<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_03_2241207</id>
	<title>Hawking Says Humans Have Entered a New Stage of Evolution</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1246629780000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.aulati.net/" rel="nofollow">movesguy</a> sends us to The Daily Galaxy for comments by Stephen Hawking about how humans are <a href="http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my\_weblog/2009/07/stephen-hawking-the-planet-has-entered-a-new-phase-of-evolution.html">evolving in a different way than any species before us</a>. Quoting:
<i>"'At first, evolution proceeded by natural selection, from random mutations. This Darwinian phase, lasted about three and a half billion years, and produced us, beings who developed language, to exchange information. I think it is legitimate to take a broader view, and include externally transmitted information, as well as DNA, in the evolution of the human race,' Hawking said. In the last ten thousand years the human species has been in what Hawking calls, 'an external transmission phase,' where the internal record of information, handed down to succeeding generations in DNA, has not changed significantly. 'But the external record, in books, and other long lasting forms of storage,' Hawking says, 'has grown enormously. Some people would use the term evolution only for the internally transmitted genetic material, and would object to it being applied to information handed down externally. But I think that is too narrow a view. We are more than just our genes.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>movesguy sends us to The Daily Galaxy for comments by Stephen Hawking about how humans are evolving in a different way than any species before us .
Quoting : " 'At first , evolution proceeded by natural selection , from random mutations .
This Darwinian phase , lasted about three and a half billion years , and produced us , beings who developed language , to exchange information .
I think it is legitimate to take a broader view , and include externally transmitted information , as well as DNA , in the evolution of the human race, ' Hawking said .
In the last ten thousand years the human species has been in what Hawking calls , 'an external transmission phase, ' where the internal record of information , handed down to succeeding generations in DNA , has not changed significantly .
'But the external record , in books , and other long lasting forms of storage, ' Hawking says , 'has grown enormously .
Some people would use the term evolution only for the internally transmitted genetic material , and would object to it being applied to information handed down externally .
But I think that is too narrow a view .
We are more than just our genes .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>movesguy sends us to The Daily Galaxy for comments by Stephen Hawking about how humans are evolving in a different way than any species before us.
Quoting:
"'At first, evolution proceeded by natural selection, from random mutations.
This Darwinian phase, lasted about three and a half billion years, and produced us, beings who developed language, to exchange information.
I think it is legitimate to take a broader view, and include externally transmitted information, as well as DNA, in the evolution of the human race,' Hawking said.
In the last ten thousand years the human species has been in what Hawking calls, 'an external transmission phase,' where the internal record of information, handed down to succeeding generations in DNA, has not changed significantly.
'But the external record, in books, and other long lasting forms of storage,' Hawking says, 'has grown enormously.
Some people would use the term evolution only for the internally transmitted genetic material, and would object to it being applied to information handed down externally.
But I think that is too narrow a view.
We are more than just our genes.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089</id>
	<title>ten thousand years</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1246634760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ten thousand years is only 400 twenty-five year generations.  That's not a lot of time for any significant alteration in how our evolution works, especially considering the millions of years it took to get us this far in the first place.  Perhaps Dr. Hawking should stick to theoretical physics.<br> <br>
Of course having said that, he's a father, grandfather, world famous author, and Nobel prize winning genius, despite being a wheelchair bound victim of neuromuscular dystrophy who can barely speak, whereas I am single, childless, and broke, despite being relatively healthy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ten thousand years is only 400 twenty-five year generations .
That 's not a lot of time for any significant alteration in how our evolution works , especially considering the millions of years it took to get us this far in the first place .
Perhaps Dr. Hawking should stick to theoretical physics .
Of course having said that , he 's a father , grandfather , world famous author , and Nobel prize winning genius , despite being a wheelchair bound victim of neuromuscular dystrophy who can barely speak , whereas I am single , childless , and broke , despite being relatively healthy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ten thousand years is only 400 twenty-five year generations.
That's not a lot of time for any significant alteration in how our evolution works, especially considering the millions of years it took to get us this far in the first place.
Perhaps Dr. Hawking should stick to theoretical physics.
Of course having said that, he's a father, grandfather, world famous author, and Nobel prize winning genius, despite being a wheelchair bound victim of neuromuscular dystrophy who can barely speak, whereas I am single, childless, and broke, despite being relatively healthy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578739</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution does not work solely through mutation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246700880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3. now you're just getting into semantics.  Fit != can run really long on a treadmill, it means best fit for the environment.  I don't think anybody, other than you, makes that mistake.</p><p>4. more semantic bickering.  It's basically mutation.  Without it you can separate your groups all you want.  Now you've got n groups of populations that are the same as before you started.  It's not conscious that one's offspring fits the environment better, it is luck of random mutations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3. now you 're just getting into semantics .
Fit ! = can run really long on a treadmill , it means best fit for the environment .
I do n't think anybody , other than you , makes that mistake.4 .
more semantic bickering .
It 's basically mutation .
Without it you can separate your groups all you want .
Now you 've got n groups of populations that are the same as before you started .
It 's not conscious that one 's offspring fits the environment better , it is luck of random mutations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3. now you're just getting into semantics.
Fit != can run really long on a treadmill, it means best fit for the environment.
I don't think anybody, other than you, makes that mistake.4.
more semantic bickering.
It's basically mutation.
Without it you can separate your groups all you want.
Now you've got n groups of populations that are the same as before you started.
It's not conscious that one's offspring fits the environment better, it is luck of random mutations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577515</id>
	<title>Re:ten thousand years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246639860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"That's not a lot of time for any significant alteration<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...."</p><p>Actually, studies of genetic changes have shown that not only have we not stopped changing, we're changing *faster* since the dawn of agriculture.</p><p>Which, if you think about it, should make sense. Our population exploded when we started farming, and with it, our entire lifestyle changed. Before that we had a few hundred thousand years of mostly just doing the same old same old we'd always done. There are a lot of skills that influence your success or survival today that didn't exist 10k years back, and a lot of the skills that were critical back then don't have much impact today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" That 's not a lot of time for any significant alteration .... " Actually , studies of genetic changes have shown that not only have we not stopped changing , we 're changing * faster * since the dawn of agriculture.Which , if you think about it , should make sense .
Our population exploded when we started farming , and with it , our entire lifestyle changed .
Before that we had a few hundred thousand years of mostly just doing the same old same old we 'd always done .
There are a lot of skills that influence your success or survival today that did n't exist 10k years back , and a lot of the skills that were critical back then do n't have much impact today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"That's not a lot of time for any significant alteration ...."Actually, studies of genetic changes have shown that not only have we not stopped changing, we're changing *faster* since the dawn of agriculture.Which, if you think about it, should make sense.
Our population exploded when we started farming, and with it, our entire lifestyle changed.
Before that we had a few hundred thousand years of mostly just doing the same old same old we'd always done.
There are a lot of skills that influence your success or survival today that didn't exist 10k years back, and a lot of the skills that were critical back then don't have much impact today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578725</id>
	<title>Devolution</title>
	<author>Krakadoom</author>
	<datestamp>1246700520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>We haven't entered a new stage of evolution, we have entered a stage of devolution. The incessant focus on all (human) life being precious has severely impacted our long term prospects by continuously contaminating the collective gene pool for instance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have n't entered a new stage of evolution , we have entered a stage of devolution .
The incessant focus on all ( human ) life being precious has severely impacted our long term prospects by continuously contaminating the collective gene pool for instance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We haven't entered a new stage of evolution, we have entered a stage of devolution.
The incessant focus on all (human) life being precious has severely impacted our long term prospects by continuously contaminating the collective gene pool for instance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577099</id>
	<title>Professor Hawking got there first! COOL!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246634820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have created a new equation to describe this phenomena and published it at my blog. Proof is as follows.</p><p>3 + 5 = 8<br>3 + 5 = &#226;z<br>3 + 5 = 8 or &#226;z</p><p>10<br>12<br>TF</p><p>Try this with 3.14159 and see what happens! COOL, huh?</p><p>Two variable random number generators plus a true false switch equals the basic building block of artificial intelligence. A three dimensional switch.</p><p>A resistor works on a similar principle, it has three possible states, floating ground, ground or current.</p><p>Current equals 1. Ground equals 0. Floating ground equals 0/1 or 1/0 or &#226;z.</p><p>Now combine the three dimensional switch with the two dimensional switch and start to link these switches together in a topological network and the ultimate decryption key is created. You just need enough Turing/Gibson swarm units.</p><p>My blog is located at http://lifeoftheoutrider20.blogspot.com/</p><p>Proof complete!</p><p>Next!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have created a new equation to describe this phenomena and published it at my blog .
Proof is as follows.3 + 5 = 83 + 5 =   z3 + 5 = 8 or   z1012TFTry this with 3.14159 and see what happens !
COOL , huh ? Two variable random number generators plus a true false switch equals the basic building block of artificial intelligence .
A three dimensional switch.A resistor works on a similar principle , it has three possible states , floating ground , ground or current.Current equals 1 .
Ground equals 0 .
Floating ground equals 0/1 or 1/0 or   z.Now combine the three dimensional switch with the two dimensional switch and start to link these switches together in a topological network and the ultimate decryption key is created .
You just need enough Turing/Gibson swarm units.My blog is located at http : //lifeoftheoutrider20.blogspot.com/Proof complete ! Next !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have created a new equation to describe this phenomena and published it at my blog.
Proof is as follows.3 + 5 = 83 + 5 = âz3 + 5 = 8 or âz1012TFTry this with 3.14159 and see what happens!
COOL, huh?Two variable random number generators plus a true false switch equals the basic building block of artificial intelligence.
A three dimensional switch.A resistor works on a similar principle, it has three possible states, floating ground, ground or current.Current equals 1.
Ground equals 0.
Floating ground equals 0/1 or 1/0 or âz.Now combine the three dimensional switch with the two dimensional switch and start to link these switches together in a topological network and the ultimate decryption key is created.
You just need enough Turing/Gibson swarm units.My blog is located at http://lifeoftheoutrider20.blogspot.com/Proof complete!Next!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577243</id>
	<title>Public Service Announcement</title>
	<author>schmidt349</author>
	<datestamp>1246636920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Life isn't just about passing on your genes.<br>We can leave behind much more than just DNA.<br>Through speech, music, literature and movies...<br>what we've seen, heard, felt<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...anger, joy and sorrow...<br>these are the things I will pass on.<br>That's what I live for.<br>We need to pass the torch,<br>and let our children read our messy and sad history by its light.<br>We have all the magic of the digital age to do that with.<br>The human race will probably come to an end some time,<br>and new species may rule over this planet.<br>Earth may not be forever,<br>but we still have the responsibility to leave what traces of life we can.<br>Building the future and keeping the past alive are one and the same thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Life is n't just about passing on your genes.We can leave behind much more than just DNA.Through speech , music , literature and movies...what we 've seen , heard , felt ...anger , joy and sorrow...these are the things I will pass on.That 's what I live for.We need to pass the torch,and let our children read our messy and sad history by its light.We have all the magic of the digital age to do that with.The human race will probably come to an end some time,and new species may rule over this planet.Earth may not be forever,but we still have the responsibility to leave what traces of life we can.Building the future and keeping the past alive are one and the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Life isn't just about passing on your genes.We can leave behind much more than just DNA.Through speech, music, literature and movies...what we've seen, heard, felt ...anger, joy and sorrow...these are the things I will pass on.That's what I live for.We need to pass the torch,and let our children read our messy and sad history by its light.We have all the magic of the digital age to do that with.The human race will probably come to an end some time,and new species may rule over this planet.Earth may not be forever,but we still have the responsibility to leave what traces of life we can.Building the future and keeping the past alive are one and the same thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577913</id>
	<title>Sir Peter Medawar said it first</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246644960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not a new idea, and it's beatifully told here: http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Medawar/technology-and-evolution/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not a new idea , and it 's beatifully told here : http : //www.cscs.umich.edu/ ~ crshalizi/Medawar/technology-and-evolution/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not a new idea, and it's beatifully told here: http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Medawar/technology-and-evolution/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577865</id>
	<title>Re:Only honest discussions are useful.</title>
	<author>Antidamage</author>
	<datestamp>1246644180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>u calin fiddy a bur den wite boy??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>u calin fiddy a bur den wite boy ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>u calin fiddy a bur den wite boy?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578429</id>
	<title>Where goes external store after nuclear war?</title>
	<author>claysdna</author>
	<datestamp>1246739100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hawkins may be brilliant but he is missing  a core value of human beings.<br>Someone ALWAYS wants to rule us all.<br>We fight wars.<br>We have the bomb.<br>The arabs will soon have the bomb.<br>The arabs are crazy.<br>Soon we will all die.<br>When we are all back to living the 'green' life and there are only 10\% of the people we have today.....how good do you think that store of knowledge is going to be?<br>How will people access it? After the first generation, how will they understand it? After ten generations is will be all lost and mostly myth.<br>I think I will trust to my dna in order to continue life in some way rather than the vague hope that someone one day will read the technical papers I have written.</p><p>Sorry, but I think we will blow ourselves back into the bronze age sometime soon (at least in evolutionary terms).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hawkins may be brilliant but he is missing a core value of human beings.Someone ALWAYS wants to rule us all.We fight wars.We have the bomb.The arabs will soon have the bomb.The arabs are crazy.Soon we will all die.When we are all back to living the 'green ' life and there are only 10 \ % of the people we have today.....how good do you think that store of knowledge is going to be ? How will people access it ?
After the first generation , how will they understand it ?
After ten generations is will be all lost and mostly myth.I think I will trust to my dna in order to continue life in some way rather than the vague hope that someone one day will read the technical papers I have written.Sorry , but I think we will blow ourselves back into the bronze age sometime soon ( at least in evolutionary terms ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hawkins may be brilliant but he is missing  a core value of human beings.Someone ALWAYS wants to rule us all.We fight wars.We have the bomb.The arabs will soon have the bomb.The arabs are crazy.Soon we will all die.When we are all back to living the 'green' life and there are only 10\% of the people we have today.....how good do you think that store of knowledge is going to be?How will people access it?
After the first generation, how will they understand it?
After ten generations is will be all lost and mostly myth.I think I will trust to my dna in order to continue life in some way rather than the vague hope that someone one day will read the technical papers I have written.Sorry, but I think we will blow ourselves back into the bronze age sometime soon (at least in evolutionary terms).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577707</id>
	<title>Slippery road</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246642080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a slippery road to finding God... or something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a slippery road to finding God... or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a slippery road to finding God... or something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579275</id>
	<title>How heartwarming</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1246712220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like a wonky way of noticing that culture matters in a techno-barbaric age.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a wonky way of noticing that culture matters in a techno-barbaric age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a wonky way of noticing that culture matters in a techno-barbaric age.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577787</id>
	<title>comparing natural and intellectual evolution</title>
	<author>doti</author>
	<datestamp>1246642980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, he is comparing the natural (genetic) evolution with our intellectual (externally carried information) evolution.</p><p>Then, we could compare the stages:</p><p>speech &lt;==&gt; multi-cellular organisms<br>writing &lt;==&gt; central nervous system<br>printing &lt;==&gt; dry-land vertebrades<br>internet &lt;==&gt; ???</p><p>What's next?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , he is comparing the natural ( genetic ) evolution with our intellectual ( externally carried information ) evolution.Then , we could compare the stages : speech multi-cellular organismswriting central nervous systemprinting dry-land vertebradesinternet ? ?
? What 's next ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, he is comparing the natural (genetic) evolution with our intellectual (externally carried information) evolution.Then, we could compare the stages:speech  multi-cellular organismswriting  central nervous systemprinting  dry-land vertebradesinternet  ??
?What's next?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28587063</id>
	<title>managing parts our own evolution now</title>
	<author>Xylene2301</author>
	<datestamp>1246817580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If one watches children work their video games and examines the effects of clandestine and conventional pharmaceuticals on individuals and society, one can see that we're driving our own evolution now and in some odd directions.  Our medicine allows challenged individuals the opportunity to reproduce that they would never have had.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and just wait until genetic experimentation has chimeras walking the streets.  Will they be sexy?  Maybe so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If one watches children work their video games and examines the effects of clandestine and conventional pharmaceuticals on individuals and society , one can see that we 're driving our own evolution now and in some odd directions .
Our medicine allows challenged individuals the opportunity to reproduce that they would never have had .
...and just wait until genetic experimentation has chimeras walking the streets .
Will they be sexy ?
Maybe so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If one watches children work their video games and examines the effects of clandestine and conventional pharmaceuticals on individuals and society, one can see that we're driving our own evolution now and in some odd directions.
Our medicine allows challenged individuals the opportunity to reproduce that they would never have had.
...and just wait until genetic experimentation has chimeras walking the streets.
Will they be sexy?
Maybe so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579091</id>
	<title>Re:ten thousand years</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1246708320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ten thousand years is only 400 twenty-five year generations. That's not a lot of time for any significant alteration in how our evolution works...</p><p>Not true, at all. I recall reading about a study (in Russia, iirc) where scientists attempted to breed a specific trait into wild foxes. They went through a program of selective breeding and in \_seven\_ generations, they successfully altered the genetic traits of the animal. Seven. So, 400 generations is \_PLENTY\_ of time for evolution to alter our species in meaningful ways given that it can be accomplished (admittedly, in a controlled environment) in just 7.</p></div><p>IIRC that was a curly tail... which is not advantageous in nature.<br>The point of natural selection is not "can you get a change in a few generations", the point is to get a change that is advantageous in the long run.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ten thousand years is only 400 twenty-five year generations .
That 's not a lot of time for any significant alteration in how our evolution works...Not true , at all .
I recall reading about a study ( in Russia , iirc ) where scientists attempted to breed a specific trait into wild foxes .
They went through a program of selective breeding and in \ _seven \ _ generations , they successfully altered the genetic traits of the animal .
Seven. So , 400 generations is \ _PLENTY \ _ of time for evolution to alter our species in meaningful ways given that it can be accomplished ( admittedly , in a controlled environment ) in just 7.IIRC that was a curly tail... which is not advantageous in nature.The point of natural selection is not " can you get a change in a few generations " , the point is to get a change that is advantageous in the long run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ten thousand years is only 400 twenty-five year generations.
That's not a lot of time for any significant alteration in how our evolution works...Not true, at all.
I recall reading about a study (in Russia, iirc) where scientists attempted to breed a specific trait into wild foxes.
They went through a program of selective breeding and in \_seven\_ generations, they successfully altered the genetic traits of the animal.
Seven. So, 400 generations is \_PLENTY\_ of time for evolution to alter our species in meaningful ways given that it can be accomplished (admittedly, in a controlled environment) in just 7.IIRC that was a curly tail... which is not advantageous in nature.The point of natural selection is not "can you get a change in a few generations", the point is to get a change that is advantageous in the long run.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577275</id>
	<title>Re:ten thousand years</title>
	<author>JoeMerchant</author>
	<datestamp>1246637160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you are missing his point... what I hear is that the "external store" is an essentially new phenomenon on earth that has been exponentially growing for the last few hundred years, and that we, as a species, are evolving through development of the external store rather than changing our DNA.<br> <br>  Interestingly enough, within the next 25 year generation, that external store will likely become powerful enough to enable us to rewrite our DNA in meaningful ways, potentially bypassing millions of years of Darwinian evolution... unless SkyNet takes over.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you are missing his point... what I hear is that the " external store " is an essentially new phenomenon on earth that has been exponentially growing for the last few hundred years , and that we , as a species , are evolving through development of the external store rather than changing our DNA .
Interestingly enough , within the next 25 year generation , that external store will likely become powerful enough to enable us to rewrite our DNA in meaningful ways , potentially bypassing millions of years of Darwinian evolution... unless SkyNet takes over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you are missing his point... what I hear is that the "external store" is an essentially new phenomenon on earth that has been exponentially growing for the last few hundred years, and that we, as a species, are evolving through development of the external store rather than changing our DNA.
Interestingly enough, within the next 25 year generation, that external store will likely become powerful enough to enable us to rewrite our DNA in meaningful ways, potentially bypassing millions of years of Darwinian evolution... unless SkyNet takes over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577727</id>
	<title>Re:ten thousand years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246642260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, Hawking really knows his physics.  Does that mean there isn't room in his brain for anything else?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , Hawking really knows his physics .
Does that mean there is n't room in his brain for anything else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, Hawking really knows his physics.
Does that mean there isn't room in his brain for anything else?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580515</id>
	<title>Groundbreaking...</title>
	<author>rawgue</author>
	<datestamp>1246726200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>....back in the 80s when Sagan said it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>....back in the 80s when Sagan said it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....back in the 80s when Sagan said it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580001</id>
	<title>Re:ten thousand years</title>
	<author>myc</author>
	<datestamp>1246721580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hawking does not have a Nobel prize.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hawking does not have a Nobel prize .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hawking does not have a Nobel prize.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28581403</id>
	<title>Re:ten thousand years</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1246733160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've done some reading about that experiment as well; a good start is</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tame\_foxes" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tame\_foxes</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>From there you can follow links to the paper in question as well as some other good information. And they're cute.</p><p>-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've done some reading about that experiment as well ; a good start ishttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tame \ _foxes [ wikipedia.org ] From there you can follow links to the paper in question as well as some other good information .
And they 're cute.-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've done some reading about that experiment as well; a good start ishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tame\_foxes [wikipedia.org]From there you can follow links to the paper in question as well as some other good information.
And they're cute.-b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577285</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution does not work solely through mutation</title>
	<author>tverbeek</author>
	<datestamp>1246637280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, it's not necessarily "survival of the breediest".  The breediest does not survive in the long term if that population growth alters its habitat beyond its ability to adapt.  Examples of this can be found at the cellular level (e.g. cancer cells breeding out of control may kill the organism, including the cancer) and at the cellular-phone-using level (e.g. <i>H. Sapiens</i> breeding out of control crowds out too much CO2-eating vegetation adds too much CO2 into the air, causing the greenhouse effect and its own eventual extinction).</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's not necessarily " survival of the breediest " .
The breediest does not survive in the long term if that population growth alters its habitat beyond its ability to adapt .
Examples of this can be found at the cellular level ( e.g .
cancer cells breeding out of control may kill the organism , including the cancer ) and at the cellular-phone-using level ( e.g .
H. Sapiens breeding out of control crowds out too much CO2-eating vegetation adds too much CO2 into the air , causing the greenhouse effect and its own eventual extinction ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's not necessarily "survival of the breediest".
The breediest does not survive in the long term if that population growth alters its habitat beyond its ability to adapt.
Examples of this can be found at the cellular level (e.g.
cancer cells breeding out of control may kill the organism, including the cancer) and at the cellular-phone-using level (e.g.
H. Sapiens breeding out of control crowds out too much CO2-eating vegetation adds too much CO2 into the air, causing the greenhouse effect and its own eventual extinction).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577813</id>
	<title>Re:Specialization / Speciation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246643280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Stephen Jay Gould told an anecdote about Richard Feynman excitedly announcing that he had discovered new principles of evolution. On inspection they turned out to be either well known findings or well known fallacies. Basically he was largely ignorant of the literature in the field."</p><p>If you know anything at all about the incredibly high level of intellectual honesty Feynman held himself to, this statement would sound absurdly out of character for him. In the absence of a citation, I call bullshit on your specious anecdote.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Stephen Jay Gould told an anecdote about Richard Feynman excitedly announcing that he had discovered new principles of evolution .
On inspection they turned out to be either well known findings or well known fallacies .
Basically he was largely ignorant of the literature in the field .
" If you know anything at all about the incredibly high level of intellectual honesty Feynman held himself to , this statement would sound absurdly out of character for him .
In the absence of a citation , I call bullshit on your specious anecdote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Stephen Jay Gould told an anecdote about Richard Feynman excitedly announcing that he had discovered new principles of evolution.
On inspection they turned out to be either well known findings or well known fallacies.
Basically he was largely ignorant of the literature in the field.
"If you know anything at all about the incredibly high level of intellectual honesty Feynman held himself to, this statement would sound absurdly out of character for him.
In the absence of a citation, I call bullshit on your specious anecdote.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578707</id>
	<title>Re:ten thousand years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246700280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A chiuaua and great dane share more dna than a coyote and wolf or fox.  The bulk of dog breeds have really only appeared in the last century.  With proper selection only a few generations can give you drastic evolution.</p><p>Even in the wild the cane toads wrecking Australia are showing themselves quite stronger different than early generations as the fit push the front of expansion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A chiuaua and great dane share more dna than a coyote and wolf or fox .
The bulk of dog breeds have really only appeared in the last century .
With proper selection only a few generations can give you drastic evolution.Even in the wild the cane toads wrecking Australia are showing themselves quite stronger different than early generations as the fit push the front of expansion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A chiuaua and great dane share more dna than a coyote and wolf or fox.
The bulk of dog breeds have really only appeared in the last century.
With proper selection only a few generations can give you drastic evolution.Even in the wild the cane toads wrecking Australia are showing themselves quite stronger different than early generations as the fit push the front of expansion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579147</id>
	<title>what about healthcare?</title>
	<author>j1mmy</author>
	<datestamp>1246709220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the modern ability to manage and/or cure a number of life-threatening conditions is greatly impacting the evolution of our species as well. people who would never have made it to adulthood a century ago are now passing on their crappy genes to their kids.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the modern ability to manage and/or cure a number of life-threatening conditions is greatly impacting the evolution of our species as well .
people who would never have made it to adulthood a century ago are now passing on their crappy genes to their kids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the modern ability to manage and/or cure a number of life-threatening conditions is greatly impacting the evolution of our species as well.
people who would never have made it to adulthood a century ago are now passing on their crappy genes to their kids.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578789</id>
	<title>Re:Write about what you know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246701660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does being an expert in one area imply you can't also be an expert in another area?  Maybe he's trying to be the Bo Jackson of scientists?</p><p>If you're going to criticize somebody's work do it based on the merits of their work, not your opinion of the author.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does being an expert in one area imply you ca n't also be an expert in another area ?
Maybe he 's trying to be the Bo Jackson of scientists ? If you 're going to criticize somebody 's work do it based on the merits of their work , not your opinion of the author .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does being an expert in one area imply you can't also be an expert in another area?
Maybe he's trying to be the Bo Jackson of scientists?If you're going to criticize somebody's work do it based on the merits of their work, not your opinion of the author.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28581913</id>
	<title>Re:ten thousand years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246738020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They went through a program of selective breeding and in \_seven\_ generations, they successfully altered the genetic traits of the animal. So, 400 generations is \_PLENTY\_ of time for evolution to alter our species in meaningful ways</i></p><p>That would be relevant if human evolution was driven by intelligent design. It does not. It occurs through random mutations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They went through a program of selective breeding and in \ _seven \ _ generations , they successfully altered the genetic traits of the animal .
So , 400 generations is \ _PLENTY \ _ of time for evolution to alter our species in meaningful waysThat would be relevant if human evolution was driven by intelligent design .
It does not .
It occurs through random mutations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They went through a program of selective breeding and in \_seven\_ generations, they successfully altered the genetic traits of the animal.
So, 400 generations is \_PLENTY\_ of time for evolution to alter our species in meaningful waysThat would be relevant if human evolution was driven by intelligent design.
It does not.
It occurs through random mutations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579041</id>
	<title>Re:Only honest discussions are useful.</title>
	<author>Aris Katsaris</author>
	<datestamp>1246707360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Look at Germany, France, or Great Britain"</p><p>Yes, I look at them and I see that their people were barbarians for thousands of years while the African nation of Egypt (and the Asian nation of China, let alone the Middle-eastern nations of Sumeria/Babylonia/etc) thrived and prospered, and produced great wonders of invention and technology and construction.</p><p>In short by your own argument, Europe is proven to be far genetically inferior to Africa.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Look at Germany , France , or Great Britain " Yes , I look at them and I see that their people were barbarians for thousands of years while the African nation of Egypt ( and the Asian nation of China , let alone the Middle-eastern nations of Sumeria/Babylonia/etc ) thrived and prospered , and produced great wonders of invention and technology and construction.In short by your own argument , Europe is proven to be far genetically inferior to Africa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Look at Germany, France, or Great Britain"Yes, I look at them and I see that their people were barbarians for thousands of years while the African nation of Egypt (and the Asian nation of China, let alone the Middle-eastern nations of Sumeria/Babylonia/etc) thrived and prospered, and produced great wonders of invention and technology and construction.In short by your own argument, Europe is proven to be far genetically inferior to Africa.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578045</id>
	<title>Hawking should stick to physics</title>
	<author>hamburgler007</author>
	<datestamp>1246646700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or go on tour with Peter Frampton, either way.  He oversimplifies how complicated evolution is and overestimates human knowledge of genetic engineering.

ps I say this knowing that he is more brilliant than I, or anyone on this board, can ever hope to be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or go on tour with Peter Frampton , either way .
He oversimplifies how complicated evolution is and overestimates human knowledge of genetic engineering .
ps I say this knowing that he is more brilliant than I , or anyone on this board , can ever hope to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or go on tour with Peter Frampton, either way.
He oversimplifies how complicated evolution is and overestimates human knowledge of genetic engineering.
ps I say this knowing that he is more brilliant than I, or anyone on this board, can ever hope to be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579423</id>
	<title>God's Plan</title>
	<author>Saint Stephen</author>
	<datestamp>1246714680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wittgenstein said: <i>That</i> the world is, is the mysterious.</p><p>In other words, why is there anything rather than nothing at all?  That's the definition of God.</p><p>It's good to see science people accepting the Mystery again, thinking you have all the answers was the mistake of the religion people.  It's all just this big Mystery that somebody set up for us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wittgenstein said : That the world is , is the mysterious.In other words , why is there anything rather than nothing at all ?
That 's the definition of God.It 's good to see science people accepting the Mystery again , thinking you have all the answers was the mistake of the religion people .
It 's all just this big Mystery that somebody set up for us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wittgenstein said: That the world is, is the mysterious.In other words, why is there anything rather than nothing at all?
That's the definition of God.It's good to see science people accepting the Mystery again, thinking you have all the answers was the mistake of the religion people.
It's all just this big Mystery that somebody set up for us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147</id>
	<title>Evolution does not work solely through mutation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246635540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Errrgghh.... Stephen Hawking said something that bothered me. I feel weird.....</p><p>Now, I am not a biologist, or even in the field. I have read The Selfish Gene, and consider myself up on evolutionary theory....</p><p>OK. There are several misconceptions about evolution that drive me nuts. Why? Because it's incredibly important to understand, as it helps explain so much about life on this planet. It hurts me that people accept the Law of Gravity, but poke at the evolutionary process....</p><p>Ok... Misconceptions.<br>1. Evolution has a goal.<br>It doesn't. We are not going to transcend or become ultimate beings. No. It just adapts critters to their environment. What's neat is that critters adapt to each other, together. Think about that, and ecosystems, and all that web of life stuff for a while and it's pretty neat.</p><p>2. Evolution is critter-centric.<br>We are simply carriers for genese. Evolution is gene centric. Most of your genes are useless to you. Stuff that is stupid at a critter level can make perfect sense at a gene level. Those little bastards are using us, and don't care about us at all, as long as we breed.</p><p>3. Survival of the fittest.<br>It's survival of the breediest, not necessarily of the fittest.</p><p>4. Evolution works through mutation.<br>Errrrgghh... I disagree with Stephen Hawking.  Ok, mutation helps, but you know what? Evolution doesn't need it. Most mutations result in a f*kup, not something useful. Evolution just needs seperate populations and/or environments. Eventually populations diverge and become more suited to their environments.</p><p>I feel weird....</p><p>-Tony</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Errrgghh.... Stephen Hawking said something that bothered me .
I feel weird.....Now , I am not a biologist , or even in the field .
I have read The Selfish Gene , and consider myself up on evolutionary theory....OK. There are several misconceptions about evolution that drive me nuts .
Why ? Because it 's incredibly important to understand , as it helps explain so much about life on this planet .
It hurts me that people accept the Law of Gravity , but poke at the evolutionary process....Ok... Misconceptions.1. Evolution has a goal.It does n't .
We are not going to transcend or become ultimate beings .
No. It just adapts critters to their environment .
What 's neat is that critters adapt to each other , together .
Think about that , and ecosystems , and all that web of life stuff for a while and it 's pretty neat.2 .
Evolution is critter-centric.We are simply carriers for genese .
Evolution is gene centric .
Most of your genes are useless to you .
Stuff that is stupid at a critter level can make perfect sense at a gene level .
Those little bastards are using us , and do n't care about us at all , as long as we breed.3 .
Survival of the fittest.It 's survival of the breediest , not necessarily of the fittest.4 .
Evolution works through mutation.Errrrgghh... I disagree with Stephen Hawking .
Ok , mutation helps , but you know what ?
Evolution does n't need it .
Most mutations result in a f * kup , not something useful .
Evolution just needs seperate populations and/or environments .
Eventually populations diverge and become more suited to their environments.I feel weird....-Tony</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Errrgghh.... Stephen Hawking said something that bothered me.
I feel weird.....Now, I am not a biologist, or even in the field.
I have read The Selfish Gene, and consider myself up on evolutionary theory....OK. There are several misconceptions about evolution that drive me nuts.
Why? Because it's incredibly important to understand, as it helps explain so much about life on this planet.
It hurts me that people accept the Law of Gravity, but poke at the evolutionary process....Ok... Misconceptions.1. Evolution has a goal.It doesn't.
We are not going to transcend or become ultimate beings.
No. It just adapts critters to their environment.
What's neat is that critters adapt to each other, together.
Think about that, and ecosystems, and all that web of life stuff for a while and it's pretty neat.2.
Evolution is critter-centric.We are simply carriers for genese.
Evolution is gene centric.
Most of your genes are useless to you.
Stuff that is stupid at a critter level can make perfect sense at a gene level.
Those little bastards are using us, and don't care about us at all, as long as we breed.3.
Survival of the fittest.It's survival of the breediest, not necessarily of the fittest.4.
Evolution works through mutation.Errrrgghh... I disagree with Stephen Hawking.
Ok, mutation helps, but you know what?
Evolution doesn't need it.
Most mutations result in a f*kup, not something useful.
Evolution just needs seperate populations and/or environments.
Eventually populations diverge and become more suited to their environments.I feel weird....-Tony</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580033</id>
	<title>Re:Write about what you know</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1246721820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, what he said was this: "However, he should stick to the areas of his expertise and let biologists talk about evolution, because that's their area of expertise."</p><p>Plenty of people have made important contributions outside their areas of expertise.  There's no reason someone should "stick to physics" simply because he's a physicist.  Yes, Hawking's authority as a physicist shouldn't automatically convince you that he's right, but then, it shouldn't when he's talking about physics either.  To suggest that he should "stick to his areas of expertise" and not "talk about evolution" is idiotic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , what he said was this : " However , he should stick to the areas of his expertise and let biologists talk about evolution , because that 's their area of expertise .
" Plenty of people have made important contributions outside their areas of expertise .
There 's no reason someone should " stick to physics " simply because he 's a physicist .
Yes , Hawking 's authority as a physicist should n't automatically convince you that he 's right , but then , it should n't when he 's talking about physics either .
To suggest that he should " stick to his areas of expertise " and not " talk about evolution " is idiotic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, what he said was this: "However, he should stick to the areas of his expertise and let biologists talk about evolution, because that's their area of expertise.
"Plenty of people have made important contributions outside their areas of expertise.
There's no reason someone should "stick to physics" simply because he's a physicist.
Yes, Hawking's authority as a physicist shouldn't automatically convince you that he's right, but then, it shouldn't when he's talking about physics either.
To suggest that he should "stick to his areas of expertise" and not "talk about evolution" is idiotic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28584255</id>
	<title>This idea is not new.</title>
	<author>sidragon.net</author>
	<datestamp>1246725420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correct me if I am wrong, but I think <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Richard Dawkins already suggested this</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct me if I am wrong , but I think Richard Dawkins already suggested this [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Richard Dawkins already suggested this [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577157</id>
	<title>Also..</title>
	<author>phrackwulf</author>
	<datestamp>1246635600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Machines should stay machines. Just get smarter and be better able to be used by us. I can't wait to give my design for the best safety gunlock ever to Springfield Armory! Machines = Machines. Humans = Humans. Humans with too much machine equals broken doll with living soul! SCARY! Like Chuckie! Humanity should be able to decide on that and they will once everybody on earth has a laptop! World government! Also the U.S. government just made money worthless because we are a debtor with the biggest gun on earth so all we need is an economy based on money, credit and sex as work and women are liberated from being slaves to men and garden of eden results! Works for lesbians and homosexuals right now! Unless they become indeterminate! YAH!</p><p>HAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHA!</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Machines should stay machines .
Just get smarter and be better able to be used by us .
I ca n't wait to give my design for the best safety gunlock ever to Springfield Armory !
Machines = Machines .
Humans = Humans .
Humans with too much machine equals broken doll with living soul !
SCARY ! Like Chuckie !
Humanity should be able to decide on that and they will once everybody on earth has a laptop !
World government !
Also the U.S. government just made money worthless because we are a debtor with the biggest gun on earth so all we need is an economy based on money , credit and sex as work and women are liberated from being slaves to men and garden of eden results !
Works for lesbians and homosexuals right now !
Unless they become indeterminate !
YAH ! HAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHA !  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Machines should stay machines.
Just get smarter and be better able to be used by us.
I can't wait to give my design for the best safety gunlock ever to Springfield Armory!
Machines = Machines.
Humans = Humans.
Humans with too much machine equals broken doll with living soul!
SCARY! Like Chuckie!
Humanity should be able to decide on that and they will once everybody on earth has a laptop!
World government!
Also the U.S. government just made money worthless because we are a debtor with the biggest gun on earth so all we need is an economy based on money, credit and sex as work and women are liberated from being slaves to men and garden of eden results!
Works for lesbians and homosexuals right now!
Unless they become indeterminate!
YAH!HAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHA!
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579243</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution does not work solely through mutation</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1246711380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>#1: How do you know? I am NOT a theist, but any God who cannot design a system of evolution through genes intended to produce a desired result is clearly not omnipotent.</p><p>#2: See #1.</p><p>Your #3 was already debunked, let me follow it up: "fittest" doesn't mean what you think it means. Nor does "survival". "Survival of the fittest" simply means that <em>in a given niche</em> the creature fittest will tend to dominate it. Niches change, so "fittest" changes.</p><p>#4: Most mutations do NOT result in something harmful. Most mutations do literally nothing due to redundancy, or make small changes which in themselves are essentially irrelevant.</p><p>I am not a biologist either, but I can do research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext># 1 : How do you know ?
I am NOT a theist , but any God who can not design a system of evolution through genes intended to produce a desired result is clearly not omnipotent. # 2 : See # 1.Your # 3 was already debunked , let me follow it up : " fittest " does n't mean what you think it means .
Nor does " survival " .
" Survival of the fittest " simply means that in a given niche the creature fittest will tend to dominate it .
Niches change , so " fittest " changes. # 4 : Most mutations do NOT result in something harmful .
Most mutations do literally nothing due to redundancy , or make small changes which in themselves are essentially irrelevant.I am not a biologist either , but I can do research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>#1: How do you know?
I am NOT a theist, but any God who cannot design a system of evolution through genes intended to produce a desired result is clearly not omnipotent.#2: See #1.Your #3 was already debunked, let me follow it up: "fittest" doesn't mean what you think it means.
Nor does "survival".
"Survival of the fittest" simply means that in a given niche the creature fittest will tend to dominate it.
Niches change, so "fittest" changes.#4: Most mutations do NOT result in something harmful.
Most mutations do literally nothing due to redundancy, or make small changes which in themselves are essentially irrelevant.I am not a biologist either, but I can do research.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577741</id>
	<title>Re:Write about what you know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246642500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hawking is more or less repeating ideas that others have come up with, as others have pointed out, but your post is pointless.  If you disagree with someone, Hawking or otherwise, make a cogent argument refuting theirs.  "He's a physicist and this is biology" is just a slightly mangled appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.</p><p>Ironically, Hawking is saying many of the same things that Dawkins has said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hawking is more or less repeating ideas that others have come up with , as others have pointed out , but your post is pointless .
If you disagree with someone , Hawking or otherwise , make a cogent argument refuting theirs .
" He 's a physicist and this is biology " is just a slightly mangled appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.Ironically , Hawking is saying many of the same things that Dawkins has said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hawking is more or less repeating ideas that others have come up with, as others have pointed out, but your post is pointless.
If you disagree with someone, Hawking or otherwise, make a cogent argument refuting theirs.
"He's a physicist and this is biology" is just a slightly mangled appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.Ironically, Hawking is saying many of the same things that Dawkins has said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28581173</id>
	<title>Stephen's comments were made in 2007.</title>
	<author>timtyler</author>
	<datestamp>1246731480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is 2009.  Stephen's comments were made in 2007, don't you know?  This is pretty old news.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is 2009 .
Stephen 's comments were made in 2007 , do n't you know ?
This is pretty old news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is 2009.
Stephen's comments were made in 2007, don't you know?
This is pretty old news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577085</id>
	<title>Only honest discussions are useful.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246634640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Professor Hawkings cannot make a convincing point unless he admits and affirms the fact that evolution also produces differences in intelligence.  Look at Germany, France, or Great Britain.  They are nations whose people have made awesome contributions to science and technology.  Here, science includes political science.
<p>
Now, look at all the nations of Africa.  The Africans produced nearly nothing, by comparison.
</p><p>
Evolution created a situation in which the Germans, the French, and the English have an IQ that is signficantly greater than the IQ of the typical African.  The difference is about 20 points on a standardized IQ test.
</p><p>
IQ tests are not racist.  So-called "White" IQ tests taken by Japanese folks also show that their IQ is approximately equal to "White" IQ.  Japanese IQ is about 20 points greater than African IQ.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Professor Hawkings can not make a convincing point unless he admits and affirms the fact that evolution also produces differences in intelligence .
Look at Germany , France , or Great Britain .
They are nations whose people have made awesome contributions to science and technology .
Here , science includes political science .
Now , look at all the nations of Africa .
The Africans produced nearly nothing , by comparison .
Evolution created a situation in which the Germans , the French , and the English have an IQ that is signficantly greater than the IQ of the typical African .
The difference is about 20 points on a standardized IQ test .
IQ tests are not racist .
So-called " White " IQ tests taken by Japanese folks also show that their IQ is approximately equal to " White " IQ .
Japanese IQ is about 20 points greater than African IQ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Professor Hawkings cannot make a convincing point unless he admits and affirms the fact that evolution also produces differences in intelligence.
Look at Germany, France, or Great Britain.
They are nations whose people have made awesome contributions to science and technology.
Here, science includes political science.
Now, look at all the nations of Africa.
The Africans produced nearly nothing, by comparison.
Evolution created a situation in which the Germans, the French, and the English have an IQ that is signficantly greater than the IQ of the typical African.
The difference is about 20 points on a standardized IQ test.
IQ tests are not racist.
So-called "White" IQ tests taken by Japanese folks also show that their IQ is approximately equal to "White" IQ.
Japanese IQ is about 20 points greater than African IQ.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28576991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577939</id>
	<title>Natural selection going into overdrive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246645320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The human race has enjoyed an exponential growth phase, in which reproduction was so easy and common that natural selection hasn't been much involved or observable in humans. As our numbers increase to many billions and we destroy our environment, environmental pressure is going to kick natural selection into overdrive. Then we'll possibly see the human race evolve at a noticeable pace even within an average lifetime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The human race has enjoyed an exponential growth phase , in which reproduction was so easy and common that natural selection has n't been much involved or observable in humans .
As our numbers increase to many billions and we destroy our environment , environmental pressure is going to kick natural selection into overdrive .
Then we 'll possibly see the human race evolve at a noticeable pace even within an average lifetime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The human race has enjoyed an exponential growth phase, in which reproduction was so easy and common that natural selection hasn't been much involved or observable in humans.
As our numbers increase to many billions and we destroy our environment, environmental pressure is going to kick natural selection into overdrive.
Then we'll possibly see the human race evolve at a noticeable pace even within an average lifetime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579333</id>
	<title>Re:Only honest discussions are useful.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246713180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are substantial genetic differences between different ethnic groups around the world.</p><p>We all see obvious differences in appearance and physique.  From pygmies of ~1.5m average, to the Dinaric Alps of former Yugoslavia with 1.86m average.  This is obviously nature not nurture.<br>West Africans are without doubt the most powerful people in the world, with high natural levels of fast-twitch muscle fiber, only 1 out of 68 people to have gone faster than 10s over 100m is of non west-African descent.</p><p>So why is it ok to acknowledge that differences in physical attributes are determined by genes, and yet when it comes to another part of the body (the brain) also deriving it's construction and operational features from genes it is anethema to accept that there could be any differences determined by ethnic heritage?  You may be squeamish about it but that particular lump of meat is just as subject to evolutionary processes as any other part of our bodies.</p><p>Take for example the ashkenazik jews.  As a result of the harsh rules and treatment they have been subjected to as a result of the resentment and antipathy arising from their exclusionary practices they have been subjected to evolutionary pressures that have selected for hard working and intelligent people, .  As a result they have average intelligence that is up to one standard deviation higher than the general european population.  Due to the the long-tails of the bell curve those differences show up as massive over-representation at the highest level of attainment as is pretty obvious to everyone.  On the down side they are also subject to higher incidence of certain genetic diseases like tay sachs etc.</p><p>It has been demonstrated in so many ways in so many arenas that differences in aptitudes between populations and genders do exist, you don't even need to use IQ tests, you can look at all areas of achievement and with statistical analyses find differences between the average performance of different ethnic populations.  Take a look at http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/ for worked examples</p><p>And so while the parent may not have it quite right in terms of his specific examples there are genuinely large differences between ethnic groups in terms of average aptitudes/abilities in all areas of human activity that can be rigorously measured.  The socialist ideal of the improvability of man, nurture over nature has been thoroughly disproved, it is almost all down to the great gene lottery - just as most people always thought from observing their classmates.  Knowledge and acceptance of this may help us deal with the social consequences and hopefully help us to improve outcomes for everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are substantial genetic differences between different ethnic groups around the world.We all see obvious differences in appearance and physique .
From pygmies of ~ 1.5m average , to the Dinaric Alps of former Yugoslavia with 1.86m average .
This is obviously nature not nurture.West Africans are without doubt the most powerful people in the world , with high natural levels of fast-twitch muscle fiber , only 1 out of 68 people to have gone faster than 10s over 100m is of non west-African descent.So why is it ok to acknowledge that differences in physical attributes are determined by genes , and yet when it comes to another part of the body ( the brain ) also deriving it 's construction and operational features from genes it is anethema to accept that there could be any differences determined by ethnic heritage ?
You may be squeamish about it but that particular lump of meat is just as subject to evolutionary processes as any other part of our bodies.Take for example the ashkenazik jews .
As a result of the harsh rules and treatment they have been subjected to as a result of the resentment and antipathy arising from their exclusionary practices they have been subjected to evolutionary pressures that have selected for hard working and intelligent people , .
As a result they have average intelligence that is up to one standard deviation higher than the general european population .
Due to the the long-tails of the bell curve those differences show up as massive over-representation at the highest level of attainment as is pretty obvious to everyone .
On the down side they are also subject to higher incidence of certain genetic diseases like tay sachs etc.It has been demonstrated in so many ways in so many arenas that differences in aptitudes between populations and genders do exist , you do n't even need to use IQ tests , you can look at all areas of achievement and with statistical analyses find differences between the average performance of different ethnic populations .
Take a look at http : //www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/ for worked examplesAnd so while the parent may not have it quite right in terms of his specific examples there are genuinely large differences between ethnic groups in terms of average aptitudes/abilities in all areas of human activity that can be rigorously measured .
The socialist ideal of the improvability of man , nurture over nature has been thoroughly disproved , it is almost all down to the great gene lottery - just as most people always thought from observing their classmates .
Knowledge and acceptance of this may help us deal with the social consequences and hopefully help us to improve outcomes for everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are substantial genetic differences between different ethnic groups around the world.We all see obvious differences in appearance and physique.
From pygmies of ~1.5m average, to the Dinaric Alps of former Yugoslavia with 1.86m average.
This is obviously nature not nurture.West Africans are without doubt the most powerful people in the world, with high natural levels of fast-twitch muscle fiber, only 1 out of 68 people to have gone faster than 10s over 100m is of non west-African descent.So why is it ok to acknowledge that differences in physical attributes are determined by genes, and yet when it comes to another part of the body (the brain) also deriving it's construction and operational features from genes it is anethema to accept that there could be any differences determined by ethnic heritage?
You may be squeamish about it but that particular lump of meat is just as subject to evolutionary processes as any other part of our bodies.Take for example the ashkenazik jews.
As a result of the harsh rules and treatment they have been subjected to as a result of the resentment and antipathy arising from their exclusionary practices they have been subjected to evolutionary pressures that have selected for hard working and intelligent people, .
As a result they have average intelligence that is up to one standard deviation higher than the general european population.
Due to the the long-tails of the bell curve those differences show up as massive over-representation at the highest level of attainment as is pretty obvious to everyone.
On the down side they are also subject to higher incidence of certain genetic diseases like tay sachs etc.It has been demonstrated in so many ways in so many arenas that differences in aptitudes between populations and genders do exist, you don't even need to use IQ tests, you can look at all areas of achievement and with statistical analyses find differences between the average performance of different ethnic populations.
Take a look at http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/ for worked examplesAnd so while the parent may not have it quite right in terms of his specific examples there are genuinely large differences between ethnic groups in terms of average aptitudes/abilities in all areas of human activity that can be rigorously measured.
The socialist ideal of the improvability of man, nurture over nature has been thoroughly disproved, it is almost all down to the great gene lottery - just as most people always thought from observing their classmates.
Knowledge and acceptance of this may help us deal with the social consequences and hopefully help us to improve outcomes for everyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577321</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution does not work solely through mutation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246637760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh god mods... Please MOD PARENT DOWN!!!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>1. Evolution has a goal.<br>It doesn't. We are not going to transcend or become ultimate beings. No. It just adapts critters to their environment. What's neat is that critters adapt to each other, together. Think about that, and ecosystems, and all that web of life stuff for a while and it's pretty neat.</p></div><p>How can you say that evolution doesn't have a goal but then say that it adapts "critters" to their environment? These two statements are contradictory. Evolution most certainly *does* have a goal - it is to make organisms as fit as possible, which is precisely what "adapting to the environment" is about.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2. Evolution is critter-centric.<br>We are simply carriers for genese. Evolution is gene centric. Most of your genes are useless to you. Stuff that is stupid at a critter level can make perfect sense at a gene level. Those little bastards are using us, and don't care about us at all, as long as we breed.</p></div><p>This one is just wrong. Genotypes (the genes themselves) are nothing without phenotypes (how the genes are expressed in organisms). Adaptations are completely based on phenotypes - the ones that work are kept. There is no such thing as genes that are stupid "on a critter level" but not stupid "on a gene level". Evolution doesn't care about how "elegent" the genes are, only how fit the organism that grows from the genes is.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3. Survival of the fittest.<br>It's survival of the breediest, not necessarily of the fittest.</p></div><p>What you've managed to state here is why fit organisms survive. Very good. However, just saying that successful organisms breed the most is missing most of the picture. The real question is *why* they breed the most, and it's because they're fit. Thus, survival of the fittest.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>4. Evolution works through mutation.<br>Errrrgghh... I disagree with Stephen Hawking.  Ok, mutation helps, but you know what? Evolution doesn't need it. Most mutations result in a f*kup, not something useful. Evolution just needs seperate populations and/or environments. Eventually populations diverge and become more suited to their environments.</p></div><p>Separate populations and/or environments are why mutations are selected for, but they are not why the mutations are created in the first place. Evolution most certainly *does* need mutations, as well as a way to mix mutations.</p><p>Honestly, how can you call yourself "up" on this stuff?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh god mods... Please MOD PARENT DOWN ! ! ! 1 .
Evolution has a goal.It does n't .
We are not going to transcend or become ultimate beings .
No. It just adapts critters to their environment .
What 's neat is that critters adapt to each other , together .
Think about that , and ecosystems , and all that web of life stuff for a while and it 's pretty neat.How can you say that evolution does n't have a goal but then say that it adapts " critters " to their environment ?
These two statements are contradictory .
Evolution most certainly * does * have a goal - it is to make organisms as fit as possible , which is precisely what " adapting to the environment " is about.2 .
Evolution is critter-centric.We are simply carriers for genese .
Evolution is gene centric .
Most of your genes are useless to you .
Stuff that is stupid at a critter level can make perfect sense at a gene level .
Those little bastards are using us , and do n't care about us at all , as long as we breed.This one is just wrong .
Genotypes ( the genes themselves ) are nothing without phenotypes ( how the genes are expressed in organisms ) .
Adaptations are completely based on phenotypes - the ones that work are kept .
There is no such thing as genes that are stupid " on a critter level " but not stupid " on a gene level " .
Evolution does n't care about how " elegent " the genes are , only how fit the organism that grows from the genes is.3 .
Survival of the fittest.It 's survival of the breediest , not necessarily of the fittest.What you 've managed to state here is why fit organisms survive .
Very good .
However , just saying that successful organisms breed the most is missing most of the picture .
The real question is * why * they breed the most , and it 's because they 're fit .
Thus , survival of the fittest.4 .
Evolution works through mutation.Errrrgghh... I disagree with Stephen Hawking .
Ok , mutation helps , but you know what ?
Evolution does n't need it .
Most mutations result in a f * kup , not something useful .
Evolution just needs seperate populations and/or environments .
Eventually populations diverge and become more suited to their environments.Separate populations and/or environments are why mutations are selected for , but they are not why the mutations are created in the first place .
Evolution most certainly * does * need mutations , as well as a way to mix mutations.Honestly , how can you call yourself " up " on this stuff ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh god mods... Please MOD PARENT DOWN!!!1.
Evolution has a goal.It doesn't.
We are not going to transcend or become ultimate beings.
No. It just adapts critters to their environment.
What's neat is that critters adapt to each other, together.
Think about that, and ecosystems, and all that web of life stuff for a while and it's pretty neat.How can you say that evolution doesn't have a goal but then say that it adapts "critters" to their environment?
These two statements are contradictory.
Evolution most certainly *does* have a goal - it is to make organisms as fit as possible, which is precisely what "adapting to the environment" is about.2.
Evolution is critter-centric.We are simply carriers for genese.
Evolution is gene centric.
Most of your genes are useless to you.
Stuff that is stupid at a critter level can make perfect sense at a gene level.
Those little bastards are using us, and don't care about us at all, as long as we breed.This one is just wrong.
Genotypes (the genes themselves) are nothing without phenotypes (how the genes are expressed in organisms).
Adaptations are completely based on phenotypes - the ones that work are kept.
There is no such thing as genes that are stupid "on a critter level" but not stupid "on a gene level".
Evolution doesn't care about how "elegent" the genes are, only how fit the organism that grows from the genes is.3.
Survival of the fittest.It's survival of the breediest, not necessarily of the fittest.What you've managed to state here is why fit organisms survive.
Very good.
However, just saying that successful organisms breed the most is missing most of the picture.
The real question is *why* they breed the most, and it's because they're fit.
Thus, survival of the fittest.4.
Evolution works through mutation.Errrrgghh... I disagree with Stephen Hawking.
Ok, mutation helps, but you know what?
Evolution doesn't need it.
Most mutations result in a f*kup, not something useful.
Evolution just needs seperate populations and/or environments.
Eventually populations diverge and become more suited to their environments.Separate populations and/or environments are why mutations are selected for, but they are not why the mutations are created in the first place.
Evolution most certainly *does* need mutations, as well as a way to mix mutations.Honestly, how can you call yourself "up" on this stuff?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578245</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution does not work solely through mutation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246649400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>3. Survival of the fittest.<br>It's survival of the breediest, not necessarily of the fittest.</p></div><p>This misconception is because the fittest usually has more time to breed and has more chances of surviving than others. The "breediest" is not necessarily the fittest, but what we consider to be fittest must also be the breediest (by definition).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>3 .
Survival of the fittest.It 's survival of the breediest , not necessarily of the fittest.This misconception is because the fittest usually has more time to breed and has more chances of surviving than others .
The " breediest " is not necessarily the fittest , but what we consider to be fittest must also be the breediest ( by definition ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3.
Survival of the fittest.It's survival of the breediest, not necessarily of the fittest.This misconception is because the fittest usually has more time to breed and has more chances of surviving than others.
The "breediest" is not necessarily the fittest, but what we consider to be fittest must also be the breediest (by definition).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580461</id>
	<title>Evolution my ass !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246725780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am totally "mesmerized" (! can't believe I wrote that word, but I wanted the most grand and elegant expression for - fucking unbelievable !!!!X@&amp;\%$!@-+\_@#()*#@@) that someone who is supposed to be as smart as Hawking and he believes in CCCRRRRAAAAPPPP like evolution of the human race (yes us) from an elementary cell !!!!!!! But then I come to think about it, Indians are great in math, hydraulics, science and programming, and yet they believe that their destinies and fortune are controlled by cows ! And ancient Egyptians also believed that they would be judged in the after-world by a half-man half-hawk (or something to that effect) and they worshiped a bundle of creatures that can surpass anybody's imagination : hawks, rhinos, birds, cats, frogs, coyotes, alligators<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... and again they were a smart civilization - they built Pyramids and other stuff.</p><p>Its like farting out loud in a fully dressed formal consulate dinner in the presence of 200 people and not even being bothered of what people would think<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>The final simple / logical / un-debatable fact is that GOD created us, and there is ONLY ONE GOD. Like it or not, its THE FACT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am totally " mesmerized " ( !
ca n't believe I wrote that word , but I wanted the most grand and elegant expression for - fucking unbelievable ! ! ! ! X @ &amp; \ % $ !
@ - + \ _ @ # ( ) * # @ @ ) that someone who is supposed to be as smart as Hawking and he believes in CCCRRRRAAAAPPPP like evolution of the human race ( yes us ) from an elementary cell ! ! ! ! ! ! !
But then I come to think about it , Indians are great in math , hydraulics , science and programming , and yet they believe that their destinies and fortune are controlled by cows !
And ancient Egyptians also believed that they would be judged in the after-world by a half-man half-hawk ( or something to that effect ) and they worshiped a bundle of creatures that can surpass anybody 's imagination : hawks , rhinos , birds , cats , frogs , coyotes , alligators .... and again they were a smart civilization - they built Pyramids and other stuff.Its like farting out loud in a fully dressed formal consulate dinner in the presence of 200 people and not even being bothered of what people would think ...The final simple / logical / un-debatable fact is that GOD created us , and there is ONLY ONE GOD .
Like it or not , its THE FACT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am totally "mesmerized" (!
can't believe I wrote that word, but I wanted the most grand and elegant expression for - fucking unbelievable !!!!X@&amp;\%$!
@-+\_@#()*#@@) that someone who is supposed to be as smart as Hawking and he believes in CCCRRRRAAAAPPPP like evolution of the human race (yes us) from an elementary cell !!!!!!!
But then I come to think about it, Indians are great in math, hydraulics, science and programming, and yet they believe that their destinies and fortune are controlled by cows !
And ancient Egyptians also believed that they would be judged in the after-world by a half-man half-hawk (or something to that effect) and they worshiped a bundle of creatures that can surpass anybody's imagination : hawks, rhinos, birds, cats, frogs, coyotes, alligators .... and again they were a smart civilization - they built Pyramids and other stuff.Its like farting out loud in a fully dressed formal consulate dinner in the presence of 200 people and not even being bothered of what people would think ...The final simple / logical / un-debatable fact is that GOD created us, and there is ONLY ONE GOD.
Like it or not, its THE FACT.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28581711</id>
	<title>Re:Take it Further: Transhumanism</title>
	<author>tnk1</author>
	<datestamp>1246735680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Are you saying Twitter is a more important intellectual fountain than books?  Because no.</p></div><p>Depending on how it is used and what you are trying to transmit, Twitter might be better than books.  Of course, when I say "Twitter" I mean a twitter-esque mechanism.</p><p>Having said that much of the information that we lack in say, history, is due to the high cost of authoring, composing, printing and distributing books.  If any old person could tell their story, history might look a lot different.</p><p>Taking that to another level, getting data from any old person, who does not then spend time editing their data, can also be valuable.  People who write autobiographies and such tend to take a somewhat self-serving viewpoint, even when they are trying to be honest.  Even the people who might write "I was the most evil person of this century", may designate themselves such based on a certain goal (notoriety) or trying to present their eventual situation as a genius level of diabolical planning, when it was actually just a series of circumstances and predilections that led them to that place.</p><p>There is a lot of noise in a Twitter feed, but sometimes it is the smallest things that make the biggest impacts.  If someday we can collect them and analyze them, it may lead us to a better understanding of what people are thinking "in the moment".  Since most decisions are not made strategically, this may well be a huge leap in understanding.</p><p>That said, we shouldn't devalue the edited and researched content of a book, we should just understand that getting the "raw feed" can be useful in addition, especially if we do not need to choose one over the other.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you saying Twitter is a more important intellectual fountain than books ?
Because no.Depending on how it is used and what you are trying to transmit , Twitter might be better than books .
Of course , when I say " Twitter " I mean a twitter-esque mechanism.Having said that much of the information that we lack in say , history , is due to the high cost of authoring , composing , printing and distributing books .
If any old person could tell their story , history might look a lot different.Taking that to another level , getting data from any old person , who does not then spend time editing their data , can also be valuable .
People who write autobiographies and such tend to take a somewhat self-serving viewpoint , even when they are trying to be honest .
Even the people who might write " I was the most evil person of this century " , may designate themselves such based on a certain goal ( notoriety ) or trying to present their eventual situation as a genius level of diabolical planning , when it was actually just a series of circumstances and predilections that led them to that place.There is a lot of noise in a Twitter feed , but sometimes it is the smallest things that make the biggest impacts .
If someday we can collect them and analyze them , it may lead us to a better understanding of what people are thinking " in the moment " .
Since most decisions are not made strategically , this may well be a huge leap in understanding.That said , we should n't devalue the edited and researched content of a book , we should just understand that getting the " raw feed " can be useful in addition , especially if we do not need to choose one over the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you saying Twitter is a more important intellectual fountain than books?
Because no.Depending on how it is used and what you are trying to transmit, Twitter might be better than books.
Of course, when I say "Twitter" I mean a twitter-esque mechanism.Having said that much of the information that we lack in say, history, is due to the high cost of authoring, composing, printing and distributing books.
If any old person could tell their story, history might look a lot different.Taking that to another level, getting data from any old person, who does not then spend time editing their data, can also be valuable.
People who write autobiographies and such tend to take a somewhat self-serving viewpoint, even when they are trying to be honest.
Even the people who might write "I was the most evil person of this century", may designate themselves such based on a certain goal (notoriety) or trying to present their eventual situation as a genius level of diabolical planning, when it was actually just a series of circumstances and predilections that led them to that place.There is a lot of noise in a Twitter feed, but sometimes it is the smallest things that make the biggest impacts.
If someday we can collect them and analyze them, it may lead us to a better understanding of what people are thinking "in the moment".
Since most decisions are not made strategically, this may well be a huge leap in understanding.That said, we shouldn't devalue the edited and researched content of a book, we should just understand that getting the "raw feed" can be useful in addition, especially if we do not need to choose one over the other.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577851</id>
	<title>Not Sure</title>
	<author>XLR8DST8</author>
	<datestamp>1246643940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unaware of what year it was, Joe wandered the streets desperate for help. But the English language had deteriorated into a hybrid of hillbilly, valleygirl, inner-city slang and various grunts. Joe was able to understand them, but when he spoke in an ordinary voice he sounded pompous and faggy to them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unaware of what year it was , Joe wandered the streets desperate for help .
But the English language had deteriorated into a hybrid of hillbilly , valleygirl , inner-city slang and various grunts .
Joe was able to understand them , but when he spoke in an ordinary voice he sounded pompous and faggy to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unaware of what year it was, Joe wandered the streets desperate for help.
But the English language had deteriorated into a hybrid of hillbilly, valleygirl, inner-city slang and various grunts.
Joe was able to understand them, but when he spoke in an ordinary voice he sounded pompous and faggy to them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577809</id>
	<title>Re:Write about what you know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246643280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, interdisciplinary talk never amounted to anything. Everything is separate. People should stick with a specialised field and stepping outside that is simply unproductive. And while we're at it, perhaps you shouldn't have posted your comment unless your area of expertise is the study of areas of expertise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , interdisciplinary talk never amounted to anything .
Everything is separate .
People should stick with a specialised field and stepping outside that is simply unproductive .
And while we 're at it , perhaps you should n't have posted your comment unless your area of expertise is the study of areas of expertise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, interdisciplinary talk never amounted to anything.
Everything is separate.
People should stick with a specialised field and stepping outside that is simply unproductive.
And while we're at it, perhaps you shouldn't have posted your comment unless your area of expertise is the study of areas of expertise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577621</id>
	<title>Re:Write about what you know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246641300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh for fuck sakes. The man has a brainstorm, and you feel he's out in left field. Apparently the man has touched on a subject that biologists have been discussing for a while now, and he did it without any substantial background in biology or the study of evolution. I doubt he was expecting another nobel prize for this. You say you have respect for him, but you don't have basic respect for intellect, so I doubt your disclaimer whole heartedly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh for fuck sakes .
The man has a brainstorm , and you feel he 's out in left field .
Apparently the man has touched on a subject that biologists have been discussing for a while now , and he did it without any substantial background in biology or the study of evolution .
I doubt he was expecting another nobel prize for this .
You say you have respect for him , but you do n't have basic respect for intellect , so I doubt your disclaimer whole heartedly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh for fuck sakes.
The man has a brainstorm, and you feel he's out in left field.
Apparently the man has touched on a subject that biologists have been discussing for a while now, and he did it without any substantial background in biology or the study of evolution.
I doubt he was expecting another nobel prize for this.
You say you have respect for him, but you don't have basic respect for intellect, so I doubt your disclaimer whole heartedly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580887</id>
	<title>Physics, Biology</title>
	<author>slvrshwr</author>
	<datestamp>1246729380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>WTF does Hawking know about evolution anyway, he is a physicist. He has no scientific credibility in this area, and is trying to act the big man (ironically) because of his fame, exploiting the man on the street who thinks he is an expert on everything. Language is just behaviour, as is the recording of information. Evolution does not work in 'phases'. What he is talking about is memetic replication, which has nothing to do with genetic replication and evolution. He is not saying anything new anyway. Dawkins blah.</htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF does Hawking know about evolution anyway , he is a physicist .
He has no scientific credibility in this area , and is trying to act the big man ( ironically ) because of his fame , exploiting the man on the street who thinks he is an expert on everything .
Language is just behaviour , as is the recording of information .
Evolution does not work in 'phases' .
What he is talking about is memetic replication , which has nothing to do with genetic replication and evolution .
He is not saying anything new anyway .
Dawkins blah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF does Hawking know about evolution anyway, he is a physicist.
He has no scientific credibility in this area, and is trying to act the big man (ironically) because of his fame, exploiting the man on the street who thinks he is an expert on everything.
Language is just behaviour, as is the recording of information.
Evolution does not work in 'phases'.
What he is talking about is memetic replication, which has nothing to do with genetic replication and evolution.
He is not saying anything new anyway.
Dawkins blah.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578583</id>
	<title>You mean de-evolution, don't you?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246698240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the more we are, the less does any single person need to know, to survive and successfully reproduce.</p><p>Also we have two types of reproduction now: The genetic one. And the reproduction of thoughts and ideas.<br>So you can leave children in this world. But you can also leave a philosophy/mindset that changed people. (Or both.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the more we are , the less does any single person need to know , to survive and successfully reproduce.Also we have two types of reproduction now : The genetic one .
And the reproduction of thoughts and ideas.So you can leave children in this world .
But you can also leave a philosophy/mindset that changed people .
( Or both .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the more we are, the less does any single person need to know, to survive and successfully reproduce.Also we have two types of reproduction now: The genetic one.
And the reproduction of thoughts and ideas.So you can leave children in this world.
But you can also leave a philosophy/mindset that changed people.
(Or both.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28586859</id>
	<title>Re:What's his point?</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1246815540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No... did you RTFA?</p><blockquote><div><p>But we are now entering a new phase, of what Hawking calls "self designed evolution," in which we will be able to change and improve our DNA.</p></div></blockquote><p>Hawking's point is that "external information" - knowledge transmitted through writing - has allowed us to advance to a point where we can now control our own "evolution" and advancement as a species.</p><p>No other species has ever done this.  Before we came along, the only forces behind evolution were the Darwinian ones: natural selection, selective mating, random mutation.  Now there is a fourth: genetic engineering.  (And we are already using it to change the course of "evolution" for various non-human species).</p><p>This is distinct from the idea of sociocultural evolution - the idea that the laws of evolution apply to societies.</p><p>Granted Hawking's point is a bit.. overdone.  Yes, we are the first species to transmit "external" information by writing, and that writing can (maybe) help us survive.</p><p>Unfortunately, it remains to be seen whether we will use our big brains and knowledge to colonize the universe, or whether we will kill ourselves off somehow, either by weaponry or by simply bickering until it is too late to stop some global catastrophe.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No... did you RTFA ? But we are now entering a new phase , of what Hawking calls " self designed evolution , " in which we will be able to change and improve our DNA.Hawking 's point is that " external information " - knowledge transmitted through writing - has allowed us to advance to a point where we can now control our own " evolution " and advancement as a species.No other species has ever done this .
Before we came along , the only forces behind evolution were the Darwinian ones : natural selection , selective mating , random mutation .
Now there is a fourth : genetic engineering .
( And we are already using it to change the course of " evolution " for various non-human species ) .This is distinct from the idea of sociocultural evolution - the idea that the laws of evolution apply to societies.Granted Hawking 's point is a bit.. overdone. Yes , we are the first species to transmit " external " information by writing , and that writing can ( maybe ) help us survive.Unfortunately , it remains to be seen whether we will use our big brains and knowledge to colonize the universe , or whether we will kill ourselves off somehow , either by weaponry or by simply bickering until it is too late to stop some global catastrophe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No... did you RTFA?But we are now entering a new phase, of what Hawking calls "self designed evolution," in which we will be able to change and improve our DNA.Hawking's point is that "external information" - knowledge transmitted through writing - has allowed us to advance to a point where we can now control our own "evolution" and advancement as a species.No other species has ever done this.
Before we came along, the only forces behind evolution were the Darwinian ones: natural selection, selective mating, random mutation.
Now there is a fourth: genetic engineering.
(And we are already using it to change the course of "evolution" for various non-human species).This is distinct from the idea of sociocultural evolution - the idea that the laws of evolution apply to societies.Granted Hawking's point is a bit.. overdone.  Yes, we are the first species to transmit "external" information by writing, and that writing can (maybe) help us survive.Unfortunately, it remains to be seen whether we will use our big brains and knowledge to colonize the universe, or whether we will kill ourselves off somehow, either by weaponry or by simply bickering until it is too late to stop some global catastrophe.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578717</id>
	<title>he should stick to physics</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1246700460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What human evolution means and how it interacts with culture is an active field of research and has been so for a long time. There are mathematical models, empirical observations, and long scientific debates.  It's so typical of physicists to ignore all that and jump in with the kind of observations that a smart lay reader of popular science books would make.  Hawking should stick to physics, where he actually is an expert.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What human evolution means and how it interacts with culture is an active field of research and has been so for a long time .
There are mathematical models , empirical observations , and long scientific debates .
It 's so typical of physicists to ignore all that and jump in with the kind of observations that a smart lay reader of popular science books would make .
Hawking should stick to physics , where he actually is an expert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What human evolution means and how it interacts with culture is an active field of research and has been so for a long time.
There are mathematical models, empirical observations, and long scientific debates.
It's so typical of physicists to ignore all that and jump in with the kind of observations that a smart lay reader of popular science books would make.
Hawking should stick to physics, where he actually is an expert.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578799</id>
	<title>Re:Take it Further: Transhumanism</title>
	<author>ionix5891</author>
	<datestamp>1246701780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>your holding twitter as a pinnacle of human achievement? what does that say about us humans<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>your holding twitter as a pinnacle of human achievement ?
what does that say about us humans ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>your holding twitter as a pinnacle of human achievement?
what does that say about us humans ....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577575</id>
	<title>Stopped Evolving</title>
	<author>Gravedigger3</author>
	<datestamp>1246640640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see where Hawking is coming from and I guess that he's right if you accept his new use of the word evolution, which is fine. But in the classic Darwinian sense I would argue that humans have STOPPED evolving. Our weak and stupid are allowed (rightfully i suppose) to live simply because we have created a civilization to support each other (in most countries). There is seldom any real natural selection in the traditional sense since the weak (whatever your definition of that might include) live on and most likely will breed along with all the strong. You could argue the Idiocracy point of view that we are "devolving" based on the same kind of argument but I wouldn't take it that far... yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see where Hawking is coming from and I guess that he 's right if you accept his new use of the word evolution , which is fine .
But in the classic Darwinian sense I would argue that humans have STOPPED evolving .
Our weak and stupid are allowed ( rightfully i suppose ) to live simply because we have created a civilization to support each other ( in most countries ) .
There is seldom any real natural selection in the traditional sense since the weak ( whatever your definition of that might include ) live on and most likely will breed along with all the strong .
You could argue the Idiocracy point of view that we are " devolving " based on the same kind of argument but I would n't take it that far... yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see where Hawking is coming from and I guess that he's right if you accept his new use of the word evolution, which is fine.
But in the classic Darwinian sense I would argue that humans have STOPPED evolving.
Our weak and stupid are allowed (rightfully i suppose) to live simply because we have created a civilization to support each other (in most countries).
There is seldom any real natural selection in the traditional sense since the weak (whatever your definition of that might include) live on and most likely will breed along with all the strong.
You could argue the Idiocracy point of view that we are "devolving" based on the same kind of argument but I wouldn't take it that far... yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577397</id>
	<title>Write about what you know</title>
	<author>etherlad</author>
	<datestamp>1246638360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sir Stephen Hawking is a very smart man, and I have the utmost respect for him.</p><p>However, he should stick to the areas of his expertise and let biologists talk about evolution, because that's <i>their</i> area of expertise.</p><p>I wouldn't expect anyone to take Dr. Richard Dawkins' thoughts on quantum mechanics as definitive, and this is no different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sir Stephen Hawking is a very smart man , and I have the utmost respect for him.However , he should stick to the areas of his expertise and let biologists talk about evolution , because that 's their area of expertise.I would n't expect anyone to take Dr. Richard Dawkins ' thoughts on quantum mechanics as definitive , and this is no different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sir Stephen Hawking is a very smart man, and I have the utmost respect for him.However, he should stick to the areas of his expertise and let biologists talk about evolution, because that's their area of expertise.I wouldn't expect anyone to take Dr. Richard Dawkins' thoughts on quantum mechanics as definitive, and this is no different.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577235</id>
	<title>Re:Only honest discussions are useful.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246636740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have no idea where morons like you come from.  Sub-saharan Africa has the highest genetic diversity on the planet.  Ponder that for a moment.  It means that your notion of some sort of genetic "dumbness" is bunk.</p><p>But maybe that explains your own stupidity, fear and ignorance.  I'd feel sorry for you, if you weren't such a loathesome pile of garbage.  Now go find a rock, you useless piece of shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no idea where morons like you come from .
Sub-saharan Africa has the highest genetic diversity on the planet .
Ponder that for a moment .
It means that your notion of some sort of genetic " dumbness " is bunk.But maybe that explains your own stupidity , fear and ignorance .
I 'd feel sorry for you , if you were n't such a loathesome pile of garbage .
Now go find a rock , you useless piece of shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no idea where morons like you come from.
Sub-saharan Africa has the highest genetic diversity on the planet.
Ponder that for a moment.
It means that your notion of some sort of genetic "dumbness" is bunk.But maybe that explains your own stupidity, fear and ignorance.
I'd feel sorry for you, if you weren't such a loathesome pile of garbage.
Now go find a rock, you useless piece of shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28591909</id>
	<title>We are all Africans</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1246913640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They were the first to undertake long migrations</p><p>They were the first to produce art as we understand it today (paintings in South African caves dating back tens of thousands of years).</p><p>Africans produced, er, humanity.</p><p>This is not a figure of speech. If was Africans, more likely not too different from the ones living there today, who first ventured out of the African continent in order to spread the human race all around the globe.</p><p>As for Africans having done "nothing" check your Encyclopaedia and find Egypt, also look at some of their art:  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SFEC\_EGYPT\_ABUSIMBEL\_2006-003.JPG" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SFEC\_EGYPT\_ABUSIMBEL\_2006-003.JPG</a> [wikipedia.org] so you can recognize the people  who made that possible.</p><p>As for IQ tests, you unhelpfully did not provide pointers to support your claims, which is strange since typing "validity of IQ tests" in Google brings a plethora of information, many of them pointing out to the flaws of using IQ to measure intelligence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They were the first to undertake long migrationsThey were the first to produce art as we understand it today ( paintings in South African caves dating back tens of thousands of years ) .Africans produced , er , humanity.This is not a figure of speech .
If was Africans , more likely not too different from the ones living there today , who first ventured out of the African continent in order to spread the human race all around the globe.As for Africans having done " nothing " check your Encyclopaedia and find Egypt , also look at some of their art : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File : SFEC \ _EGYPT \ _ABUSIMBEL \ _2006-003.JPG [ wikipedia.org ] so you can recognize the people who made that possible.As for IQ tests , you unhelpfully did not provide pointers to support your claims , which is strange since typing " validity of IQ tests " in Google brings a plethora of information , many of them pointing out to the flaws of using IQ to measure intelligence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They were the first to undertake long migrationsThey were the first to produce art as we understand it today (paintings in South African caves dating back tens of thousands of years).Africans produced, er, humanity.This is not a figure of speech.
If was Africans, more likely not too different from the ones living there today, who first ventured out of the African continent in order to spread the human race all around the globe.As for Africans having done "nothing" check your Encyclopaedia and find Egypt, also look at some of their art:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SFEC\_EGYPT\_ABUSIMBEL\_2006-003.JPG [wikipedia.org] so you can recognize the people  who made that possible.As for IQ tests, you unhelpfully did not provide pointers to support your claims, which is strange since typing "validity of IQ tests" in Google brings a plethora of information, many of them pointing out to the flaws of using IQ to measure intelligence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579857</id>
	<title>Re:Write about what you know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246720020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"He's a physicist and this is biology" is just a slightly mangled appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.</p></div><p>Yes, but the whole reason we're <b>having</b> this conversation is that it's <i>Stephen Hawking</i> who said "blah-blah-blah". That is, we're giving these arguments the time of day because we implicitly think that if Hawking said it, it must have some validity - which is an unmangled appeal to authority.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" He 's a physicist and this is biology " is just a slightly mangled appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.Yes , but the whole reason we 're having this conversation is that it 's Stephen Hawking who said " blah-blah-blah " .
That is , we 're giving these arguments the time of day because we implicitly think that if Hawking said it , it must have some validity - which is an unmangled appeal to authority .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>"He's a physicist and this is biology" is just a slightly mangled appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.Yes, but the whole reason we're having this conversation is that it's Stephen Hawking who said "blah-blah-blah".
That is, we're giving these arguments the time of day because we implicitly think that if Hawking said it, it must have some validity - which is an unmangled appeal to authority.
 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577741</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577301</id>
	<title>That's it.</title>
	<author>kms\_one</author>
	<datestamp>1246637580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am ready to become one with my robot overlords.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am ready to become one with my robot overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am ready to become one with my robot overlords.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579627</id>
	<title>Re:Public Service Announcement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246717740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...snake? snaaaaake!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...snake ?
snaaaaake !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...snake?
snaaaaake!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577259</id>
	<title>mutant post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246637100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>how does a population "diverge" if it cant mutate ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>how does a population " diverge " if it cant mutate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how does a population "diverge" if it cant mutate ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577843</id>
	<title>It's called "Niche Construction"</title>
	<author>littlewink</author>
	<datestamp>1246643820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>An organism interacts with it's environment by slightly modifying it's behavior. That behavior alters the environment, sometimes radically. Sometimes a positive feedback loop is established between organism and environment that causes unusully rapid evolutionary change. Man is the most extreme case of niche construction . See <a href="http://www.nicheconstruction.com/" title="nicheconstruction.com" rel="nofollow">Niche Construction</a> [nicheconstruction.com] for details.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An organism interacts with it 's environment by slightly modifying it 's behavior .
That behavior alters the environment , sometimes radically .
Sometimes a positive feedback loop is established between organism and environment that causes unusully rapid evolutionary change .
Man is the most extreme case of niche construction .
See Niche Construction [ nicheconstruction.com ] for details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An organism interacts with it's environment by slightly modifying it's behavior.
That behavior alters the environment, sometimes radically.
Sometimes a positive feedback loop is established between organism and environment that causes unusully rapid evolutionary change.
Man is the most extreme case of niche construction .
See Niche Construction [nicheconstruction.com] for details.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28582429</id>
	<title>huh?</title>
	<author>stoicio</author>
	<datestamp>1246700460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, is it Hawking's assistant that helps him smoke drugs, or<br>is there a special chocolaty mealtime treat involved?</p><p>Pfffttt!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , is it Hawking 's assistant that helps him smoke drugs , oris there a special chocolaty mealtime treat involved ? Pfffttt ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, is it Hawking's assistant that helps him smoke drugs, oris there a special chocolaty mealtime treat involved?Pfffttt!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578555</id>
	<title>Re:Write about what you know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246740900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just the opposite. etherlad is pointing out that automatically believing something Hawking says, just because "he's a famous scientist", is a logical fallacy in itself. Hawking is not a biologist and therefore is unlikely to have made any actual research, theoretical work or experiment regarding evolution or memes. Therefore, what he said was probably just opinion. No better than anyone else's.

And, as other people said, it's not even a new idea, and certainly it isn't HIS idea. So why is it even news? I don't know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just the opposite .
etherlad is pointing out that automatically believing something Hawking says , just because " he 's a famous scientist " , is a logical fallacy in itself .
Hawking is not a biologist and therefore is unlikely to have made any actual research , theoretical work or experiment regarding evolution or memes .
Therefore , what he said was probably just opinion .
No better than anyone else 's .
And , as other people said , it 's not even a new idea , and certainly it is n't HIS idea .
So why is it even news ?
I do n't know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just the opposite.
etherlad is pointing out that automatically believing something Hawking says, just because "he's a famous scientist", is a logical fallacy in itself.
Hawking is not a biologist and therefore is unlikely to have made any actual research, theoretical work or experiment regarding evolution or memes.
Therefore, what he said was probably just opinion.
No better than anyone else's.
And, as other people said, it's not even a new idea, and certainly it isn't HIS idea.
So why is it even news?
I don't know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577741</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577867</id>
	<title>Jake and Dinos Chapman...</title>
	<author>teleny</author>
	<datestamp>1246644240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...have already weighed in on this subject. Stephan Hawking is a man who is not the world's greatest physicist, nor is he doing any work now that is in any way in the forefront. Mostly what he is is a motor neuron disease survivor. If he were to die tomorrow, it would be a tragedy, but not in the way that he had great work in the future. He would have had significant work towards unifying quantum mechanics and relativity theory, at least thirty years ago, a beautiful family, and a wonderful face on what is often a very hard disease. I long to kiss that cheek. But I don't deny that flesh has had its day in about it's fortieth year. Let the world's embraces be felt. But he is not a Homo Novis.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...have already weighed in on this subject .
Stephan Hawking is a man who is not the world 's greatest physicist , nor is he doing any work now that is in any way in the forefront .
Mostly what he is is a motor neuron disease survivor .
If he were to die tomorrow , it would be a tragedy , but not in the way that he had great work in the future .
He would have had significant work towards unifying quantum mechanics and relativity theory , at least thirty years ago , a beautiful family , and a wonderful face on what is often a very hard disease .
I long to kiss that cheek .
But I do n't deny that flesh has had its day in about it 's fortieth year .
Let the world 's embraces be felt .
But he is not a Homo Novis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...have already weighed in on this subject.
Stephan Hawking is a man who is not the world's greatest physicist, nor is he doing any work now that is in any way in the forefront.
Mostly what he is is a motor neuron disease survivor.
If he were to die tomorrow, it would be a tragedy, but not in the way that he had great work in the future.
He would have had significant work towards unifying quantum mechanics and relativity theory, at least thirty years ago, a beautiful family, and a wonderful face on what is often a very hard disease.
I long to kiss that cheek.
But I don't deny that flesh has had its day in about it's fortieth year.
Let the world's embraces be felt.
But he is not a Homo Novis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28590515</id>
	<title>Re:ten thousand years</title>
	<author>Anenome</author>
	<datestamp>1246810320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Common misconception here. All that study could possible have achieved would be selecting out a rare recessive gene--effectively selecting out the dominant version. The change you speak of is actually loss of genetic data, forcing the organism to rely on lesser backup genes for offspring.</p><p>It's the same mechanism that produced the pug, the chihuahua, the pomeranian, and almost every other dog species, etc. This isn't evolution at all, but the mislabelled 'micro-evolution'. It's not natural selection at all, it's intelligent selection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Common misconception here .
All that study could possible have achieved would be selecting out a rare recessive gene--effectively selecting out the dominant version .
The change you speak of is actually loss of genetic data , forcing the organism to rely on lesser backup genes for offspring.It 's the same mechanism that produced the pug , the chihuahua , the pomeranian , and almost every other dog species , etc .
This is n't evolution at all , but the mislabelled 'micro-evolution' .
It 's not natural selection at all , it 's intelligent selection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Common misconception here.
All that study could possible have achieved would be selecting out a rare recessive gene--effectively selecting out the dominant version.
The change you speak of is actually loss of genetic data, forcing the organism to rely on lesser backup genes for offspring.It's the same mechanism that produced the pug, the chihuahua, the pomeranian, and almost every other dog species, etc.
This isn't evolution at all, but the mislabelled 'micro-evolution'.
It's not natural selection at all, it's intelligent selection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577627</id>
	<title>The real change is software....</title>
	<author>paulsnx2</author>
	<datestamp>1246641360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hawkins is right about the external store....  But the real change is when we began to code processes for computers.  The interesting thing about books isn't that they exist, but that we can read something from 2000 years ago and continue processes defined by such texts.</p><p>The interesting thing about programs isn't that they exist external (like books), but that a machine reads something defined external to itself, perhaps from another country or time, and executes the processes defined by such tasks.</p><p>In the latter case, no HUMAN was required.  We successfully built a mechanism by which processes can be defined and propagated without direct human involvement (other than supplying the computer, and putting it in touch with the software).</p><p>Suddenly I can have access to processes meticulously defined and tested by others without having to read a book or study or practice.  I just load up a program and execute.</p><p>We have not only externalized the genetic store, as it were, but also the role of the organism in executing the processes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hawkins is right about the external store.... But the real change is when we began to code processes for computers .
The interesting thing about books is n't that they exist , but that we can read something from 2000 years ago and continue processes defined by such texts.The interesting thing about programs is n't that they exist external ( like books ) , but that a machine reads something defined external to itself , perhaps from another country or time , and executes the processes defined by such tasks.In the latter case , no HUMAN was required .
We successfully built a mechanism by which processes can be defined and propagated without direct human involvement ( other than supplying the computer , and putting it in touch with the software ) .Suddenly I can have access to processes meticulously defined and tested by others without having to read a book or study or practice .
I just load up a program and execute.We have not only externalized the genetic store , as it were , but also the role of the organism in executing the processes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hawkins is right about the external store....  But the real change is when we began to code processes for computers.
The interesting thing about books isn't that they exist, but that we can read something from 2000 years ago and continue processes defined by such texts.The interesting thing about programs isn't that they exist external (like books), but that a machine reads something defined external to itself, perhaps from another country or time, and executes the processes defined by such tasks.In the latter case, no HUMAN was required.
We successfully built a mechanism by which processes can be defined and propagated without direct human involvement (other than supplying the computer, and putting it in touch with the software).Suddenly I can have access to processes meticulously defined and tested by others without having to read a book or study or practice.
I just load up a program and execute.We have not only externalized the genetic store, as it were, but also the role of the organism in executing the processes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577709</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution does not work solely through mutation</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1246642080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, evolution needs mutation.  From dictionary.com:</p><p>mutation: a sudden departure from the parent type in one or more heritable characteristics, caused by a change in a gene or a chromosome.</p><p>Mutation isn't simply a random base pair getting smacked by a gamma ray, it's all the processes that randomly change our DNA, from those gamma rays to copying errors.  Yes, mutation by itself makes for crappy, slow, probably unworkable evolution.  But without mutation there is no way to introduce novelty into the genome - you end up just shuffling the same genes over and over.  Except that without mutation you wouldn't even have genes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , evolution needs mutation .
From dictionary.com : mutation : a sudden departure from the parent type in one or more heritable characteristics , caused by a change in a gene or a chromosome.Mutation is n't simply a random base pair getting smacked by a gamma ray , it 's all the processes that randomly change our DNA , from those gamma rays to copying errors .
Yes , mutation by itself makes for crappy , slow , probably unworkable evolution .
But without mutation there is no way to introduce novelty into the genome - you end up just shuffling the same genes over and over .
Except that without mutation you would n't even have genes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, evolution needs mutation.
From dictionary.com:mutation: a sudden departure from the parent type in one or more heritable characteristics, caused by a change in a gene or a chromosome.Mutation isn't simply a random base pair getting smacked by a gamma ray, it's all the processes that randomly change our DNA, from those gamma rays to copying errors.
Yes, mutation by itself makes for crappy, slow, probably unworkable evolution.
But without mutation there is no way to introduce novelty into the genome - you end up just shuffling the same genes over and over.
Except that without mutation you wouldn't even have genes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577775</id>
	<title>Re:ten thousand years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246642860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>single, childless, broke, and healthy = free</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>single , childless , broke , and healthy = free</tokentext>
<sentencetext>single, childless, broke, and healthy = free</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577683</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution does not work solely through mutation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246641900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>4. Evolution works through mutation.<br>Errrrgghh... I disagree with Stephen Hawking.  Ok, mutation helps, but you know what? Evolution doesn't need it. Most mutations result in a f*kup, not something useful. Evolution just needs seperate populations and/or environments. Eventually populations diverge and become more suited to their environments.</p><p>I feel weird....</p><p>-Tony</p></div><p>Not only are you weird you are wrong on this point, though you were more or less right<br>on  your first three.  Evolution operates on variation.  The ultimate source of variation is mutation.  The fundamental source of mutation is radiation and other events at a quantum mechanical  level.  Therefore evolution is stochastic.  Without mutation while their could be some limited evolution by genetic rearrangements, however there could no longer be any evolution of proteins which is the real driver of evolutionary change.</p><p>Does that explain it simply enough.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>4 .
Evolution works through mutation.Errrrgghh... I disagree with Stephen Hawking .
Ok , mutation helps , but you know what ?
Evolution does n't need it .
Most mutations result in a f * kup , not something useful .
Evolution just needs seperate populations and/or environments .
Eventually populations diverge and become more suited to their environments.I feel weird....-TonyNot only are you weird you are wrong on this point , though you were more or less righton your first three .
Evolution operates on variation .
The ultimate source of variation is mutation .
The fundamental source of mutation is radiation and other events at a quantum mechanical level .
Therefore evolution is stochastic .
Without mutation while their could be some limited evolution by genetic rearrangements , however there could no longer be any evolution of proteins which is the real driver of evolutionary change.Does that explain it simply enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4.
Evolution works through mutation.Errrrgghh... I disagree with Stephen Hawking.
Ok, mutation helps, but you know what?
Evolution doesn't need it.
Most mutations result in a f*kup, not something useful.
Evolution just needs seperate populations and/or environments.
Eventually populations diverge and become more suited to their environments.I feel weird....-TonyNot only are you weird you are wrong on this point, though you were more or less righton  your first three.
Evolution operates on variation.
The ultimate source of variation is mutation.
The fundamental source of mutation is radiation and other events at a quantum mechanical  level.
Therefore evolution is stochastic.
Without mutation while their could be some limited evolution by genetic rearrangements, however there could no longer be any evolution of proteins which is the real driver of evolutionary change.Does that explain it simply enough.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28590717</id>
	<title>Insightful? Yeah.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246812960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. It's an analogy.  Pointing out commonalities between unlike things is what's known as an "insight".<br>
2. Evolution does not have goals; it can lead to expansion or to extinction.  Pointing out different ways of looking at something is also known as "insight".</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
It 's an analogy .
Pointing out commonalities between unlike things is what 's known as an " insight " .
2. Evolution does not have goals ; it can lead to expansion or to extinction .
Pointing out different ways of looking at something is also known as " insight " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
It's an analogy.
Pointing out commonalities between unlike things is what's known as an "insight".
2. Evolution does not have goals; it can lead to expansion or to extinction.
Pointing out different ways of looking at something is also known as "insight".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578641</id>
	<title>The path least explored</title>
	<author>amit.lzkpa</author>
	<datestamp>1246699080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Studies on evolution is a field which is very less explored. There haven't been many substantial additions to Darwin's first theory of evolution. I think this field will attract more scientists and researches, than nanotechnology or biotechnology would.<br>
Many of us believe that evolution takes thousands of years, to change an organism. But, in contrast, I read an article on dailygalaxy.com in which a lizard-like animal evolved in a period of 36 years, after it was relocated to a new neighboring island. It has its digestive system changed with new features, a larger head and a completely new diet.<br>
Moreover, the way the human population is increasing, the most basic concept of Darwin's theory-the Survival of the Fittest-collapses miserably.<br>
Many biologists will now rethink and possibly edit Darwin's theory to involve human evolution into it, which will have many side-effects, including a "see-I-told-you" kind of reaction from the Church.<br> <br>
Moreover, I think evolution is taking the path it was destined to take.<br>
From the beginning, life-forms always tended to unite or team-up with the output being a more advanced organism. The mitochondria united with the cell, many cells united to form tissues, organs, organisms. This may look like the biological hierarchy of an organism, but if you look at it closely it is the path of evolution.<br>
Now, we are at the organism stage. The next stage would be the stage in which many organisms unite to form one system composed of organisms. Doesn't that system of organism fit the definition of civilization?<br>
So, in theory the next step in evolution would be the development of civilization, if the planet lasts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Studies on evolution is a field which is very less explored .
There have n't been many substantial additions to Darwin 's first theory of evolution .
I think this field will attract more scientists and researches , than nanotechnology or biotechnology would .
Many of us believe that evolution takes thousands of years , to change an organism .
But , in contrast , I read an article on dailygalaxy.com in which a lizard-like animal evolved in a period of 36 years , after it was relocated to a new neighboring island .
It has its digestive system changed with new features , a larger head and a completely new diet .
Moreover , the way the human population is increasing , the most basic concept of Darwin 's theory-the Survival of the Fittest-collapses miserably .
Many biologists will now rethink and possibly edit Darwin 's theory to involve human evolution into it , which will have many side-effects , including a " see-I-told-you " kind of reaction from the Church .
Moreover , I think evolution is taking the path it was destined to take .
From the beginning , life-forms always tended to unite or team-up with the output being a more advanced organism .
The mitochondria united with the cell , many cells united to form tissues , organs , organisms .
This may look like the biological hierarchy of an organism , but if you look at it closely it is the path of evolution .
Now , we are at the organism stage .
The next stage would be the stage in which many organisms unite to form one system composed of organisms .
Does n't that system of organism fit the definition of civilization ?
So , in theory the next step in evolution would be the development of civilization , if the planet lasts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Studies on evolution is a field which is very less explored.
There haven't been many substantial additions to Darwin's first theory of evolution.
I think this field will attract more scientists and researches, than nanotechnology or biotechnology would.
Many of us believe that evolution takes thousands of years, to change an organism.
But, in contrast, I read an article on dailygalaxy.com in which a lizard-like animal evolved in a period of 36 years, after it was relocated to a new neighboring island.
It has its digestive system changed with new features, a larger head and a completely new diet.
Moreover, the way the human population is increasing, the most basic concept of Darwin's theory-the Survival of the Fittest-collapses miserably.
Many biologists will now rethink and possibly edit Darwin's theory to involve human evolution into it, which will have many side-effects, including a "see-I-told-you" kind of reaction from the Church.
Moreover, I think evolution is taking the path it was destined to take.
From the beginning, life-forms always tended to unite or team-up with the output being a more advanced organism.
The mitochondria united with the cell, many cells united to form tissues, organs, organisms.
This may look like the biological hierarchy of an organism, but if you look at it closely it is the path of evolution.
Now, we are at the organism stage.
The next stage would be the stage in which many organisms unite to form one system composed of organisms.
Doesn't that system of organism fit the definition of civilization?
So, in theory the next step in evolution would be the development of civilization, if the planet lasts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578017</id>
	<title>Mythos over Logos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246646340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"The mythos-over-logos argument points to the fact that each child is born as ignorant as any caveman. What keeps the world reverting to the Neanderthal with each generation is the continuing, ongoing mythos, transformed into logos but still mythos, the huge body of common knowledge that unites our minds as cells are united in the body of man. To feel that one is not so united, that one can accept or discard this mythos as one pleases, is not to understand what mythos is."</p><p>-Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance</p></div><p>While I agree with Stephen Hawkings that we are more than the sum of our genes, we currently use the term "Evolution" to mean "Darwin's Theory of Evolution", which is all about accidental genetic changes that happen to be beneficial.  Lamarck's Theory of Evolution may be closer to Mr. Hawking's statements, if we must call it "evolution", but I do believe Mythos over Logos is a better way to describe the mechanism of change that we're seeing with humanity as a whole.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The mythos-over-logos argument points to the fact that each child is born as ignorant as any caveman .
What keeps the world reverting to the Neanderthal with each generation is the continuing , ongoing mythos , transformed into logos but still mythos , the huge body of common knowledge that unites our minds as cells are united in the body of man .
To feel that one is not so united , that one can accept or discard this mythos as one pleases , is not to understand what mythos is .
" -Robert Pirsig , Zen and the Art of Motorcycle MaintenanceWhile I agree with Stephen Hawkings that we are more than the sum of our genes , we currently use the term " Evolution " to mean " Darwin 's Theory of Evolution " , which is all about accidental genetic changes that happen to be beneficial .
Lamarck 's Theory of Evolution may be closer to Mr. Hawking 's statements , if we must call it " evolution " , but I do believe Mythos over Logos is a better way to describe the mechanism of change that we 're seeing with humanity as a whole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The mythos-over-logos argument points to the fact that each child is born as ignorant as any caveman.
What keeps the world reverting to the Neanderthal with each generation is the continuing, ongoing mythos, transformed into logos but still mythos, the huge body of common knowledge that unites our minds as cells are united in the body of man.
To feel that one is not so united, that one can accept or discard this mythos as one pleases, is not to understand what mythos is.
"-Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle MaintenanceWhile I agree with Stephen Hawkings that we are more than the sum of our genes, we currently use the term "Evolution" to mean "Darwin's Theory of Evolution", which is all about accidental genetic changes that happen to be beneficial.
Lamarck's Theory of Evolution may be closer to Mr. Hawking's statements, if we must call it "evolution", but I do believe Mythos over Logos is a better way to describe the mechanism of change that we're seeing with humanity as a whole.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577173</id>
	<title>Darwin</title>
	<author>Mr\_Plattz</author>
	<datestamp>1246635840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If someone is stupid enough to purchase a fake product for a flu that won't kill them in the first place, we can only assume this is for the greater good of the world.

If they are a high risk factor (cancer, etc) then one would like to think they aren't on the Internet purchasing random drugs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone is stupid enough to purchase a fake product for a flu that wo n't kill them in the first place , we can only assume this is for the greater good of the world .
If they are a high risk factor ( cancer , etc ) then one would like to think they are n't on the Internet purchasing random drugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone is stupid enough to purchase a fake product for a flu that won't kill them in the first place, we can only assume this is for the greater good of the world.
If they are a high risk factor (cancer, etc) then one would like to think they aren't on the Internet purchasing random drugs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28592031</id>
	<title>He is not famous, he is insightful.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1246871940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One tends to listen to people that have proven that they can contribute something useful to our science and culture.</p><p>One has to listen sceptically  (always) , but appeals to authority are the last refuge of the person without a point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One tends to listen to people that have proven that they can contribute something useful to our science and culture.One has to listen sceptically ( always ) , but appeals to authority are the last refuge of the person without a point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One tends to listen to people that have proven that they can contribute something useful to our science and culture.One has to listen sceptically  (always) , but appeals to authority are the last refuge of the person without a point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578241</id>
	<title>Re:ten thousand years</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1246649400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thats about how long it took to make a wolf look like a chihuahua.  I'd say that's plenty of time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats about how long it took to make a wolf look like a chihuahua .
I 'd say that 's plenty of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats about how long it took to make a wolf look like a chihuahua.
I'd say that's plenty of time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577715</id>
	<title>Lamarckism</title>
	<author>sehlat</author>
	<datestamp>1246642140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Otherwise known as the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Human genetic evolution is Darwinian, but cultural (memetic) evolution is Lamarckan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Otherwise known as the inheritance of acquired characteristics .
Human genetic evolution is Darwinian , but cultural ( memetic ) evolution is Lamarckan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Otherwise known as the inheritance of acquired characteristics.
Human genetic evolution is Darwinian, but cultural (memetic) evolution is Lamarckan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577931</id>
	<title>Re:Write about what you know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246645140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's very unscientific to assume that someone may only have relevant ideas in 'their field of expertise'. I'm sure if you look around you'll find a lot of people who have great ideas in disciplines that they weren't officially eminent in, especially since many of the greatest inventions resulted from accidental discoveries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's very unscientific to assume that someone may only have relevant ideas in 'their field of expertise' .
I 'm sure if you look around you 'll find a lot of people who have great ideas in disciplines that they were n't officially eminent in , especially since many of the greatest inventions resulted from accidental discoveries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's very unscientific to assume that someone may only have relevant ideas in 'their field of expertise'.
I'm sure if you look around you'll find a lot of people who have great ideas in disciplines that they weren't officially eminent in, especially since many of the greatest inventions resulted from accidental discoveries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579487</id>
	<title>Re:Specialization / Speciation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246715640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe this is just philosophy, semantics, etc.</p><p>But, it is really that extreme? Suppose ideas play a factor in the end result which we call evolution. Might it be useful to image that information encoded along side our genes? If one wanted to reason about the mater using mathematics, it would be a logical extension.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe this is just philosophy , semantics , etc.But , it is really that extreme ?
Suppose ideas play a factor in the end result which we call evolution .
Might it be useful to image that information encoded along side our genes ?
If one wanted to reason about the mater using mathematics , it would be a logical extension .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe this is just philosophy, semantics, etc.But, it is really that extreme?
Suppose ideas play a factor in the end result which we call evolution.
Might it be useful to image that information encoded along side our genes?
If one wanted to reason about the mater using mathematics, it would be a logical extension.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579609</id>
	<title>Re:Only honest discussions are useful.</title>
	<author>Nathrael</author>
	<datestamp>1246717500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Japanese IQ test results actually tend to be quite a bit above European/American IQ test results. Why? Because of their culture, which promotes education and knowledge. This however does not mean that the Japanese are some sort of "master race". There is no such thing. IQ tests do not even measure "pure" intelligence - they measure intelligence through methods requiring *knowledge* (of maths etc), which is not the same as intelligence.<br> <br>Race has nothing to do with intelligence. I can take some African kid, raise him in America by American standards and he will be just as "smart" as your typical American - he will be an American with dark skin and relatives on another continent.<br> <br>Humans do not differ a lot by race. Sure, race defines your appearance and it can also have a mild impact on health related issues, but it does not influence your intelligence or ability to reason. Humans aren't really divided by race a lot - they are divided by culture. And yes, there are superior and inferior cultures (come on - a culture that treats women as inferior beings is inferior to cultures that treat women equal to men, period) - but that is no reason to judge people simply because of their heritage, which is just foolish. Else, you could just as well say that all Europeans are in favor of gun control and nanny states, all Americans are Christian fundamentalists, all French and Japanese are racist etc which is just as much BS as claiming that all Africans have inferior intelligence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Japanese IQ test results actually tend to be quite a bit above European/American IQ test results .
Why ? Because of their culture , which promotes education and knowledge .
This however does not mean that the Japanese are some sort of " master race " .
There is no such thing .
IQ tests do not even measure " pure " intelligence - they measure intelligence through methods requiring * knowledge * ( of maths etc ) , which is not the same as intelligence .
Race has nothing to do with intelligence .
I can take some African kid , raise him in America by American standards and he will be just as " smart " as your typical American - he will be an American with dark skin and relatives on another continent .
Humans do not differ a lot by race .
Sure , race defines your appearance and it can also have a mild impact on health related issues , but it does not influence your intelligence or ability to reason .
Humans are n't really divided by race a lot - they are divided by culture .
And yes , there are superior and inferior cultures ( come on - a culture that treats women as inferior beings is inferior to cultures that treat women equal to men , period ) - but that is no reason to judge people simply because of their heritage , which is just foolish .
Else , you could just as well say that all Europeans are in favor of gun control and nanny states , all Americans are Christian fundamentalists , all French and Japanese are racist etc which is just as much BS as claiming that all Africans have inferior intelligence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Japanese IQ test results actually tend to be quite a bit above European/American IQ test results.
Why? Because of their culture, which promotes education and knowledge.
This however does not mean that the Japanese are some sort of "master race".
There is no such thing.
IQ tests do not even measure "pure" intelligence - they measure intelligence through methods requiring *knowledge* (of maths etc), which is not the same as intelligence.
Race has nothing to do with intelligence.
I can take some African kid, raise him in America by American standards and he will be just as "smart" as your typical American - he will be an American with dark skin and relatives on another continent.
Humans do not differ a lot by race.
Sure, race defines your appearance and it can also have a mild impact on health related issues, but it does not influence your intelligence or ability to reason.
Humans aren't really divided by race a lot - they are divided by culture.
And yes, there are superior and inferior cultures (come on - a culture that treats women as inferior beings is inferior to cultures that treat women equal to men, period) - but that is no reason to judge people simply because of their heritage, which is just foolish.
Else, you could just as well say that all Europeans are in favor of gun control and nanny states, all Americans are Christian fundamentalists, all French and Japanese are racist etc which is just as much BS as claiming that all Africans have inferior intelligence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580873</id>
	<title>Re:Only honest discussions are useful.</title>
	<author>inode\_buddha</author>
	<datestamp>1246729260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Um. Dude, I've seen a lot of flame bait here but that takes the cake. Rather than modding, I'm gonna comment.

My white German and Irish arse is gonna kick yer lame thing off this North-American-owned website. Now shut right the hell up and deal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um .
Dude , I 've seen a lot of flame bait here but that takes the cake .
Rather than modding , I 'm gon na comment .
My white German and Irish arse is gon na kick yer lame thing off this North-American-owned website .
Now shut right the hell up and deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um.
Dude, I've seen a lot of flame bait here but that takes the cake.
Rather than modding, I'm gonna comment.
My white German and Irish arse is gonna kick yer lame thing off this North-American-owned website.
Now shut right the hell up and deal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577489</id>
	<title>Evo: Cultural v. Mutation v. Bring What You Gots</title>
	<author>cmholm</author>
	<datestamp>1246639440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hawking is talking about cultural adaptation, which isn't a new concept. What's (relatively) new is the realization that human evolution has <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308\_060308\_evolution.html" title="nationalgeographic.com">continued into historic times</a> [nationalgeographic.com]. So, <i>Homo</i> gets three bites at the apple: a chance to adapt via culture, enabling it to survive in environments that would otherwise select against it; adapt via thus far dormant or undesirable existing genetic characteristics; and adapt via continuing random mutation (most of which will continue to be undesirable for a given situation).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hawking is talking about cultural adaptation , which is n't a new concept .
What 's ( relatively ) new is the realization that human evolution has continued into historic times [ nationalgeographic.com ] .
So , Homo gets three bites at the apple : a chance to adapt via culture , enabling it to survive in environments that would otherwise select against it ; adapt via thus far dormant or undesirable existing genetic characteristics ; and adapt via continuing random mutation ( most of which will continue to be undesirable for a given situation ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hawking is talking about cultural adaptation, which isn't a new concept.
What's (relatively) new is the realization that human evolution has continued into historic times [nationalgeographic.com].
So, Homo gets three bites at the apple: a chance to adapt via culture, enabling it to survive in environments that would otherwise select against it; adapt via thus far dormant or undesirable existing genetic characteristics; and adapt via continuing random mutation (most of which will continue to be undesirable for a given situation).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578699</id>
	<title>Philosophy</title>
	<author>Msdose</author>
	<datestamp>1246700160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hawking wrote the same book twice. In it he first said that all old philosophies were null and void because they did not include quantum mechanics. In the second book he omitted this part and then put in a new ending based on his old philosophy ( positivism I believe ).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hawking wrote the same book twice .
In it he first said that all old philosophies were null and void because they did not include quantum mechanics .
In the second book he omitted this part and then put in a new ending based on his old philosophy ( positivism I believe ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hawking wrote the same book twice.
In it he first said that all old philosophies were null and void because they did not include quantum mechanics.
In the second book he omitted this part and then put in a new ending based on his old philosophy ( positivism I believe ).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578367</id>
	<title>Re:ten thousand years</title>
	<author>Seumas</author>
	<datestamp>1246738020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have already evolved at least one step above most of society, where the norm is to be married and have children *and* be broke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have already evolved at least one step above most of society , where the norm is to be married and have children * and * be broke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have already evolved at least one step above most of society, where the norm is to be married and have children *and* be broke.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579503</id>
	<title>Re:Write about what you know</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1246715760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sir Stephen Hawking is a very smart man, and I have the utmost respect for him.</p><p>However, he should stick to the areas of his expertise and let biologists talk about evolution, because that's their area of expertise.</p><p>I wouldn't expect anyone to take Dr. Richard Dawkins' thoughts on quantum mechanics as definitive, and this is no different.</p></div><p>This is a pure ad-hominem attack. You show absolutely no understanding of the message, you don't even mention it with one single word, but you feel you can bash the messenger.</p><p>The interesting fact is, Hawkings has not even taken on genetics itself (of which he is no expert), he states taht human evolution is determined by more than just genes, as we are a species that leaves behind us more information than just what is stored in our genes. So he wasn't even talking from the podium of a geneticist; his was a larger-picture stance looking at humankind as more than just an animal species.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sir Stephen Hawking is a very smart man , and I have the utmost respect for him.However , he should stick to the areas of his expertise and let biologists talk about evolution , because that 's their area of expertise.I would n't expect anyone to take Dr. Richard Dawkins ' thoughts on quantum mechanics as definitive , and this is no different.This is a pure ad-hominem attack .
You show absolutely no understanding of the message , you do n't even mention it with one single word , but you feel you can bash the messenger.The interesting fact is , Hawkings has not even taken on genetics itself ( of which he is no expert ) , he states taht human evolution is determined by more than just genes , as we are a species that leaves behind us more information than just what is stored in our genes .
So he was n't even talking from the podium of a geneticist ; his was a larger-picture stance looking at humankind as more than just an animal species .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sir Stephen Hawking is a very smart man, and I have the utmost respect for him.However, he should stick to the areas of his expertise and let biologists talk about evolution, because that's their area of expertise.I wouldn't expect anyone to take Dr. Richard Dawkins' thoughts on quantum mechanics as definitive, and this is no different.This is a pure ad-hominem attack.
You show absolutely no understanding of the message, you don't even mention it with one single word, but you feel you can bash the messenger.The interesting fact is, Hawkings has not even taken on genetics itself (of which he is no expert), he states taht human evolution is determined by more than just genes, as we are a species that leaves behind us more information than just what is stored in our genes.
So he wasn't even talking from the podium of a geneticist; his was a larger-picture stance looking at humankind as more than just an animal species.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580697</id>
	<title>Left something out</title>
	<author>dontmakemethink</author>
	<datestamp>1246727640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article describes an evolutionary "external transmission phase" referring specifically to the propagation of information, but doesn't mention the Internet as a driving force?  If there's anything that has caused a recent escalation in this scheme it's gotta be the Web.  The article only refers specifically to books!  Meanwhile Facebook has to have changed human behavior more than any single book published in the last 50 years.</p><p>No doubt Dr. Hawking has not ignored the Internet in his deliberations, but it's strangely ironic for an online article to overlook its influence in this matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article describes an evolutionary " external transmission phase " referring specifically to the propagation of information , but does n't mention the Internet as a driving force ?
If there 's anything that has caused a recent escalation in this scheme it 's got ta be the Web .
The article only refers specifically to books !
Meanwhile Facebook has to have changed human behavior more than any single book published in the last 50 years.No doubt Dr. Hawking has not ignored the Internet in his deliberations , but it 's strangely ironic for an online article to overlook its influence in this matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article describes an evolutionary "external transmission phase" referring specifically to the propagation of information, but doesn't mention the Internet as a driving force?
If there's anything that has caused a recent escalation in this scheme it's gotta be the Web.
The article only refers specifically to books!
Meanwhile Facebook has to have changed human behavior more than any single book published in the last 50 years.No doubt Dr. Hawking has not ignored the Internet in his deliberations, but it's strangely ironic for an online article to overlook its influence in this matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580035</id>
	<title>The point is: We can tinker now.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246721820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After the science of genetics has been developed to the point where DNA sequencing has become almost trivial and now we're able to do some degree of slicing, dicing, and splicing such that it has become an industry (genetic engineering), I'd say it's safe to say that evolution is going to become a whole new ballgame. No longer an entirely natural process. And this change is not just for humanity, but for any species closely associated with us, or even those that are particularly interesting such that they may be considered useful.</p><p>Ethics and laws aren't much to stop this either, the proliferation of the knowledge and technology means jurisdictions and social norms can be skirted just by virtue of relocating. I'm not so sure of a full blown Isle of Dr. Moreau situation, but it's not completely outside the realm of possibility anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After the science of genetics has been developed to the point where DNA sequencing has become almost trivial and now we 're able to do some degree of slicing , dicing , and splicing such that it has become an industry ( genetic engineering ) , I 'd say it 's safe to say that evolution is going to become a whole new ballgame .
No longer an entirely natural process .
And this change is not just for humanity , but for any species closely associated with us , or even those that are particularly interesting such that they may be considered useful.Ethics and laws are n't much to stop this either , the proliferation of the knowledge and technology means jurisdictions and social norms can be skirted just by virtue of relocating .
I 'm not so sure of a full blown Isle of Dr. Moreau situation , but it 's not completely outside the realm of possibility anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After the science of genetics has been developed to the point where DNA sequencing has become almost trivial and now we're able to do some degree of slicing, dicing, and splicing such that it has become an industry (genetic engineering), I'd say it's safe to say that evolution is going to become a whole new ballgame.
No longer an entirely natural process.
And this change is not just for humanity, but for any species closely associated with us, or even those that are particularly interesting such that they may be considered useful.Ethics and laws aren't much to stop this either, the proliferation of the knowledge and technology means jurisdictions and social norms can be skirted just by virtue of relocating.
I'm not so sure of a full blown Isle of Dr. Moreau situation, but it's not completely outside the realm of possibility anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579249</id>
	<title>This makes sense</title>
	<author>lttlordfault</author>
	<datestamp>1246711740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is something I've never really considered before, but seems to make sense.<p>
When people stopped competing on who could keep eating enough for survival and as social interaction between people increased, the evolutionary battle moved from being physically based to one based on knowledge.</p><p>

Though this is really a different way of thinking about evolution, there are a lot of parallels I can think of between classic evolution and a knowledge based evolution. </p><p>

I'd say that as knowledge became more important this evolutionary race moved from just being about independent people a common pool of knowledge grew, almost as an ant hive has a swarm life of it's own, all building for a common purpose, the advancement of that race as a common goal.</p><p>

Just my 2 cents, as I said I've never really considered this before so I'm only just getting my head round it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is something I 've never really considered before , but seems to make sense .
When people stopped competing on who could keep eating enough for survival and as social interaction between people increased , the evolutionary battle moved from being physically based to one based on knowledge .
Though this is really a different way of thinking about evolution , there are a lot of parallels I can think of between classic evolution and a knowledge based evolution .
I 'd say that as knowledge became more important this evolutionary race moved from just being about independent people a common pool of knowledge grew , almost as an ant hive has a swarm life of it 's own , all building for a common purpose , the advancement of that race as a common goal .
Just my 2 cents , as I said I 've never really considered this before so I 'm only just getting my head round it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is something I've never really considered before, but seems to make sense.
When people stopped competing on who could keep eating enough for survival and as social interaction between people increased, the evolutionary battle moved from being physically based to one based on knowledge.
Though this is really a different way of thinking about evolution, there are a lot of parallels I can think of between classic evolution and a knowledge based evolution.
I'd say that as knowledge became more important this evolutionary race moved from just being about independent people a common pool of knowledge grew, almost as an ant hive has a swarm life of it's own, all building for a common purpose, the advancement of that race as a common goal.
Just my 2 cents, as I said I've never really considered this before so I'm only just getting my head round it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28576991</id>
	<title>What's his point?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246633500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is basically just a useless semantics argument.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is basically just a useless semantics argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is basically just a useless semantics argument.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577665</id>
	<title>Re:ten thousand years</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1246641720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's one of the key points of cultural evolutionary theories: culture evolves MUCH faster than genes.  Even if we allowed the full force of natural selection to determine our physical evolution, our culture changes so much faster that our physical evolution is essentially static in comparison.  A cultural "generation" isn't anything like 25 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's one of the key points of cultural evolutionary theories : culture evolves MUCH faster than genes .
Even if we allowed the full force of natural selection to determine our physical evolution , our culture changes so much faster that our physical evolution is essentially static in comparison .
A cultural " generation " is n't anything like 25 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's one of the key points of cultural evolutionary theories: culture evolves MUCH faster than genes.
Even if we allowed the full force of natural selection to determine our physical evolution, our culture changes so much faster that our physical evolution is essentially static in comparison.
A cultural "generation" isn't anything like 25 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28582645</id>
	<title>Re:Write about what you know</title>
	<author>neon\_geniuses</author>
	<datestamp>1246702920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Memes or no memes, let's think about what it means to declare that evolution is dead.</p><p>Suppose that 50 years from now, one or more companies develop in-vitro superbaby products.  We might have 100,000 children across Western Europe, Japan, China, or wherever the world's elite may reside.  These children will have a money-back guarantee against Parkinsons, Down's Syndrome, scoliosis, nearsightedness, male pattern baldness, early salt and pepper graying, and a whole host of other traits that we wild-type children have to worry about.</p><p>What about the other 6 or more billion people on Earth?  Right now, the world's poorest women might average 3-5 children in their lifetimes.  As members of the wealthy elite, what do you think the fertility rate of superbaby women would be?  Remember that the replacement rate for population stability has to be &gt;2.0.</p><p>Let's think about the male superbabies.  Suppose that when they turn 18, they all look like Calvin Klein underwear models.  They don't speak with stutters, their superior engineering prevents pit-stains in their white dress shirts, and they all have perfect eye color based on years of focus testing.  For argument's sake, we'll say that these amazing men are able to spread Y chromosomes as successfully as Genghis Khan.</p><p>This is something akin to taking a Siberian Husky and breeding it into a population of 100,000 wolves.  The only distinguishing feature of the dog is its lack of genetic diversity vis-a-vis the wolves.  It has been carefully selected by man over thousands of generations of inbreeding to become man's conception of what a wolf should be.  After a single generation, the offspring would regain much of their lost heritage and be not dogs, but slightly watered-down wolves.</p><p>I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we won't be able to take the easy way out.  We all wish we could take our millions from our tech company IPOs and buy the world's best children.  However, the real answer is to learn to talk to women.  This involves personal grooming, learning to play guitar, going to the gym, and figuring out how to properly hold a knife and fork.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Memes or no memes , let 's think about what it means to declare that evolution is dead.Suppose that 50 years from now , one or more companies develop in-vitro superbaby products .
We might have 100,000 children across Western Europe , Japan , China , or wherever the world 's elite may reside .
These children will have a money-back guarantee against Parkinsons , Down 's Syndrome , scoliosis , nearsightedness , male pattern baldness , early salt and pepper graying , and a whole host of other traits that we wild-type children have to worry about.What about the other 6 or more billion people on Earth ?
Right now , the world 's poorest women might average 3-5 children in their lifetimes .
As members of the wealthy elite , what do you think the fertility rate of superbaby women would be ?
Remember that the replacement rate for population stability has to be &gt; 2.0.Let 's think about the male superbabies .
Suppose that when they turn 18 , they all look like Calvin Klein underwear models .
They do n't speak with stutters , their superior engineering prevents pit-stains in their white dress shirts , and they all have perfect eye color based on years of focus testing .
For argument 's sake , we 'll say that these amazing men are able to spread Y chromosomes as successfully as Genghis Khan.This is something akin to taking a Siberian Husky and breeding it into a population of 100,000 wolves .
The only distinguishing feature of the dog is its lack of genetic diversity vis-a-vis the wolves .
It has been carefully selected by man over thousands of generations of inbreeding to become man 's conception of what a wolf should be .
After a single generation , the offspring would regain much of their lost heritage and be not dogs , but slightly watered-down wolves.I hate to be the bearer of bad news , but we wo n't be able to take the easy way out .
We all wish we could take our millions from our tech company IPOs and buy the world 's best children .
However , the real answer is to learn to talk to women .
This involves personal grooming , learning to play guitar , going to the gym , and figuring out how to properly hold a knife and fork .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Memes or no memes, let's think about what it means to declare that evolution is dead.Suppose that 50 years from now, one or more companies develop in-vitro superbaby products.
We might have 100,000 children across Western Europe, Japan, China, or wherever the world's elite may reside.
These children will have a money-back guarantee against Parkinsons, Down's Syndrome, scoliosis, nearsightedness, male pattern baldness, early salt and pepper graying, and a whole host of other traits that we wild-type children have to worry about.What about the other 6 or more billion people on Earth?
Right now, the world's poorest women might average 3-5 children in their lifetimes.
As members of the wealthy elite, what do you think the fertility rate of superbaby women would be?
Remember that the replacement rate for population stability has to be &gt;2.0.Let's think about the male superbabies.
Suppose that when they turn 18, they all look like Calvin Klein underwear models.
They don't speak with stutters, their superior engineering prevents pit-stains in their white dress shirts, and they all have perfect eye color based on years of focus testing.
For argument's sake, we'll say that these amazing men are able to spread Y chromosomes as successfully as Genghis Khan.This is something akin to taking a Siberian Husky and breeding it into a population of 100,000 wolves.
The only distinguishing feature of the dog is its lack of genetic diversity vis-a-vis the wolves.
It has been carefully selected by man over thousands of generations of inbreeding to become man's conception of what a wolf should be.
After a single generation, the offspring would regain much of their lost heritage and be not dogs, but slightly watered-down wolves.I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we won't be able to take the easy way out.
We all wish we could take our millions from our tech company IPOs and buy the world's best children.
However, the real answer is to learn to talk to women.
This involves personal grooming, learning to play guitar, going to the gym, and figuring out how to properly hold a knife and fork.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577741</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28582221</id>
	<title>Go take a hike!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246698480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or at least stop smoking that Obama Gold crack cocaine that you arrogant ass holes must be smoking.  Are we to believe that rather than taking very long periods of time, even millions of years, that smoking dope can increase the speed of evolution some how?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or at least stop smoking that Obama Gold crack cocaine that you arrogant ass holes must be smoking .
Are we to believe that rather than taking very long periods of time , even millions of years , that smoking dope can increase the speed of evolution some how ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or at least stop smoking that Obama Gold crack cocaine that you arrogant ass holes must be smoking.
Are we to believe that rather than taking very long periods of time, even millions of years, that smoking dope can increase the speed of evolution some how?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577609</id>
	<title>Re:What's his point?</title>
	<author>Raffaello</author>
	<datestamp>1246641180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. Apparently something that is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociocultural\_evolution" title="wikipedia.org">very, very old news in social science circles</a> [wikipedia.org] has just occurred to Hawking, so naturally, it must be a new idea, right?</p><p>Miranda: How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, That has such people in't!<br>Prospero: 'Tis new to thee. (The Tempest, Act V:Sc. 1, line 183-184)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Apparently something that is very , very old news in social science circles [ wikipedia.org ] has just occurred to Hawking , so naturally , it must be a new idea , right ? Miranda : How beauteous mankind is !
O brave new world , That has such people i n't ! Prospero : 'T is new to thee .
( The Tempest , Act V : Sc .
1 , line 183-184 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Apparently something that is very, very old news in social science circles [wikipedia.org] has just occurred to Hawking, so naturally, it must be a new idea, right?Miranda: How beauteous mankind is!
O brave new world, That has such people in't!Prospero: 'Tis new to thee.
(The Tempest, Act V:Sc.
1, line 183-184)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579613</id>
	<title>Re:We're doomed...</title>
	<author>Eric89GXL</author>
	<datestamp>1246717560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obilg. XKCD:

<a href="http://www.xkcd.com/603/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.xkcd.com/603/</a> [xkcd.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obilg .
XKCD : http : //www.xkcd.com/603/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obilg.
XKCD:

http://www.xkcd.com/603/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580831</id>
	<title>Re:Public Service Announcement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246728840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I appreciate the poetic nature of what you've said, you're applying arbitrary purpose to a purposeless existence.  It's not even our purpose to survive except that it's what our DNA appears to direct us to do.  Without purpose and direction, anger, joy, sorrow, and passing the torch have no more meaning than the forces that hold our puny bodies together.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I appreciate the poetic nature of what you 've said , you 're applying arbitrary purpose to a purposeless existence .
It 's not even our purpose to survive except that it 's what our DNA appears to direct us to do .
Without purpose and direction , anger , joy , sorrow , and passing the torch have no more meaning than the forces that hold our puny bodies together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I appreciate the poetic nature of what you've said, you're applying arbitrary purpose to a purposeless existence.
It's not even our purpose to survive except that it's what our DNA appears to direct us to do.
Without purpose and direction, anger, joy, sorrow, and passing the torch have no more meaning than the forces that hold our puny bodies together.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577447</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution does not work solely through mutation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246638960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>3. Survival of the fittest.<br>It's survival of the breediest, not necessarily of the fittest.</p></div><p>The term "fittest" is referring to animals that have the highest <i>fitness</i> in an evolutionary sense.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness\_(biology)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Fitness</a> [wikipedia.org] [Wikipedia] is defined as an organism's ability to propagate genes to future generations.  Although this definition seems vague on a short time scale, it is general enough to mean that organisms whose genes survive well into the future have high fitness whereas those whose genes don't survive for whatever reason have low fitness.  Breeding a lot increases the short-term fitness without any guarantee of the long-term fitness.  Of course, an organism that doesn't reproduce at all has a fitness of zero.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>4. Evolution works through mutation.<br>Errrrgghh... I disagree with Stephen Hawking.  Ok, mutation helps, but you know what? Evolution doesn't need it. Most mutations result in a f*kup, not something useful. Evolution just needs seperate populations and/or environments. Eventually populations diverge and become more suited to their environments.</p></div><p>What are you talking about?  Evolution depends on genetic diversity, which only exists due to mutations.  Even though some mutations are detrimental to the host and result in a loss of fitness and others do seemingly nothing at all, there are still (rare and hard-to-observe in your lifetime) mutations that result in greater fitness.  At this point, there is already a lot of genetic diversity, but there is always room for more.  We never know what the future will bring, but if a new, mutated gene is helpful for some yet unknown climate, it will survive.  As far as we can tell, it's happened many times before, and it will probably happen again.</p><p>Mutations happen all the time, be it a transcription error or a problem with genes <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing\_over" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">crossing over</a> [wikipedia.org].  Without these mutations, evolution wouldn't happen at all.  There would only be a single species of archae, all of which would have the exact same genetic makeup.  Mutations are what <i>create</i> the separate populations you're talking about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>3 .
Survival of the fittest.It 's survival of the breediest , not necessarily of the fittest.The term " fittest " is referring to animals that have the highest fitness in an evolutionary sense .
Fitness [ wikipedia.org ] [ Wikipedia ] is defined as an organism 's ability to propagate genes to future generations .
Although this definition seems vague on a short time scale , it is general enough to mean that organisms whose genes survive well into the future have high fitness whereas those whose genes do n't survive for whatever reason have low fitness .
Breeding a lot increases the short-term fitness without any guarantee of the long-term fitness .
Of course , an organism that does n't reproduce at all has a fitness of zero.4 .
Evolution works through mutation.Errrrgghh... I disagree with Stephen Hawking .
Ok , mutation helps , but you know what ?
Evolution does n't need it .
Most mutations result in a f * kup , not something useful .
Evolution just needs seperate populations and/or environments .
Eventually populations diverge and become more suited to their environments.What are you talking about ?
Evolution depends on genetic diversity , which only exists due to mutations .
Even though some mutations are detrimental to the host and result in a loss of fitness and others do seemingly nothing at all , there are still ( rare and hard-to-observe in your lifetime ) mutations that result in greater fitness .
At this point , there is already a lot of genetic diversity , but there is always room for more .
We never know what the future will bring , but if a new , mutated gene is helpful for some yet unknown climate , it will survive .
As far as we can tell , it 's happened many times before , and it will probably happen again.Mutations happen all the time , be it a transcription error or a problem with genes crossing over [ wikipedia.org ] .
Without these mutations , evolution would n't happen at all .
There would only be a single species of archae , all of which would have the exact same genetic makeup .
Mutations are what create the separate populations you 're talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3.
Survival of the fittest.It's survival of the breediest, not necessarily of the fittest.The term "fittest" is referring to animals that have the highest fitness in an evolutionary sense.
Fitness [wikipedia.org] [Wikipedia] is defined as an organism's ability to propagate genes to future generations.
Although this definition seems vague on a short time scale, it is general enough to mean that organisms whose genes survive well into the future have high fitness whereas those whose genes don't survive for whatever reason have low fitness.
Breeding a lot increases the short-term fitness without any guarantee of the long-term fitness.
Of course, an organism that doesn't reproduce at all has a fitness of zero.4.
Evolution works through mutation.Errrrgghh... I disagree with Stephen Hawking.
Ok, mutation helps, but you know what?
Evolution doesn't need it.
Most mutations result in a f*kup, not something useful.
Evolution just needs seperate populations and/or environments.
Eventually populations diverge and become more suited to their environments.What are you talking about?
Evolution depends on genetic diversity, which only exists due to mutations.
Even though some mutations are detrimental to the host and result in a loss of fitness and others do seemingly nothing at all, there are still (rare and hard-to-observe in your lifetime) mutations that result in greater fitness.
At this point, there is already a lot of genetic diversity, but there is always room for more.
We never know what the future will bring, but if a new, mutated gene is helpful for some yet unknown climate, it will survive.
As far as we can tell, it's happened many times before, and it will probably happen again.Mutations happen all the time, be it a transcription error or a problem with genes crossing over [wikipedia.org].
Without these mutations, evolution wouldn't happen at all.
There would only be a single species of archae, all of which would have the exact same genetic makeup.
Mutations are what create the separate populations you're talking about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578247</id>
	<title>Insightful? Not so much..</title>
	<author>hellop2</author>
	<datestamp>1246649460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Cancer is not an organism.  It's an undesirable mutation.<p>
2. Undesirable traits are not usually identified as evolution.  To evolve implies continued survival of the species, otherwise the species was unable to evolve.  An undesirable trait that leads to extinction, such as human overpopulation or habitat destruction, is therefore not an example of evolution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Cancer is not an organism .
It 's an undesirable mutation .
2. Undesirable traits are not usually identified as evolution .
To evolve implies continued survival of the species , otherwise the species was unable to evolve .
An undesirable trait that leads to extinction , such as human overpopulation or habitat destruction , is therefore not an example of evolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Cancer is not an organism.
It's an undesirable mutation.
2. Undesirable traits are not usually identified as evolution.
To evolve implies continued survival of the species, otherwise the species was unable to evolve.
An undesirable trait that leads to extinction, such as human overpopulation or habitat destruction, is therefore not an example of evolution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28581797</id>
	<title>Punctuation Nazi here</title>
	<author>jnork</author>
	<datestamp>1246736640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Way, too, many, commas.</p><p>Sorry, I know not everybody cares, but some of us find it harder to read when we're distracted by spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors. It's sort of like hearing sour notes in music.</p><p>Feel free to ignore me. I'm just venting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Way , too , many , commas.Sorry , I know not everybody cares , but some of us find it harder to read when we 're distracted by spelling , grammar , and punctuation errors .
It 's sort of like hearing sour notes in music.Feel free to ignore me .
I 'm just venting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Way, too, many, commas.Sorry, I know not everybody cares, but some of us find it harder to read when we're distracted by spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors.
It's sort of like hearing sour notes in music.Feel free to ignore me.
I'm just venting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578723</id>
	<title>Re:ten thousand years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246700460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tame\_Silver\_Fox" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Obligatory Wikipedia link</a> [wikipedia.org] - these are Belyaev foxes you're thinking of. I don't know if they had any significant changes after 7 generations already, though.</p><p>That said, there's a difference anyway between "significant alteration is possible after 7 generations if there is an external force trying to achieve these alterations by exerting absolute control over breeding" and "significant alteration will always or even usually happen after 7 (or 400) generations".</p><p>The truth of the former would not imply the truth of the latter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obligatory Wikipedia link [ wikipedia.org ] - these are Belyaev foxes you 're thinking of .
I do n't know if they had any significant changes after 7 generations already , though.That said , there 's a difference anyway between " significant alteration is possible after 7 generations if there is an external force trying to achieve these alterations by exerting absolute control over breeding " and " significant alteration will always or even usually happen after 7 ( or 400 ) generations " .The truth of the former would not imply the truth of the latter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obligatory Wikipedia link [wikipedia.org] - these are Belyaev foxes you're thinking of.
I don't know if they had any significant changes after 7 generations already, though.That said, there's a difference anyway between "significant alteration is possible after 7 generations if there is an external force trying to achieve these alterations by exerting absolute control over breeding" and "significant alteration will always or even usually happen after 7 (or 400) generations".The truth of the former would not imply the truth of the latter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580463</id>
	<title>Re:Write about what you know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246725780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"He's a physicist and this is biology" is just a slightly mangled appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.</i></p><p>Why do you think anybody listens to Hawking in the first place?  Because he is famous.  If he weren't, nobody would give a damn what he had to say about biology.  Refuting him on biology is no more worthwhile than refuting the guys at the Creation Science institute on biology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" He 's a physicist and this is biology " is just a slightly mangled appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.Why do you think anybody listens to Hawking in the first place ?
Because he is famous .
If he were n't , nobody would give a damn what he had to say about biology .
Refuting him on biology is no more worthwhile than refuting the guys at the Creation Science institute on biology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"He's a physicist and this is biology" is just a slightly mangled appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.Why do you think anybody listens to Hawking in the first place?
Because he is famous.
If he weren't, nobody would give a damn what he had to say about biology.
Refuting him on biology is no more worthwhile than refuting the guys at the Creation Science institute on biology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577741</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28583309</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution does not work solely through mutation</title>
	<author>NoOneInParticular</author>
	<datestamp>1246711500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Practically, you are right. Mutation is needed. Mathematically, it isn't necessary. What research in random number generators has shown is that you can create arbitrary long pseudo-random sequences through deterministic means by shuffling enough bits around. So, if you sacrifice a couple of million nucleotides for implementing a random number generator, you're good to go with 'random' mutations in a deterministic process to last until the sun burns out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Practically , you are right .
Mutation is needed .
Mathematically , it is n't necessary .
What research in random number generators has shown is that you can create arbitrary long pseudo-random sequences through deterministic means by shuffling enough bits around .
So , if you sacrifice a couple of million nucleotides for implementing a random number generator , you 're good to go with 'random ' mutations in a deterministic process to last until the sun burns out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Practically, you are right.
Mutation is needed.
Mathematically, it isn't necessary.
What research in random number generators has shown is that you can create arbitrary long pseudo-random sequences through deterministic means by shuffling enough bits around.
So, if you sacrifice a couple of million nucleotides for implementing a random number generator, you're good to go with 'random' mutations in a deterministic process to last until the sun burns out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577255</id>
	<title>Re:ten thousand years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246637100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That's not a lot of time for any significant alteration in how our evolution works</p></div></blockquote><p>Who said that altering how evolution works takes time?</p><blockquote><div><p>especially considering the millions of years it took to get us this far in the first place</p></div></blockquote><p>That's how long evolution took, not how long altering it took.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not a lot of time for any significant alteration in how our evolution worksWho said that altering how evolution works takes time ? especially considering the millions of years it took to get us this far in the first placeThat 's how long evolution took , not how long altering it took .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not a lot of time for any significant alteration in how our evolution worksWho said that altering how evolution works takes time?especially considering the millions of years it took to get us this far in the first placeThat's how long evolution took, not how long altering it took.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28587309</id>
	<title>Re:Only honest discussions are useful.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246819920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have no idea where morons like you come from.  Sub-saharan Africa has the highest genetic diversity on the planet.  Ponder that for a moment.  It means that your notion of some sort of genetic "dumbness" is bunk.</p><p>But maybe that explains your own stupidity, fear and ignorance.  I'd feel sorry for you, if you weren't such a loathesome pile of garbage.  Now go find a rock, you useless piece of shit.</p></div><p>What a profound and very eloquent rebuttal. Almost as eloquent as the time many many years ago in high school when Jeff Prout, upon being asked how effective some controversial New Deal programs were in assuaging the effects of the Great Depression, stood up and farted.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no idea where morons like you come from .
Sub-saharan Africa has the highest genetic diversity on the planet .
Ponder that for a moment .
It means that your notion of some sort of genetic " dumbness " is bunk.But maybe that explains your own stupidity , fear and ignorance .
I 'd feel sorry for you , if you were n't such a loathesome pile of garbage .
Now go find a rock , you useless piece of shit.What a profound and very eloquent rebuttal .
Almost as eloquent as the time many many years ago in high school when Jeff Prout , upon being asked how effective some controversial New Deal programs were in assuaging the effects of the Great Depression , stood up and farted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no idea where morons like you come from.
Sub-saharan Africa has the highest genetic diversity on the planet.
Ponder that for a moment.
It means that your notion of some sort of genetic "dumbness" is bunk.But maybe that explains your own stupidity, fear and ignorance.
I'd feel sorry for you, if you weren't such a loathesome pile of garbage.
Now go find a rock, you useless piece of shit.What a profound and very eloquent rebuttal.
Almost as eloquent as the time many many years ago in high school when Jeff Prout, upon being asked how effective some controversial New Deal programs were in assuaging the effects of the Great Depression, stood up and farted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577241</id>
	<title>Take it Further: Transhumanism</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1246636860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But I think that is too narrow a view. We are more than just our genes.</i></p><p>Take that line a step further and you get transhumanism. We are no longer an isolated life form, but are inherently coupled with our tools. Tools that extend our minds around the planet. The Internet.</p><p>Books are cool, but they're pretty uni-directional. Wikipedia is cooler, updating our knowledge base in real time. Twitter is even faster; a brain extension so fast and light that it recently fomented revolution.</p><p>Yeah, we're past genes. What's more, we're rapidly passing static tools like rocks, newspapers, and books. Our minds are connected to each other in real-time, planet-wide. Our individual minds are gaining connectivity to the hive mind and extending our capabilities, much as our giant neocortex lifted us above the other animals.</p><p>See: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism" title="wikipedia.org">Transhumanism</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But I think that is too narrow a view .
We are more than just our genes.Take that line a step further and you get transhumanism .
We are no longer an isolated life form , but are inherently coupled with our tools .
Tools that extend our minds around the planet .
The Internet.Books are cool , but they 're pretty uni-directional .
Wikipedia is cooler , updating our knowledge base in real time .
Twitter is even faster ; a brain extension so fast and light that it recently fomented revolution.Yeah , we 're past genes .
What 's more , we 're rapidly passing static tools like rocks , newspapers , and books .
Our minds are connected to each other in real-time , planet-wide .
Our individual minds are gaining connectivity to the hive mind and extending our capabilities , much as our giant neocortex lifted us above the other animals.See : Transhumanism [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I think that is too narrow a view.
We are more than just our genes.Take that line a step further and you get transhumanism.
We are no longer an isolated life form, but are inherently coupled with our tools.
Tools that extend our minds around the planet.
The Internet.Books are cool, but they're pretty uni-directional.
Wikipedia is cooler, updating our knowledge base in real time.
Twitter is even faster; a brain extension so fast and light that it recently fomented revolution.Yeah, we're past genes.
What's more, we're rapidly passing static tools like rocks, newspapers, and books.
Our minds are connected to each other in real-time, planet-wide.
Our individual minds are gaining connectivity to the hive mind and extending our capabilities, much as our giant neocortex lifted us above the other animals.See: Transhumanism [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578257</id>
	<title>Re:Only honest discussions are useful.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246649580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have no idea where morons like you come from. Sub-saharan Africa has the highest genetic diversity on the planet. Ponder that for a moment. It means that your notion of some sort of genetic "dumbness" is bunk.</p></div><p>There is more genetic diversity among chimpanzees than humans. That is not the reason chimps are considered less intelligent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no idea where morons like you come from .
Sub-saharan Africa has the highest genetic diversity on the planet .
Ponder that for a moment .
It means that your notion of some sort of genetic " dumbness " is bunk.There is more genetic diversity among chimpanzees than humans .
That is not the reason chimps are considered less intelligent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no idea where morons like you come from.
Sub-saharan Africa has the highest genetic diversity on the planet.
Ponder that for a moment.
It means that your notion of some sort of genetic "dumbness" is bunk.There is more genetic diversity among chimpanzees than humans.
That is not the reason chimps are considered less intelligent.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28581037</id>
	<title>Re:Take it Further: Transhumanism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246730460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think he's saying Twitter caused the Iranian revolution...</p><p>Amazing.  I guess, in that way, the British tea companies are responsible for the American Revolution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think he 's saying Twitter caused the Iranian revolution...Amazing .
I guess , in that way , the British tea companies are responsible for the American Revolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think he's saying Twitter caused the Iranian revolution...Amazing.
I guess, in that way, the British tea companies are responsible for the American Revolution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577637</id>
	<title>Re:Write about what you know</title>
	<author>paulsnx2</author>
	<datestamp>1246641480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Makes one wonder about folks that take Dr. Richard Dawkin's thoughts on theology as definitive, doesn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Makes one wonder about folks that take Dr. Richard Dawkin 's thoughts on theology as definitive , does n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Makes one wonder about folks that take Dr. Richard Dawkin's thoughts on theology as definitive, doesn't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578833</id>
	<title>What? That made no sense...</title>
	<author>RancidPeanutOil</author>
	<datestamp>1246702800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, I love his black hole theory as much as any other nerd, but from the article, it sounds like he doesn't even know what he's talking about re: evolution and natural selection. Evolution is differential reproductive success, through the functioning of natural selection. Books aren't genes aren't attached to individuals and transmitted only to offspring - otherwise the idea of school would be a lot more fun.</p><p>It's not useful information that is added, but useful information added and passed down to a larger number of offspring than another representative but less useful bit of information. Once you've had your last child, you're out of the pool. How do books work into that scenario?</p><p>For example, say a child was born in a library with no humans around, and its mother dies in childbirth. Nothing in the library but books and food. That child could grow up and die and it would never have necessarily learned to read. Real evolution isn't that easy to derail. <em>Unless</em> he's saying that humans transmitting information to successive generations in order to boost their survival skills is evolution. In which case, he should be mindful that John Tooby doesn't write books about black holes, and that his contribution is not neccessary <em>or</em> helpful.</p><p> <em>I also liked how he's quoted as saying that in the 18th century, there was a man reported to have read all existing books. Is there an entry for that on snopes.com? Because I call shenanigans. That's completely ridiculous. There was a lot of books in the 18th century, and the 17th, too. Could I request that we add the 'getoffmylawn' tag to this story?</em> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , I love his black hole theory as much as any other nerd , but from the article , it sounds like he does n't even know what he 's talking about re : evolution and natural selection .
Evolution is differential reproductive success , through the functioning of natural selection .
Books are n't genes are n't attached to individuals and transmitted only to offspring - otherwise the idea of school would be a lot more fun.It 's not useful information that is added , but useful information added and passed down to a larger number of offspring than another representative but less useful bit of information .
Once you 've had your last child , you 're out of the pool .
How do books work into that scenario ? For example , say a child was born in a library with no humans around , and its mother dies in childbirth .
Nothing in the library but books and food .
That child could grow up and die and it would never have necessarily learned to read .
Real evolution is n't that easy to derail .
Unless he 's saying that humans transmitting information to successive generations in order to boost their survival skills is evolution .
In which case , he should be mindful that John Tooby does n't write books about black holes , and that his contribution is not neccessary or helpful .
I also liked how he 's quoted as saying that in the 18th century , there was a man reported to have read all existing books .
Is there an entry for that on snopes.com ?
Because I call shenanigans .
That 's completely ridiculous .
There was a lot of books in the 18th century , and the 17th , too .
Could I request that we add the 'getoffmylawn ' tag to this story ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, I love his black hole theory as much as any other nerd, but from the article, it sounds like he doesn't even know what he's talking about re: evolution and natural selection.
Evolution is differential reproductive success, through the functioning of natural selection.
Books aren't genes aren't attached to individuals and transmitted only to offspring - otherwise the idea of school would be a lot more fun.It's not useful information that is added, but useful information added and passed down to a larger number of offspring than another representative but less useful bit of information.
Once you've had your last child, you're out of the pool.
How do books work into that scenario?For example, say a child was born in a library with no humans around, and its mother dies in childbirth.
Nothing in the library but books and food.
That child could grow up and die and it would never have necessarily learned to read.
Real evolution isn't that easy to derail.
Unless he's saying that humans transmitting information to successive generations in order to boost their survival skills is evolution.
In which case, he should be mindful that John Tooby doesn't write books about black holes, and that his contribution is not neccessary or helpful.
I also liked how he's quoted as saying that in the 18th century, there was a man reported to have read all existing books.
Is there an entry for that on snopes.com?
Because I call shenanigans.
That's completely ridiculous.
There was a lot of books in the 18th century, and the 17th, too.
Could I request that we add the 'getoffmylawn' tag to this story? </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577103</id>
	<title>As long as we are not our own worst enemies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246634880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We are more than just our genes</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, but we must be willing to use that knowledge to improve human chances for long-term survival, not to counteract the evolution just to feel good. If we take the latter course of action, as it is trendy to do, we are in effect using our evolutionary advantage against ourselves.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We are more than just our genesYes , but we must be willing to use that knowledge to improve human chances for long-term survival , not to counteract the evolution just to feel good .
If we take the latter course of action , as it is trendy to do , we are in effect using our evolutionary advantage against ourselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are more than just our genesYes, but we must be willing to use that knowledge to improve human chances for long-term survival, not to counteract the evolution just to feel good.
If we take the latter course of action, as it is trendy to do, we are in effect using our evolutionary advantage against ourselves.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577701</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution does not work solely through mutation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246642020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now, I am not a biologist, or even in the field...</p></div><p>You should've stopped here.  Reading one book and not even tangentially being involved in the field doesn't give you the requisite knowledge to point out misconceptions with any sort of confidence.</p><p>Plus, another reply to you basically refuted each of your presented points.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , I am not a biologist , or even in the field...You should 've stopped here .
Reading one book and not even tangentially being involved in the field does n't give you the requisite knowledge to point out misconceptions with any sort of confidence.Plus , another reply to you basically refuted each of your presented points .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, I am not a biologist, or even in the field...You should've stopped here.
Reading one book and not even tangentially being involved in the field doesn't give you the requisite knowledge to point out misconceptions with any sort of confidence.Plus, another reply to you basically refuted each of your presented points.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577431</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution does not work solely through mutation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246638780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously? SERIOUSLY??? Whenever there's a guy claiming to be out to dispel some sort of misconception, he automatically gets +5 Insightful? What a fucking joke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously ?
SERIOUSLY ? ? ? Whenever there 's a guy claiming to be out to dispel some sort of misconception , he automatically gets + 5 Insightful ?
What a fucking joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously?
SERIOUSLY??? Whenever there's a guy claiming to be out to dispel some sort of misconception, he automatically gets +5 Insightful?
What a fucking joke.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578013</id>
	<title>Re:Specialization / Speciation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246646220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You've said in a very nice and kind way what I would have said in a more blunt way. Stephen Hawking is a very smart, well-educated guy in a highly specified field. Because of his fame and renown as a smart guy, he feels qualified to talk about whatever underdeveloped thoughts come into his head. I'm sure he's spent a lot of time thinking about this, and formulating his thesis, but he hasn't gone through the humbling process of learning what other smart people who can come before him have said. When I started college, I knew it all. When I left, I knew nothing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've said in a very nice and kind way what I would have said in a more blunt way .
Stephen Hawking is a very smart , well-educated guy in a highly specified field .
Because of his fame and renown as a smart guy , he feels qualified to talk about whatever underdeveloped thoughts come into his head .
I 'm sure he 's spent a lot of time thinking about this , and formulating his thesis , but he has n't gone through the humbling process of learning what other smart people who can come before him have said .
When I started college , I knew it all .
When I left , I knew nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've said in a very nice and kind way what I would have said in a more blunt way.
Stephen Hawking is a very smart, well-educated guy in a highly specified field.
Because of his fame and renown as a smart guy, he feels qualified to talk about whatever underdeveloped thoughts come into his head.
I'm sure he's spent a lot of time thinking about this, and formulating his thesis, but he hasn't gone through the humbling process of learning what other smart people who can come before him have said.
When I started college, I knew it all.
When I left, I knew nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28582549</id>
	<title>In charge of the obvious</title>
	<author>pseudotensor</author>
	<datestamp>1246701540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who put Hawking in charge of the obvious?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who put Hawking in charge of the obvious ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who put Hawking in charge of the obvious?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28587783</id>
	<title>Re:ten thousand years</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1246824780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Ten thousand years is only 400 twenty-five year generations. That's not a lot of time for any significant alteration in how our evolution works</i></p><p>Depends on what you deem 'significant'.  I might just go have a few ounces of cheese after I write this comment - a food choice unavailable to my ancestors within that period of time, and a cultural invention that had a significant impact on my genotype (the lactose-intolerant genotype in Europe having been driven nearly extinct).</p><p>I'd reckon, cultural pressure probably influences genetic composition much more significantly these days than any 'typical' darwinian influences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ten thousand years is only 400 twenty-five year generations .
That 's not a lot of time for any significant alteration in how our evolution worksDepends on what you deem 'significant' .
I might just go have a few ounces of cheese after I write this comment - a food choice unavailable to my ancestors within that period of time , and a cultural invention that had a significant impact on my genotype ( the lactose-intolerant genotype in Europe having been driven nearly extinct ) .I 'd reckon , cultural pressure probably influences genetic composition much more significantly these days than any 'typical ' darwinian influences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ten thousand years is only 400 twenty-five year generations.
That's not a lot of time for any significant alteration in how our evolution worksDepends on what you deem 'significant'.
I might just go have a few ounces of cheese after I write this comment - a food choice unavailable to my ancestors within that period of time, and a cultural invention that had a significant impact on my genotype (the lactose-intolerant genotype in Europe having been driven nearly extinct).I'd reckon, cultural pressure probably influences genetic composition much more significantly these days than any 'typical' darwinian influences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579181</id>
	<title>Re:Specialization / Speciation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246710120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, Dawkins is just another example of this wading into deeper waters than you can swim in. They should either stick to physics and biology respectively or get some basic education on the subjects they are trying to revolutionize. At least Dawkins has background on evolutionary science and doesn't retread popular fallacies like unilinear evolution, but still has a really long way to go before he gets read seriously by field specialists.</p><p>Also, cultural anthropologists just get lied to by people of different ethnicities. It's us archaeologists that dig up the dead guys and their garbage and make up stuff about them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , Dawkins is just another example of this wading into deeper waters than you can swim in .
They should either stick to physics and biology respectively or get some basic education on the subjects they are trying to revolutionize .
At least Dawkins has background on evolutionary science and does n't retread popular fallacies like unilinear evolution , but still has a really long way to go before he gets read seriously by field specialists.Also , cultural anthropologists just get lied to by people of different ethnicities .
It 's us archaeologists that dig up the dead guys and their garbage and make up stuff about them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, Dawkins is just another example of this wading into deeper waters than you can swim in.
They should either stick to physics and biology respectively or get some basic education on the subjects they are trying to revolutionize.
At least Dawkins has background on evolutionary science and doesn't retread popular fallacies like unilinear evolution, but still has a really long way to go before he gets read seriously by field specialists.Also, cultural anthropologists just get lied to by people of different ethnicities.
It's us archaeologists that dig up the dead guys and their garbage and make up stuff about them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578585</id>
	<title>Re:As long as we are not our own worst enemies</title>
	<author>infiniti99</author>
	<datestamp>1246698240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ensuring the long-term survival of the species usually means some cost to the individual.  I can understand why less evolved organisms appear to be working towards species survival: because they are just following their programming.  However, humans are self-aware, and so as individuals we are not brainlessly forced into accepting this cost.  We should simply do whatever suits us best as individuals.  Our species may ultimately fail, but whose idea was it that it should go on forever?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ensuring the long-term survival of the species usually means some cost to the individual .
I can understand why less evolved organisms appear to be working towards species survival : because they are just following their programming .
However , humans are self-aware , and so as individuals we are not brainlessly forced into accepting this cost .
We should simply do whatever suits us best as individuals .
Our species may ultimately fail , but whose idea was it that it should go on forever ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ensuring the long-term survival of the species usually means some cost to the individual.
I can understand why less evolved organisms appear to be working towards species survival: because they are just following their programming.
However, humans are self-aware, and so as individuals we are not brainlessly forced into accepting this cost.
We should simply do whatever suits us best as individuals.
Our species may ultimately fail, but whose idea was it that it should go on forever?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577127</id>
	<title>Re:What's his point?</title>
	<author>Swizec</author>
	<datestamp>1246635180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every social scientist in the world, and, well, pretty much EVERYONE in the world has heard the phrase "The evolution of society" at one point or another. Hawking is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I don't know what he wanted to do. Humans as organisms aren't evolving (much), people are. So what exactly is new about his words?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every social scientist in the world , and , well , pretty much EVERYONE in the world has heard the phrase " The evolution of society " at one point or another .
Hawking is ... I do n't know what he wanted to do .
Humans as organisms are n't evolving ( much ) , people are .
So what exactly is new about his words ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every social scientist in the world, and, well, pretty much EVERYONE in the world has heard the phrase "The evolution of society" at one point or another.
Hawking is ... I don't know what he wanted to do.
Humans as organisms aren't evolving (much), people are.
So what exactly is new about his words?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28576991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577941</id>
	<title>evolution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246645320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hawking must have believed the 2012 stuffs afterall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hawking must have believed the 2012 stuffs afterall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hawking must have believed the 2012 stuffs afterall.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28582121</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution does not work solely through mutation</title>
	<author>testpoint</author>
	<datestamp>1246740600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, Hawking's premise has little to do with evolution. He's discussing the human contribution to accumulated knowledge and DNA design.<br>From the article -<br>"But we are now entering a new phase, of what Hawking calls "self designed evolution," in which we will be able to change and improve our DNA."</p><p>"Designed evolution" is an oxymoron.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , Hawking 's premise has little to do with evolution .
He 's discussing the human contribution to accumulated knowledge and DNA design.From the article - " But we are now entering a new phase , of what Hawking calls " self designed evolution , " in which we will be able to change and improve our DNA .
" " Designed evolution " is an oxymoron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, Hawking's premise has little to do with evolution.
He's discussing the human contribution to accumulated knowledge and DNA design.From the article -"But we are now entering a new phase, of what Hawking calls "self designed evolution," in which we will be able to change and improve our DNA.
""Designed evolution" is an oxymoron.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577193</id>
	<title>memetics vs genetics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246636260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>genius in a wheelchair versus moron with nine kids</p><p>ding ding ding round one!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>genius in a wheelchair versus moron with nine kidsding ding ding round one !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>genius in a wheelchair versus moron with nine kidsding ding ding round one!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28581825</id>
	<title>The MC is behind the times</title>
	<author>Internalist</author>
	<datestamp>1246736940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point Hawking's making is interesting, and potentially relevant, but it's hardly a novel claim. What he's talking about it often called "cultural evolution", and people have been talking about it for a while now, starting(?) with Cavalli-Sforza et al back in the 80s. It's regained momentum with the recent (~ last decade) resurgence of interest in the evolution of language (cf. papers by Simon Kirby, Henry Brighton &amp; friends in the 2006 PNAS).</p><p>Also, it seems doubtful to me that we're literally no longer evolving in the "traditional" sense of the word. Sure, we're doing things to artificially prolong life and enhance reproductive success, but that doesn't really change the fact that natural and sexual selection are still at work.</p><p>Disclaimer: I am NOT a biologist. I AM a linguist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point Hawking 's making is interesting , and potentially relevant , but it 's hardly a novel claim .
What he 's talking about it often called " cultural evolution " , and people have been talking about it for a while now , starting ( ?
) with Cavalli-Sforza et al back in the 80s .
It 's regained momentum with the recent ( ~ last decade ) resurgence of interest in the evolution of language ( cf .
papers by Simon Kirby , Henry Brighton &amp; friends in the 2006 PNAS ) .Also , it seems doubtful to me that we 're literally no longer evolving in the " traditional " sense of the word .
Sure , we 're doing things to artificially prolong life and enhance reproductive success , but that does n't really change the fact that natural and sexual selection are still at work.Disclaimer : I am NOT a biologist .
I AM a linguist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point Hawking's making is interesting, and potentially relevant, but it's hardly a novel claim.
What he's talking about it often called "cultural evolution", and people have been talking about it for a while now, starting(?
) with Cavalli-Sforza et al back in the 80s.
It's regained momentum with the recent (~ last decade) resurgence of interest in the evolution of language (cf.
papers by Simon Kirby, Henry Brighton &amp; friends in the 2006 PNAS).Also, it seems doubtful to me that we're literally no longer evolving in the "traditional" sense of the word.
Sure, we're doing things to artificially prolong life and enhance reproductive success, but that doesn't really change the fact that natural and sexual selection are still at work.Disclaimer: I am NOT a biologist.
I AM a linguist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578685</id>
	<title>Re:Only honest discussions are useful.</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1246699980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a large diversity among fish.  But none of them are good at climbing trees.</p><p>Diversity != infinite range or variety.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a large diversity among fish .
But none of them are good at climbing trees.Diversity ! = infinite range or variety .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a large diversity among fish.
But none of them are good at climbing trees.Diversity != infinite range or variety.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578751</id>
	<title>Meme-A-Holic</title>
	<author>senorpoco</author>
	<datestamp>1246701060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I for one welcome our new human overlords.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one welcome our new human overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one welcome our new human overlords.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577293</id>
	<title>We're doomed...</title>
	<author>binaryspiral</author>
	<datestamp>1246637340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Hawking is saying our evolution is now dependent on our (for most people) public education system... we're fucked.</p><p>Pack your bags, it's Idiocracy time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Hawking is saying our evolution is now dependent on our ( for most people ) public education system... we 're fucked.Pack your bags , it 's Idiocracy time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Hawking is saying our evolution is now dependent on our (for most people) public education system... we're fucked.Pack your bags, it's Idiocracy time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578627</id>
	<title>Re:Take it Further: Transhumanism</title>
	<author>RaymondKurzweil</author>
	<datestamp>1246698900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blah, Blah, Blah, blah-de-fricking-blah, Singularity, Buy my fucking supplements you punk ass bitches.Terry Grossman had sex with your wife.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blah , Blah , Blah , blah-de-fricking-blah , Singularity , Buy my fucking supplements you punk ass bitches.Terry Grossman had sex with your wife .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blah, Blah, Blah, blah-de-fricking-blah, Singularity, Buy my fucking supplements you punk ass bitches.Terry Grossman had sex with your wife.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579605</id>
	<title>Re:ten thousand years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246717500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, in a small population. It takes much longer if your population is larger, like ours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , in a small population .
It takes much longer if your population is larger , like ours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, in a small population.
It takes much longer if your population is larger, like ours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578761</id>
	<title>Re:Take it Further: Transhumanism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246701180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you saying Twitter is a more important intellectual fountain than books?  Because no.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you saying Twitter is a more important intellectual fountain than books ?
Because no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you saying Twitter is a more important intellectual fountain than books?
Because no.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28584631</id>
	<title>New phase not for all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246732320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess Hawking entered a particular phase and the humans another one, opposite to him (brain and no body, against body and no brain).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess Hawking entered a particular phase and the humans another one , opposite to him ( brain and no body , against body and no brain ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess Hawking entered a particular phase and the humans another one, opposite to him (brain and no body, against body and no brain).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577519</id>
	<title>Snake, listen:</title>
	<author>DrGamez</author>
	<datestamp>1246639920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mustn't allow yourself to be chained to fate, to be ruled by your genes. Human beings can choose the kind of life that they want to live. What's important is that you choose life... and then live.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You must n't allow yourself to be chained to fate , to be ruled by your genes .
Human beings can choose the kind of life that they want to live .
What 's important is that you choose life... and then live .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mustn't allow yourself to be chained to fate, to be ruled by your genes.
Human beings can choose the kind of life that they want to live.
What's important is that you choose life... and then live.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578077</id>
	<title>Re:Only honest discussions are useful.</title>
	<author>justinlee37</author>
	<datestamp>1246647180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Evolution created a situation in which the Germans, the French, and the English have an IQ that is signficantly greater than the IQ of the typical African</i> </p><p>I can't tell if you are supporting the idea of racial intelligence or not, but if you are you should have a look at Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" which makes a pretty convincing case that different races succeeded more than others due to their geographical positioning, instead of due to their inherent abilities as many people assume.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Evolution created a situation in which the Germans , the French , and the English have an IQ that is signficantly greater than the IQ of the typical African I ca n't tell if you are supporting the idea of racial intelligence or not , but if you are you should have a look at Jared Diamond 's " Guns , Germs and Steel " which makes a pretty convincing case that different races succeeded more than others due to their geographical positioning , instead of due to their inherent abilities as many people assume .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Evolution created a situation in which the Germans, the French, and the English have an IQ that is signficantly greater than the IQ of the typical African I can't tell if you are supporting the idea of racial intelligence or not, but if you are you should have a look at Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" which makes a pretty convincing case that different races succeeded more than others due to their geographical positioning, instead of due to their inherent abilities as many people assume.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28583563</id>
	<title>Stick to physics, Hawking.</title>
	<author>thefringthing</author>
	<datestamp>1246714620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Social Science is not a science.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Social Science is not a science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Social Science is not a science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577777</id>
	<title>Re:ten thousand years</title>
	<author>paleo2002</author>
	<datestamp>1246642920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>With all due respect to Dr. Hawking, the idea that humanity evolves differently from other species is nothing new amongst paleontologists and evolutionary biologists.<br><br>Most plant and animal species evolve by natural selection (or mutation, or whatever the current fad alternative theory is) over generations and hundreds of years.  If local climate becomes colder, mammals with favorable cold adaptations such as thicker coats gain a selective advantage.  Over time, the gene for thick coats becomes fixed in the population.  For humans, if it starts to get cold out, we put on a coat.  Or we build insulated enclosures that feature heated swimming pools.<br><br>Because of our ability to alter the environment, communicate abstract ideas, and store information outside our genetic code, humanity is able to adapt to environmental changes in real time, rather than geologic time.  Its still evolution - change over time, adapting to new environmental factors - but much faster.<br><br>And, more often than not, the environmental changes are of our own making.  We adapt to new technologies, new life styles, and new information as society progresses.  Those adaptations spread quickly through the social environment via education and mass communication.  You need to use a blackberry to be successful in your new job, but you're not sure if you inherited the texting gene from your parents?  No need to mate with a slashdotter and pass the job off to your kids, just read the instruction manual!</htmltext>
<tokenext>With all due respect to Dr. Hawking , the idea that humanity evolves differently from other species is nothing new amongst paleontologists and evolutionary biologists.Most plant and animal species evolve by natural selection ( or mutation , or whatever the current fad alternative theory is ) over generations and hundreds of years .
If local climate becomes colder , mammals with favorable cold adaptations such as thicker coats gain a selective advantage .
Over time , the gene for thick coats becomes fixed in the population .
For humans , if it starts to get cold out , we put on a coat .
Or we build insulated enclosures that feature heated swimming pools.Because of our ability to alter the environment , communicate abstract ideas , and store information outside our genetic code , humanity is able to adapt to environmental changes in real time , rather than geologic time .
Its still evolution - change over time , adapting to new environmental factors - but much faster.And , more often than not , the environmental changes are of our own making .
We adapt to new technologies , new life styles , and new information as society progresses .
Those adaptations spread quickly through the social environment via education and mass communication .
You need to use a blackberry to be successful in your new job , but you 're not sure if you inherited the texting gene from your parents ?
No need to mate with a slashdotter and pass the job off to your kids , just read the instruction manual !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With all due respect to Dr. Hawking, the idea that humanity evolves differently from other species is nothing new amongst paleontologists and evolutionary biologists.Most plant and animal species evolve by natural selection (or mutation, or whatever the current fad alternative theory is) over generations and hundreds of years.
If local climate becomes colder, mammals with favorable cold adaptations such as thicker coats gain a selective advantage.
Over time, the gene for thick coats becomes fixed in the population.
For humans, if it starts to get cold out, we put on a coat.
Or we build insulated enclosures that feature heated swimming pools.Because of our ability to alter the environment, communicate abstract ideas, and store information outside our genetic code, humanity is able to adapt to environmental changes in real time, rather than geologic time.
Its still evolution - change over time, adapting to new environmental factors - but much faster.And, more often than not, the environmental changes are of our own making.
We adapt to new technologies, new life styles, and new information as society progresses.
Those adaptations spread quickly through the social environment via education and mass communication.
You need to use a blackberry to be successful in your new job, but you're not sure if you inherited the texting gene from your parents?
No need to mate with a slashdotter and pass the job off to your kids, just read the instruction manual!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580815</id>
	<title>Re:Only honest discussions are useful.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246728780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The brain is different from legs in that it can remap itself to do other stuff. A pianist has a greater area of the brain devoted to his hands, and that is not due to some genetic factor, it's because the brain is malleable. When he stops practicing, this area shrinks. So one really cannot reason in precisely the same way when it comes to the brain cells as one can do with muscle-fiber.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The brain is different from legs in that it can remap itself to do other stuff .
A pianist has a greater area of the brain devoted to his hands , and that is not due to some genetic factor , it 's because the brain is malleable .
When he stops practicing , this area shrinks .
So one really can not reason in precisely the same way when it comes to the brain cells as one can do with muscle-fiber .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The brain is different from legs in that it can remap itself to do other stuff.
A pianist has a greater area of the brain devoted to his hands, and that is not due to some genetic factor, it's because the brain is malleable.
When he stops practicing, this area shrinks.
So one really cannot reason in precisely the same way when it comes to the brain cells as one can do with muscle-fiber.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28588765</id>
	<title>The point he is trying to make ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246789800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point he is trying to make (or might try to make) is that all humans<br>are more or less the same. The difference is not in hardware, but only in software.</p><p>We are all x86 processors now, and the difference is not in the clockspeed, but<br>in the knowlegde / programs which are run.</p><p>What knowledge we seek, and how we are able to deal with new information is all that<br>matters.  In the end we're are not different from our ancesters, but we have new and<br>better meme's. The ways in which we are able to filer out the bad meme's will be leading,<br>not phisical changes.</p><p>The person with the right meme's will survive, and getting the right meme's is a matter<br>of education and upbringing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point he is trying to make ( or might try to make ) is that all humansare more or less the same .
The difference is not in hardware , but only in software.We are all x86 processors now , and the difference is not in the clockspeed , butin the knowlegde / programs which are run.What knowledge we seek , and how we are able to deal with new information is all thatmatters .
In the end we 're are not different from our ancesters , but we have new andbetter meme 's .
The ways in which we are able to filer out the bad meme 's will be leading,not phisical changes.The person with the right meme 's will survive , and getting the right meme 's is a matterof education and upbringing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point he is trying to make (or might try to make) is that all humansare more or less the same.
The difference is not in hardware, but only in software.We are all x86 processors now, and the difference is not in the clockspeed, butin the knowlegde / programs which are run.What knowledge we seek, and how we are able to deal with new information is all thatmatters.
In the end we're are not different from our ancesters, but we have new andbetter meme's.
The ways in which we are able to filer out the bad meme's will be leading,not phisical changes.The person with the right meme's will survive, and getting the right meme's is a matterof education and upbringing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577279</id>
	<title>Specialization / Speciation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246637280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stephen Jay Gould told an anecdote about Richard Feynman excitedly announcing that he had discovered new principles of evolution.  On inspection they turned out to be either well known findings or well known fallacies.  Basically he was largely ignorant of the literature in the field.  It says more about physicists than about evolution that he would deem himself qualified to wade into the fray with such minimal preparation.</p><p>It is not surprising that Stephen Hawking, another great physicist, similarly feels empowered to speculate about evolution without apparently having read Richard Dawkin's popular works.  Others have mentioned memes, but Dawkin's notion of the extended phenotype might be even more pertinent.  Hawkings appears to be taking the notion of the meme to the extreme of thinking that species evolution is now relying on actual gene analogues outside our physical corpus.  Rather, our genes remain internal, but their somatic expression is external to ourselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stephen Jay Gould told an anecdote about Richard Feynman excitedly announcing that he had discovered new principles of evolution .
On inspection they turned out to be either well known findings or well known fallacies .
Basically he was largely ignorant of the literature in the field .
It says more about physicists than about evolution that he would deem himself qualified to wade into the fray with such minimal preparation.It is not surprising that Stephen Hawking , another great physicist , similarly feels empowered to speculate about evolution without apparently having read Richard Dawkin 's popular works .
Others have mentioned memes , but Dawkin 's notion of the extended phenotype might be even more pertinent .
Hawkings appears to be taking the notion of the meme to the extreme of thinking that species evolution is now relying on actual gene analogues outside our physical corpus .
Rather , our genes remain internal , but their somatic expression is external to ourselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stephen Jay Gould told an anecdote about Richard Feynman excitedly announcing that he had discovered new principles of evolution.
On inspection they turned out to be either well known findings or well known fallacies.
Basically he was largely ignorant of the literature in the field.
It says more about physicists than about evolution that he would deem himself qualified to wade into the fray with such minimal preparation.It is not surprising that Stephen Hawking, another great physicist, similarly feels empowered to speculate about evolution without apparently having read Richard Dawkin's popular works.
Others have mentioned memes, but Dawkin's notion of the extended phenotype might be even more pertinent.
Hawkings appears to be taking the notion of the meme to the extreme of thinking that species evolution is now relying on actual gene analogues outside our physical corpus.
Rather, our genes remain internal, but their somatic expression is external to ourselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579341</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution does not work solely through mutation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246713300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bad analogy: cancer cells don't breed (and let me assure you that any biologist will tell you this is not just a matter of semantics) they propagate through cellular division.  This being the case (as it's the host's own cells which go out of control) it's highly unlikely they will ever "evolve".  That would be like saying your own cells are currently breeding and evolving; no, they're not.  On top of all that there's the matter of "selection" in "natural selection": despite environment, habitat and superior physical or genetically-endowed prowess, it is often the case in nature that the one most likely to pass on it's traits is simply the one who hits it when the dominant male is away guarding some other section of his habitat.  "Survival of the Breediest" is actually a better model and might account for our own brains.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bad analogy : cancer cells do n't breed ( and let me assure you that any biologist will tell you this is not just a matter of semantics ) they propagate through cellular division .
This being the case ( as it 's the host 's own cells which go out of control ) it 's highly unlikely they will ever " evolve " .
That would be like saying your own cells are currently breeding and evolving ; no , they 're not .
On top of all that there 's the matter of " selection " in " natural selection " : despite environment , habitat and superior physical or genetically-endowed prowess , it is often the case in nature that the one most likely to pass on it 's traits is simply the one who hits it when the dominant male is away guarding some other section of his habitat .
" Survival of the Breediest " is actually a better model and might account for our own brains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bad analogy: cancer cells don't breed (and let me assure you that any biologist will tell you this is not just a matter of semantics) they propagate through cellular division.
This being the case (as it's the host's own cells which go out of control) it's highly unlikely they will ever "evolve".
That would be like saying your own cells are currently breeding and evolving; no, they're not.
On top of all that there's the matter of "selection" in "natural selection": despite environment, habitat and superior physical or genetically-endowed prowess, it is often the case in nature that the one most likely to pass on it's traits is simply the one who hits it when the dominant male is away guarding some other section of his habitat.
"Survival of the Breediest" is actually a better model and might account for our own brains.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577265</id>
	<title>Re:ten thousand years</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1246637160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ten thousand years is only 400 twenty-five year generations. That's not a lot of time for any significant alteration in how our evolution works...<p>
Not true, at all. I recall reading about a study (in Russia, iirc) where scientists attempted to breed a specific trait into wild foxes. They went through a program of selective breeding and in \_seven\_ generations, they successfully altered the genetic traits of the animal. Seven. So, 400 generations is \_PLENTY\_ of time for evolution to alter our species in meaningful ways given that it can be accomplished (admittedly, in a controlled environment) in just 7.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ten thousand years is only 400 twenty-five year generations .
That 's not a lot of time for any significant alteration in how our evolution works.. . Not true , at all .
I recall reading about a study ( in Russia , iirc ) where scientists attempted to breed a specific trait into wild foxes .
They went through a program of selective breeding and in \ _seven \ _ generations , they successfully altered the genetic traits of the animal .
Seven. So , 400 generations is \ _PLENTY \ _ of time for evolution to alter our species in meaningful ways given that it can be accomplished ( admittedly , in a controlled environment ) in just 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ten thousand years is only 400 twenty-five year generations.
That's not a lot of time for any significant alteration in how our evolution works...
Not true, at all.
I recall reading about a study (in Russia, iirc) where scientists attempted to breed a specific trait into wild foxes.
They went through a program of selective breeding and in \_seven\_ generations, they successfully altered the genetic traits of the animal.
Seven. So, 400 generations is \_PLENTY\_ of time for evolution to alter our species in meaningful ways given that it can be accomplished (admittedly, in a controlled environment) in just 7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580005</id>
	<title>Kind of offtopic, but what the hell!?</title>
	<author>s0l1dsnak3123</author>
	<datestamp>1246721580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know this is a bit offtopic to this article, but there is a dianetics advert on slashdot! What the hell is going on guys!?!? Get rid of it!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know this is a bit offtopic to this article , but there is a dianetics advert on slashdot !
What the hell is going on guys ! ? ! ?
Get rid of it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know this is a bit offtopic to this article, but there is a dianetics advert on slashdot!
What the hell is going on guys!?!?
Get rid of it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579117</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution does not work solely through mutation</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1246708680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>4. Evolution works through mutation.<br>Errrrgghh... I disagree with Stephen Hawking.  Ok, mutation helps, but you know what? Evolution doesn't need it. Most mutations result in a f*kup, not something useful. Evolution just needs seperate populations and/or environments. Eventually populations diverge and become more suited to their environments.</p><p>I feel weird....</p><p>-Tony</p></div><p>And how do they diverge? Through mutations.<br>Most get weeded out, some are kept, and as more and more add up, the populations diverge.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>4 .
Evolution works through mutation.Errrrgghh... I disagree with Stephen Hawking .
Ok , mutation helps , but you know what ?
Evolution does n't need it .
Most mutations result in a f * kup , not something useful .
Evolution just needs seperate populations and/or environments .
Eventually populations diverge and become more suited to their environments.I feel weird....-TonyAnd how do they diverge ?
Through mutations.Most get weeded out , some are kept , and as more and more add up , the populations diverge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4.
Evolution works through mutation.Errrrgghh... I disagree with Stephen Hawking.
Ok, mutation helps, but you know what?
Evolution doesn't need it.
Most mutations result in a f*kup, not something useful.
Evolution just needs seperate populations and/or environments.
Eventually populations diverge and become more suited to their environments.I feel weird....-TonyAnd how do they diverge?
Through mutations.Most get weeded out, some are kept, and as more and more add up, the populations diverge.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28585923</id>
	<title>congratulations Dr. Hawking.</title>
	<author>museumpeace</author>
	<datestamp>1246802280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have just reproduced verbatim an argument put forth by Carl Sagan in "Dragons of Eden"...about thirty years ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have just reproduced verbatim an argument put forth by Carl Sagan in " Dragons of Eden " ...about thirty years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have just reproduced verbatim an argument put forth by Carl Sagan in "Dragons of Eden"...about thirty years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580427</id>
	<title>I used to ramble shit like that too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246725480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in my LSD and Weed smoking days, no one interviewed me, and I certainly had no magazines or authors contacting me for my "evolutionary knowledge"</p><p>meh</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in my LSD and Weed smoking days , no one interviewed me , and I certainly had no magazines or authors contacting me for my " evolutionary knowledge " meh</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in my LSD and Weed smoking days, no one interviewed me, and I certainly had no magazines or authors contacting me for my "evolutionary knowledge"meh</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578757</id>
	<title>Re:Write about what you know</title>
	<author>tyroneking</author>
	<datestamp>1246701120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry but you're so wrong.<br>1) Hawking is very very smart and it is likely that he has very good ideas about many branches of science beyond his own. It's not beyond possibility that he has more knowledge than most about more than one field is it?<br>2) There is a clear connection between what Hawking has to say about some part of human evolution occurring externally to the human form (in information stored externally) and the idea that information crossing the event horizon of black hole is preserved and emitted back out (IANAP so forgive any error I may have made here).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry but you 're so wrong.1 ) Hawking is very very smart and it is likely that he has very good ideas about many branches of science beyond his own .
It 's not beyond possibility that he has more knowledge than most about more than one field is it ? 2 ) There is a clear connection between what Hawking has to say about some part of human evolution occurring externally to the human form ( in information stored externally ) and the idea that information crossing the event horizon of black hole is preserved and emitted back out ( IANAP so forgive any error I may have made here ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry but you're so wrong.1) Hawking is very very smart and it is likely that he has very good ideas about many branches of science beyond his own.
It's not beyond possibility that he has more knowledge than most about more than one field is it?2) There is a clear connection between what Hawking has to say about some part of human evolution occurring externally to the human form (in information stored externally) and the idea that information crossing the event horizon of black hole is preserved and emitted back out (IANAP so forgive any error I may have made here).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28583201</id>
	<title>Evolution My OTHER ass !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246709940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can some of you people who believe in "crap" - sorry - evolution (!!!) ask themselves : if evolution was true, and that everything we have today as a feature of our human body is a result of selective growth for a purpose - then a) what are eyebrows used for ? b) what is hair for ? c) what is pubic and arm-pit hair for ? what is the use of virginity ? what is the use of a beard ? if evolution can develop muscles as "tireless" as a heart muscle, and as strong as a jaw muscle, why didnt ALL the muscles be from the same fiber, then you can run like a jaguar maybe - or jump like a flea ? and if evolution were capable of equipping bats with radar sensors and hawks with hi-res eyes - why didnt we get some - we needed vision too ? why dont we have hair on the inside of our palms ? why one heart and two kidneys ? why "five" fingers ? why an ass ?</p><p>FACT is : GOD created us - and HE IS ONE GOD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can some of you people who believe in " crap " - sorry - evolution ( ! ! !
) ask themselves : if evolution was true , and that everything we have today as a feature of our human body is a result of selective growth for a purpose - then a ) what are eyebrows used for ?
b ) what is hair for ?
c ) what is pubic and arm-pit hair for ?
what is the use of virginity ?
what is the use of a beard ?
if evolution can develop muscles as " tireless " as a heart muscle , and as strong as a jaw muscle , why didnt ALL the muscles be from the same fiber , then you can run like a jaguar maybe - or jump like a flea ?
and if evolution were capable of equipping bats with radar sensors and hawks with hi-res eyes - why didnt we get some - we needed vision too ?
why dont we have hair on the inside of our palms ?
why one heart and two kidneys ?
why " five " fingers ?
why an ass ? FACT is : GOD created us - and HE IS ONE GOD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can some of you people who believe in "crap" - sorry - evolution (!!!
) ask themselves : if evolution was true, and that everything we have today as a feature of our human body is a result of selective growth for a purpose - then a) what are eyebrows used for ?
b) what is hair for ?
c) what is pubic and arm-pit hair for ?
what is the use of virginity ?
what is the use of a beard ?
if evolution can develop muscles as "tireless" as a heart muscle, and as strong as a jaw muscle, why didnt ALL the muscles be from the same fiber, then you can run like a jaguar maybe - or jump like a flea ?
and if evolution were capable of equipping bats with radar sensors and hawks with hi-res eyes - why didnt we get some - we needed vision too ?
why dont we have hair on the inside of our palms ?
why one heart and two kidneys ?
why "five" fingers ?
why an ass ?FACT is : GOD created us - and HE IS ONE GOD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580029</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution does not work solely through mutation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246721760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eventually populations diverge and become more suited to their environments.</p><p>You say. Are you a fucking moron who thinks this happens by magic? Evolution doesn't need mutation? Dumbass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eventually populations diverge and become more suited to their environments.You say .
Are you a fucking moron who thinks this happens by magic ?
Evolution does n't need mutation ?
Dumbass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eventually populations diverge and become more suited to their environments.You say.
Are you a fucking moron who thinks this happens by magic?
Evolution doesn't need mutation?
Dumbass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579403</id>
	<title>Re:Write about what you know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246714440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
You can study bullshit in detail, but that doesn't make it not bullshit.
</p><p>
It isn't necessary to understand Thomas Aquinas' position on radical Aristotelianism
to understand that the fundamental belief in God (the Christian God, or any god) is
foolish, and that centuries of Christian thought are just intellectual masturbation; stirring
the pot of bullshit.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can study bullshit in detail , but that does n't make it not bullshit .
It is n't necessary to understand Thomas Aquinas ' position on radical Aristotelianism to understand that the fundamental belief in God ( the Christian God , or any god ) is foolish , and that centuries of Christian thought are just intellectual masturbation ; stirring the pot of bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
You can study bullshit in detail, but that doesn't make it not bullshit.
It isn't necessary to understand Thomas Aquinas' position on radical Aristotelianism
to understand that the fundamental belief in God (the Christian God, or any god) is
foolish, and that centuries of Christian thought are just intellectual masturbation; stirring
the pot of bullshit.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578039</id>
	<title>Re:Public Service Announcement</title>
	<author>bennomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1246646640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The things these eye have seen.  All lost.  Like tears... in the rain.  Time... to die.
<br> <br>
RIP Roy Batty.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The things these eye have seen .
All lost .
Like tears... in the rain .
Time... to die .
RIP Roy Batty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The things these eye have seen.
All lost.
Like tears... in the rain.
Time... to die.
RIP Roy Batty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580199</id>
	<title>Re:ten thousand years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246723260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ten thousand years is only 400 twenty-five year generations. That's not a lot of time for any significant alteration in how our evolution works...</p><p>Not true, at all. I recall reading about a study (in Russia, iirc) where scientists attempted to breed a specific trait into wild foxes. They went through a program of selective breeding and in \_seven\_ generations, they successfully altered the genetic traits of the animal. Seven. So, 400 generations is \_PLENTY\_ of time for evolution to alter our species in meaningful ways given that it can be accomplished (admittedly, in a controlled environment) in just 7.</p></div><p>They bred friendly silver foxes that were no longer silver.Beware unintended consequences when you screw around with mother nature..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ten thousand years is only 400 twenty-five year generations .
That 's not a lot of time for any significant alteration in how our evolution works...Not true , at all .
I recall reading about a study ( in Russia , iirc ) where scientists attempted to breed a specific trait into wild foxes .
They went through a program of selective breeding and in \ _seven \ _ generations , they successfully altered the genetic traits of the animal .
Seven. So , 400 generations is \ _PLENTY \ _ of time for evolution to alter our species in meaningful ways given that it can be accomplished ( admittedly , in a controlled environment ) in just 7.They bred friendly silver foxes that were no longer silver.Beware unintended consequences when you screw around with mother nature. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ten thousand years is only 400 twenty-five year generations.
That's not a lot of time for any significant alteration in how our evolution works...Not true, at all.
I recall reading about a study (in Russia, iirc) where scientists attempted to breed a specific trait into wild foxes.
They went through a program of selective breeding and in \_seven\_ generations, they successfully altered the genetic traits of the animal.
Seven. So, 400 generations is \_PLENTY\_ of time for evolution to alter our species in meaningful ways given that it can be accomplished (admittedly, in a controlled environment) in just 7.They bred friendly silver foxes that were no longer silver.Beware unintended consequences when you screw around with mother nature..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577229</id>
	<title>What about Mammals?</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1246636740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think doctor Hawking is missing a step.  Natural selection did not manage to produce humans without any external information.  Humans are Mammals.  Most (all?) Mammals tend to pass on behavioral traits in a non-genetic fashion from parents to offspring.  So another major step in the evolutionary process would have been the appearance of animals whose mothers continue to care for them after birth, and impart higher-order influences on their offspring other than the contents of their genes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think doctor Hawking is missing a step .
Natural selection did not manage to produce humans without any external information .
Humans are Mammals .
Most ( all ?
) Mammals tend to pass on behavioral traits in a non-genetic fashion from parents to offspring .
So another major step in the evolutionary process would have been the appearance of animals whose mothers continue to care for them after birth , and impart higher-order influences on their offspring other than the contents of their genes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think doctor Hawking is missing a step.
Natural selection did not manage to produce humans without any external information.
Humans are Mammals.
Most (all?
) Mammals tend to pass on behavioral traits in a non-genetic fashion from parents to offspring.
So another major step in the evolutionary process would have been the appearance of animals whose mothers continue to care for them after birth, and impart higher-order influences on their offspring other than the contents of their genes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28581053</id>
	<title>By Neruos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246730520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stop pushing new areas of evolution when the old areas have not been factually and clearly identified.</p><p>There are large gaps of evolution that have yet to be found before and after the prehistoric and other areas of time. Fossels do not evolutionary fact make.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop pushing new areas of evolution when the old areas have not been factually and clearly identified.There are large gaps of evolution that have yet to be found before and after the prehistoric and other areas of time .
Fossels do not evolutionary fact make .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop pushing new areas of evolution when the old areas have not been factually and clearly identified.There are large gaps of evolution that have yet to be found before and after the prehistoric and other areas of time.
Fossels do not evolutionary fact make.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578101</id>
	<title>Re:Public Service Announcement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246647360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you, Snake.</p><p>I'm surprised that the mods didn't seem to catch the reference (instead marking it Insightful), but more surprised that Hideo Kojima has beaten Stephen Hawking to the punch with his crazy ramblings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you , Snake.I 'm surprised that the mods did n't seem to catch the reference ( instead marking it Insightful ) , but more surprised that Hideo Kojima has beaten Stephen Hawking to the punch with his crazy ramblings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you, Snake.I'm surprised that the mods didn't seem to catch the reference (instead marking it Insightful), but more surprised that Hideo Kojima has beaten Stephen Hawking to the punch with his crazy ramblings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579293</id>
	<title>Re:ten thousand years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246712520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your point is valid. I know a lot about some niche aspects of a niche operating system to the point that people from all over the world hire me to say, "Yeah, this should work."  But would you want me giving you medical advice?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your point is valid .
I know a lot about some niche aspects of a niche operating system to the point that people from all over the world hire me to say , " Yeah , this should work .
" But would you want me giving you medical advice ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your point is valid.
I know a lot about some niche aspects of a niche operating system to the point that people from all over the world hire me to say, "Yeah, this should work.
"  But would you want me giving you medical advice?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28585139</id>
	<title>Re:Take it Further: Transhumanism</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1246786320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Are you saying Twitter is a more important intellectual fountain than books? Because no.</i></p><p>Not even a very good straw man; neither is an intellectual fountain. Both are mediums. They're radically different mediums serving different purposes. Calling one more important than the other is like calling horses more important than cows. It's barely a rational string of words, much less a meaningful conjecture.</p><p>Books are a more structured, slower medium. Much better for long-term storage of processed information. Twitter is faster and less structured, with a lot more noise. Our brains are fast and unstructured, bubbling with constant noise. Twitter is more like our brains than are books. That is what makes it interesting.</p><p>Now, take it from there. Think about the implications, toss out some thoughts. It's more interesting than facile aspersions cast at poorly constructed straw men.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you saying Twitter is a more important intellectual fountain than books ?
Because no.Not even a very good straw man ; neither is an intellectual fountain .
Both are mediums .
They 're radically different mediums serving different purposes .
Calling one more important than the other is like calling horses more important than cows .
It 's barely a rational string of words , much less a meaningful conjecture.Books are a more structured , slower medium .
Much better for long-term storage of processed information .
Twitter is faster and less structured , with a lot more noise .
Our brains are fast and unstructured , bubbling with constant noise .
Twitter is more like our brains than are books .
That is what makes it interesting.Now , take it from there .
Think about the implications , toss out some thoughts .
It 's more interesting than facile aspersions cast at poorly constructed straw men .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you saying Twitter is a more important intellectual fountain than books?
Because no.Not even a very good straw man; neither is an intellectual fountain.
Both are mediums.
They're radically different mediums serving different purposes.
Calling one more important than the other is like calling horses more important than cows.
It's barely a rational string of words, much less a meaningful conjecture.Books are a more structured, slower medium.
Much better for long-term storage of processed information.
Twitter is faster and less structured, with a lot more noise.
Our brains are fast and unstructured, bubbling with constant noise.
Twitter is more like our brains than are books.
That is what makes it interesting.Now, take it from there.
Think about the implications, toss out some thoughts.
It's more interesting than facile aspersions cast at poorly constructed straw men.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28585877</id>
	<title>human beings are just ...</title>
	<author>Dr.Ruud</author>
	<datestamp>1246801500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Basically, human beings are just means of transport and habitats for bacteria.<br>These bacteria have been injecting us with their genetics for ever.<br>If this view changes your idea of 'self', then that must be what they want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , human beings are just means of transport and habitats for bacteria.These bacteria have been injecting us with their genetics for ever.If this view changes your idea of 'self ' , then that must be what they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, human beings are just means of transport and habitats for bacteria.These bacteria have been injecting us with their genetics for ever.If this view changes your idea of 'self', then that must be what they want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28587929</id>
	<title>Re:What's his point?</title>
	<author>jedibrand</author>
	<datestamp>1246825860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"...very, very olds new in social science circles."<br>

So old, in fact, that it's often problematized in many fields that study different aspects of human culture. <br>

One of the problems with a theory of sociocultural evolution is that it confounds often whimsical changes in human culture, which happen often within generations and that can have tumultuous effects on a given culture, with the slower, biological changes in the longer-term that Darwin had in mind. From this confounding of biology with the more abstract, higher-level semiotic systems that define human and, to a significantly reduced-degree, other animal cultures, comes a belief that human culture and the power structures that come about as a result of it, follow a well-defined and universal series of evolutionary mile-markers on their way to "civilizational" status.<br>

In fact, A current but ever-present, historical example of the problems with these theories is the flawed dichotomy between civilization and barbarism (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facundo" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">here</a> [wikipedia.org] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do\%C3\%B1a\_B\%C3\%A1rbara" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">here</a> [wikipedia.org]). <br>

So, essentially, what Hawking has re-discovered is an age-old trope that saw a very real, and conspicuous apogee during the European wars sof Colonization and continues to this day (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second\_European\_colonization\_wave\_(19th\_century\%E2\%80\%9320th\_century)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">here</a> [wikipedia.org], <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First\_European\_colonization\_wave\_(15th\_century\%E2\%80\%9319th\_century)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">here</a> [wikipedia.org] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">here</a> [wikipedia.org]). But in fact, this age-old dichotomy is not common only to the western world--the Mexica (or "Aztecs") and their Andean counterparts, the Inca, conceived of many smaller groupings of indians near and beyond their periphery as savages and barbarians. <br>

If there's an important distinction to be made in many of these civilization vs. the savage examples, it's that the technology that humans create can in fact follow an evolutionary trajectory (ie, one that gives us a better chance at survival as a species), but that the culture that produces it may arrive at different stages of that evolutionary path from wildly disassociated and subjective changes and vacillations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...very , very olds new in social science circles .
" So old , in fact , that it 's often problematized in many fields that study different aspects of human culture .
One of the problems with a theory of sociocultural evolution is that it confounds often whimsical changes in human culture , which happen often within generations and that can have tumultuous effects on a given culture , with the slower , biological changes in the longer-term that Darwin had in mind .
From this confounding of biology with the more abstract , higher-level semiotic systems that define human and , to a significantly reduced-degree , other animal cultures , comes a belief that human culture and the power structures that come about as a result of it , follow a well-defined and universal series of evolutionary mile-markers on their way to " civilizational " status .
In fact , A current but ever-present , historical example of the problems with these theories is the flawed dichotomy between civilization and barbarism ( see here [ wikipedia.org ] and here [ wikipedia.org ] ) .
So , essentially , what Hawking has re-discovered is an age-old trope that saw a very real , and conspicuous apogee during the European wars sof Colonization and continues to this day ( here [ wikipedia.org ] , here [ wikipedia.org ] and here [ wikipedia.org ] ) .
But in fact , this age-old dichotomy is not common only to the western world--the Mexica ( or " Aztecs " ) and their Andean counterparts , the Inca , conceived of many smaller groupings of indians near and beyond their periphery as savages and barbarians .
If there 's an important distinction to be made in many of these civilization vs. the savage examples , it 's that the technology that humans create can in fact follow an evolutionary trajectory ( ie , one that gives us a better chance at survival as a species ) , but that the culture that produces it may arrive at different stages of that evolutionary path from wildly disassociated and subjective changes and vacillations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...very, very olds new in social science circles.
"

So old, in fact, that it's often problematized in many fields that study different aspects of human culture.
One of the problems with a theory of sociocultural evolution is that it confounds often whimsical changes in human culture, which happen often within generations and that can have tumultuous effects on a given culture, with the slower, biological changes in the longer-term that Darwin had in mind.
From this confounding of biology with the more abstract, higher-level semiotic systems that define human and, to a significantly reduced-degree, other animal cultures, comes a belief that human culture and the power structures that come about as a result of it, follow a well-defined and universal series of evolutionary mile-markers on their way to "civilizational" status.
In fact, A current but ever-present, historical example of the problems with these theories is the flawed dichotomy between civilization and barbarism (see here [wikipedia.org] and here [wikipedia.org]).
So, essentially, what Hawking has re-discovered is an age-old trope that saw a very real, and conspicuous apogee during the European wars sof Colonization and continues to this day (here [wikipedia.org], here [wikipedia.org] and here [wikipedia.org]).
But in fact, this age-old dichotomy is not common only to the western world--the Mexica (or "Aztecs") and their Andean counterparts, the Inca, conceived of many smaller groupings of indians near and beyond their periphery as savages and barbarians.
If there's an important distinction to be made in many of these civilization vs. the savage examples, it's that the technology that humans create can in fact follow an evolutionary trajectory (ie, one that gives us a better chance at survival as a species), but that the culture that produces it may arrive at different stages of that evolutionary path from wildly disassociated and subjective changes and vacillations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28586799</id>
	<title>i beg to differ</title>
	<author>KingBenny</author>
	<datestamp>1246814880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>mister hawking, it is because of these 'externals' that we do not evolve. The externals take away the reason for evolving</htmltext>
<tokenext>mister hawking , it is because of these 'externals ' that we do not evolve .
The externals take away the reason for evolving</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mister hawking, it is because of these 'externals' that we do not evolve.
The externals take away the reason for evolving</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28581913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28590515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28576991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28581403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28576991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28576991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579181
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28581037
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28587783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28576991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28587929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28576991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28576991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28582121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28576991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28591909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28583309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28582645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28585139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28576991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28581711
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28576991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28587309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28576991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28576991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28576991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28576991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28586859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28592031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28590717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_2241207_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_2241207.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578039
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_2241207.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577099
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_2241207.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577193
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_2241207.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579423
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_2241207.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577575
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_2241207.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577715
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_2241207.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28582121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577683
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28583309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579117
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577285
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578247
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28590717
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578739
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_2241207.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579613
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_2241207.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578761
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28585139
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28581711
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28581037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578799
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_2241207.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578717
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_2241207.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578707
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28587783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580001
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577265
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578723
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28581913
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579091
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28581403
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580199
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579605
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28590515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577777
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577775
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_2241207.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28576991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577127
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580035
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577609
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28586859
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28587929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577085
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578077
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28591909
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577865
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579041
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579609
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577235
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579333
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580815
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578685
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28587309
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578257
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580873
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_2241207.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577229
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_2241207.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577637
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577741
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579857
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580463
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28592031
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578555
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28580033
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28582645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578789
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_2241207.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579181
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579487
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_2241207.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28577103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578585
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_2241207.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28579147
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_2241207.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_2241207.28578725
</commentlist>
</conversation>
