<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_07_1425242</id>
	<title>8\% of Your DNA Comes From a Virus</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1262877240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"About 8 percent of  <a href="http://www.uta.edu/ucomm/mediarelations/press/2010/01/genome-biologist-reports.php">human genetic material comes from a virus</a> and not from our ancestors, according to an article by University of Texas at Arlington biology professor C&#233;dric Feschotte, published in the Jan. 7, 2010 issue of <em>Nature</em> magazine."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " About 8 percent of human genetic material comes from a virus and not from our ancestors , according to an article by University of Texas at Arlington biology professor C   dric Feschotte , published in the Jan. 7 , 2010 issue of Nature magazine .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "About 8 percent of  human genetic material comes from a virus and not from our ancestors, according to an article by University of Texas at Arlington biology professor Cédric Feschotte, published in the Jan. 7, 2010 issue of Nature magazine.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30684418</id>
	<title>Alien intervention?</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1262887740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how neatly this fits in with the "Aliens mutated pre-humans into humans" theory. If we were able to prevent a developing human from inheriting this DNA mutating virus, would they then become pre-human?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how neatly this fits in with the " Aliens mutated pre-humans into humans " theory .
If we were able to prevent a developing human from inheriting this DNA mutating virus , would they then become pre-human ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how neatly this fits in with the "Aliens mutated pre-humans into humans" theory.
If we were able to prevent a developing human from inheriting this DNA mutating virus, would they then become pre-human?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682858</id>
	<title>Mammals</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262881920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google for placenta and endogenous (as in endogenous virus).  The placenta uses a lot of viral code, to the extent that it might be more virus than anything else.  It also sheds a lot of viruses.  The placenta is almost a different life form.</p><p>BTW, the Wikipedia entry shows that the "8\%" number was known as long as 6 years ago.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous\_retrovirus" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous\_retrovirus</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google for placenta and endogenous ( as in endogenous virus ) .
The placenta uses a lot of viral code , to the extent that it might be more virus than anything else .
It also sheds a lot of viruses .
The placenta is almost a different life form.BTW , the Wikipedia entry shows that the " 8 \ % " number was known as long as 6 years ago.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous \ _retrovirus [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google for placenta and endogenous (as in endogenous virus).
The placenta uses a lot of viral code, to the extent that it might be more virus than anything else.
It also sheds a lot of viruses.
The placenta is almost a different life form.BTW, the Wikipedia entry shows that the "8\%" number was known as long as 6 years ago.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous\_retrovirus [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683302</id>
	<title>Open source</title>
	<author>l0b0</author>
	<datestamp>1262883660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So nature does open source genetic engineering? Sweet!</p><p>Seriously though, could this be used to explain some instances of co-evolution?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So nature does open source genetic engineering ?
Sweet ! Seriously though , could this be used to explain some instances of co-evolution ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So nature does open source genetic engineering?
Sweet!Seriously though, could this be used to explain some instances of co-evolution?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685122</id>
	<title>Re:Bible Code?</title>
	<author>retchdog</author>
	<datestamp>1262890740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once again, random slashdotters are come to reveal basic statistics to those benighted scientists!</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple\_testing" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple\_testing</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False\_discovery\_rate" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False\_discovery\_rate</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonferroni\_correction" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonferroni\_correction</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>The current statistical research is in developing less conservative and thus more powerful methods. The standard practice in genetics is to over-correct, and the neuroscientists (having recently been shamed over it) are coming around too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again , random slashdotters are come to reveal basic statistics to those benighted scientists ! http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple \ _testing [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False \ _discovery \ _rate [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonferroni \ _correction [ wikipedia.org ] The current statistical research is in developing less conservative and thus more powerful methods .
The standard practice in genetics is to over-correct , and the neuroscientists ( having recently been shamed over it ) are coming around too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again, random slashdotters are come to reveal basic statistics to those benighted scientists!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple\_testing [wikipedia.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False\_discovery\_rate [wikipedia.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonferroni\_correction [wikipedia.org]The current statistical research is in developing less conservative and thus more powerful methods.
The standard practice in genetics is to over-correct, and the neuroscientists (having recently been shamed over it) are coming around too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30686136</id>
	<title>Re:Useful?</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1262895240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope you aren't also the kind of smart guy who complains when the researcher says their discovery might help find a cure for cancer, even when that's highly speculative at best.  Otherwise what are the supposed to say?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope you are n't also the kind of smart guy who complains when the researcher says their discovery might help find a cure for cancer , even when that 's highly speculative at best .
Otherwise what are the supposed to say ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope you aren't also the kind of smart guy who complains when the researcher says their discovery might help find a cure for cancer, even when that's highly speculative at best.
Otherwise what are the supposed to say?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30689664</id>
	<title>Thr Mstrix already taught us this...</title>
	<author>Psaakyrn</author>
	<datestamp>1262871780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure. "</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'd like to share a revelation that I 've had during my time here .
It came to me when I tried to classify your species .
I realized that you 're not actually mammals .
Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment , but you humans do not .
You move to an area , and you multiply , and multiply , until every natural resource is consumed .
The only way you can survive is to spread to another area .
There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern .
A virus .
Human beings are a disease , a cancer of this planet , you are a plague , and we are the cure .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here.
It came to me when I tried to classify your species.
I realized that you're not actually mammals.
Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not.
You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed.
The only way you can survive is to spread to another area.
There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern.
A virus.
Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683080</id>
	<title>virus genes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262882760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is antivirus signature database.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is antivirus signature database .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is antivirus signature database.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30684028</id>
	<title>Re:Bible Code?</title>
	<author>smellsofbikes</author>
	<datestamp>1262886420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What matters here is statistically significant matches.  Pretend for a second that DNA is C code.  If you're reading a long stretch of code and suddenly run across a #define &lt;virus.h&gt;; void main(void) { int virus, x;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and so forth, you know that you're looking at a chunk of code that's not supposed to be there and you know that everything between that { and the matching } is part of the stuff that's not supposed to be there -- and it might be several kilobytes of wrong DNA.  In the case of genes, the #define/main stuff is a group of genes known as promoters and repressers and stuff like that, which are preambles that provide a control system for the DNA replication machinery so it can tell where to start reading and when to replicate a section, and most viruses have similar setups since they have to fool the cellular machinery into thinking it's replicating its own DNA.<p>
The complication comes in that DNA replication is lossy, but evolution is conservative.  So if random changes creep into critical stretches of DNA, called conserved sequences, bad things will happen to the cell.  If changes creep into DNA that isn't currently functional, as is the case with endogenous retroviruses or other viral material that got stashed in but didn't end up producing a virus for whatever reason, those changes stick around since the DNA isn't expressed: there's no evolutionary pressure to maintain the code, so it slowly degrades.</p><p>
The rate at which it degrades is reasonably constant.  DNA polymerases have a measurable, consistent error rate.  So your old viral code slowly accumulates errors, but it's still recognizeable: you know what you're seeing when you read #defne &lt;virus.h&gt;.  A nice side-effect of this is that, since the replication error rate is fairly constant, you can also tell roughly how long a chunk of viral material has been in the DNA by the number of errors it has accumulated compared to a reference genome.</p><p>
So as a long answer to a short question, you don't look for six-base correlation, you look for a 95\% correlation over several thousand sequential bases before you announce you've found a virus-like pattern.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What matters here is statistically significant matches .
Pretend for a second that DNA is C code .
If you 're reading a long stretch of code and suddenly run across a # define ; void main ( void ) { int virus , x ; ... and so forth , you know that you 're looking at a chunk of code that 's not supposed to be there and you know that everything between that { and the matching } is part of the stuff that 's not supposed to be there -- and it might be several kilobytes of wrong DNA .
In the case of genes , the # define/main stuff is a group of genes known as promoters and repressers and stuff like that , which are preambles that provide a control system for the DNA replication machinery so it can tell where to start reading and when to replicate a section , and most viruses have similar setups since they have to fool the cellular machinery into thinking it 's replicating its own DNA .
The complication comes in that DNA replication is lossy , but evolution is conservative .
So if random changes creep into critical stretches of DNA , called conserved sequences , bad things will happen to the cell .
If changes creep into DNA that is n't currently functional , as is the case with endogenous retroviruses or other viral material that got stashed in but did n't end up producing a virus for whatever reason , those changes stick around since the DNA is n't expressed : there 's no evolutionary pressure to maintain the code , so it slowly degrades .
The rate at which it degrades is reasonably constant .
DNA polymerases have a measurable , consistent error rate .
So your old viral code slowly accumulates errors , but it 's still recognizeable : you know what you 're seeing when you read # defne .
A nice side-effect of this is that , since the replication error rate is fairly constant , you can also tell roughly how long a chunk of viral material has been in the DNA by the number of errors it has accumulated compared to a reference genome .
So as a long answer to a short question , you do n't look for six-base correlation , you look for a 95 \ % correlation over several thousand sequential bases before you announce you 've found a virus-like pattern .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What matters here is statistically significant matches.
Pretend for a second that DNA is C code.
If you're reading a long stretch of code and suddenly run across a #define ; void main(void) { int virus, x; ... and so forth, you know that you're looking at a chunk of code that's not supposed to be there and you know that everything between that { and the matching } is part of the stuff that's not supposed to be there -- and it might be several kilobytes of wrong DNA.
In the case of genes, the #define/main stuff is a group of genes known as promoters and repressers and stuff like that, which are preambles that provide a control system for the DNA replication machinery so it can tell where to start reading and when to replicate a section, and most viruses have similar setups since they have to fool the cellular machinery into thinking it's replicating its own DNA.
The complication comes in that DNA replication is lossy, but evolution is conservative.
So if random changes creep into critical stretches of DNA, called conserved sequences, bad things will happen to the cell.
If changes creep into DNA that isn't currently functional, as is the case with endogenous retroviruses or other viral material that got stashed in but didn't end up producing a virus for whatever reason, those changes stick around since the DNA isn't expressed: there's no evolutionary pressure to maintain the code, so it slowly degrades.
The rate at which it degrades is reasonably constant.
DNA polymerases have a measurable, consistent error rate.
So your old viral code slowly accumulates errors, but it's still recognizeable: you know what you're seeing when you read #defne .
A nice side-effect of this is that, since the replication error rate is fairly constant, you can also tell roughly how long a chunk of viral material has been in the DNA by the number of errors it has accumulated compared to a reference genome.
So as a long answer to a short question, you don't look for six-base correlation, you look for a 95\% correlation over several thousand sequential bases before you announce you've found a virus-like pattern.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30684942</id>
	<title>PKD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262889900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"a cause of mutation and psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and mood disorders<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a virus epidemic in 1885 wiped out a regiment of cavalry horses<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it infects only neurons, establishing a persistent infection in its host's brain"</p><p>I'm not sure how, but the writing of Philip K. Dick (a.k.a. Horselover Fat) has to be connected to this in some way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" a cause of mutation and psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and mood disorders ... a virus epidemic in 1885 wiped out a regiment of cavalry horses ... it infects only neurons , establishing a persistent infection in its host 's brain " I 'm not sure how , but the writing of Philip K. Dick ( a.k.a .
Horselover Fat ) has to be connected to this in some way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"a cause of mutation and psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and mood disorders ... a virus epidemic in 1885 wiped out a regiment of cavalry horses ... it infects only neurons, establishing a persistent infection in its host's brain"I'm not sure how, but the writing of Philip K. Dick (a.k.a.
Horselover Fat) has to be connected to this in some way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30689274</id>
	<title>Every consider the alternative</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1262868480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its just common code.</p><p>There are only so many variations given a number of bits.  DNA is nothing but a string of bit patterns, given that all live on earth operates in more or less the same general way at the lower levels, it shouldn't be surprising that we've run into a some duplicate code.  So far the code is public domain as far as I know so its probably been shared without patent or copyright lawsuite concerns by more than a few different organisms even if just by dumb luck.</p><p>Unrelated species have been known to develop very similar features  when something about their environment is similar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its just common code.There are only so many variations given a number of bits .
DNA is nothing but a string of bit patterns , given that all live on earth operates in more or less the same general way at the lower levels , it should n't be surprising that we 've run into a some duplicate code .
So far the code is public domain as far as I know so its probably been shared without patent or copyright lawsuite concerns by more than a few different organisms even if just by dumb luck.Unrelated species have been known to develop very similar features when something about their environment is similar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its just common code.There are only so many variations given a number of bits.
DNA is nothing but a string of bit patterns, given that all live on earth operates in more or less the same general way at the lower levels, it shouldn't be surprising that we've run into a some duplicate code.
So far the code is public domain as far as I know so its probably been shared without patent or copyright lawsuite concerns by more than a few different organisms even if just by dumb luck.Unrelated species have been known to develop very similar features  when something about their environment is similar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682706</id>
	<title>Revelation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262881500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here, Mr. Malda. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague and we are the cure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to share a revelation that I 've had during my time here , Mr. Malda. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you 're not actually mammals .
Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not .
You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area .
There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern .
Do you know what it is ?
A virus .
Human beings are a disease , a cancer of this planet .
You are a plague and we are the cure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here, Mr. Malda. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals.
Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not.
You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area.
There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern.
Do you know what it is?
A virus.
Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.
You are a plague and we are the cure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683046</id>
	<title>Damn it.</title>
	<author>UncHellMatt</author>
	<datestamp>1262882640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>She told me she was TESTED!</htmltext>
<tokenext>She told me she was TESTED !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She told me she was TESTED!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30690822</id>
	<title>Re:Useful?</title>
	<author>MacDork</author>
	<datestamp>1262884620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is in use if the virus wins.  AIDS for instance.  It's dormant if the the "junk DNA" does it's job correctly (error correction).  Genes are the data. DNA is the par file.  All that so called 'junk' is error correction and checksums.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is in use if the virus wins .
AIDS for instance .
It 's dormant if the the " junk DNA " does it 's job correctly ( error correction ) .
Genes are the data .
DNA is the par file .
All that so called 'junk ' is error correction and checksums .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is in use if the virus wins.
AIDS for instance.
It's dormant if the the "junk DNA" does it's job correctly (error correction).
Genes are the data.
DNA is the par file.
All that so called 'junk' is error correction and checksums.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685608</id>
	<title>8 Percent!</title>
	<author>bitphr3ak</author>
	<datestamp>1262892840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think I'll call in sick!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I 'll call in sick !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I'll call in sick!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683190</id>
	<title>Gee, my mother told me that it was 50\% . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262883180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>. . . she called the virus "your no-good father!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
she called the virus " your no-good father !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
. .
she called the virus "your no-good father!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685078</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising, given how DNA actually works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262890500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The myth of "juke" DNA was been widely disproved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The myth of " juke " DNA was been widely disproved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The myth of "juke" DNA was been widely disproved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683982</id>
	<title>Re:Bible Code?</title>
	<author>MiniMike</author>
	<datestamp>1262886240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But now if I hunt someone down and murder them and get diagnosed as a schizo, then I can blame it on the virus in my head that controlled me.   Instant "Get-out-of-Jail-Free" card</p> </div><p>You can go.  The virus stays jail.  Have fun with the extraction process!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But now if I hunt someone down and murder them and get diagnosed as a schizo , then I can blame it on the virus in my head that controlled me .
Instant " Get-out-of-Jail-Free " card You can go .
The virus stays jail .
Have fun with the extraction process !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But now if I hunt someone down and murder them and get diagnosed as a schizo, then I can blame it on the virus in my head that controlled me.
Instant "Get-out-of-Jail-Free" card You can go.
The virus stays jail.
Have fun with the extraction process!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683358</id>
	<title>Linux kernel</title>
	<author>MaGGuN</author>
	<datestamp>1262883840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>8\% of the Linux kernel code comes from Linus... Don't shoot the messenger.</htmltext>
<tokenext>8 \ % of the Linux kernel code comes from Linus... Do n't shoot the messenger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>8\% of the Linux kernel code comes from Linus... Don't shoot the messenger.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30688602</id>
	<title>Re:Bible Code?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262863980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As opposed to the paperback book market, Nature does not tend to print whatever comes across it's desk.</p></div><p>Actually, the paperback book market doesn't even print whatever comes across it's desk. You're thinking of the print-on-demand market, which is a different animal entirely.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As opposed to the paperback book market , Nature does not tend to print whatever comes across it 's desk.Actually , the paperback book market does n't even print whatever comes across it 's desk .
You 're thinking of the print-on-demand market , which is a different animal entirely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As opposed to the paperback book market, Nature does not tend to print whatever comes across it's desk.Actually, the paperback book market doesn't even print whatever comes across it's desk.
You're thinking of the print-on-demand market, which is a different animal entirely.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30688942</id>
	<title>Re:Bible Code?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262865960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...the Bible Code were clearly not competent..."</p><p>This statement assumes that competencies was attempted in that case. I highly doubt any thoughts of contradiction against what the "Bible Code" is attempting to suggest were investigated by the producers in any way. Especially when money is on the line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...the Bible Code were clearly not competent... " This statement assumes that competencies was attempted in that case .
I highly doubt any thoughts of contradiction against what the " Bible Code " is attempting to suggest were investigated by the producers in any way .
Especially when money is on the line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...the Bible Code were clearly not competent..."This statement assumes that competencies was attempted in that case.
I highly doubt any thoughts of contradiction against what the "Bible Code" is attempting to suggest were investigated by the producers in any way.
Especially when money is on the line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683224</id>
	<title>Even more similar to macaca mulatta?</title>
	<author>mapkinase</author>
	<datestamp>1262883300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's interesting how did they chose a particular protein in the Supplementary table of the peer-reviewed Japanese article in Nature (first ref in N&amp;V article by the Italian, the N&amp;V reference is in the bottom of the OA).</p><p>They chose hit LOC340900</p><p>but if you look for the blinks for H1499's nucleoprotein it lists:</p><p>PREDICTED: hypothetical protein [Macaca mulatta]</p><p>with slightly higher score than the next hit (from Human).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's interesting how did they chose a particular protein in the Supplementary table of the peer-reviewed Japanese article in Nature ( first ref in N&amp;V article by the Italian , the N&amp;V reference is in the bottom of the OA ) .They chose hit LOC340900but if you look for the blinks for H1499 's nucleoprotein it lists : PREDICTED : hypothetical protein [ Macaca mulatta ] with slightly higher score than the next hit ( from Human ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's interesting how did they chose a particular protein in the Supplementary table of the peer-reviewed Japanese article in Nature (first ref in N&amp;V article by the Italian, the N&amp;V reference is in the bottom of the OA).They chose hit LOC340900but if you look for the blinks for H1499's nucleoprotein it lists:PREDICTED: hypothetical protein [Macaca mulatta]with slightly higher score than the next hit (from Human).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30706450</id>
	<title>Re:Bible Code?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263041040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's its</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's its</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's its</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682870</id>
	<title>Huh</title>
	<author>just\_another\_sean</author>
	<datestamp>1262881980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That explains a lot actually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That explains a lot actually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That explains a lot actually.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683762</id>
	<title>A Woman's Perspective</title>
	<author>d34dluk3</author>
	<datestamp>1262885400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's the Y Chromosome</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the Y Chromosome</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the Y Chromosome</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683004</id>
	<title>the OA refed in the OP link is in N&amp;V section</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262882460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/full/463039a.html" title="nature.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/full/463039a.html</a> [nature.com]</p><p>That section is mostly commissioned and if not submissions reviewed by editor (technically, not peer reviewed).</p><p>The author of the referred N&amp;V article is the author one of the articles in the reference section...</p><p>For peer-reviewed article, I would go for:</p><p><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/full/nature08695.html" title="nature.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/full/nature08695.html</a> [nature.com]</p><p>written by bunch of Japanese:</p><p><b>Endogenous non-retroviral RNA virus elements in mammalian genomes</b> </p><blockquote><div><p>Retroviruses are the only group of viruses known to have left a fossil record, in the form of endogenous proviruses, and approximately 8\% of the human genome is made up of these elements1, 2. Although many other viruses, including non-retroviral RNA viruses, are known to generate DNA forms of their own genomes during replication3, 4, 5, none has been found as DNA in the germline of animals. Bornaviruses, a genus of non-segmented, negative-sense RNA virus, are unique among RNA viruses in that they establish persistent infection in the cell nucleus6, 7, 8. Here we show that elements homologous to the nucleoprotein (N) gene of bornavirus exist in the genomes of several mammalian species, including humans, non-human primates, rodents and elephants. These sequences have been designated endogenous Borna-like N (EBLN) elements. Some of the primate EBLNs contain an intact open reading frame (ORF) and are expressed as mRNA. Phylogenetic analyses showed that EBLNs seem to have been generated by different insertional events in each specific animal family. Furthermore, the EBLN of a ground squirrel was formed by a recent integration event, whereas those in primates must have been formed more than 40 million years ago. We also show that the N mRNA of a current mammalian bornavirus, Borna disease virus (BDV), can form EBLN-like elements in the genomes of persistently infected cultured cells. Our results provide the first evidence for endogenization of non-retroviral virus-derived elements in mammalian genomes and give novel insights not only into generation of endogenous elements, but also into a role of bornavirus as a source of genetic novelty in its host.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/full/463039a.html [ nature.com ] That section is mostly commissioned and if not submissions reviewed by editor ( technically , not peer reviewed ) .The author of the referred N&amp;V article is the author one of the articles in the reference section...For peer-reviewed article , I would go for : http : //www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/full/nature08695.html [ nature.com ] written by bunch of Japanese : Endogenous non-retroviral RNA virus elements in mammalian genomes Retroviruses are the only group of viruses known to have left a fossil record , in the form of endogenous proviruses , and approximately 8 \ % of the human genome is made up of these elements1 , 2 .
Although many other viruses , including non-retroviral RNA viruses , are known to generate DNA forms of their own genomes during replication3 , 4 , 5 , none has been found as DNA in the germline of animals .
Bornaviruses , a genus of non-segmented , negative-sense RNA virus , are unique among RNA viruses in that they establish persistent infection in the cell nucleus6 , 7 , 8 .
Here we show that elements homologous to the nucleoprotein ( N ) gene of bornavirus exist in the genomes of several mammalian species , including humans , non-human primates , rodents and elephants .
These sequences have been designated endogenous Borna-like N ( EBLN ) elements .
Some of the primate EBLNs contain an intact open reading frame ( ORF ) and are expressed as mRNA .
Phylogenetic analyses showed that EBLNs seem to have been generated by different insertional events in each specific animal family .
Furthermore , the EBLN of a ground squirrel was formed by a recent integration event , whereas those in primates must have been formed more than 40 million years ago .
We also show that the N mRNA of a current mammalian bornavirus , Borna disease virus ( BDV ) , can form EBLN-like elements in the genomes of persistently infected cultured cells .
Our results provide the first evidence for endogenization of non-retroviral virus-derived elements in mammalian genomes and give novel insights not only into generation of endogenous elements , but also into a role of bornavirus as a source of genetic novelty in its host .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/full/463039a.html [nature.com]That section is mostly commissioned and if not submissions reviewed by editor (technically, not peer reviewed).The author of the referred N&amp;V article is the author one of the articles in the reference section...For peer-reviewed article, I would go for:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/full/nature08695.html [nature.com]written by bunch of Japanese:Endogenous non-retroviral RNA virus elements in mammalian genomes Retroviruses are the only group of viruses known to have left a fossil record, in the form of endogenous proviruses, and approximately 8\% of the human genome is made up of these elements1, 2.
Although many other viruses, including non-retroviral RNA viruses, are known to generate DNA forms of their own genomes during replication3, 4, 5, none has been found as DNA in the germline of animals.
Bornaviruses, a genus of non-segmented, negative-sense RNA virus, are unique among RNA viruses in that they establish persistent infection in the cell nucleus6, 7, 8.
Here we show that elements homologous to the nucleoprotein (N) gene of bornavirus exist in the genomes of several mammalian species, including humans, non-human primates, rodents and elephants.
These sequences have been designated endogenous Borna-like N (EBLN) elements.
Some of the primate EBLNs contain an intact open reading frame (ORF) and are expressed as mRNA.
Phylogenetic analyses showed that EBLNs seem to have been generated by different insertional events in each specific animal family.
Furthermore, the EBLN of a ground squirrel was formed by a recent integration event, whereas those in primates must have been formed more than 40 million years ago.
We also show that the N mRNA of a current mammalian bornavirus, Borna disease virus (BDV), can form EBLN-like elements in the genomes of persistently infected cultured cells.
Our results provide the first evidence for endogenization of non-retroviral virus-derived elements in mammalian genomes and give novel insights not only into generation of endogenous elements, but also into a role of bornavirus as a source of genetic novelty in its host.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683806</id>
	<title>Misleading title</title>
	<author>BurningRome</author>
	<datestamp>1262885580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "8\% of your genome" comes from the first paragraph of the News and Views article which reviews the actual article by Horie et al, and is referring to ALL viral remnants in the human genome, not just this new Bornavirus one. From a quick scan of the paper, it looks like they didn't estimate what fraction of the human genome comes from their Bornavirus, but they only describe 4 actual elements - so that's a vanishingly small part of the human genome. The vast majority of viral elements in the genome come from retroviruses and other retrotransposons, and that's been known for a long time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " 8 \ % of your genome " comes from the first paragraph of the News and Views article which reviews the actual article by Horie et al , and is referring to ALL viral remnants in the human genome , not just this new Bornavirus one .
From a quick scan of the paper , it looks like they did n't estimate what fraction of the human genome comes from their Bornavirus , but they only describe 4 actual elements - so that 's a vanishingly small part of the human genome .
The vast majority of viral elements in the genome come from retroviruses and other retrotransposons , and that 's been known for a long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "8\% of your genome" comes from the first paragraph of the News and Views article which reviews the actual article by Horie et al, and is referring to ALL viral remnants in the human genome, not just this new Bornavirus one.
From a quick scan of the paper, it looks like they didn't estimate what fraction of the human genome comes from their Bornavirus, but they only describe 4 actual elements - so that's a vanishingly small part of the human genome.
The vast majority of viral elements in the genome come from retroviruses and other retrotransposons, and that's been known for a long time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30689994</id>
	<title>maybe just a glimpse into how cells normally work?</title>
	<author>fikx</author>
	<datestamp>1262874780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Based on the short summary article, they just found DNA similar to a specific virus sequences (which infects neurons) . Did anyone consider the opposite theory ? Instead of the DNA coming from the virus, isn't it possible the virus came from our DNA? Or maybe the virus is a left-over or damaged piece of a larger puzzle (since this virus is found is many animals, maybe it palys a part in many animals interacting with each other...)<br>
just a thought...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on the short summary article , they just found DNA similar to a specific virus sequences ( which infects neurons ) .
Did anyone consider the opposite theory ?
Instead of the DNA coming from the virus , is n't it possible the virus came from our DNA ?
Or maybe the virus is a left-over or damaged piece of a larger puzzle ( since this virus is found is many animals , maybe it palys a part in many animals interacting with each other... ) just a thought.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on the short summary article, they just found DNA similar to a specific virus sequences (which infects neurons) .
Did anyone consider the opposite theory ?
Instead of the DNA coming from the virus, isn't it possible the virus came from our DNA?
Or maybe the virus is a left-over or damaged piece of a larger puzzle (since this virus is found is many animals, maybe it palys a part in many animals interacting with each other...)
just a thought...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30712536</id>
	<title>Re:What a crappy press release</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263058260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The implications are crazy.</p><p>cvr.bio.uci.edu/downloads/APS.pdf</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The implications are crazy.cvr.bio.uci.edu/downloads/APS.pdf</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The implications are crazy.cvr.bio.uci.edu/downloads/APS.pdf</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682844</id>
	<title>Re:Bible Code?</title>
	<author>2short</author>
	<datestamp>1262881920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Any sufficiently large set of information is going to give you some matches on just about anything you search for."<br><br>Yes, but not a sufficiently large rate of matches.  If the researchers are competent, they can calculate what percent of the data would be expected to match their search even if the data is just random, and decide if the match rate exceeds that by a significant margin.  The 'researchers' of the Bible Code were clearly not competent in exactly this way.<br><br>As opposed to the paperback book market, Nature does not tend to print whatever comes across it's desk.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Any sufficiently large set of information is going to give you some matches on just about anything you search for .
" Yes , but not a sufficiently large rate of matches .
If the researchers are competent , they can calculate what percent of the data would be expected to match their search even if the data is just random , and decide if the match rate exceeds that by a significant margin .
The 'researchers ' of the Bible Code were clearly not competent in exactly this way.As opposed to the paperback book market , Nature does not tend to print whatever comes across it 's desk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Any sufficiently large set of information is going to give you some matches on just about anything you search for.
"Yes, but not a sufficiently large rate of matches.
If the researchers are competent, they can calculate what percent of the data would be expected to match their search even if the data is just random, and decide if the match rate exceeds that by a significant margin.
The 'researchers' of the Bible Code were clearly not competent in exactly this way.As opposed to the paperback book market, Nature does not tend to print whatever comes across it's desk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666</id>
	<title>Bible Code?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262881260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't this "discovery" sort of like the Bible Code? So they searched the human genome and found a bunch of "virus like" patterns. Any sufficiently large set of information is going to give you some matches on just about anything you search for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this " discovery " sort of like the Bible Code ?
So they searched the human genome and found a bunch of " virus like " patterns .
Any sufficiently large set of information is going to give you some matches on just about anything you search for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this "discovery" sort of like the Bible Code?
So they searched the human genome and found a bunch of "virus like" patterns.
Any sufficiently large set of information is going to give you some matches on just about anything you search for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683184</id>
	<title>Snowcrash anyone?</title>
	<author>McNihil</author>
	<datestamp>1262883180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can this be news is a bit beyond me but then again I have had my coffeeeeeeee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can this be news is a bit beyond me but then again I have had my coffeeeeeeee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can this be news is a bit beyond me but then again I have had my coffeeeeeeee.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685248</id>
	<title>Sorry, it's the first thing that came to mind</title>
	<author>4g1vn</author>
	<datestamp>1262891220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snWstiQ4W9g" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snWstiQ4W9g</a> [youtube.com]

Smith know this tidbit of information before this scientist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = snWstiQ4W9g [ youtube.com ] Smith know this tidbit of information before this scientist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snWstiQ4W9g [youtube.com]

Smith know this tidbit of information before this scientist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30686860</id>
	<title>Re:Revelation</title>
	<author>T.E.D.</author>
	<datestamp>1262855580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area.</p></div><p>Obviously you have never studied <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits\_in\_Australia" title="wikipedia.org">rabbits</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not .
You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area.Obviously you have never studied rabbits [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not.
You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area.Obviously you have never studied rabbits [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30684334</id>
	<title>8\%</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262887380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would that be accounts, politicians, lawyers and marketers not necessarily in that order then?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would that be accounts , politicians , lawyers and marketers not necessarily in that order then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would that be accounts, politicians, lawyers and marketers not necessarily in that order then?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682606</id>
	<title>Ob. Matrix quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262880960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Humans are a virus!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Humans are a virus !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Humans are a virus!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30686612</id>
	<title>Re:Amount of viral code</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1262897640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>8\% is just the amount that isn't so old, mixed and mangled that it can be identified as viral in origin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>8 \ % is just the amount that is n't so old , mixed and mangled that it can be identified as viral in origin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>8\% is just the amount that isn't so old, mixed and mangled that it can be identified as viral in origin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30690394</id>
	<title>feeling queeeesy</title>
	<author>FragHARD</author>
	<datestamp>1262879220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I feel sick just reading this ??? might have been the pork I had for lunch and taco bell<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:0)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel sick just reading this ? ? ?
might have been the pork I had for lunch and taco bell : 0 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel sick just reading this ???
might have been the pork I had for lunch and taco bell :0)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683068</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising, given how DNA actually works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262882760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Huh, you're pulling numbers out your ass because it's been proven that "junk" DNA isn't junk DNA at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh , you 're pulling numbers out your ass because it 's been proven that " junk " DNA is n't junk DNA at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh, you're pulling numbers out your ass because it's been proven that "junk" DNA isn't junk DNA at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682702</id>
	<title>brain food</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262881440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this make the virus top of the food chain?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this make the virus top of the food chain ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this make the virus top of the food chain?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683332</id>
	<title>Re:Bible Code?</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1262883720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sort of.  The difference is that in things like the Bible Code you have to jump through hoops to find anything at all, then, when you do, you don't go back and figure out how likely it was that you'd find what you did.</p><p>In science, when you do something like pattern matching you figure out how likely it is that you'd find pattern A in dataset B by chance.  If it's less than a certain value (5\% or 1 time in 20 is often used in biology), then you say it's statistically significant and publish it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sort of .
The difference is that in things like the Bible Code you have to jump through hoops to find anything at all , then , when you do , you do n't go back and figure out how likely it was that you 'd find what you did.In science , when you do something like pattern matching you figure out how likely it is that you 'd find pattern A in dataset B by chance .
If it 's less than a certain value ( 5 \ % or 1 time in 20 is often used in biology ) , then you say it 's statistically significant and publish it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sort of.
The difference is that in things like the Bible Code you have to jump through hoops to find anything at all, then, when you do, you don't go back and figure out how likely it was that you'd find what you did.In science, when you do something like pattern matching you figure out how likely it is that you'd find pattern A in dataset B by chance.
If it's less than a certain value (5\% or 1 time in 20 is often used in biology), then you say it's statistically significant and publish it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30687452</id>
	<title>Re:Like my PC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262858400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only 8\% of Windows code comes from viruses???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only 8 \ % of Windows code comes from viruses ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only 8\% of Windows code comes from viruses??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685628</id>
	<title>Funny, about 8\% of Windows is virus, too!</title>
	<author>brentonboy</author>
	<datestamp>1262892960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...on a fresh install, anyway. The percentage increases the older your computer gets!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...on a fresh install , anyway .
The percentage increases the older your computer gets !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...on a fresh install, anyway.
The percentage increases the older your computer gets!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30684190</id>
	<title>Introns</title>
	<author>slimjim8094</author>
	<datestamp>1262886960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering something like 30\% of the genome is made up of introns (unexpressed DNA), I'm not too surprised. In theory at least, anything could be there with little effect on survivability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering something like 30 \ % of the genome is made up of introns ( unexpressed DNA ) , I 'm not too surprised .
In theory at least , anything could be there with little effect on survivability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering something like 30\% of the genome is made up of introns (unexpressed DNA), I'm not too surprised.
In theory at least, anything could be there with little effect on survivability.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30691140</id>
	<title>Re:But I use antivirus!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262889660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Doesn't Norton protect me from such stuff?"</p><p>No, but a good condom does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Does n't Norton protect me from such stuff ?
" No , but a good condom does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Doesn't Norton protect me from such stuff?
"No, but a good condom does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683766</id>
	<title>Re:Useful?</title>
	<author>Demonantis</author>
	<datestamp>1262885400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What will really mess you up is the fact that those dormant parts are traded with active parts and vice versa. Makes you really think about how scientific genetic modifications are and how much of it is a guessing game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What will really mess you up is the fact that those dormant parts are traded with active parts and vice versa .
Makes you really think about how scientific genetic modifications are and how much of it is a guessing game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What will really mess you up is the fact that those dormant parts are traded with active parts and vice versa.
Makes you really think about how scientific genetic modifications are and how much of it is a guessing game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30686028</id>
	<title>Re:Useful?</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1262894640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>[quote]So you are "a pretty smart guy" but failed to read the bit that said:

" Feschotte said this virally transmitted DNA may be a cause of mutation and psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and mood disorders."

Oh well done, well done indeed.[/quote]

Missing a line does not negate the argument, just negates where it can be applied to.  Well done - i bet your one of those guys who can follow a recipe but can never make your own?</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ quote ] So you are " a pretty smart guy " but failed to read the bit that said : " Feschotte said this virally transmitted DNA may be a cause of mutation and psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and mood disorders .
" Oh well done , well done indeed .
[ /quote ] Missing a line does not negate the argument , just negates where it can be applied to .
Well done - i bet your one of those guys who can follow a recipe but can never make your own ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[quote]So you are "a pretty smart guy" but failed to read the bit that said:

" Feschotte said this virally transmitted DNA may be a cause of mutation and psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and mood disorders.
"

Oh well done, well done indeed.
[/quote]

Missing a line does not negate the argument, just negates where it can be applied to.
Well done - i bet your one of those guys who can follow a recipe but can never make your own?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30684246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682836</id>
	<title>Re:Bible Code?</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1262881920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not necessarily.<br>A virus infects a human. It gets to infect the sperm or egg cell. Insignificant part of genetic code gets replaced.<br>A child is born with -all- its cells containing the virus-originated code.</p><p>Of course the replaced part will be several genes at most, but if the mutation is insignificant or positive, it will remain in all the offspring. Meanwhile this may repeat any number of times and will be perpetuated through ages.</p><p>If a defect of lacking one whole chromosome is non-lethal (Down's syndrome), a minor damage to your genome has a really good chance of not affecting your offspring at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not necessarily.A virus infects a human .
It gets to infect the sperm or egg cell .
Insignificant part of genetic code gets replaced.A child is born with -all- its cells containing the virus-originated code.Of course the replaced part will be several genes at most , but if the mutation is insignificant or positive , it will remain in all the offspring .
Meanwhile this may repeat any number of times and will be perpetuated through ages.If a defect of lacking one whole chromosome is non-lethal ( Down 's syndrome ) , a minor damage to your genome has a really good chance of not affecting your offspring at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not necessarily.A virus infects a human.
It gets to infect the sperm or egg cell.
Insignificant part of genetic code gets replaced.A child is born with -all- its cells containing the virus-originated code.Of course the replaced part will be several genes at most, but if the mutation is insignificant or positive, it will remain in all the offspring.
Meanwhile this may repeat any number of times and will be perpetuated through ages.If a defect of lacking one whole chromosome is non-lethal (Down's syndrome), a minor damage to your genome has a really good chance of not affecting your offspring at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30688726</id>
	<title>Re:Bible Code?</title>
	<author>aBaldrich</author>
	<datestamp>1262864460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Do not use the book of Genesis preach to the gentiles, for it contains symbols and methafores that are hard to understand" - Aurelius Agustinus, IV century.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Do not use the book of Genesis preach to the gentiles , for it contains symbols and methafores that are hard to understand " - Aurelius Agustinus , IV century .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Do not use the book of Genesis preach to the gentiles, for it contains symbols and methafores that are hard to understand" - Aurelius Agustinus, IV century.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30686096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685386</id>
	<title>Hereditary Immunity?</title>
	<author>phorm</author>
	<datestamp>1262891820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, we've already seen that parents pass immunity/resistance to various viruses on to their offspring, hence Natives dying from smallpox when European settlers showed up (the Europeans were mostly immune presumably because they'd already encountered the virus, the Natives had never been exposed prior).</p><p>So in that case, you must have a whole bunch of DNA dedicated to keeping track of viruses and the countermeasures to fighting them, otherwise you wouldn't be able to have hereditary immunity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , we 've already seen that parents pass immunity/resistance to various viruses on to their offspring , hence Natives dying from smallpox when European settlers showed up ( the Europeans were mostly immune presumably because they 'd already encountered the virus , the Natives had never been exposed prior ) .So in that case , you must have a whole bunch of DNA dedicated to keeping track of viruses and the countermeasures to fighting them , otherwise you would n't be able to have hereditary immunity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, we've already seen that parents pass immunity/resistance to various viruses on to their offspring, hence Natives dying from smallpox when European settlers showed up (the Europeans were mostly immune presumably because they'd already encountered the virus, the Natives had never been exposed prior).So in that case, you must have a whole bunch of DNA dedicated to keeping track of viruses and the countermeasures to fighting them, otherwise you wouldn't be able to have hereditary immunity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30684488</id>
	<title>Re:Like my PC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262888100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>98\% of my Windows code IS A Virus.</p><p>- Corrected that for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>98 \ % of my Windows code IS A Virus.- Corrected that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>98\% of my Windows code IS A Virus.- Corrected that for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683620</id>
	<title>Re:Bible Code?</title>
	<author>jhoegl</author>
	<datestamp>1262884740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Otherwise known in the Scientific community and outside of Kansas as "evolution".<br>
Its an interesting theory with a lot of proof all over the place. Look it up sometime.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Otherwise known in the Scientific community and outside of Kansas as " evolution " .
Its an interesting theory with a lot of proof all over the place .
Look it up sometime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Otherwise known in the Scientific community and outside of Kansas as "evolution".
Its an interesting theory with a lot of proof all over the place.
Look it up sometime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30689666</id>
	<title>Re:Useful?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262871780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The theory that most of the DNA is junk, is long outdated and dumped. <em>All</em> of DNA is used. Just not in the same way. Some uses are not even understood yet. But it&rsquo;s proven <em>that</em> the parts are used.</p><p>So: Yes, it is in use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The theory that most of the DNA is junk , is long outdated and dumped .
All of DNA is used .
Just not in the same way .
Some uses are not even understood yet .
But it    s proven that the parts are used.So : Yes , it is in use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The theory that most of the DNA is junk, is long outdated and dumped.
All of DNA is used.
Just not in the same way.
Some uses are not even understood yet.
But it’s proven that the parts are used.So: Yes, it is in use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685314</id>
	<title>Re:Dissa Meesa Virus Tween yo Cheeks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262891520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You should really stop switching between third and first person.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You should really stop switching between third and first person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should really stop switching between third and first person.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682890</id>
	<title>Fate of us all...</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1262882040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BornAVirus - EndOVirus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BornAVirus - EndOVirus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BornAVirus - EndOVirus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683082</id>
	<title>Laundromat time!</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1262882820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After reading this, I feel an overwhelming need to run off to the laundromat and get my genes thoroughly washed....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading this , I feel an overwhelming need to run off to the laundromat and get my genes thoroughly washed... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading this, I feel an overwhelming need to run off to the laundromat and get my genes thoroughly washed....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683860</id>
	<title>Re:Like my PC</title>
	<author>robinstar1574</author>
	<datestamp>1262885760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>8\% of what? 8\% of the kernal comes from viruses. 99.8\% of all the rest comes out of viruses. Gotta clairify that for you. Sorry for making you look stupid, stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>8 \ % of what ?
8 \ % of the kernal comes from viruses .
99.8 \ % of all the rest comes out of viruses .
Got ta clairify that for you .
Sorry for making you look stupid , stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>8\% of what?
8\% of the kernal comes from viruses.
99.8\% of all the rest comes out of viruses.
Gotta clairify that for you.
Sorry for making you look stupid, stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683394</id>
	<title>HERVs are ancestral</title>
	<author>angry jimmy</author>
	<datestamp>1262883960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The posted summary is somewhat misleading. Human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) are responsible for ~8\% of the human genome sequence, but these things haven't been active for a long time in terms of human history - so the 8\% that's in your genome now did come from your parents, and their parents etc. until you get back to the time many thousands of years ago when HERVs were actively creating new insertions. The linked summary is a summary of a new finding in which the 'endogenization' of a new class of virus known as a Bornavirus is reported (which exists in only a few copies in humans)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The posted summary is somewhat misleading .
Human endogenous retroviruses ( HERVs ) are responsible for ~ 8 \ % of the human genome sequence , but these things have n't been active for a long time in terms of human history - so the 8 \ % that 's in your genome now did come from your parents , and their parents etc .
until you get back to the time many thousands of years ago when HERVs were actively creating new insertions .
The linked summary is a summary of a new finding in which the 'endogenization ' of a new class of virus known as a Bornavirus is reported ( which exists in only a few copies in humans )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The posted summary is somewhat misleading.
Human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) are responsible for ~8\% of the human genome sequence, but these things haven't been active for a long time in terms of human history - so the 8\% that's in your genome now did come from your parents, and their parents etc.
until you get back to the time many thousands of years ago when HERVs were actively creating new insertions.
The linked summary is a summary of a new finding in which the 'endogenization' of a new class of virus known as a Bornavirus is reported (which exists in only a few copies in humans)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685816</id>
	<title>Re:Like my PC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262893680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>8\% of my Windows code comes from BSD (or is it 92\%?)</htmltext>
<tokenext>8 \ % of my Windows code comes from BSD ( or is it 92 \ % ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>8\% of my Windows code comes from BSD (or is it 92\%?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30687252</id>
	<title>So Viruses are part of our evolution</title>
	<author>Latinhypercube</author>
	<datestamp>1262857440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You might even say, we are partly related to viruses. Might we also say that we are somewhat symbiotic with viruses ? Could the immune system have originally been a virus... Perhaps the first swelling of the mammalian brain...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You might even say , we are partly related to viruses .
Might we also say that we are somewhat symbiotic with viruses ?
Could the immune system have originally been a virus... Perhaps the first swelling of the mammalian brain.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might even say, we are partly related to viruses.
Might we also say that we are somewhat symbiotic with viruses ?
Could the immune system have originally been a virus... Perhaps the first swelling of the mammalian brain...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30688216</id>
	<title>Re:Revelation</title>
	<author>AbRASiON</author>
	<datestamp>1262862060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+5 insightful, not +5 funny folks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 5 insightful , not + 5 funny folks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+5 insightful, not +5 funny folks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685562</id>
	<title>Re:Bible Code?</title>
	<author>IorDMUX</author>
	<datestamp>1262892540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If a defect of lacking one whole chromosome is non-lethal (Down's syndrome), a minor damage to your genome has a really good chance of not affecting your offspring at all.</p></div><p>Lacking a single chromosome (or even a part of one) is pretty darn lethal.  Down's Syndrome is a trisomy--i.e. an extra copy of a chromosome--which causes systems in the body to go out of balance.  Down's Syndrome is one of the most "mild" trisomies, as most other duplicated chromosomes are also outright fatal.  <br> <br>Aside from that, tiny changes in other important parts of the genetic code can cause serious problems in the body, even given the duplication of genes between two chromosomes.  For example, a great many of the connective tissue disorders (Marfan Syndrome, Loeys-Dietz Syndrome, Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, etc.) are autosomal dominant and are caused by a single genetic bit (well, "quint" as there are four possible values) flipping in just one of the chromosomes.  The body has natural protections against this, from simple error-checking of the genome to redundancy in which genetic byte codes for which protein (imagine if similar bytes meant the same opcode) to redundancy in the chromosomes.  However, a single base (bit) error can cause a "stop codon" (think string terminator) to appear in the middle of a gene, ruining half of the body's supply of a particular enzyme.  Sometimes this is not noticeable at all due to the other chromosome picking up the slack, sometimes it causes notable changes in the body, and other times it is completely fatal.<br> <br>Perhaps this viral DNA is some of the un-parsed junk DNA, so our body really doesn't care what happens to it, or perhaps, as you mentioned, it has somehow provided beneficial adaptations... But small changes to the genome can cause big changes in offspring, and often not beneficial ones.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a defect of lacking one whole chromosome is non-lethal ( Down 's syndrome ) , a minor damage to your genome has a really good chance of not affecting your offspring at all.Lacking a single chromosome ( or even a part of one ) is pretty darn lethal .
Down 's Syndrome is a trisomy--i.e .
an extra copy of a chromosome--which causes systems in the body to go out of balance .
Down 's Syndrome is one of the most " mild " trisomies , as most other duplicated chromosomes are also outright fatal .
Aside from that , tiny changes in other important parts of the genetic code can cause serious problems in the body , even given the duplication of genes between two chromosomes .
For example , a great many of the connective tissue disorders ( Marfan Syndrome , Loeys-Dietz Syndrome , Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome , etc .
) are autosomal dominant and are caused by a single genetic bit ( well , " quint " as there are four possible values ) flipping in just one of the chromosomes .
The body has natural protections against this , from simple error-checking of the genome to redundancy in which genetic byte codes for which protein ( imagine if similar bytes meant the same opcode ) to redundancy in the chromosomes .
However , a single base ( bit ) error can cause a " stop codon " ( think string terminator ) to appear in the middle of a gene , ruining half of the body 's supply of a particular enzyme .
Sometimes this is not noticeable at all due to the other chromosome picking up the slack , sometimes it causes notable changes in the body , and other times it is completely fatal .
Perhaps this viral DNA is some of the un-parsed junk DNA , so our body really does n't care what happens to it , or perhaps , as you mentioned , it has somehow provided beneficial adaptations... But small changes to the genome can cause big changes in offspring , and often not beneficial ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a defect of lacking one whole chromosome is non-lethal (Down's syndrome), a minor damage to your genome has a really good chance of not affecting your offspring at all.Lacking a single chromosome (or even a part of one) is pretty darn lethal.
Down's Syndrome is a trisomy--i.e.
an extra copy of a chromosome--which causes systems in the body to go out of balance.
Down's Syndrome is one of the most "mild" trisomies, as most other duplicated chromosomes are also outright fatal.
Aside from that, tiny changes in other important parts of the genetic code can cause serious problems in the body, even given the duplication of genes between two chromosomes.
For example, a great many of the connective tissue disorders (Marfan Syndrome, Loeys-Dietz Syndrome, Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, etc.
) are autosomal dominant and are caused by a single genetic bit (well, "quint" as there are four possible values) flipping in just one of the chromosomes.
The body has natural protections against this, from simple error-checking of the genome to redundancy in which genetic byte codes for which protein (imagine if similar bytes meant the same opcode) to redundancy in the chromosomes.
However, a single base (bit) error can cause a "stop codon" (think string terminator) to appear in the middle of a gene, ruining half of the body's supply of a particular enzyme.
Sometimes this is not noticeable at all due to the other chromosome picking up the slack, sometimes it causes notable changes in the body, and other times it is completely fatal.
Perhaps this viral DNA is some of the un-parsed junk DNA, so our body really doesn't care what happens to it, or perhaps, as you mentioned, it has somehow provided beneficial adaptations... But small changes to the genome can cause big changes in offspring, and often not beneficial ones.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683402</id>
	<title>Re:Damn it.</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1262884020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, she was tested, but she's not going to tell you the results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , she was tested , but she 's not going to tell you the results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, she was tested, but she's not going to tell you the results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683204</id>
	<title>Re:Useful?</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1262883240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is where a lot of research scientists fail - they don't tell you what a potential (even a far-fetched) real-life application of this knowledge will give us.  They don't break it down to "by knowing this we may be able to...".  I am a pretty smart guy but reading that article was painful, and all I wanted to know - by the end - was what this information can do for us.  It didn't do that - so I am left to say "who cares?" - well i know that this research may lead to other research which may give us benefit, but not everyone will realize that.<br> <br>

What I am saying leads to this - if you want people to care about your work.  if you want people to invest more money in your work.  then you need to give people a reason they can understand, a reason that is "tangible".  Leave the heavy research dialect for experts-only conferences, papers, etc...when someone is interviewing you for an artcle, smarten up a bit and give information that a large audience would appreciate...an audience that may be interested in parting with their money for your research.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is where a lot of research scientists fail - they do n't tell you what a potential ( even a far-fetched ) real-life application of this knowledge will give us .
They do n't break it down to " by knowing this we may be able to... " .
I am a pretty smart guy but reading that article was painful , and all I wanted to know - by the end - was what this information can do for us .
It did n't do that - so I am left to say " who cares ?
" - well i know that this research may lead to other research which may give us benefit , but not everyone will realize that .
What I am saying leads to this - if you want people to care about your work .
if you want people to invest more money in your work .
then you need to give people a reason they can understand , a reason that is " tangible " .
Leave the heavy research dialect for experts-only conferences , papers , etc...when someone is interviewing you for an artcle , smarten up a bit and give information that a large audience would appreciate...an audience that may be interested in parting with their money for your research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is where a lot of research scientists fail - they don't tell you what a potential (even a far-fetched) real-life application of this knowledge will give us.
They don't break it down to "by knowing this we may be able to...".
I am a pretty smart guy but reading that article was painful, and all I wanted to know - by the end - was what this information can do for us.
It didn't do that - so I am left to say "who cares?
" - well i know that this research may lead to other research which may give us benefit, but not everyone will realize that.
What I am saying leads to this - if you want people to care about your work.
if you want people to invest more money in your work.
then you need to give people a reason they can understand, a reason that is "tangible".
Leave the heavy research dialect for experts-only conferences, papers, etc...when someone is interviewing you for an artcle, smarten up a bit and give information that a large audience would appreciate...an audience that may be interested in parting with their money for your research.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683562</id>
	<title>Object Oriented Programming</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262884620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's gotta gum up the OOP model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's got ta gum up the OOP model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's gotta gum up the OOP model.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685678</id>
	<title>Re:Mammals</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262893140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, a placental sandwich is not cannibalism then?</p><p>That sure would have helped acquit in my stalking case....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , a placental sandwich is not cannibalism then ? That sure would have helped acquit in my stalking case... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, a placental sandwich is not cannibalism then?That sure would have helped acquit in my stalking case....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685664</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising, given how DNA actually works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262893080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is no longer the prevailing view.  'Junk DNA' isn't really junk afterall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is no longer the prevailing view .
'Junk DNA ' is n't really junk afterall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is no longer the prevailing view.
'Junk DNA' isn't really junk afterall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683336</id>
	<title>first( pos7!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262883720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">ofone single puny trOubles of Walnut</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>ofone single puny trOubles of Walnut [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ofone single puny trOubles of Walnut [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682660</id>
	<title>Useful?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262881260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is any of that DNA in use or are those parts dormant? What effect do these modifications have on us beyond the initial use of replication and further propagation of viruses?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is any of that DNA in use or are those parts dormant ?
What effect do these modifications have on us beyond the initial use of replication and further propagation of viruses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is any of that DNA in use or are those parts dormant?
What effect do these modifications have on us beyond the initial use of replication and further propagation of viruses?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30693330</id>
	<title>How funny; and they missed things</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1262960220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First, 4 decades ago, I was pointing that out to others at CDC (I worked there then) and most felt that it was not the case. Likewise, even here on this site, I was saying the saying that most of our mutations come from virus, to which I would be modded down, or have fools reply back that it was immpossible.<br> <br>
Second, we need to start a new program through the world (perhaps a Gates project). In particular, we should have each nation draw blood from at least 100 babies. Then draw blood every so often. Or perhaps draw it every 20 years, then compare it. By fingerprinting (or sequencing once it is cheap enough), we can find any gross changes, while ignoring the minute changes. The minute changes will be just breakdown in DNA, basically, mutations. BUT the gross changes will very likely be virus. We have far more viruses then are realized, that are asymptomatic.  These are serving to make mutations in us. My guess is that the higher the population density, the higher the mutation rate. I would not be surprised to find that Japan, EU, and China have some of the highest rates. In fact, more likely China, since they have a high population density and not so much concern with public health (Like Americans, they think that going to work while sick is admirable, but ignores the effect on making others sick; Japanese and EU prefers that you not come in).<br> <br>What we should be looking for, is virus that cross species boundaries. Those are going to be likely to introduce new genes into other species. For starters, I would not be the least surprised to find that dogs/cats/birds due to density, and pigs/birds due to flu share some interesting genes with us. What I also would not be surprised, is to find that they are gaining intelligence because of the viruses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , 4 decades ago , I was pointing that out to others at CDC ( I worked there then ) and most felt that it was not the case .
Likewise , even here on this site , I was saying the saying that most of our mutations come from virus , to which I would be modded down , or have fools reply back that it was immpossible .
Second , we need to start a new program through the world ( perhaps a Gates project ) .
In particular , we should have each nation draw blood from at least 100 babies .
Then draw blood every so often .
Or perhaps draw it every 20 years , then compare it .
By fingerprinting ( or sequencing once it is cheap enough ) , we can find any gross changes , while ignoring the minute changes .
The minute changes will be just breakdown in DNA , basically , mutations .
BUT the gross changes will very likely be virus .
We have far more viruses then are realized , that are asymptomatic .
These are serving to make mutations in us .
My guess is that the higher the population density , the higher the mutation rate .
I would not be surprised to find that Japan , EU , and China have some of the highest rates .
In fact , more likely China , since they have a high population density and not so much concern with public health ( Like Americans , they think that going to work while sick is admirable , but ignores the effect on making others sick ; Japanese and EU prefers that you not come in ) .
What we should be looking for , is virus that cross species boundaries .
Those are going to be likely to introduce new genes into other species .
For starters , I would not be the least surprised to find that dogs/cats/birds due to density , and pigs/birds due to flu share some interesting genes with us .
What I also would not be surprised , is to find that they are gaining intelligence because of the viruses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, 4 decades ago, I was pointing that out to others at CDC (I worked there then) and most felt that it was not the case.
Likewise, even here on this site, I was saying the saying that most of our mutations come from virus, to which I would be modded down, or have fools reply back that it was immpossible.
Second, we need to start a new program through the world (perhaps a Gates project).
In particular, we should have each nation draw blood from at least 100 babies.
Then draw blood every so often.
Or perhaps draw it every 20 years, then compare it.
By fingerprinting (or sequencing once it is cheap enough), we can find any gross changes, while ignoring the minute changes.
The minute changes will be just breakdown in DNA, basically, mutations.
BUT the gross changes will very likely be virus.
We have far more viruses then are realized, that are asymptomatic.
These are serving to make mutations in us.
My guess is that the higher the population density, the higher the mutation rate.
I would not be surprised to find that Japan, EU, and China have some of the highest rates.
In fact, more likely China, since they have a high population density and not so much concern with public health (Like Americans, they think that going to work while sick is admirable, but ignores the effect on making others sick; Japanese and EU prefers that you not come in).
What we should be looking for, is virus that cross species boundaries.
Those are going to be likely to introduce new genes into other species.
For starters, I would not be the least surprised to find that dogs/cats/birds due to density, and pigs/birds due to flu share some interesting genes with us.
What I also would not be surprised, is to find that they are gaining intelligence because of the viruses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682966</id>
	<title>Jedi knights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262882340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Never destroy evil completely, balance and al. Maybe we loose little something each time we destroy a horrible disease.</p><p>Also, how little do we know about nearly everything. Kids in a sandbox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Never destroy evil completely , balance and al .
Maybe we loose little something each time we destroy a horrible disease.Also , how little do we know about nearly everything .
Kids in a sandbox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never destroy evil completely, balance and al.
Maybe we loose little something each time we destroy a horrible disease.Also, how little do we know about nearly everything.
Kids in a sandbox.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682954</id>
	<title>Re:But I use antivirus!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262882280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would suggest that a condom might protect you from such stuff, but since you're posting on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., never mind...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would suggest that a condom might protect you from such stuff , but since you 're posting on /. , never mind.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would suggest that a condom might protect you from such stuff, but since you're posting on /., never mind...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682684</id>
	<title>Not surprising, given how DNA actually works</title>
	<author>IronDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1262881380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a fairly good little video that explains how RNA monomers end up naturally forming into longer polymer chains.  Roughly 95\% of our DNA is basically crap that only exists because at some point in the past, it was better at copying itself.</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a fairly good little video that explains how RNA monomers end up naturally forming into longer polymer chains .
Roughly 95 \ % of our DNA is basically crap that only exists because at some point in the past , it was better at copying itself.http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = U6QYDdgP9eg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a fairly good little video that explains how RNA monomers end up naturally forming into longer polymer chains.
Roughly 95\% of our DNA is basically crap that only exists because at some point in the past, it was better at copying itself.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682898</id>
	<title>Wow!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262882100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, finally, an explanation for Republicans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , finally , an explanation for Republicans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, finally, an explanation for Republicans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683064</id>
	<title>Bad summary</title>
	<author>saforrest</author>
	<datestamp>1262882760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>About 8 percent of human genetic material comes from a virus and not from our ancestors</i></p><p>Not at all what TFA says.  Sure, originally we must have had ancestors without any viral DNA, but unless the virus infected us personally and not any ancestor, the 8\% of genetic material comes from a virus <b>and</b> from our ancestors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>About 8 percent of human genetic material comes from a virus and not from our ancestorsNot at all what TFA says .
Sure , originally we must have had ancestors without any viral DNA , but unless the virus infected us personally and not any ancestor , the 8 \ % of genetic material comes from a virus and from our ancestors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About 8 percent of human genetic material comes from a virus and not from our ancestorsNot at all what TFA says.
Sure, originally we must have had ancestors without any viral DNA, but unless the virus infected us personally and not any ancestor, the 8\% of genetic material comes from a virus and from our ancestors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682872</id>
	<title>Virus my ass, ever hear of metagenes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262881980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are genes that control other genes, which means that DNA changes itself on its own, depending on certain environmental conditions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are genes that control other genes , which means that DNA changes itself on its own , depending on certain environmental conditions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are genes that control other genes, which means that DNA changes itself on its own, depending on certain environmental conditions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683868</id>
	<title>Dawkins was right!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262885820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In "The Selfish Gene" Richard Dawkins predicts that exactly this happens but he didn't have any evidence to back it up at the time. Since "successful" genes are only successful if they continue to replicate it stands to reason that genes will "discover" ways to replicate most successfully. If you can fool a host into allowing yourself as part of its DNA, then the host will do the replicating for you during normal sexual behavior. Over many generations at some point the gene may find it most convenient to simply become a part of the host rather than seeking out new hosts. This way the gene will be a part of the host and a has a 50\% chance of being part of the host's offspring. The gene (virus) has discovered a successful way to replicate!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In " The Selfish Gene " Richard Dawkins predicts that exactly this happens but he did n't have any evidence to back it up at the time .
Since " successful " genes are only successful if they continue to replicate it stands to reason that genes will " discover " ways to replicate most successfully .
If you can fool a host into allowing yourself as part of its DNA , then the host will do the replicating for you during normal sexual behavior .
Over many generations at some point the gene may find it most convenient to simply become a part of the host rather than seeking out new hosts .
This way the gene will be a part of the host and a has a 50 \ % chance of being part of the host 's offspring .
The gene ( virus ) has discovered a successful way to replicate !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In "The Selfish Gene" Richard Dawkins predicts that exactly this happens but he didn't have any evidence to back it up at the time.
Since "successful" genes are only successful if they continue to replicate it stands to reason that genes will "discover" ways to replicate most successfully.
If you can fool a host into allowing yourself as part of its DNA, then the host will do the replicating for you during normal sexual behavior.
Over many generations at some point the gene may find it most convenient to simply become a part of the host rather than seeking out new hosts.
This way the gene will be a part of the host and a has a 50\% chance of being part of the host's offspring.
The gene (virus) has discovered a successful way to replicate!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683750</id>
	<title>Re:What a crappy press release</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1262885340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, 8\% of your DNA comes from viruses that infected your anscestors' reproductive organs and were passed on to you. TFA is actually an interesting read.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , 8 \ % of your DNA comes from viruses that infected your anscestors ' reproductive organs and were passed on to you .
TFA is actually an interesting read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, 8\% of your DNA comes from viruses that infected your anscestors' reproductive organs and were passed on to you.
TFA is actually an interesting read.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30686686</id>
	<title>Re:Bible Code?</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1262897940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, for one thing no imaginative ways of reading such as skipping every third letter or reading in a diagonal or box shape is needed.  It's just snippets that match snippets in viruses.  In fact you can download many deadly viruses and look at their sequences.  They are very similar to each other, even very different species of viruses.  You don't need fancy statistics or algorithms.  You can see it with the naked eye so to speak.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , for one thing no imaginative ways of reading such as skipping every third letter or reading in a diagonal or box shape is needed .
It 's just snippets that match snippets in viruses .
In fact you can download many deadly viruses and look at their sequences .
They are very similar to each other , even very different species of viruses .
You do n't need fancy statistics or algorithms .
You can see it with the naked eye so to speak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, for one thing no imaginative ways of reading such as skipping every third letter or reading in a diagonal or box shape is needed.
It's just snippets that match snippets in viruses.
In fact you can download many deadly viruses and look at their sequences.
They are very similar to each other, even very different species of viruses.
You don't need fancy statistics or algorithms.
You can see it with the naked eye so to speak.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683444</id>
	<title>Re:Bible Code?</title>
	<author>reverseengineer</author>
	<datestamp>1262884140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just a minor quibble- Down syndrome is caused by having an extra copy of chromosome 21 (trisomy), not a missing copy (monosomy).  In humans, monosomy is fatal for the non-sex determining chromosomes (Turner syndrome is the result of monosomy X), and the only somatic trisomy conditions that are remotely survivable much past birth are those of 13, 19, and 21, and each of those has a set of profound symptoms such that they have an associated syndrome (Patau, Edwards, Down).  This does nicely illustrate that issues with genetic insertion, deletion, and translocation are not so much a question of quantity as with placement.  Trisomy of chromosome 21 is survivable because there aren't enough vital genes affected to cause inviability (the somatic chromosomes are numbered by size, with 1 the largest).

<br> <br>Your genome can tolerate a significant insertion of genes, as long as they don't cause serious trouble.  In terms of viral DNA additions, the most significant risk is for a stretch of viral DNA to insert <i>within</i> an existing gene, breaking it and possibly creating a new gene variant that causes harm.  This is believed to be a mechanism of viral infections associated with cancers (e.g. Epstein-Barr and Hodgkin's lymphoma, HPV and cervical cancer).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a minor quibble- Down syndrome is caused by having an extra copy of chromosome 21 ( trisomy ) , not a missing copy ( monosomy ) .
In humans , monosomy is fatal for the non-sex determining chromosomes ( Turner syndrome is the result of monosomy X ) , and the only somatic trisomy conditions that are remotely survivable much past birth are those of 13 , 19 , and 21 , and each of those has a set of profound symptoms such that they have an associated syndrome ( Patau , Edwards , Down ) .
This does nicely illustrate that issues with genetic insertion , deletion , and translocation are not so much a question of quantity as with placement .
Trisomy of chromosome 21 is survivable because there are n't enough vital genes affected to cause inviability ( the somatic chromosomes are numbered by size , with 1 the largest ) .
Your genome can tolerate a significant insertion of genes , as long as they do n't cause serious trouble .
In terms of viral DNA additions , the most significant risk is for a stretch of viral DNA to insert within an existing gene , breaking it and possibly creating a new gene variant that causes harm .
This is believed to be a mechanism of viral infections associated with cancers ( e.g .
Epstein-Barr and Hodgkin 's lymphoma , HPV and cervical cancer ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a minor quibble- Down syndrome is caused by having an extra copy of chromosome 21 (trisomy), not a missing copy (monosomy).
In humans, monosomy is fatal for the non-sex determining chromosomes (Turner syndrome is the result of monosomy X), and the only somatic trisomy conditions that are remotely survivable much past birth are those of 13, 19, and 21, and each of those has a set of profound symptoms such that they have an associated syndrome (Patau, Edwards, Down).
This does nicely illustrate that issues with genetic insertion, deletion, and translocation are not so much a question of quantity as with placement.
Trisomy of chromosome 21 is survivable because there aren't enough vital genes affected to cause inviability (the somatic chromosomes are numbered by size, with 1 the largest).
Your genome can tolerate a significant insertion of genes, as long as they don't cause serious trouble.
In terms of viral DNA additions, the most significant risk is for a stretch of viral DNA to insert within an existing gene, breaking it and possibly creating a new gene variant that causes harm.
This is believed to be a mechanism of viral infections associated with cancers (e.g.
Epstein-Barr and Hodgkin's lymphoma, HPV and cervical cancer).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30686096</id>
	<title>Re:Bible Code?</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1262895000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Genesis shows that Genesis is wrong, so you're kind of going the long-way about proving your point.</p><p>Within that one book, we have two mutually exclusive stories.</p><p>Sequence A: God created all the plants, animals, etc, and then created man 'in his image'</p><p>Sequence B:  God created the male human, each type of animal, and then the female human</p><p>These do not compute, and my suspicion is that 'B' is man's hubris altering the original tale.</p><p>Furthermore, there's little in 'A' that precludes evolution, if anything.  In fact, man could well have been one of the animals, with the gift of sentience being the act of being 'created in his image'.  This also rather neatly answers the question of where Cain's wife came from...</p><p>In short, it is possible for a rational person to read the bible, and science and Christianity are not in fact mutually exclusive, despite being to locate minor nits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Genesis shows that Genesis is wrong , so you 're kind of going the long-way about proving your point.Within that one book , we have two mutually exclusive stories.Sequence A : God created all the plants , animals , etc , and then created man 'in his image'Sequence B : God created the male human , each type of animal , and then the female humanThese do not compute , and my suspicion is that 'B ' is man 's hubris altering the original tale.Furthermore , there 's little in 'A ' that precludes evolution , if anything .
In fact , man could well have been one of the animals , with the gift of sentience being the act of being 'created in his image' .
This also rather neatly answers the question of where Cain 's wife came from...In short , it is possible for a rational person to read the bible , and science and Christianity are not in fact mutually exclusive , despite being to locate minor nits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Genesis shows that Genesis is wrong, so you're kind of going the long-way about proving your point.Within that one book, we have two mutually exclusive stories.Sequence A: God created all the plants, animals, etc, and then created man 'in his image'Sequence B:  God created the male human, each type of animal, and then the female humanThese do not compute, and my suspicion is that 'B' is man's hubris altering the original tale.Furthermore, there's little in 'A' that precludes evolution, if anything.
In fact, man could well have been one of the animals, with the gift of sentience being the act of being 'created in his image'.
This also rather neatly answers the question of where Cain's wife came from...In short, it is possible for a rational person to read the bible, and science and Christianity are not in fact mutually exclusive, despite being to locate minor nits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30688330</id>
	<title>Re:What a crappy press release</title>
	<author>RNLockwood</author>
	<datestamp>1262862600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"About 8 percent of human genetic material comes from a virus and not from our ancestors, according to an article by University of Texas at Arlington biology professor C&#233;dric Feschotte published in the Jan. 7, 2010 issue of Nature magazine."</p><p>NOT from ancestors according to the article.  It's a badly written press release.  I'm sure that the Nature Article spells it all out but I don't have a paid subscription so I can only go by the press release.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" About 8 percent of human genetic material comes from a virus and not from our ancestors , according to an article by University of Texas at Arlington biology professor C   dric Feschotte published in the Jan. 7 , 2010 issue of Nature magazine .
" NOT from ancestors according to the article .
It 's a badly written press release .
I 'm sure that the Nature Article spells it all out but I do n't have a paid subscription so I can only go by the press release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"About 8 percent of human genetic material comes from a virus and not from our ancestors, according to an article by University of Texas at Arlington biology professor Cédric Feschotte published in the Jan. 7, 2010 issue of Nature magazine.
"NOT from ancestors according to the article.
It's a badly written press release.
I'm sure that the Nature Article spells it all out but I don't have a paid subscription so I can only go by the press release.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30687258</id>
	<title>Why psychiatric disorders instead of cancer?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262857440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even though the 8\% is intentionally misleading in the teaser article, it seems strange to me that the researcher leaps from genetic mutations to psychiatric disorders.  Why didn't he at least theorize about the most widespread mutation result: cancer?  Oncoviruses have been known since the fifties though I've never heard a compelling explanation of why all viruses aren't oncoviruses.  With all the recent hoopla on HPV and the "cervical cancer vaccine," this discovery seems much more important than just psychiatric disorders.  It makes me wonder if the difference between and oncovirus and a harmless virus is just the location of its leftover gene sequences.  It would be interesting to see if leftover viral sequences in introns are associated with a higher cancer risk than sequences left in exons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though the 8 \ % is intentionally misleading in the teaser article , it seems strange to me that the researcher leaps from genetic mutations to psychiatric disorders .
Why did n't he at least theorize about the most widespread mutation result : cancer ?
Oncoviruses have been known since the fifties though I 've never heard a compelling explanation of why all viruses are n't oncoviruses .
With all the recent hoopla on HPV and the " cervical cancer vaccine , " this discovery seems much more important than just psychiatric disorders .
It makes me wonder if the difference between and oncovirus and a harmless virus is just the location of its leftover gene sequences .
It would be interesting to see if leftover viral sequences in introns are associated with a higher cancer risk than sequences left in exons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though the 8\% is intentionally misleading in the teaser article, it seems strange to me that the researcher leaps from genetic mutations to psychiatric disorders.
Why didn't he at least theorize about the most widespread mutation result: cancer?
Oncoviruses have been known since the fifties though I've never heard a compelling explanation of why all viruses aren't oncoviruses.
With all the recent hoopla on HPV and the "cervical cancer vaccine," this discovery seems much more important than just psychiatric disorders.
It makes me wonder if the difference between and oncovirus and a harmless virus is just the location of its leftover gene sequences.
It would be interesting to see if leftover viral sequences in introns are associated with a higher cancer risk than sequences left in exons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685878</id>
	<title>Clarification of the "testable hypothesis"</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1262893980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"These data yield a testable hypothesis for the alleged, but still controversial, causative association of BDV infection with schizophrenia and mood disorders," Feschotte said.</p></div><p>Does that mean that we can now infect someone with schizophrenia by injecting them with a virus?  And that that individual's children are more likely to have schizophrenia?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" These data yield a testable hypothesis for the alleged , but still controversial , causative association of BDV infection with schizophrenia and mood disorders , " Feschotte said.Does that mean that we can now infect someone with schizophrenia by injecting them with a virus ?
And that that individual 's children are more likely to have schizophrenia ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"These data yield a testable hypothesis for the alleged, but still controversial, causative association of BDV infection with schizophrenia and mood disorders," Feschotte said.Does that mean that we can now infect someone with schizophrenia by injecting them with a virus?
And that that individual's children are more likely to have schizophrenia?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683162</id>
	<title>Re:Bible Code?</title>
	<author>iroll</author>
	<datestamp>1262883060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Down's Syndrome generally means that you won't be having any offspring.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Down 's Syndrome generally means that you wo n't be having any offspring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Down's Syndrome generally means that you won't be having any offspring.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30691184</id>
	<title>This could be the Missing Link!</title>
	<author>legionzero</author>
	<datestamp>1262890320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had read about it a few years back, the theory that states that human evolution, the big leap in evolution that turned neanderthals into homo-sapiens was actually a Virus that nearly wiped out all of the Neanderthals and only the ones able to adapt to the virus (mutate) survived (that being us of course)

This 8\% could be the evidence that the scientific community have been searching for, can you imagine, the missing-link not found in fossil records but actually in our DNA?

A similar theory exists regarding A.I. reaching a cognitive state, but that is a horse of a different color altogether.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had read about it a few years back , the theory that states that human evolution , the big leap in evolution that turned neanderthals into homo-sapiens was actually a Virus that nearly wiped out all of the Neanderthals and only the ones able to adapt to the virus ( mutate ) survived ( that being us of course ) This 8 \ % could be the evidence that the scientific community have been searching for , can you imagine , the missing-link not found in fossil records but actually in our DNA ?
A similar theory exists regarding A.I .
reaching a cognitive state , but that is a horse of a different color altogether .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had read about it a few years back, the theory that states that human evolution, the big leap in evolution that turned neanderthals into homo-sapiens was actually a Virus that nearly wiped out all of the Neanderthals and only the ones able to adapt to the virus (mutate) survived (that being us of course)

This 8\% could be the evidence that the scientific community have been searching for, can you imagine, the missing-link not found in fossil records but actually in our DNA?
A similar theory exists regarding A.I.
reaching a cognitive state, but that is a horse of a different color altogether.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683408</id>
	<title>Explains viral marketing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262884020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now it is obvious why viral marketing works so well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now it is obvious why viral marketing works so well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now it is obvious why viral marketing works so well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683186</id>
	<title>Re:But I use antivirus!!!!</title>
	<author>BForrester</author>
	<datestamp>1262883180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You bet it does, and it doesn't retard your system at all.  Oh, and first post, by the way!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You bet it does , and it does n't retard your system at all .
Oh , and first post , by the way !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You bet it does, and it doesn't retard your system at all.
Oh, and first post, by the way!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682832</id>
	<title>Re:Bible Code?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262881860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember that there are in fact two towers. Two minus one is one; one one - 11; two minus one is one; one one, and there are nine members on Silverstein's board of directors. That's nine-one-one. Nine-eleven. And take 2 - 1 + 9/11 and you get 12, which leads us all to the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.</p><p>Twelve contains the numbers one and two, just like the toilet yesterday where somebody went number two instead of number one! And one and two with 911 and you get 914! Drop the 4 and it's 91! Exactly the score Kyle got on his spelling test twelve days after 9/11! Who has the most to gain from 9/11?! Kyle! Who was nowhere to be found the morning the towers fell?! Kyle! Who dropped the deuce in the urinal?! Kyle! But probably the most damning of all is the evidence seen in this photo of Tower 2! When I zoomed in I saw what first appeared to be a blur, but when I computer-enhanced it, You almost got away with it, you sneaky butt hole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember that there are in fact two towers .
Two minus one is one ; one one - 11 ; two minus one is one ; one one , and there are nine members on Silverstein 's board of directors .
That 's nine-one-one .
Nine-eleven. And take 2 - 1 + 9/11 and you get 12 , which leads us all to the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.Twelve contains the numbers one and two , just like the toilet yesterday where somebody went number two instead of number one !
And one and two with 911 and you get 914 !
Drop the 4 and it 's 91 !
Exactly the score Kyle got on his spelling test twelve days after 9/11 !
Who has the most to gain from 9/11 ? !
Kyle ! Who was nowhere to be found the morning the towers fell ? !
Kyle ! Who dropped the deuce in the urinal ? !
Kyle ! But probably the most damning of all is the evidence seen in this photo of Tower 2 !
When I zoomed in I saw what first appeared to be a blur , but when I computer-enhanced it , You almost got away with it , you sneaky butt hole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember that there are in fact two towers.
Two minus one is one; one one - 11; two minus one is one; one one, and there are nine members on Silverstein's board of directors.
That's nine-one-one.
Nine-eleven. And take 2 - 1 + 9/11 and you get 12, which leads us all to the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.Twelve contains the numbers one and two, just like the toilet yesterday where somebody went number two instead of number one!
And one and two with 911 and you get 914!
Drop the 4 and it's 91!
Exactly the score Kyle got on his spelling test twelve days after 9/11!
Who has the most to gain from 9/11?!
Kyle! Who was nowhere to be found the morning the towers fell?!
Kyle! Who dropped the deuce in the urinal?!
Kyle! But probably the most damning of all is the evidence seen in this photo of Tower 2!
When I zoomed in I saw what first appeared to be a blur, but when I computer-enhanced it, You almost got away with it, you sneaky butt hole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30684416</id>
	<title>Re:Useful?</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1262887740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am a pretty smart guy <b>who doesn't understand the utility of pure research</b>.</p></div><p>One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a pretty smart guy who does n't understand the utility of pure research.One of these things is not like the other , one of these things just does n't belong !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a pretty smart guy who doesn't understand the utility of pure research.One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30684322</id>
	<title>Re:Bible Code?</title>
	<author>iter8</author>
	<datestamp>1262887380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I haven't had a chance to read the Nature article yet, but one of first tests you do when doing sequence analysis is to calculate the probability of finding a match as good or better than the one you just found in a random data set  of the same size. If the probability of finding it in random data is larger than some cutoff (greater than say 10^(-3)), you reject the match. That doesn't guarantee that what you found is not random, but it sets an upper limit on the probability that it's just a random occurrence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't had a chance to read the Nature article yet , but one of first tests you do when doing sequence analysis is to calculate the probability of finding a match as good or better than the one you just found in a random data set of the same size .
If the probability of finding it in random data is larger than some cutoff ( greater than say 10 ^ ( -3 ) ) , you reject the match .
That does n't guarantee that what you found is not random , but it sets an upper limit on the probability that it 's just a random occurrence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't had a chance to read the Nature article yet, but one of first tests you do when doing sequence analysis is to calculate the probability of finding a match as good or better than the one you just found in a random data set  of the same size.
If the probability of finding it in random data is larger than some cutoff (greater than say 10^(-3)), you reject the match.
That doesn't guarantee that what you found is not random, but it sets an upper limit on the probability that it's just a random occurrence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685158</id>
	<title>Of Course Viruses Contribute to our DNA</title>
	<author>rebmemeR</author>
	<datestamp>1262890860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We should expect viruses to be a large source of our genetic material, simply because they have access to it. Viruses are all about penetrating into DNA and modifying it. If the host subsequently reproduces, those modifications could be passed on. Each such modification could:
* Be useless junk dna
* Be generally useful. Does it matter where good ideas come from?
* Be harmful, maybe even make descendants more susceptible to attack from the original virus.
* Allow descendants to better identify and defend against that attacker, AKA counterintelligence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We should expect viruses to be a large source of our genetic material , simply because they have access to it .
Viruses are all about penetrating into DNA and modifying it .
If the host subsequently reproduces , those modifications could be passed on .
Each such modification could : * Be useless junk dna * Be generally useful .
Does it matter where good ideas come from ?
* Be harmful , maybe even make descendants more susceptible to attack from the original virus .
* Allow descendants to better identify and defend against that attacker , AKA counterintelligence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should expect viruses to be a large source of our genetic material, simply because they have access to it.
Viruses are all about penetrating into DNA and modifying it.
If the host subsequently reproduces, those modifications could be passed on.
Each such modification could:
* Be useless junk dna
* Be generally useful.
Does it matter where good ideas come from?
* Be harmful, maybe even make descendants more susceptible to attack from the original virus.
* Allow descendants to better identify and defend against that attacker, AKA counterintelligence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683666</id>
	<title>Lentiviruses, palaevirology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262884920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/03/071203fa\_fact\_specter" title="newyorker.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/03/071203fa\_fact\_specter</a> [newyorker.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/03/071203fa \ _fact \ _specter [ newyorker.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/03/071203fa\_fact\_specter [newyorker.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30684494</id>
	<title>Re:Wow!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262888100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>too bad dick smoking fags didn't get a virus and die.</htmltext>
<tokenext>too bad dick smoking fags did n't get a virus and die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>too bad dick smoking fags didn't get a virus and die.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683324</id>
	<title>Re:Bible Code?</title>
	<author>mapkinase</author>
	<datestamp>1262883720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Any sufficiently large set of information is going to give you some matches on just about anything you search for."</p><p>That's why the bioinformatics tool the Japanese (authors of the original paper in Nature) were using (called BLAST) has a parameter called an e-value for each sequence similarity hit. It's basically a probability to encounter such hit randomly in a database of that size (assuming the sequences in the database are pseudo-randomly distributed).</p><p>That evalue for the found matches is less than 1e-70.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Any sufficiently large set of information is going to give you some matches on just about anything you search for .
" That 's why the bioinformatics tool the Japanese ( authors of the original paper in Nature ) were using ( called BLAST ) has a parameter called an e-value for each sequence similarity hit .
It 's basically a probability to encounter such hit randomly in a database of that size ( assuming the sequences in the database are pseudo-randomly distributed ) .That evalue for the found matches is less than 1e-70 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Any sufficiently large set of information is going to give you some matches on just about anything you search for.
"That's why the bioinformatics tool the Japanese (authors of the original paper in Nature) were using (called BLAST) has a parameter called an e-value for each sequence similarity hit.
It's basically a probability to encounter such hit randomly in a database of that size (assuming the sequences in the database are pseudo-randomly distributed).That evalue for the found matches is less than 1e-70.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683034</id>
	<title>Re:Bible Code?</title>
	<author>oh\_my\_080980980</author>
	<datestamp>1262882580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does anyone read anymore!
<br> <br>
They found a specific virus, Bornavirus (BDV).
<br> <br>
Think before you speak.  You might prevent yourself from looking like a jackass!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone read anymore !
They found a specific virus , Bornavirus ( BDV ) .
Think before you speak .
You might prevent yourself from looking like a jackass !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone read anymore!
They found a specific virus, Bornavirus (BDV).
Think before you speak.
You might prevent yourself from looking like a jackass!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682788</id>
	<title>Re:Useful?</title>
	<author>Wonko the Sane</author>
	<datestamp>1262881740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back with <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2006/11/04/virus-fossil-resurre.html" title="boingboing.net">this story</a> [boingboing.net] first came out I remember reading that DNA introduced by virus is thought to have given us the genes that allow the formation of placenta, which gave rise to mammals.</p><p>All the articles from around that time seem to be locked away behind paywalls now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back with this story [ boingboing.net ] first came out I remember reading that DNA introduced by virus is thought to have given us the genes that allow the formation of placenta , which gave rise to mammals.All the articles from around that time seem to be locked away behind paywalls now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back with this story [boingboing.net] first came out I remember reading that DNA introduced by virus is thought to have given us the genes that allow the formation of placenta, which gave rise to mammals.All the articles from around that time seem to be locked away behind paywalls now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683836</id>
	<title>Research was conducted by Keizo Tomonaga in Japan</title>
	<author>jestill</author>
	<datestamp>1262885640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article the research was "led by Professor Keizo Tomonaga at Osaka University in Japan". The  article that Cedric wrote was just an opinion piece discussing the research by Dr. Tomonaga.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article the research was " led by Professor Keizo Tomonaga at Osaka University in Japan " .
The article that Cedric wrote was just an opinion piece discussing the research by Dr. Tomonaga .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article the research was "led by Professor Keizo Tomonaga at Osaka University in Japan".
The  article that Cedric wrote was just an opinion piece discussing the research by Dr. Tomonaga.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30684594</id>
	<title>Not surprising</title>
	<author>kheldan</author>
	<datestamp>1262888520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not in the least bit surprised that at some point in the evolution of life on this planet a virus was able to cross the barriers and become a permanent part of our genetic code. I think as the human genome (as well as the genome of other life) is further unraveled, we'll find more and more evidence of this exact nature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not in the least bit surprised that at some point in the evolution of life on this planet a virus was able to cross the barriers and become a permanent part of our genetic code .
I think as the human genome ( as well as the genome of other life ) is further unraveled , we 'll find more and more evidence of this exact nature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not in the least bit surprised that at some point in the evolution of life on this planet a virus was able to cross the barriers and become a permanent part of our genetic code.
I think as the human genome (as well as the genome of other life) is further unraveled, we'll find more and more evidence of this exact nature.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683044</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising, given how DNA actually works</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1262882640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That video is tiresome, not good. And it wastes a couple of minutes attacking creationists (Which simply isn't informative, the religious creationists don't have an interesting point of view, they don't need to be addressed in a video that dives into chemistry).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That video is tiresome , not good .
And it wastes a couple of minutes attacking creationists ( Which simply is n't informative , the religious creationists do n't have an interesting point of view , they do n't need to be addressed in a video that dives into chemistry ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That video is tiresome, not good.
And it wastes a couple of minutes attacking creationists (Which simply isn't informative, the religious creationists don't have an interesting point of view, they don't need to be addressed in a video that dives into chemistry).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683330</id>
	<title>What about the 12\% from worms?</title>
	<author>SlappyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1262883720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And an additional 33\% from SQL injection attacks?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And an additional 33 \ % from SQL injection attacks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And an additional 33\% from SQL injection attacks?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30692242</id>
	<title>Re:Like my PC</title>
	<author>NikolaiKutuzov</author>
	<datestamp>1262947260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If your Windows were in its 50.000th edition (or how many generations are we homan now?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)), it should at least be able to reply to your insult. As for only 8 Percent, I'm not so sure.

But honestly, it seems pretty obvious that any system reaching a certain point of complexity will include "alien" parts that subsequently hang around cause they get useful one way or the other.

I wonder how a complete rewrite of the human source code would look like. I mean, documented, clean code...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If your Windows were in its 50.000th edition ( or how many generations are we homan now ?
; ) ) , it should at least be able to reply to your insult .
As for only 8 Percent , I 'm not so sure .
But honestly , it seems pretty obvious that any system reaching a certain point of complexity will include " alien " parts that subsequently hang around cause they get useful one way or the other .
I wonder how a complete rewrite of the human source code would look like .
I mean , documented , clean code.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your Windows were in its 50.000th edition (or how many generations are we homan now?
;)), it should at least be able to reply to your insult.
As for only 8 Percent, I'm not so sure.
But honestly, it seems pretty obvious that any system reaching a certain point of complexity will include "alien" parts that subsequently hang around cause they get useful one way or the other.
I wonder how a complete rewrite of the human source code would look like.
I mean, documented, clean code...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30686678</id>
	<title>"Cross" breeding</title>
	<author>alien-alien</author>
	<datestamp>1262897880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And when I find the perverted virus that had sex with my ancestor, I'm going to be *very* *very* angry!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And when I find the perverted virus that had sex with my ancestor , I 'm going to be * very * * very * angry !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And when I find the perverted virus that had sex with my ancestor, I'm going to be *very* *very* angry!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683674</id>
	<title>David Brin - The Giving Plague</title>
	<author>sukotto</author>
	<datestamp>1262884980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>David Brin's short story "The Giving Plague" (from the 1994 collection "Otherness") uses this idea as a central concept.<br>The idea was that, over LONG periods of time, viruses form symbiotic relationships with humans. In some cases, even integrating themselves directly into our DNA.</p><p>I love it when science fiction writers guess correctly about the future. (Though I hope that's the ONLY part of that story he got right... the rest was double plus ungood)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>David Brin 's short story " The Giving Plague " ( from the 1994 collection " Otherness " ) uses this idea as a central concept.The idea was that , over LONG periods of time , viruses form symbiotic relationships with humans .
In some cases , even integrating themselves directly into our DNA.I love it when science fiction writers guess correctly about the future .
( Though I hope that 's the ONLY part of that story he got right... the rest was double plus ungood )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>David Brin's short story "The Giving Plague" (from the 1994 collection "Otherness") uses this idea as a central concept.The idea was that, over LONG periods of time, viruses form symbiotic relationships with humans.
In some cases, even integrating themselves directly into our DNA.I love it when science fiction writers guess correctly about the future.
(Though I hope that's the ONLY part of that story he got right... the rest was double plus ungood)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682780</id>
	<title>Re:Useful?</title>
	<author>SoapBox17</author>
	<datestamp>1262881740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA<blockquote><div><p>Feschotte said this virally transmitted DNA may be a cause of mutation and psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and mood disorders.

In his article, Feschotte speculates about the role of such viral insertions in causing mutations with evolutionary and medical consequences.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
The article doesn't go into much detail, but one type of virus that looked at specifically is a brain virus, definitely interesting implications for mental health research.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFAFeschotte said this virally transmitted DNA may be a cause of mutation and psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and mood disorders .
In his article , Feschotte speculates about the role of such viral insertions in causing mutations with evolutionary and medical consequences .
The article does n't go into much detail , but one type of virus that looked at specifically is a brain virus , definitely interesting implications for mental health research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFAFeschotte said this virally transmitted DNA may be a cause of mutation and psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and mood disorders.
In his article, Feschotte speculates about the role of such viral insertions in causing mutations with evolutionary and medical consequences.
The article doesn't go into much detail, but one type of virus that looked at specifically is a brain virus, definitely interesting implications for mental health research.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682976</id>
	<title>Re:Bible Code?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262882340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But now if I hunt someone down and murder them and get diagnosed as a schizo, then I can blame it on the virus in my head that controlled me.   Instant "Get-out-of-Jail-Free" card for 1000's of individuals...  I wondered how Arnold was gonna cut costs on prisons and focus on Education.... Now it is starting to become clear.</p><p>Viral Death: (c) 2010<br>(Sing it like a thrash punk song!)</p><p>Kill Kill Kill<br>It's what I do best</p><p>Kill Kill Kill<br>It's a viral test</p><p>Kill Kill Kill<br>Now we got a viral fest</p><p>I'll Breed inside your Head<br>until you drop them dead<br>Nobody else will know<br>because I'm in you Gnome</p><p>Kill Kill Kill<br>What a viral fest...</p><p>(Lather, rinse, repeat...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But now if I hunt someone down and murder them and get diagnosed as a schizo , then I can blame it on the virus in my head that controlled me .
Instant " Get-out-of-Jail-Free " card for 1000 's of individuals... I wondered how Arnold was gon na cut costs on prisons and focus on Education.... Now it is starting to become clear.Viral Death : ( c ) 2010 ( Sing it like a thrash punk song !
) Kill Kill KillIt 's what I do bestKill Kill KillIt 's a viral testKill Kill KillNow we got a viral festI 'll Breed inside your Headuntil you drop them deadNobody else will knowbecause I 'm in you GnomeKill Kill KillWhat a viral fest... ( Lather , rinse , repeat... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But now if I hunt someone down and murder them and get diagnosed as a schizo, then I can blame it on the virus in my head that controlled me.
Instant "Get-out-of-Jail-Free" card for 1000's of individuals...  I wondered how Arnold was gonna cut costs on prisons and focus on Education.... Now it is starting to become clear.Viral Death: (c) 2010(Sing it like a thrash punk song!
)Kill Kill KillIt's what I do bestKill Kill KillIt's a viral testKill Kill KillNow we got a viral festI'll Breed inside your Headuntil you drop them deadNobody else will knowbecause I'm in you GnomeKill Kill KillWhat a viral fest...(Lather, rinse, repeat...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30686820</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising, given how DNA actually works</title>
	<author>UnknowingFool</author>
	<datestamp>1262855460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Roughly 95\% of our DNA is basically crap that only exists because at some point in the past, it was better at copying itself.</p></div></blockquote><p>In the past, scientists thought this.  They thought that only genes were the important part of DNA as they were the only part that encoded for proteins.  It turns out that the "junk" DNA parts have more use than previously thought.  While they don't encode for proteins, they often contain triggers and modifiers that genes use.  For example, all animals have a gene to create limbs.  The original thought that a bird has a gene to create wings whereas a human has a gene to make arms.  It turns out they are the same gene and it is used by all animals to make limbs.  The interesting part is in the "junk" DNA part, there are triggers that are different for a bird and a human which changes how the make limb gene functions.  Until we fully map out the non-gene parts of the DNA, we won't know which parts are truly junk and which have purpose.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Roughly 95 \ % of our DNA is basically crap that only exists because at some point in the past , it was better at copying itself.In the past , scientists thought this .
They thought that only genes were the important part of DNA as they were the only part that encoded for proteins .
It turns out that the " junk " DNA parts have more use than previously thought .
While they do n't encode for proteins , they often contain triggers and modifiers that genes use .
For example , all animals have a gene to create limbs .
The original thought that a bird has a gene to create wings whereas a human has a gene to make arms .
It turns out they are the same gene and it is used by all animals to make limbs .
The interesting part is in the " junk " DNA part , there are triggers that are different for a bird and a human which changes how the make limb gene functions .
Until we fully map out the non-gene parts of the DNA , we wo n't know which parts are truly junk and which have purpose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Roughly 95\% of our DNA is basically crap that only exists because at some point in the past, it was better at copying itself.In the past, scientists thought this.
They thought that only genes were the important part of DNA as they were the only part that encoded for proteins.
It turns out that the "junk" DNA parts have more use than previously thought.
While they don't encode for proteins, they often contain triggers and modifiers that genes use.
For example, all animals have a gene to create limbs.
The original thought that a bird has a gene to create wings whereas a human has a gene to make arms.
It turns out they are the same gene and it is used by all animals to make limbs.
The interesting part is in the "junk" DNA part, there are triggers that are different for a bird and a human which changes how the make limb gene functions.
Until we fully map out the non-gene parts of the DNA, we won't know which parts are truly junk and which have purpose.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683232</id>
	<title>Re:Summary and article misleading</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262883300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dammit - my parents were too cheap to use Antivirus. They didn't even use the free version because it "kept slowing them down". Losers. Now I have this virus in my DNA. Ugh!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dammit - my parents were too cheap to use Antivirus .
They did n't even use the free version because it " kept slowing them down " .
Losers. Now I have this virus in my DNA .
Ugh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dammit - my parents were too cheap to use Antivirus.
They didn't even use the free version because it "kept slowing them down".
Losers. Now I have this virus in my DNA.
Ugh!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30687658</id>
	<title>Agent Smith</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262859420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Turns out he was right.  Humans are a form of Virus after all.  Who knew?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Turns out he was right .
Humans are a form of Virus after all .
Who knew ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Turns out he was right.
Humans are a form of Virus after all.
Who knew?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30689392</id>
	<title>Re:Bible Code?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1262869260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correct, because nature uses basically the same template for everything it prints, its not suprising that a large portion of the result is common across multiple outputs.</p><p>So in our case, it could just be that some percentage of our template, which results in 8\% of our total DNA, is also used in templates that viruses use.</p><p>Anything you assume beyond that is pure speculation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct , because nature uses basically the same template for everything it prints , its not suprising that a large portion of the result is common across multiple outputs.So in our case , it could just be that some percentage of our template , which results in 8 \ % of our total DNA , is also used in templates that viruses use.Anything you assume beyond that is pure speculation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct, because nature uses basically the same template for everything it prints, its not suprising that a large portion of the result is common across multiple outputs.So in our case, it could just be that some percentage of our template, which results in 8\% of our total DNA, is also used in templates that viruses use.Anything you assume beyond that is pure speculation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685282</id>
	<title>Re:Useful?</title>
	<author>UnknowingFool</author>
	<datestamp>1262891400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well the term "dormant" doesn't mean what it used to mean since the human genome has been mapped.  Before the mapping, it was thought that genes or "active" part of our DNA controlled every aspect of processes and the expectation was that humans would have at least 100,000 genes.  There is "dormant" DNA in all organisms and it would represent a small part of our genome.   That turned out not to be the case.  Humans have about 23,000 genes which is fewer than found in corn and many of our genes are common with other plants and animals.  The difference it turns out is that while we have the same genes as other organisms, there are different parts of the "dormant" DNA.  This dormant DNA while it does not contain any genes contains triggers and modifiers to genes.  For example animals all have the same gene to make limbs but the triggers are different in a whale as opposed to a bird as opposed to a human.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well the term " dormant " does n't mean what it used to mean since the human genome has been mapped .
Before the mapping , it was thought that genes or " active " part of our DNA controlled every aspect of processes and the expectation was that humans would have at least 100,000 genes .
There is " dormant " DNA in all organisms and it would represent a small part of our genome .
That turned out not to be the case .
Humans have about 23,000 genes which is fewer than found in corn and many of our genes are common with other plants and animals .
The difference it turns out is that while we have the same genes as other organisms , there are different parts of the " dormant " DNA .
This dormant DNA while it does not contain any genes contains triggers and modifiers to genes .
For example animals all have the same gene to make limbs but the triggers are different in a whale as opposed to a bird as opposed to a human .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well the term "dormant" doesn't mean what it used to mean since the human genome has been mapped.
Before the mapping, it was thought that genes or "active" part of our DNA controlled every aspect of processes and the expectation was that humans would have at least 100,000 genes.
There is "dormant" DNA in all organisms and it would represent a small part of our genome.
That turned out not to be the case.
Humans have about 23,000 genes which is fewer than found in corn and many of our genes are common with other plants and animals.
The difference it turns out is that while we have the same genes as other organisms, there are different parts of the "dormant" DNA.
This dormant DNA while it does not contain any genes contains triggers and modifiers to genes.
For example animals all have the same gene to make limbs but the triggers are different in a whale as opposed to a bird as opposed to a human.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683450</id>
	<title>Re:Like my PC</title>
	<author>Cyberia</author>
	<datestamp>1262884200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sony installed a rootkit in both your DNA and PC years ago, they are just finding the one in the DNA now because the pattern file has *finally* been updated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sony installed a rootkit in both your DNA and PC years ago , they are just finding the one in the DNA now because the pattern file has * finally * been updated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sony installed a rootkit in both your DNA and PC years ago, they are just finding the one in the DNA now because the pattern file has *finally* been updated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685318</id>
	<title>Re:Mammals</title>
	<author>RDW</author>
	<datestamp>1262891520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'BTW, the Wikipedia entry shows that the "8\%" number was known as long as 6 years ago.'</p><p>The news article is based on a rather careless reading of the new paper, where the 8\% figure (which refers to endogenous retroviruses) is referenced in the Abstract but not presented as a new finding. The new result is that non-retroviral sequences from a completely different class of virus (Bornavirus) have also become incorporated into the genome. Bornavirus is an RNA virus that has the unusual property of setting up house in the nucleus. They think that a cellular reverse transcriptase (encoded by endogenous retrotransposons) could have been responsible for inserting DNA forms of Bornavirus genes into human (and other animal) genomes. This is different to the situation with retroviruses, which are able to integrate themselves into the genome using their own (viral) reverse transcriptases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'BTW , the Wikipedia entry shows that the " 8 \ % " number was known as long as 6 years ago .
'The news article is based on a rather careless reading of the new paper , where the 8 \ % figure ( which refers to endogenous retroviruses ) is referenced in the Abstract but not presented as a new finding .
The new result is that non-retroviral sequences from a completely different class of virus ( Bornavirus ) have also become incorporated into the genome .
Bornavirus is an RNA virus that has the unusual property of setting up house in the nucleus .
They think that a cellular reverse transcriptase ( encoded by endogenous retrotransposons ) could have been responsible for inserting DNA forms of Bornavirus genes into human ( and other animal ) genomes .
This is different to the situation with retroviruses , which are able to integrate themselves into the genome using their own ( viral ) reverse transcriptases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'BTW, the Wikipedia entry shows that the "8\%" number was known as long as 6 years ago.
'The news article is based on a rather careless reading of the new paper, where the 8\% figure (which refers to endogenous retroviruses) is referenced in the Abstract but not presented as a new finding.
The new result is that non-retroviral sequences from a completely different class of virus (Bornavirus) have also become incorporated into the genome.
Bornavirus is an RNA virus that has the unusual property of setting up house in the nucleus.
They think that a cellular reverse transcriptase (encoded by endogenous retrotransposons) could have been responsible for inserting DNA forms of Bornavirus genes into human (and other animal) genomes.
This is different to the situation with retroviruses, which are able to integrate themselves into the genome using their own (viral) reverse transcriptases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682992</id>
	<title>Re:Useful?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262882460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>RTA
<br> <br>
The researcher was looking at the Bornavirus (BDV) and its association with Schizophrenia. So yes, it's active and yes it has an effect on us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>RTA The researcher was looking at the Bornavirus ( BDV ) and its association with Schizophrenia .
So yes , it 's active and yes it has an effect on us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTA
 
The researcher was looking at the Bornavirus (BDV) and its association with Schizophrenia.
So yes, it's active and yes it has an effect on us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683540</id>
	<title>Well some Republicans...</title>
	<author>WinPimp2K</author>
	<datestamp>1262884500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Moderate" Republicans like Olympia Snow are obviously 8\% rhinovirus.<br>"Tax and spend" Democrats have a generous helping of H1N1 (aka swine flu).</p><p>This might be a fun game - determining the viral component of various politicians and celebrities.<br>Anyone want to play? I don't know enough virii to suggest good matches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Moderate " Republicans like Olympia Snow are obviously 8 \ % rhinovirus .
" Tax and spend " Democrats have a generous helping of H1N1 ( aka swine flu ) .This might be a fun game - determining the viral component of various politicians and celebrities.Anyone want to play ?
I do n't know enough virii to suggest good matches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Moderate" Republicans like Olympia Snow are obviously 8\% rhinovirus.
"Tax and spend" Democrats have a generous helping of H1N1 (aka swine flu).This might be a fun game - determining the viral component of various politicians and celebrities.Anyone want to play?
I don't know enough virii to suggest good matches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30695166</id>
	<title>More proof of an old theory?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262969100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could be wrong about my history, but I either Weiss or Kornberg proposed this many years ago. It's nice to see some more proof.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could be wrong about my history , but I either Weiss or Kornberg proposed this many years ago .
It 's nice to see some more proof .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could be wrong about my history, but I either Weiss or Kornberg proposed this many years ago.
It's nice to see some more proof.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30684160</id>
	<title>Re:Useful?</title>
	<author>icegreentea</author>
	<datestamp>1262886840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apparently a lot of the ERVs (that 8\% of our DNA made from retrovirus pieces) get expressed during pregnancy by the fetus. One of the results is that the mother's immune system gets depressed (apparently a lot of HIV-like stuff going on there) that prevents the mother's immune system from killing the fetus. There's probably lots of other fun stuff going on that we don't know about yet. It's actually really cool when you think about it... mammalian childbirth being possible because some immunodepressent virus infected some reptile a long long time ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently a lot of the ERVs ( that 8 \ % of our DNA made from retrovirus pieces ) get expressed during pregnancy by the fetus .
One of the results is that the mother 's immune system gets depressed ( apparently a lot of HIV-like stuff going on there ) that prevents the mother 's immune system from killing the fetus .
There 's probably lots of other fun stuff going on that we do n't know about yet .
It 's actually really cool when you think about it... mammalian childbirth being possible because some immunodepressent virus infected some reptile a long long time ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently a lot of the ERVs (that 8\% of our DNA made from retrovirus pieces) get expressed during pregnancy by the fetus.
One of the results is that the mother's immune system gets depressed (apparently a lot of HIV-like stuff going on there) that prevents the mother's immune system from killing the fetus.
There's probably lots of other fun stuff going on that we don't know about yet.
It's actually really cool when you think about it... mammalian childbirth being possible because some immunodepressent virus infected some reptile a long long time ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682688</id>
	<title>Summary and article misleading</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262881380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These are endogenous virus fragments.  Which means that a virus inserted itself into your ancestor's DNA.  So you didn't get this new DNA after you were born, you inherited the 8\% viral DNA from your ancestors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These are endogenous virus fragments .
Which means that a virus inserted itself into your ancestor 's DNA .
So you did n't get this new DNA after you were born , you inherited the 8 \ % viral DNA from your ancestors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These are endogenous virus fragments.
Which means that a virus inserted itself into your ancestor's DNA.
So you didn't get this new DNA after you were born, you inherited the 8\% viral DNA from your ancestors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683588</id>
	<title>Re:Bible Code?</title>
	<author>kanweg</author>
	<datestamp>1262884680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But there is a relation to the bible. The viruses show that Genesis is wrong. Viruses have been found at *exactly* the same locations in chimps as in humans. Extremely strong evidence that we share a common ancestor.</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>Bert<br>So, no original sin etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But there is a relation to the bible .
The viruses show that Genesis is wrong .
Viruses have been found at * exactly * the same locations in chimps as in humans .
Extremely strong evidence that we share a common ancestor.http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = TUxLR9hdorI [ youtube.com ] BertSo , no original sin etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But there is a relation to the bible.
The viruses show that Genesis is wrong.
Viruses have been found at *exactly* the same locations in chimps as in humans.
Extremely strong evidence that we share a common ancestor.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI [youtube.com]BertSo, no original sin etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685470</id>
	<title>Re:What a crappy press release</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1262892180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ya, lets be disingenuous and pretend that in the phrase ""About 8 percent of human genetic material comes from a virus and not from our ancestors", the word "our" means "the current generation", rather than "humanity", and further, that ancestor means "parent", rather than meaning, well, <b>ancestor</b>!  The thing about pretending to be incredibly stupid in order to be pedantic, is it's indistinguishable from actually being incredibly stupid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya , lets be disingenuous and pretend that in the phrase " " About 8 percent of human genetic material comes from a virus and not from our ancestors " , the word " our " means " the current generation " , rather than " humanity " , and further , that ancestor means " parent " , rather than meaning , well , ancestor !
The thing about pretending to be incredibly stupid in order to be pedantic , is it 's indistinguishable from actually being incredibly stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya, lets be disingenuous and pretend that in the phrase ""About 8 percent of human genetic material comes from a virus and not from our ancestors", the word "our" means "the current generation", rather than "humanity", and further, that ancestor means "parent", rather than meaning, well, ancestor!
The thing about pretending to be incredibly stupid in order to be pedantic, is it's indistinguishable from actually being incredibly stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682662</id>
	<title>Like my PC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262881260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>8\% of my Windows code comes from Viruses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>8 \ % of my Windows code comes from Viruses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>8\% of my Windows code comes from Viruses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682698</id>
	<title>But I use antivirus!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262881440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't Norton protect me from such stuff?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't Norton protect me from such stuff ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't Norton protect me from such stuff?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682942</id>
	<title>Who owns the copyright?</title>
	<author>codewarren</author>
	<datestamp>1262882220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering the necessity of viruses to have some "host-like" code within them, is it not just as possible that viruses got most of their code from hosts rather than vice versa?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering the necessity of viruses to have some " host-like " code within them , is it not just as possible that viruses got most of their code from hosts rather than vice versa ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering the necessity of viruses to have some "host-like" code within them, is it not just as possible that viruses got most of their code from hosts rather than vice versa?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682594</id>
	<title>Dissa Meesa Virus Tween yo Cheeks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262880900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>N</b> is for nuts dat got da semen that will impregnate your daughter.<br>
<b>I</b> is for "in yo face", you know we upfront.<br>
<b>G</b> is for guns we got, got a problem bitch?<br>
<b>G</b> is also for grabbing dey crotches, it what we do.<br>
<b>E</b> is for Eazy muthafuckin' E, our lord and savior.<br>
<b>R</b> is for robbery, dey favorite pasttime.</htmltext>
<tokenext>N is for nuts dat got da semen that will impregnate your daughter .
I is for " in yo face " , you know we upfront .
G is for guns we got , got a problem bitch ?
G is also for grabbing dey crotches , it what we do .
E is for Eazy muthafuckin ' E , our lord and savior .
R is for robbery , dey favorite pasttime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>N is for nuts dat got da semen that will impregnate your daughter.
I is for "in yo face", you know we upfront.
G is for guns we got, got a problem bitch?
G is also for grabbing dey crotches, it what we do.
E is for Eazy muthafuckin' E, our lord and savior.
R is for robbery, dey favorite pasttime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682850</id>
	<title>Excellent coincidence</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1262881920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I woke up this morning wondering how much of our DNA was influenced by viruses.</p><p>Turns out it's 8\%.</p><p>Thanks, slashdot!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I woke up this morning wondering how much of our DNA was influenced by viruses.Turns out it 's 8 \ % .Thanks , slashdot !
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I woke up this morning wondering how much of our DNA was influenced by viruses.Turns out it's 8\%.Thanks, slashdot!
:D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682672</id>
	<title>What test subjects?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262881260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No fair when solely investigating the Bush administration, we already concluded that part ourselves!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No fair when solely investigating the Bush administration , we already concluded that part ourselves !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No fair when solely investigating the Bush administration, we already concluded that part ourselves!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30686210</id>
	<title>Scanstyles does nothing in Webkit/Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262895660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scanstyles does nothing in Webkit/Firefox when clicking the link...  Okay the one time I decide to RTFA before posting my comments and look what happens...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scanstyles does nothing in Webkit/Firefox when clicking the link... Okay the one time I decide to RTFA before posting my comments and look what happens.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scanstyles does nothing in Webkit/Firefox when clicking the link...  Okay the one time I decide to RTFA before posting my comments and look what happens...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685206</id>
	<title>Urgh, I thought it wasn't for real</title>
	<author>Fross</author>
	<datestamp>1262891040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know that when I have a cold, it FEELS like 8\% of my body weight is in snot.  Now I know for sure.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know that when I have a cold , it FEELS like 8 \ % of my body weight is in snot .
Now I know for sure .
: /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know that when I have a cold, it FEELS like 8\% of my body weight is in snot.
Now I know for sure.
:/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683670</id>
	<title>Re:Bible Code?</title>
	<author>CyrusOmega</author>
	<datestamp>1262884980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't it also possible that viruses come from 8\% of our DNA rather than contributing to it? See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#Origins" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#Origins</a> [wikipedia.org] "Cellular origin hypothesis" sub section...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't it also possible that viruses come from 8 \ % of our DNA rather than contributing to it ?
See http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus # Origins [ wikipedia.org ] " Cellular origin hypothesis " sub section.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't it also possible that viruses come from 8\% of our DNA rather than contributing to it?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#Origins [wikipedia.org] "Cellular origin hypothesis" sub section...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683140</id>
	<title>Re:Bible Code?</title>
	<author>Gotung</author>
	<datestamp>1262883000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know that DNA can be transferred between virus and host.<br> <br>

My point is, how can they say with any certainty that 8\% is the number? How do they have any idea what actually came from a virus, and what just happens to match?
<br> <br>
The building blocks of each aren't really that much different. How do we know the code for building protein X that is used for part of the virus's wall actually came from it, and doesn't just happen to match the code for building protein Y that is used somewhere in our cells for similar purpose?<br> <br>
The article then goes on to make an association between a virus that only infects brains cells, and this process of DNA transfer. How is the new viral DNA transferred to offspring if it only infects neurons??</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know that DNA can be transferred between virus and host .
My point is , how can they say with any certainty that 8 \ % is the number ?
How do they have any idea what actually came from a virus , and what just happens to match ?
The building blocks of each are n't really that much different .
How do we know the code for building protein X that is used for part of the virus 's wall actually came from it , and does n't just happen to match the code for building protein Y that is used somewhere in our cells for similar purpose ?
The article then goes on to make an association between a virus that only infects brains cells , and this process of DNA transfer .
How is the new viral DNA transferred to offspring if it only infects neurons ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know that DNA can be transferred between virus and host.
My point is, how can they say with any certainty that 8\% is the number?
How do they have any idea what actually came from a virus, and what just happens to match?
The building blocks of each aren't really that much different.
How do we know the code for building protein X that is used for part of the virus's wall actually came from it, and doesn't just happen to match the code for building protein Y that is used somewhere in our cells for similar purpose?
The article then goes on to make an association between a virus that only infects brains cells, and this process of DNA transfer.
How is the new viral DNA transferred to offspring if it only infects neurons?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685854</id>
	<title>Re:Bible Code?</title>
	<author>SteveWoz</author>
	<datestamp>1262893920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Creator is actually an infinite number of monkeys?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Creator is actually an infinite number of monkeys ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Creator is actually an infinite number of monkeys?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682834</id>
	<title>What a crappy press release</title>
	<author>RNLockwood</author>
	<datestamp>1262881860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So 8\% of my DNA comes from a virus and not from my ancestors? I guess that means that I was infected with the DNA after conception and for some reason it's not heritable since I didn't get any from my ancestors.  The big story, then, is that there is a mechanism that excludes the viral DNA during meiosis.</p><p>Dr Feschotte must have cringed when he read the release.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So 8 \ % of my DNA comes from a virus and not from my ancestors ?
I guess that means that I was infected with the DNA after conception and for some reason it 's not heritable since I did n't get any from my ancestors .
The big story , then , is that there is a mechanism that excludes the viral DNA during meiosis.Dr Feschotte must have cringed when he read the release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So 8\% of my DNA comes from a virus and not from my ancestors?
I guess that means that I was infected with the DNA after conception and for some reason it's not heritable since I didn't get any from my ancestors.
The big story, then, is that there is a mechanism that excludes the viral DNA during meiosis.Dr Feschotte must have cringed when he read the release.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682914</id>
	<title>Virus? Hardly.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262882160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm quite sure that that 8\% was merely introduced into our genetic code by an Intelligent Designer, just to throw scientists off the trail a bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm quite sure that that 8 \ % was merely introduced into our genetic code by an Intelligent Designer , just to throw scientists off the trail a bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm quite sure that that 8\% was merely introduced into our genetic code by an Intelligent Designer, just to throw scientists off the trail a bit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30684246</id>
	<title>Re:Useful?</title>
	<author>gilleain</author>
	<datestamp>1262887080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you are "a pretty smart guy" but failed to read the bit that said: <p><div class="quote"><p>" Feschotte said this virally transmitted DNA may be a cause of mutation and psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and mood disorders."</p></div><p> Oh well done, well done indeed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you are " a pretty smart guy " but failed to read the bit that said : " Feschotte said this virally transmitted DNA may be a cause of mutation and psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and mood disorders .
" Oh well done , well done indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you are "a pretty smart guy" but failed to read the bit that said: " Feschotte said this virally transmitted DNA may be a cause of mutation and psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and mood disorders.
" Oh well done, well done indeed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30684370</id>
	<title>Thus the Vidiian Phage is proved possible in 2010</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262887560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everything in the article points to the fact this 8\% leads to disease (sometimes deadly) and not any Marvel/DC super abilities.</p><p>So if the Vidiian Phage is proved as possible,  thus must medicine end all transfusion, human organ transplants and skin grafts from non-clones.<br>You just don't get an organ, you are getting the historical DNA from that person's linage which may contain much more than what your bargaining for your progeny.</p><p>Soon as one of these viruses (perhaps already present) is is one of these tissues or fluids its game over as its impossible to DNA sequence each cell in the donation for such. No science today will detect if it bridged over from the donated material nor know if your DNA is being corrupted due to them till its too late.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything in the article points to the fact this 8 \ % leads to disease ( sometimes deadly ) and not any Marvel/DC super abilities.So if the Vidiian Phage is proved as possible , thus must medicine end all transfusion , human organ transplants and skin grafts from non-clones.You just do n't get an organ , you are getting the historical DNA from that person 's linage which may contain much more than what your bargaining for your progeny.Soon as one of these viruses ( perhaps already present ) is is one of these tissues or fluids its game over as its impossible to DNA sequence each cell in the donation for such .
No science today will detect if it bridged over from the donated material nor know if your DNA is being corrupted due to them till its too late .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything in the article points to the fact this 8\% leads to disease (sometimes deadly) and not any Marvel/DC super abilities.So if the Vidiian Phage is proved as possible,  thus must medicine end all transfusion, human organ transplants and skin grafts from non-clones.You just don't get an organ, you are getting the historical DNA from that person's linage which may contain much more than what your bargaining for your progeny.Soon as one of these viruses (perhaps already present) is is one of these tissues or fluids its game over as its impossible to DNA sequence each cell in the donation for such.
No science today will detect if it bridged over from the donated material nor know if your DNA is being corrupted due to them till its too late.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685796</id>
	<title>Re:Useful?</title>
	<author>linguizic</author>
	<datestamp>1262893620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You must mean gave rise to placental mammals.  Not all mammals have placentas (see marsupials and monotremes [which are way cool btw]).</htmltext>
<tokenext>You must mean gave rise to placental mammals .
Not all mammals have placentas ( see marsupials and monotremes [ which are way cool btw ] ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must mean gave rise to placental mammals.
Not all mammals have placentas (see marsupials and monotremes [which are way cool btw]).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682788</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30689666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30684416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30684246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30686028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30686820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30686860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30684488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30686686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30688942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30686612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30712536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30688216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30684494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30684028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30706450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30692242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30689392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30687452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30686096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30688726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30691140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30690822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30688330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30684160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30684322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30686136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1425242_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30688602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1425242.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1425242.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30686820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1425242.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683402
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1425242.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1425242.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1425242.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30712536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30688330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1425242.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1425242.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30686686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682844
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30706450
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30689392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30688942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30688602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683444
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683588
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30686096
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30688726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685562
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683140
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30684028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30684322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1425242.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1425242.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1425242.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1425242.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30690822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30689666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682858
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30686612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683204
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30684416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30686136
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30684246
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30686028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30684160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1425242.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1425242.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30685816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30692242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30684488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30687452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1425242.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1425242.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30684494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683540
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1425242.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1425242.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1425242.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682702
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1425242.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30691140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683186
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1425242.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30682706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30688216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30686860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1425242.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1425242.30683394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
