how science journalism works in today's PHD Comics [phdcomics.com].
It seems like a direct comment on this Washington Post article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465579</id>
	<title>Re:You mean the three sons of Noah?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245940560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br> <i>Come on guys, this is totally wrong. There are really 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary, and those who don't.</i> <br> <br>That joke was old when<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. has 10 digit UIDs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on guys , this is totally wrong .
There are really 10 types of people in the world , those who understand binary , and those who do n't .
That joke was old when / .
has 10 digit UIDs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Come on guys, this is totally wrong.
There are really 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary, and those who don't.
That joke was old when /.
has 10 digit UIDs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465289</id>
	<title>Re:You mean the three sons of Noah?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245938820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, if *my* wife gave birth to a European looking kid, an Asian kid, and a black kid; I'd probably have some serious questions for her.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , if * my * wife gave birth to a European looking kid , an Asian kid , and a black kid ; I 'd probably have some serious questions for her .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, if *my* wife gave birth to a European looking kid, an Asian kid, and a black kid; I'd probably have some serious questions for her.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28463233</id>
	<title>Re:what about melanesians?</title>
	<author>ratboot</author>
	<datestamp>1245869640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In his book <i>Guns, Germs and Steel</i>, the author Jared Diamond explains quite in details how "black" Asians (Papua, Negrito, etc.) really came from Southeastern Asia, and how their ancestors have nearly all been elimated from the asian continent (in fact, some remain, like the Pygmies from Thailand and Malaysia, see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy</a> [wikipedia.org]).</htmltext>
<tokenext>In his book Guns , Germs and Steel , the author Jared Diamond explains quite in details how " black " Asians ( Papua , Negrito , etc .
) really came from Southeastern Asia , and how their ancestors have nearly all been elimated from the asian continent ( in fact , some remain , like the Pygmies from Thailand and Malaysia , see http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy [ wikipedia.org ] ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In his book Guns, Germs and Steel, the author Jared Diamond explains quite in details how "black" Asians (Papua, Negrito, etc.
) really came from Southeastern Asia, and how their ancestors have nearly all been elimated from the asian continent (in fact, some remain, like the Pygmies from Thailand and Malaysia, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy [wikipedia.org]).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461481</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461385</id>
	<title>It's Obvious.</title>
	<author>TrevorB</author>
	<datestamp>1245852180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Humans, Cylons, and descendants of the aboriginals of this planet.</p><p>Duh!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Humans , Cylons , and descendants of the aboriginals of this planet.Duh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Humans, Cylons, and descendants of the aboriginals of this planet.Duh!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28467917</id>
	<title>Homos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245951600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HOMOSAPIENS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO MARRY.  It will destroy traditional marriage.  If two homosapiens marry then next people will be wanting to marry monkeys, apes, and other animals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HOMOSAPIENS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO MARRY .
It will destroy traditional marriage .
If two homosapiens marry then next people will be wanting to marry monkeys , apes , and other animals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HOMOSAPIENS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO MARRY.
It will destroy traditional marriage.
If two homosapiens marry then next people will be wanting to marry monkeys, apes, and other animals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460735</id>
	<title>i thought</title>
	<author>weirdo557</author>
	<datestamp>1245847440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>there were 10 types of people,</htmltext>
<tokenext>there were 10 types of people,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there were 10 types of people,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28462169</id>
	<title>Re:what about melanesians?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245858360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You filipino subhumans were made of mud by the sky-god 6000 years ago.</p><p>Finish your fucking movie already, your sig pisses me off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You filipino subhumans were made of mud by the sky-god 6000 years ago.Finish your fucking movie already , your sig pisses me off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You filipino subhumans were made of mud by the sky-god 6000 years ago.Finish your fucking movie already, your sig pisses me off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461481</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461361</id>
	<title>Re:South Park did it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245852000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Americans must belong to the "Dicks" since we're spending so much time screwing the other two.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Americans must belong to the " Dicks " since we 're spending so much time screwing the other two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Americans must belong to the "Dicks" since we're spending so much time screwing the other two.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460749</id>
	<title>I new it...</title>
	<author>target562</author>
	<datestamp>1245847440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Human, Cylon, &amp; Human-Cylon Hybrid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Human , Cylon , &amp; Human-Cylon Hybrid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Human, Cylon, &amp; Human-Cylon Hybrid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460925</id>
	<title>Noah \_</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245848580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm, let's see here, Noah's sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth...</p><p>I'm just saying!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p><p>As for this comment: "Unless one of Noah's sons was black, one was white, and one was east-asian, this is pretty much not possible." This is exactly the how it would have been. Noah would've contained all the genetic diversity that we see now in himself and his sons. Cultural selection would've rendered the racial groups we see now, in the same way that the Chinese bred curly hair out of their population.</p><p>Hell, go back before the Great Flood and you might even find some even more interesting combinations. How about dark-skinned people with naturally blue eyes, and blond kinky hair. Or red-heads with asian-like tucked eyelids. There's no reason why the groups we see and associate with particular genetic features need have remained that way into the distant past. Genetics would indicate just the opposite.</p><p>As for the question of inbreeding, if the genetics of the gene pool were far less damaged in that era (having recently been created, after all), in-breeding is a non-issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , let 's see here , Noah 's sons : Shem , Ham , and Japheth...I 'm just saying !
: PAs for this comment : " Unless one of Noah 's sons was black , one was white , and one was east-asian , this is pretty much not possible .
" This is exactly the how it would have been .
Noah would 've contained all the genetic diversity that we see now in himself and his sons .
Cultural selection would 've rendered the racial groups we see now , in the same way that the Chinese bred curly hair out of their population.Hell , go back before the Great Flood and you might even find some even more interesting combinations .
How about dark-skinned people with naturally blue eyes , and blond kinky hair .
Or red-heads with asian-like tucked eyelids .
There 's no reason why the groups we see and associate with particular genetic features need have remained that way into the distant past .
Genetics would indicate just the opposite.As for the question of inbreeding , if the genetics of the gene pool were far less damaged in that era ( having recently been created , after all ) , in-breeding is a non-issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, let's see here, Noah's sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth...I'm just saying!
:PAs for this comment: "Unless one of Noah's sons was black, one was white, and one was east-asian, this is pretty much not possible.
" This is exactly the how it would have been.
Noah would've contained all the genetic diversity that we see now in himself and his sons.
Cultural selection would've rendered the racial groups we see now, in the same way that the Chinese bred curly hair out of their population.Hell, go back before the Great Flood and you might even find some even more interesting combinations.
How about dark-skinned people with naturally blue eyes, and blond kinky hair.
Or red-heads with asian-like tucked eyelids.
There's no reason why the groups we see and associate with particular genetic features need have remained that way into the distant past.
Genetics would indicate just the opposite.As for the question of inbreeding, if the genetics of the gene pool were far less damaged in that era (having recently been created, after all), in-breeding is a non-issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461465</id>
	<title>So, basically,...</title>
	<author>Rene S. Hollan</author>
	<datestamp>1245852900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Archie Bunker was right: we're all either honky, nigger, or chink.</p><p>There was a time when such epithets could appear on national television, so that racism could be exposed for the ugly thing it is.</p><p>Sadly, these days, we prefer to pretend it doesn't exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Archie Bunker was right : we 're all either honky , nigger , or chink.There was a time when such epithets could appear on national television , so that racism could be exposed for the ugly thing it is.Sadly , these days , we prefer to pretend it does n't exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Archie Bunker was right: we're all either honky, nigger, or chink.There was a time when such epithets could appear on national television, so that racism could be exposed for the ugly thing it is.Sadly, these days, we prefer to pretend it doesn't exist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28464021</id>
	<title>Re:You mean the three sons of Noah?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245922740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There are really 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary, and those who don't</i></p><p>You are wrong - there are those who understand ternary, those who don't and those who mistake binary for ternary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are really 10 types of people in the world , those who understand binary , and those who don'tYou are wrong - there are those who understand ternary , those who do n't and those who mistake binary for ternary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are really 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary, and those who don'tYou are wrong - there are those who understand ternary, those who don't and those who mistake binary for ternary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28466839</id>
	<title>Re:You mean the three sons of Noah?</title>
	<author>Half-pint HAL</author>
	<datestamp>1245947160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Which makes a hell of a lot more sense than the idea that we just suddenly showed up and sprouted an entire diverse genetic pool from two people, or three, etc.</p></div></blockquote><p>RTFA.</p><p>The article isn't talking about "mitochondrial Eves" or any single-ancestor idea of that ilk -- it's talking about three distinct sub-populations with small differences in gene pool, but still sharing a large amount of common genetical material.  The populations that they're talking about would have been fairly big in themselves.  Probably more on the scale a herd of wildebeest than that of a nuclear family.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which makes a hell of a lot more sense than the idea that we just suddenly showed up and sprouted an entire diverse genetic pool from two people , or three , etc.RTFA.The article is n't talking about " mitochondrial Eves " or any single-ancestor idea of that ilk -- it 's talking about three distinct sub-populations with small differences in gene pool , but still sharing a large amount of common genetical material .
The populations that they 're talking about would have been fairly big in themselves .
Probably more on the scale a herd of wildebeest than that of a nuclear family .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which makes a hell of a lot more sense than the idea that we just suddenly showed up and sprouted an entire diverse genetic pool from two people, or three, etc.RTFA.The article isn't talking about "mitochondrial Eves" or any single-ancestor idea of that ilk -- it's talking about three distinct sub-populations with small differences in gene pool, but still sharing a large amount of common genetical material.
The populations that they're talking about would have been fairly big in themselves.
Probably more on the scale a herd of wildebeest than that of a nuclear family.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28462677</id>
	<title>Re:Article asserts three things; none yet proven t</title>
	<author>EvilToiletPaper</author>
	<datestamp>1245862920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From Y-haplogroup distributions, there's very little similarity between the two. China is mosly O-haplogrooup whereas India is a spectrum with two haplogroups (L and H) that are only found in the subcontinent and The rest are mostly R1a (Indo-European/Indo-Iranian)  <br>Linky:<a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~robert/Y-Haplogroups-1500AD-World-Map.png" title="ancestry.com">Y-dna distribution</a> [ancestry.com] <br>
They seem to share a bit of mTdna (M haplogroup).</htmltext>
<tokenext>From Y-haplogroup distributions , there 's very little similarity between the two .
China is mosly O-haplogrooup whereas India is a spectrum with two haplogroups ( L and H ) that are only found in the subcontinent and The rest are mostly R1a ( Indo-European/Indo-Iranian ) Linky : Y-dna distribution [ ancestry.com ] They seem to share a bit of mTdna ( M haplogroup ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From Y-haplogroup distributions, there's very little similarity between the two.
China is mosly O-haplogrooup whereas India is a spectrum with two haplogroups (L and H) that are only found in the subcontinent and The rest are mostly R1a (Indo-European/Indo-Iranian)  Linky:Y-dna distribution [ancestry.com] 
They seem to share a bit of mTdna (M haplogroup).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28498591</id>
	<title>What about the Aborigines of Australia?</title>
	<author>OnomatopoeiaSound</author>
	<datestamp>1246103700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about the Aborigine's of Australia? I read somewhere that they are one of the oldest and most unchanged (genetically) human groups. Did they arise in Africa? Would their genes fall into the African subtype specified? Just curious. Also I find it funny that an Anonymous Coward (the guy who started the 3 sons of Noah thread at the top) could engender such a flamewar when I think it's fairly obvious he was trolling (or he would have commented under his own name, wouldn't he?)</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the Aborigine 's of Australia ?
I read somewhere that they are one of the oldest and most unchanged ( genetically ) human groups .
Did they arise in Africa ?
Would their genes fall into the African subtype specified ?
Just curious .
Also I find it funny that an Anonymous Coward ( the guy who started the 3 sons of Noah thread at the top ) could engender such a flamewar when I think it 's fairly obvious he was trolling ( or he would have commented under his own name , would n't he ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the Aborigine's of Australia?
I read somewhere that they are one of the oldest and most unchanged (genetically) human groups.
Did they arise in Africa?
Would their genes fall into the African subtype specified?
Just curious.
Also I find it funny that an Anonymous Coward (the guy who started the 3 sons of Noah thread at the top) could engender such a flamewar when I think it's fairly obvious he was trolling (or he would have commented under his own name, wouldn't he?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28475085</id>
	<title>Hierarchy...</title>
	<author>Russ Southern</author>
	<datestamp>1245935220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The three groups are Utlanning, Framling and Ramen?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The three groups are Utlanning , Framling and Ramen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The three groups are Utlanning, Framling and Ramen?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461685</id>
	<title>Re:confirmation of previous grouping</title>
	<author>jd</author>
	<datestamp>1245854700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, there are probably more groupings out there than there are posters on Slashdot. (See Syke's Seven Daughters of Eve for another of them.) Some of these groupings are real, some are only real because of limited data, and some will turn out to be completely wrong. Any study that helps strengthen or weaken the case for any given grouping is going to be "new information" even if it's not a new result.</p><p>(But, then, since there are bound to be an infinite number of monkeys somewhere, are there ANY "new" results, since every imaginable result will be published somewhere?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , there are probably more groupings out there than there are posters on Slashdot .
( See Syke 's Seven Daughters of Eve for another of them .
) Some of these groupings are real , some are only real because of limited data , and some will turn out to be completely wrong .
Any study that helps strengthen or weaken the case for any given grouping is going to be " new information " even if it 's not a new result .
( But , then , since there are bound to be an infinite number of monkeys somewhere , are there ANY " new " results , since every imaginable result will be published somewhere ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, there are probably more groupings out there than there are posters on Slashdot.
(See Syke's Seven Daughters of Eve for another of them.
) Some of these groupings are real, some are only real because of limited data, and some will turn out to be completely wrong.
Any study that helps strengthen or weaken the case for any given grouping is going to be "new information" even if it's not a new result.
(But, then, since there are bound to be an infinite number of monkeys somewhere, are there ANY "new" results, since every imaginable result will be published somewhere?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461253</id>
	<title>Re:You mean the three sons of Noah?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245851040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I clicked on the link "Three Sons of Noah" and saw the picture labeled "Shem, Ham and Japheth. Illustration by James Tissot 1904" and it occurred to me that we've come full circle and moved on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... That's CCR (Creedence Clearwater Revival). Now you can tell your friends that the long walk / separation from Africa had a distinct and natural purpose: It lead to American Rock.  Now you've really heard it through the grape vine</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I clicked on the link " Three Sons of Noah " and saw the picture labeled " Shem , Ham and Japheth .
Illustration by James Tissot 1904 " and it occurred to me that we 've come full circle and moved on ... That 's CCR ( Creedence Clearwater Revival ) .
Now you can tell your friends that the long walk / separation from Africa had a distinct and natural purpose : It lead to American Rock .
Now you 've really heard it through the grape vine</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I clicked on the link "Three Sons of Noah" and saw the picture labeled "Shem, Ham and Japheth.
Illustration by James Tissot 1904" and it occurred to me that we've come full circle and moved on ... That's CCR (Creedence Clearwater Revival).
Now you can tell your friends that the long walk / separation from Africa had a distinct and natural purpose: It lead to American Rock.
Now you've really heard it through the grape vine</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461521</id>
	<title>Re:Article asserts three things; none yet proven t</title>
	<author>Max Littlemore</author>
	<datestamp>1245853380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The African/Eurasian/East Asian thing troubles me. Does this take into account the South Pacific and Australia?</p><p>Indigenous Australians are generally considered to be from one of two major racial groups which while black, actually tend to carry recessive genes for blond hair and blue or green eyes. There are people from the Solomon Islands and Central Australia that have blond hair and very black skin.</p><p>I curious about how the various groups fit in to this picture because most people from Oceania appear on first glance to be of the African group, but then show Eurasian traits on closer inspection and are separated from both Africa and Eurasia by East Asian populations on both sides.</p><p>By the way, that last little bit about East Asian on both sides says I don't believe that the obvious forth group is native American. Aren't they mostly East Asian, or at least East Asian in the North and Eurasion in the South?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The African/Eurasian/East Asian thing troubles me .
Does this take into account the South Pacific and Australia ? Indigenous Australians are generally considered to be from one of two major racial groups which while black , actually tend to carry recessive genes for blond hair and blue or green eyes .
There are people from the Solomon Islands and Central Australia that have blond hair and very black skin.I curious about how the various groups fit in to this picture because most people from Oceania appear on first glance to be of the African group , but then show Eurasian traits on closer inspection and are separated from both Africa and Eurasia by East Asian populations on both sides.By the way , that last little bit about East Asian on both sides says I do n't believe that the obvious forth group is native American .
Are n't they mostly East Asian , or at least East Asian in the North and Eurasion in the South ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The African/Eurasian/East Asian thing troubles me.
Does this take into account the South Pacific and Australia?Indigenous Australians are generally considered to be from one of two major racial groups which while black, actually tend to carry recessive genes for blond hair and blue or green eyes.
There are people from the Solomon Islands and Central Australia that have blond hair and very black skin.I curious about how the various groups fit in to this picture because most people from Oceania appear on first glance to be of the African group, but then show Eurasian traits on closer inspection and are separated from both Africa and Eurasia by East Asian populations on both sides.By the way, that last little bit about East Asian on both sides says I don't believe that the obvious forth group is native American.
Aren't they mostly East Asian, or at least East Asian in the North and Eurasion in the South?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28471309</id>
	<title>Re:i thought</title>
	<author>I cant believe its n</author>
	<datestamp>1245921120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who's on BASE-2?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who 's on BASE-2 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who's on BASE-2?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460593</id>
	<title>Pointless article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245846480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sounds like it was written 50 years ago. At the very least I find it hard to believe the Australian Aborigines aren't a distinct group since they separated from the rest of the race before Europeans left Africa. The whole thing is an over simplification of a very complex family tree.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds like it was written 50 years ago .
At the very least I find it hard to believe the Australian Aborigines are n't a distinct group since they separated from the rest of the race before Europeans left Africa .
The whole thing is an over simplification of a very complex family tree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds like it was written 50 years ago.
At the very least I find it hard to believe the Australian Aborigines aren't a distinct group since they separated from the rest of the race before Europeans left Africa.
The whole thing is an over simplification of a very complex family tree.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28462897</id>
	<title>Just three?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245865620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"All of Earth's text documents can be divided into just 26 groups, taking only their starting letter into account."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" All of Earth 's text documents can be divided into just 26 groups , taking only their starting letter into account .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"All of Earth's text documents can be divided into just 26 groups, taking only their starting letter into account.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28470939</id>
	<title>Re:You mean the three sons of Noah?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245963180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The good, the bad and the ugly?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The good , the bad and the ugly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The good, the bad and the ugly?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28462181</id>
	<title>Re:You mean the three sons of Noah?</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1245858420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have no idea what you're talking about.  Every study done over the last two decades shows that H. sapiens sapiens did *NOT* interbreed with Neandertals or other Hominids.  mtDNA is a good start, and sequencing of what we can of Neandertal nuclear genes makes it pretty clear that the multiregional hypothesis (which you so ineptly tried to describe) is invalid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have no idea what you 're talking about .
Every study done over the last two decades shows that H. sapiens sapiens did * NOT * interbreed with Neandertals or other Hominids .
mtDNA is a good start , and sequencing of what we can of Neandertal nuclear genes makes it pretty clear that the multiregional hypothesis ( which you so ineptly tried to describe ) is invalid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have no idea what you're talking about.
Every study done over the last two decades shows that H. sapiens sapiens did *NOT* interbreed with Neandertals or other Hominids.
mtDNA is a good start, and sequencing of what we can of Neandertal nuclear genes makes it pretty clear that the multiregional hypothesis (which you so ineptly tried to describe) is invalid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28463839</id>
	<title>Re:What's PC now?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245963300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Minorities are an invention of mass-delusions by the public...</p></div><p>Funny, I thought minorities were an invention of statistics</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Minorities are an invention of mass-delusions by the public...Funny , I thought minorities were an invention of statistics</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Minorities are an invention of mass-delusions by the public...Funny, I thought minorities were an invention of statistics
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460545</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28464791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28471309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28463253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28471629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28464021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461061
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28463233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28463977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28474841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28463253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28468251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28467763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28466839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28463253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28464149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28478307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28470939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28464477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28462847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461599
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28462181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28466847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28463839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28462639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28463253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28467837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28462169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28475073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461541
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28469699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28462377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28463753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_2217212_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28462677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_2217212.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461715
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_2217212.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460415
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_2217212.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460613
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_2217212.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28462377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465033
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_2217212.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461465
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_2217212.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28471309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461239
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_2217212.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28462897
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_2217212.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28463991
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_2217212.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28464477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465289
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28474841
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28469699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461095
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28466839
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28462181
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28466847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28470939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461197
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28464021
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465579
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28463977
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28463253
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465031
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28467837
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28471629
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28468251
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28464149
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28478307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28464791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461061
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461329
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_2217212.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461785
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_2217212.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28462639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28475073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461047
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28462847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461211
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28462677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28463753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461611
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_2217212.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28463839
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_2217212.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460713
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_2217212.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460763
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_2217212.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28463233
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28462169
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_2217212.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28466437
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_2217212.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465449
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_2217212.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460749
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_2217212.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461361
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_2217212.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460533
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461541
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460997
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460859
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28465129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460951
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28467763
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_2217212.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28460581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_2217212.28461035
</commentlist>
</conversation>
