<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_14_1358237</id>
	<title>Human Males Evolve At a Faster Pace Than Females</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1263478860000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:Tisha.Hayes@gmail.com" rel="nofollow">Tisha\_AH</a> writes <i>"A report by the Whitehead Institute indicates that the human Y chromosome present in males is <a href="http://www.wi.mit.edu/news/archives/2010/dp\_0113.html">evolving at a furious pace</a>. Across the chromosome there can be as much as a 33\% difference within humans alone. The portions of the chromosome evolving fastest are related to sperm production."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tisha \ _AH writes " A report by the Whitehead Institute indicates that the human Y chromosome present in males is evolving at a furious pace .
Across the chromosome there can be as much as a 33 \ % difference within humans alone .
The portions of the chromosome evolving fastest are related to sperm production .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tisha\_AH writes "A report by the Whitehead Institute indicates that the human Y chromosome present in males is evolving at a furious pace.
Across the chromosome there can be as much as a 33\% difference within humans alone.
The portions of the chromosome evolving fastest are related to sperm production.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765608</id>
	<title>So what you're sayimg is,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263489480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Married men have no balls?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Married men have no balls ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Married men have no balls?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30767578</id>
	<title>Re:interesting factoid:</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1263495960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>human testicles are outside of a body so they can descend and cool down when the environment they are in is hot or ascend and heat up from body temperature when it's cold</p></div></blockquote><p>I once saw a detective show where they determined the approximate temperature of where some beach photos were taken by studying the crotches in the photos. The detectives had to wear speedo's to produce a study-set for comparison. It's probably bunk except in ideal conditions. However, it gets kudos for being a clever plot device.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>human testicles are outside of a body so they can descend and cool down when the environment they are in is hot or ascend and heat up from body temperature when it 's coldI once saw a detective show where they determined the approximate temperature of where some beach photos were taken by studying the crotches in the photos .
The detectives had to wear speedo 's to produce a study-set for comparison .
It 's probably bunk except in ideal conditions .
However , it gets kudos for being a clever plot device .
       </tokentext>
<sentencetext>human testicles are outside of a body so they can descend and cool down when the environment they are in is hot or ascend and heat up from body temperature when it's coldI once saw a detective show where they determined the approximate temperature of where some beach photos were taken by studying the crotches in the photos.
The detectives had to wear speedo's to produce a study-set for comparison.
It's probably bunk except in ideal conditions.
However, it gets kudos for being a clever plot device.
       
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30767096</id>
	<title>Re:interesting factoid:</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1263494460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Deep within a dolphin's body it's temperature is normally 35 degrees to 36.9 degrees, while it's outer body temperature is usually cooler.  In comparison, man's body temperature is 37.3 degrees</p><p><a href="http://www.indianchild.com/dolphins.htm" title="indianchild.com">http://www.indianchild.com/dolphins.htm</a> [indianchild.com]</p><p>Maybe dolphins evolved that way because sperm's ideal temperature is constant across species. IANAB so can only speculate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Deep within a dolphin 's body it 's temperature is normally 35 degrees to 36.9 degrees , while it 's outer body temperature is usually cooler .
In comparison , man 's body temperature is 37.3 degreeshttp : //www.indianchild.com/dolphins.htm [ indianchild.com ] Maybe dolphins evolved that way because sperm 's ideal temperature is constant across species .
IANAB so can only speculate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Deep within a dolphin's body it's temperature is normally 35 degrees to 36.9 degrees, while it's outer body temperature is usually cooler.
In comparison, man's body temperature is 37.3 degreeshttp://www.indianchild.com/dolphins.htm [indianchild.com]Maybe dolphins evolved that way because sperm's ideal temperature is constant across species.
IANAB so can only speculate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30767082</id>
	<title>Re:So from what I can gather...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263494400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As we live a more sedentary lifestyle these days, penile and scrotal trauma are much less common. So any such trauma typically comes from masturbation.</p></div><p>I don't know about you, but I've never caused any penile or scrotal trauma while jacking off...maybe you're doing it wrong?</p><p>Or maybe I'm doing it wrong?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-\</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As we live a more sedentary lifestyle these days , penile and scrotal trauma are much less common .
So any such trauma typically comes from masturbation.I do n't know about you , but I 've never caused any penile or scrotal trauma while jacking off...maybe you 're doing it wrong ? Or maybe I 'm doing it wrong ?
: - \</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As we live a more sedentary lifestyle these days, penile and scrotal trauma are much less common.
So any such trauma typically comes from masturbation.I don't know about you, but I've never caused any penile or scrotal trauma while jacking off...maybe you're doing it wrong?Or maybe I'm doing it wrong?
:-\
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30767814</id>
	<title>Did they take marriage into account?</title>
	<author>Fujisawa Sensei</author>
	<datestamp>1263496800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did they take marriage into account?</p><p>After marriage men don't change but women do.</p><p>Of course most people here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. wouldn't be familiar with that concept outside of 2L.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did they take marriage into account ? After marriage men do n't change but women do.Of course most people here on / .
would n't be familiar with that concept outside of 2L .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did they take marriage into account?After marriage men don't change but women do.Of course most people here on /.
wouldn't be familiar with that concept outside of 2L.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764512</id>
	<title>Re:At last...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263486120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Does she believe that all embryos start as female, and then some (approx half) evolve to male? By that statement, I had to *FIGHT* to be a male.</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, all embryos do start as female. Maybe not genetically, but they develop as a female fetus, and then later in pregnancy the ovaries drop to become testicles and the penis develops. Hormonal and chemical differences in the mother's uterus can prevent this from happening properly (leading to people with a female body who are genetically male), or can lead to androgen insensitivity syndrome (having a male body that's completely unresponsive to testosterone and other androgens and will not enter puberty naturally) or any other number of intersex conditions....</p><p>male/female, when speaking outside of the genetic context, is a pretty wide spectrum, actually, and is definitely not binary. Even when speaking in the genetic context, it's not always as cut and dry as being either XX or XY.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does she believe that all embryos start as female , and then some ( approx half ) evolve to male ?
By that statement , I had to * FIGHT * to be a male.Actually , all embryos do start as female .
Maybe not genetically , but they develop as a female fetus , and then later in pregnancy the ovaries drop to become testicles and the penis develops .
Hormonal and chemical differences in the mother 's uterus can prevent this from happening properly ( leading to people with a female body who are genetically male ) , or can lead to androgen insensitivity syndrome ( having a male body that 's completely unresponsive to testosterone and other androgens and will not enter puberty naturally ) or any other number of intersex conditions....male/female , when speaking outside of the genetic context , is a pretty wide spectrum , actually , and is definitely not binary .
Even when speaking in the genetic context , it 's not always as cut and dry as being either XX or XY .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does she believe that all embryos start as female, and then some (approx half) evolve to male?
By that statement, I had to *FIGHT* to be a male.Actually, all embryos do start as female.
Maybe not genetically, but they develop as a female fetus, and then later in pregnancy the ovaries drop to become testicles and the penis develops.
Hormonal and chemical differences in the mother's uterus can prevent this from happening properly (leading to people with a female body who are genetically male), or can lead to androgen insensitivity syndrome (having a male body that's completely unresponsive to testosterone and other androgens and will not enter puberty naturally) or any other number of intersex conditions....male/female, when speaking outside of the genetic context, is a pretty wide spectrum, actually, and is definitely not binary.
Even when speaking in the genetic context, it's not always as cut and dry as being either XX or XY.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764028</id>
	<title>The actual paper...</title>
	<author>johndiii</author>
	<datestamp>1263484380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a link to <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature08700.html" title="nature.com">the actual paper</a> [nature.com] (rather than the press release), for those who have a subscription to Nature or are willing to pay $32 to read it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a link to the actual paper [ nature.com ] ( rather than the press release ) , for those who have a subscription to Nature or are willing to pay $ 32 to read it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a link to the actual paper [nature.com] (rather than the press release), for those who have a subscription to Nature or are willing to pay $32 to read it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764014</id>
	<title>Re:So from what I can gather...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1263484320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on, mods, he was clearly joking and clearly the statement is incorrect. Masturbation in no way can make sperm genetically superior. In fact, masturbation would decrease the liklihood of passing genes along -- if you're masturbating, clearly you're not getting any sex.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on , mods , he was clearly joking and clearly the statement is incorrect .
Masturbation in no way can make sperm genetically superior .
In fact , masturbation would decrease the liklihood of passing genes along -- if you 're masturbating , clearly you 're not getting any sex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on, mods, he was clearly joking and clearly the statement is incorrect.
Masturbation in no way can make sperm genetically superior.
In fact, masturbation would decrease the liklihood of passing genes along -- if you're masturbating, clearly you're not getting any sex.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764628</id>
	<title>Re:interesting factoid:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263486420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>tea-bagging?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>tea-bagging ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tea-bagging?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764614</id>
	<title>"Curiouser and curiouser!" Cried Alice</title>
	<author>mindbrane</author>
	<datestamp>1263486420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>1st off i'm not going to cite stuff because i've not got it at hand and any citations would be from audio files. the recent courses i've listened to in biology and, more specifically, evolutionary biology suggest the y chromosome is a shrivelled up little thing fast loosing genes. as a guy i didn't much like hearing that either. there's some evidence in some flatworm species that 'penis fencing' suggests bearing young is an "aggressive act" foisted upon a weaker rival. how that would scale up to other species i couldn't say. there are recent findings that male sperm have complex mechanisms that try to induce the egg to draw down from the female as much developmental resources as possible while the egg has similar mechanisms that will try to limited the amount of resources a fertilised egg can demand of the mother. this seems to suggest that there's not only great complexity in development but that sperm and egg are in competition. it's very complex not yet nearly understood stuff. also a 'faster' rate of evolution isn't necessarily a sign of good things to come or an evolutionary edge. what i term differential evolution, for want of a better term, seems not to have been studied or made available to mere lay people such as myself. by differential evolution i mean what does it mean when a species evolves faster. does it simply mean the species has greater fitness? what are the consequences of 'faster' evolution and can such consequences be considered in anything but out of context, almost trivial generalities?</htmltext>
<tokenext>1st off i 'm not going to cite stuff because i 've not got it at hand and any citations would be from audio files .
the recent courses i 've listened to in biology and , more specifically , evolutionary biology suggest the y chromosome is a shrivelled up little thing fast loosing genes .
as a guy i did n't much like hearing that either .
there 's some evidence in some flatworm species that 'penis fencing ' suggests bearing young is an " aggressive act " foisted upon a weaker rival .
how that would scale up to other species i could n't say .
there are recent findings that male sperm have complex mechanisms that try to induce the egg to draw down from the female as much developmental resources as possible while the egg has similar mechanisms that will try to limited the amount of resources a fertilised egg can demand of the mother .
this seems to suggest that there 's not only great complexity in development but that sperm and egg are in competition .
it 's very complex not yet nearly understood stuff .
also a 'faster ' rate of evolution is n't necessarily a sign of good things to come or an evolutionary edge .
what i term differential evolution , for want of a better term , seems not to have been studied or made available to mere lay people such as myself .
by differential evolution i mean what does it mean when a species evolves faster .
does it simply mean the species has greater fitness ?
what are the consequences of 'faster ' evolution and can such consequences be considered in anything but out of context , almost trivial generalities ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1st off i'm not going to cite stuff because i've not got it at hand and any citations would be from audio files.
the recent courses i've listened to in biology and, more specifically, evolutionary biology suggest the y chromosome is a shrivelled up little thing fast loosing genes.
as a guy i didn't much like hearing that either.
there's some evidence in some flatworm species that 'penis fencing' suggests bearing young is an "aggressive act" foisted upon a weaker rival.
how that would scale up to other species i couldn't say.
there are recent findings that male sperm have complex mechanisms that try to induce the egg to draw down from the female as much developmental resources as possible while the egg has similar mechanisms that will try to limited the amount of resources a fertilised egg can demand of the mother.
this seems to suggest that there's not only great complexity in development but that sperm and egg are in competition.
it's very complex not yet nearly understood stuff.
also a 'faster' rate of evolution isn't necessarily a sign of good things to come or an evolutionary edge.
what i term differential evolution, for want of a better term, seems not to have been studied or made available to mere lay people such as myself.
by differential evolution i mean what does it mean when a species evolves faster.
does it simply mean the species has greater fitness?
what are the consequences of 'faster' evolution and can such consequences be considered in anything but out of context, almost trivial generalities?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30768100</id>
	<title>Fluoridated water ...</title>
	<author>desertfoxmb</author>
	<datestamp>1263497580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's use for population control isn't just for conspiracy theorists anymore!  Using evolution to destroy the human race is evil!

Jesse Ventura said so<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I dare you to contradict him!  Unless you're Chuck Norris in which case I just say "neener neener" so you can understand me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's use for population control is n't just for conspiracy theorists anymore !
Using evolution to destroy the human race is evil !
Jesse Ventura said so ... I dare you to contradict him !
Unless you 're Chuck Norris in which case I just say " neener neener " so you can understand me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's use for population control isn't just for conspiracy theorists anymore!
Using evolution to destroy the human race is evil!
Jesse Ventura said so ... I dare you to contradict him!
Unless you're Chuck Norris in which case I just say "neener neener" so you can understand me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30768686</id>
	<title>Re:That's because women keep changing their mind</title>
	<author>oneTheory</author>
	<datestamp>1263499320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're actually quite close to the mark, but I think this is just a reflection of most people today, waiting for society to tell them what to like, and that always changes based on who has the most marketing dollar$.
<br> <br>
As a result such people are terribly confused and constantly wondering why they're not happy, but never seek enough self-awareness to find the answer.  It would be nice if a trend started where people would actually take charge of their own lives and determine for themselves what is good and true.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're actually quite close to the mark , but I think this is just a reflection of most people today , waiting for society to tell them what to like , and that always changes based on who has the most marketing dollar $ .
As a result such people are terribly confused and constantly wondering why they 're not happy , but never seek enough self-awareness to find the answer .
It would be nice if a trend started where people would actually take charge of their own lives and determine for themselves what is good and true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're actually quite close to the mark, but I think this is just a reflection of most people today, waiting for society to tell them what to like, and that always changes based on who has the most marketing dollar$.
As a result such people are terribly confused and constantly wondering why they're not happy, but never seek enough self-awareness to find the answer.
It would be nice if a trend started where people would actually take charge of their own lives and determine for themselves what is good and true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764638</id>
	<title>Improvements in reproduction</title>
	<author>ilsaloving</author>
	<datestamp>1263486480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The portions of the chromosome evolving fastest are related to sperm production"</p><p>Men are furiously coming up with better and better ways of getting laid.   A trip to a local bar could have told you that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The portions of the chromosome evolving fastest are related to sperm production " Men are furiously coming up with better and better ways of getting laid .
A trip to a local bar could have told you that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The portions of the chromosome evolving fastest are related to sperm production"Men are furiously coming up with better and better ways of getting laid.
A trip to a local bar could have told you that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766378</id>
	<title>Re:Ahh the womens groups...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1263491940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Sorry to rant on you but the 6000 number is getting old. I would be willing to bet cold hard cash 99.9\% of 'religious groups' do not even believe that number.</i></p><p>Thank you for that. I know a lot of religious people (including myself) and not ONE of them believes the earth is only 6,000 years old. And every one of them believs that evolution works the way God wants it to. And you're right about the athiest zealots, too. You can't mention religion at all without at least one mod modding you down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to rant on you but the 6000 number is getting old .
I would be willing to bet cold hard cash 99.9 \ % of 'religious groups ' do not even believe that number.Thank you for that .
I know a lot of religious people ( including myself ) and not ONE of them believes the earth is only 6,000 years old .
And every one of them believs that evolution works the way God wants it to .
And you 're right about the athiest zealots , too .
You ca n't mention religion at all without at least one mod modding you down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry to rant on you but the 6000 number is getting old.
I would be willing to bet cold hard cash 99.9\% of 'religious groups' do not even believe that number.Thank you for that.
I know a lot of religious people (including myself) and not ONE of them believes the earth is only 6,000 years old.
And every one of them believs that evolution works the way God wants it to.
And you're right about the athiest zealots, too.
You can't mention religion at all without at least one mod modding you down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766830</id>
	<title>And now we know!</title>
	<author>Vadim Grinshpun</author>
	<datestamp>1263493560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So keeping the cell phone in a pants pocket wasn't such a great idea after all...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So keeping the cell phone in a pants pocket was n't such a great idea after all... ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So keeping the cell phone in a pants pocket wasn't such a great idea after all... ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764396</id>
	<title>Re:interesting factoid:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263485760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>human testicles are outside of a body so they can descend and cool down when the environment they are in is hot or ascend and heat up from body temperature when it's cold</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>human testicles are outside of a body so they can descend and cool down when the environment they are in is hot or ascend and heat up from body temperature when it 's cold</tokentext>
<sentencetext>human testicles are outside of a body so they can descend and cool down when the environment they are in is hot or ascend and heat up from body temperature when it's cold</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764886</id>
	<title>Re:interesting factoid:</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1263487260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you may have the cause and effect wrong.  I think sperm can't survive long at body temperature specifically BECAUSE a woman's eggs are so far inside her.  The sperm's lifetime is drastically shortened by the conditions inside a uterus.  This is good because, if sperm were long lived, parentage of offspring would always be in doubt - Is the daddy the guy she screwed yesterday or a month ago?  This way, the odds are far more likely that the last one in is the Daddy.</p><p>I think sperm temperature range is the CAUSE of testicles, not the effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you may have the cause and effect wrong .
I think sperm ca n't survive long at body temperature specifically BECAUSE a woman 's eggs are so far inside her .
The sperm 's lifetime is drastically shortened by the conditions inside a uterus .
This is good because , if sperm were long lived , parentage of offspring would always be in doubt - Is the daddy the guy she screwed yesterday or a month ago ?
This way , the odds are far more likely that the last one in is the Daddy.I think sperm temperature range is the CAUSE of testicles , not the effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you may have the cause and effect wrong.
I think sperm can't survive long at body temperature specifically BECAUSE a woman's eggs are so far inside her.
The sperm's lifetime is drastically shortened by the conditions inside a uterus.
This is good because, if sperm were long lived, parentage of offspring would always be in doubt - Is the daddy the guy she screwed yesterday or a month ago?
This way, the odds are far more likely that the last one in is the Daddy.I think sperm temperature range is the CAUSE of testicles, not the effect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764156</id>
	<title>Re:At last...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1263484980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>She's is partly right. The sex of the child is determined by the sex of the sperm that enters the egg, but which sperm enters the egg is determined by the egg. It's a complex chemical dance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>She 's is partly right .
The sex of the child is determined by the sex of the sperm that enters the egg , but which sperm enters the egg is determined by the egg .
It 's a complex chemical dance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She's is partly right.
The sex of the child is determined by the sex of the sperm that enters the egg, but which sperm enters the egg is determined by the egg.
It's a complex chemical dance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763970</id>
	<title>Get back in the kitchen and...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263484140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why I appreciate being a scientist. Science has its way of continuing to tell women, "Get back in the kitchen, and make me a pie".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I appreciate being a scientist .
Science has its way of continuing to tell women , " Get back in the kitchen , and make me a pie " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I appreciate being a scientist.
Science has its way of continuing to tell women, "Get back in the kitchen, and make me a pie".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30773270</id>
	<title>It's not the humans who are evolving, apparently</title>
	<author>nightnic</author>
	<datestamp>1263474960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Relax, fellow male people. Have you even read the article? It is about chimps, not human Y chromosome evolving.
The human was the one compared against. Read the rest of the article and you will be enlightened to know how nature works to provide competition advantage for the most coming of chimpanzee folks.
I hope same kind of evolution would not be necessary for humans, BTW.

[quote]
By conducting the first comprehensive interspecies comparison of Y chromosomes, Whitehead Institute researchers have found considerable differences in the genetic sequences of the human and chimpanzee Ys...
[/quote]</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Relax , fellow male people .
Have you even read the article ?
It is about chimps , not human Y chromosome evolving .
The human was the one compared against .
Read the rest of the article and you will be enlightened to know how nature works to provide competition advantage for the most coming of chimpanzee folks .
I hope same kind of evolution would not be necessary for humans , BTW .
[ quote ] By conducting the first comprehensive interspecies comparison of Y chromosomes , Whitehead Institute researchers have found considerable differences in the genetic sequences of the human and chimpanzee Ys.. . [ /quote ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Relax, fellow male people.
Have you even read the article?
It is about chimps, not human Y chromosome evolving.
The human was the one compared against.
Read the rest of the article and you will be enlightened to know how nature works to provide competition advantage for the most coming of chimpanzee folks.
I hope same kind of evolution would not be necessary for humans, BTW.
[quote]
By conducting the first comprehensive interspecies comparison of Y chromosomes, Whitehead Institute researchers have found considerable differences in the genetic sequences of the human and chimpanzee Ys...
[/quote]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30768382</id>
	<title>Re:interesting factoid:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263498300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>however, i've always wondered why testicles appeared on the outside of the male mammalian body. it seems a ridiculous vulnerability and i've never heard a good explanation as to why. for example, dolphins aren't swimming around with their balls out: the need to be streamlined. of course sperm need a lower temperature to develop, but thats an effect, not a cause. i'm saying wouldn't it be better to have your testicles inside your body and evolve sperm that develop at a higher temperature? its pretty ridiculous to have such an important organ dangling outside unprotected. i never understood why</p></div><p>teabagging.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>however , i 've always wondered why testicles appeared on the outside of the male mammalian body .
it seems a ridiculous vulnerability and i 've never heard a good explanation as to why .
for example , dolphins are n't swimming around with their balls out : the need to be streamlined .
of course sperm need a lower temperature to develop , but thats an effect , not a cause .
i 'm saying would n't it be better to have your testicles inside your body and evolve sperm that develop at a higher temperature ?
its pretty ridiculous to have such an important organ dangling outside unprotected .
i never understood whyteabagging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>however, i've always wondered why testicles appeared on the outside of the male mammalian body.
it seems a ridiculous vulnerability and i've never heard a good explanation as to why.
for example, dolphins aren't swimming around with their balls out: the need to be streamlined.
of course sperm need a lower temperature to develop, but thats an effect, not a cause.
i'm saying wouldn't it be better to have your testicles inside your body and evolve sperm that develop at a higher temperature?
its pretty ridiculous to have such an important organ dangling outside unprotected.
i never understood whyteabagging.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764914</id>
	<title>Re:So from what I can gather...</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1263487320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As we live a more sedentary lifestyle these days, penile and scrotal trauma are much less common.</p></div><p>You say that like it's <a href="http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj70/Senscore/moleman.gif" title="photobucket.com">a bad thing!</a> [photobucket.com]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-(</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As we live a more sedentary lifestyle these days , penile and scrotal trauma are much less common.You say that like it 's a bad thing !
[ photobucket.com ] ; - (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As we live a more sedentary lifestyle these days, penile and scrotal trauma are much less common.You say that like it's a bad thing!
[photobucket.com] ;-(
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766796</id>
	<title>Re:interesting factoid:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263493380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nature does not care for your view of what is ridiculous. Have you thought that they were a status symbol too, when we were still running around naked and not really upright?</p><p>Maybe there simply was no need to get them inside the body. From an evolutionary perspective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nature does not care for your view of what is ridiculous .
Have you thought that they were a status symbol too , when we were still running around naked and not really upright ? Maybe there simply was no need to get them inside the body .
From an evolutionary perspective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nature does not care for your view of what is ridiculous.
Have you thought that they were a status symbol too, when we were still running around naked and not really upright?Maybe there simply was no need to get them inside the body.
From an evolutionary perspective.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764900</id>
	<title>Re:Ahh the womens groups...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1263487260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To a feminist, many irrefutable facts are sexist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To a feminist , many irrefutable facts are sexist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To a feminist, many irrefutable facts are sexist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30768476</id>
	<title>Re:At last...</title>
	<author>businessnerd</author>
	<datestamp>1263498660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have heard this as well from my Biology professor.  The male sperm are very fast swimmers, but have very little protection against the harsh environment of the vagina/uterus.  The female sperm, on the other hand, are very slow swimmers, but they are well protected against the harsh environment.  If the environment is too acidic, the males will die before they reach the egg.  They may be fast, but not fast enough in this case.  But the females lumber along taking the hits and are able to withstand the beating long enough to reach the egg.  To bring in a sports analogy, it's like haveing a really fast running back that can sprint past the defense into the end zone, but if caught by the defense is easily taken down; or you have Will "The Refrigerator" Perry walk into the end zone with half the defense clinging to him.  The one best suited for the current environment is going to be successful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have heard this as well from my Biology professor .
The male sperm are very fast swimmers , but have very little protection against the harsh environment of the vagina/uterus .
The female sperm , on the other hand , are very slow swimmers , but they are well protected against the harsh environment .
If the environment is too acidic , the males will die before they reach the egg .
They may be fast , but not fast enough in this case .
But the females lumber along taking the hits and are able to withstand the beating long enough to reach the egg .
To bring in a sports analogy , it 's like haveing a really fast running back that can sprint past the defense into the end zone , but if caught by the defense is easily taken down ; or you have Will " The Refrigerator " Perry walk into the end zone with half the defense clinging to him .
The one best suited for the current environment is going to be successful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have heard this as well from my Biology professor.
The male sperm are very fast swimmers, but have very little protection against the harsh environment of the vagina/uterus.
The female sperm, on the other hand, are very slow swimmers, but they are well protected against the harsh environment.
If the environment is too acidic, the males will die before they reach the egg.
They may be fast, but not fast enough in this case.
But the females lumber along taking the hits and are able to withstand the beating long enough to reach the egg.
To bring in a sports analogy, it's like haveing a really fast running back that can sprint past the defense into the end zone, but if caught by the defense is easily taken down; or you have Will "The Refrigerator" Perry walk into the end zone with half the defense clinging to him.
The one best suited for the current environment is going to be successful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766404</id>
	<title>Re:interesting factoid:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263492060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"only strategy is sperm volume'<br>not at all, lots of other strategys are available, eg male dragon flys spin the female to spin sperm from previous males out - they grab the female and spin her in mid air .<br>I don't know what has or hasn't been shown in chimps, but you could imagine a chimp who evolves an ejaculate that kill other sperm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" only strategy is sperm volume'not at all , lots of other strategys are available , eg male dragon flys spin the female to spin sperm from previous males out - they grab the female and spin her in mid air .I do n't know what has or has n't been shown in chimps , but you could imagine a chimp who evolves an ejaculate that kill other sperm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"only strategy is sperm volume'not at all, lots of other strategys are available, eg male dragon flys spin the female to spin sperm from previous males out - they grab the female and spin her in mid air .I don't know what has or hasn't been shown in chimps, but you could imagine a chimp who evolves an ejaculate that kill other sperm</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766912</id>
	<title>I hope</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263493800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope that we are evolving towards a chocolate-flavored sperm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope that we are evolving towards a chocolate-flavored sperm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope that we are evolving towards a chocolate-flavored sperm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763776</id>
	<title>I thought the Y chromosome contained nothing</title>
	<author>NotSoHeavyD3</author>
	<datestamp>1263483300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least that's how they explained it to us in BIO 101. (Yes I realize it was probably a massive simplification.) The idea was that the Y chromosome has almost nothing on it and is little more than a female to male switch. (All the info for creating a male body are else where in the genome.) If that's sort of correct that means it doesn't really matter if the Y chromosome changes since all it has to get across is the signal "You male, UGG"

Anyway if us guys evolve so quickly where are all my super-powers? (You know, besides my super power to turn green lights red when I drive up to them.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least that 's how they explained it to us in BIO 101 .
( Yes I realize it was probably a massive simplification .
) The idea was that the Y chromosome has almost nothing on it and is little more than a female to male switch .
( All the info for creating a male body are else where in the genome .
) If that 's sort of correct that means it does n't really matter if the Y chromosome changes since all it has to get across is the signal " You male , UGG " Anyway if us guys evolve so quickly where are all my super-powers ?
( You know , besides my super power to turn green lights red when I drive up to them .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least that's how they explained it to us in BIO 101.
(Yes I realize it was probably a massive simplification.
) The idea was that the Y chromosome has almost nothing on it and is little more than a female to male switch.
(All the info for creating a male body are else where in the genome.
) If that's sort of correct that means it doesn't really matter if the Y chromosome changes since all it has to get across is the signal "You male, UGG"

Anyway if us guys evolve so quickly where are all my super-powers?
(You know, besides my super power to turn green lights red when I drive up to them.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30768062</id>
	<title>If the Nerdcore could rise up....</title>
	<author>querent23</author>
	<datestamp>1263497460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>God I hope this means we could be leaving behind those aspects of the american ideal of masculinity that I find most wearisome.

I know i'm operating at the level of pop meta-science here, but god it would be nice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>God I hope this means we could be leaving behind those aspects of the american ideal of masculinity that I find most wearisome .
I know i 'm operating at the level of pop meta-science here , but god it would be nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God I hope this means we could be leaving behind those aspects of the american ideal of masculinity that I find most wearisome.
I know i'm operating at the level of pop meta-science here, but god it would be nice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30782228</id>
	<title>The title presented is a bit misleading</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263585780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The title presented is a bit misleading. If you read the article it states that it does not necessarily mean men are evolving faster. The conclusion is simply that the one chromosome is evolving more quickly. Evolution of humans is more complex than looking at a single chromosome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The title presented is a bit misleading .
If you read the article it states that it does not necessarily mean men are evolving faster .
The conclusion is simply that the one chromosome is evolving more quickly .
Evolution of humans is more complex than looking at a single chromosome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The title presented is a bit misleading.
If you read the article it states that it does not necessarily mean men are evolving faster.
The conclusion is simply that the one chromosome is evolving more quickly.
Evolution of humans is more complex than looking at a single chromosome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763706</id>
	<title>Re:Does this change other predictions?</title>
	<author>dov\_0</author>
	<datestamp>1263482940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or it just agrees with it. Writing errors!=evolution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or it just agrees with it .
Writing errors ! = evolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or it just agrees with it.
Writing errors!=evolution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30775788</id>
	<title>point of comparison?</title>
	<author>alt154</author>
	<datestamp>1263496380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can't compare the evolutionary rates of males and females by comparing between the X and Y chromosomes.Both males and females have X chromosomes for one. The X chromosome doesn't necessarily determine female-ness, while the Y chromosome has the SRY (Sex-determining Region of Y) gene that determines male-ness. Evolution of the X genes affect both sexes, while Y genes only the male. Of course it'll look like they evolve faster.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't compare the evolutionary rates of males and females by comparing between the X and Y chromosomes.Both males and females have X chromosomes for one .
The X chromosome does n't necessarily determine female-ness , while the Y chromosome has the SRY ( Sex-determining Region of Y ) gene that determines male-ness .
Evolution of the X genes affect both sexes , while Y genes only the male .
Of course it 'll look like they evolve faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't compare the evolutionary rates of males and females by comparing between the X and Y chromosomes.Both males and females have X chromosomes for one.
The X chromosome doesn't necessarily determine female-ness, while the Y chromosome has the SRY (Sex-determining Region of Y) gene that determines male-ness.
Evolution of the X genes affect both sexes, while Y genes only the male.
Of course it'll look like they evolve faster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763612</id>
	<title>The cynical...</title>
	<author>KingSkippus</author>
	<datestamp>1263482520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The cynical among us might say that we're finally catching up...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The cynical among us might say that we 're finally catching up.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cynical among us might say that we're finally catching up...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764600</id>
	<title>Re:So from what I can gather...</title>
	<author>Rhaban</author>
	<datestamp>1263486360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One can only hunt deer for so long before an accident befalls one's genitals.</p></div><p>A friend of mine actually lost a ball on a barbed wire while drunk.</p><p>Don't do hurdles while running naked through fields at night.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One can only hunt deer for so long before an accident befalls one 's genitals.A friend of mine actually lost a ball on a barbed wire while drunk.Do n't do hurdles while running naked through fields at night .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One can only hunt deer for so long before an accident befalls one's genitals.A friend of mine actually lost a ball on a barbed wire while drunk.Don't do hurdles while running naked through fields at night.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30774844</id>
	<title>Seems pretty obvious</title>
	<author>Jeprey</author>
	<datestamp>1263485940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Male primates have a Y chromosome which is far smaller than the X chromosome so the impact of a constant mutation rate on the Y in contrast to the X should be that Y genes have higher probability of mutation than X over a given period of time. Evolution is partially mutation rate dependent ergo evolution of the Y proceeds faster.</p><p>Seems pretty obvious yet why did people imagine the Y was stagnate?  Magic DNA in Y that is immune to the laws of chemistry and physics with regard to mutation rates?!</p><p>"Contrary to a widely held scientific theory that the mammalian Y chromosome is slowly decaying or stagnating, new evidence suggests that in fact the Y is actually evolving quite rapidly through continuous, wholesale renovation."</p><p>There seems to be a lot of stuff in biology that is too superficially examined to pass the laugh test. One-Gene-One-Phenotype is another one of those that was so obviously going to be wrong, simply based on graph theory.  Then again, why do many people chose biology as a science major?  Avoiding math!  That's a good part of the problem right there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Male primates have a Y chromosome which is far smaller than the X chromosome so the impact of a constant mutation rate on the Y in contrast to the X should be that Y genes have higher probability of mutation than X over a given period of time .
Evolution is partially mutation rate dependent ergo evolution of the Y proceeds faster.Seems pretty obvious yet why did people imagine the Y was stagnate ?
Magic DNA in Y that is immune to the laws of chemistry and physics with regard to mutation rates ? !
" Contrary to a widely held scientific theory that the mammalian Y chromosome is slowly decaying or stagnating , new evidence suggests that in fact the Y is actually evolving quite rapidly through continuous , wholesale renovation .
" There seems to be a lot of stuff in biology that is too superficially examined to pass the laugh test .
One-Gene-One-Phenotype is another one of those that was so obviously going to be wrong , simply based on graph theory .
Then again , why do many people chose biology as a science major ?
Avoiding math !
That 's a good part of the problem right there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Male primates have a Y chromosome which is far smaller than the X chromosome so the impact of a constant mutation rate on the Y in contrast to the X should be that Y genes have higher probability of mutation than X over a given period of time.
Evolution is partially mutation rate dependent ergo evolution of the Y proceeds faster.Seems pretty obvious yet why did people imagine the Y was stagnate?
Magic DNA in Y that is immune to the laws of chemistry and physics with regard to mutation rates?!
"Contrary to a widely held scientific theory that the mammalian Y chromosome is slowly decaying or stagnating, new evidence suggests that in fact the Y is actually evolving quite rapidly through continuous, wholesale renovation.
"There seems to be a lot of stuff in biology that is too superficially examined to pass the laugh test.
One-Gene-One-Phenotype is another one of those that was so obviously going to be wrong, simply based on graph theory.
Then again, why do many people chose biology as a science major?
Avoiding math!
That's a good part of the problem right there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763814</id>
	<title>Re:At last...</title>
	<author>Darth Sdlavrot</author>
	<datestamp>1263483480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>She might not be too far wrong though.</p><p>A slightly acidic environment is likely to kill more Y sperm, which aren't as tolerant as X sperm.</p><p>I can't cite any studies to support this, but have a friend whose OB/GYN told her that as a result of her body chemistry she was unlikely to conceive any boys. (She did manage to beat the odds though and had a boy, and three girls.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>She might not be too far wrong though.A slightly acidic environment is likely to kill more Y sperm , which are n't as tolerant as X sperm.I ca n't cite any studies to support this , but have a friend whose OB/GYN told her that as a result of her body chemistry she was unlikely to conceive any boys .
( She did manage to beat the odds though and had a boy , and three girls .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She might not be too far wrong though.A slightly acidic environment is likely to kill more Y sperm, which aren't as tolerant as X sperm.I can't cite any studies to support this, but have a friend whose OB/GYN told her that as a result of her body chemistry she was unlikely to conceive any boys.
(She did manage to beat the odds though and had a boy, and three girls.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764634</id>
	<title>Re:interesting factoid:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263486420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has evolved that way so women have a higher chance of survival: if a man attacks a woman, there is an easy target that will distract him for a little moment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has evolved that way so women have a higher chance of survival : if a man attacks a woman , there is an easy target that will distract him for a little moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has evolved that way so women have a higher chance of survival: if a man attacks a woman, there is an easy target that will distract him for a little moment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766046</id>
	<title>Re:interesting factoid:</title>
	<author>bugg</author>
	<datestamp>1263490920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>i'm saying wouldn't it be better to have your testicles inside your body and evolve sperm that develop at a higher temperature? its pretty ridiculous to have such an important organ dangling outside unprotected. i never understood why.</p></div></blockquote><p>Here's a hint: we got to where we are via random mutation and natural selection, not design.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>i 'm saying would n't it be better to have your testicles inside your body and evolve sperm that develop at a higher temperature ?
its pretty ridiculous to have such an important organ dangling outside unprotected .
i never understood why.Here 's a hint : we got to where we are via random mutation and natural selection , not design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i'm saying wouldn't it be better to have your testicles inside your body and evolve sperm that develop at a higher temperature?
its pretty ridiculous to have such an important organ dangling outside unprotected.
i never understood why.Here's a hint: we got to where we are via random mutation and natural selection, not design.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765046</id>
	<title>Dude!  I'm more evolved!  Woo hoo!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263487680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some how I think the chicks aren't going to agree with this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some how I think the chicks are n't going to agree with this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some how I think the chicks aren't going to agree with this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765206</id>
	<title>Re:Ahh the womens groups...</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1263488160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That "6000" number may (you didn't provide data) only be touted by 0.1\% of religious groups, but they are the loudest out there... the radial, vocal far right.</p><p>That number, and the whole Young Earth fairy tale, is a very recent invention. In the 1700s, there was no major Christan group (or any other Western Religion) espousing such nonsense. Various groups had once believed in a "young earth", but it has been soundly rejected by all of them, centuries ago. This is why most Europeans, even the devoutly religious, hear this stuff and do wonder about America.</p><p>This all started in the early 1800s, in the USA. William Miller, a New York farmer, came to believe that the Bible contained coded information, including the date of the "end of the world". This took form as the Seventh Day Adventist movement... followers of Miller organized and prepared for his calculated end of the world. He gained a national following in the mid 1800s, and finally named a final year, based on his calculations: 1843. I'm guessing he screwed up somewhere. Then it was somewhere between March 21, 1843 and March 21, 1844. When that year passed by, he got out his pencil, did the calculations again, and pronounced the real date as April 18, 1844. After that passed, he posted a new date: October 22, 1844. Curiously, the world also didn't end then. This final one became know as "The Great Disappointment".</p><p>Anyway, curiously enough, this crazy person's religion did not fail based on these failures, but continued to grow, backed by followers... Miller himself went into seclusion.  In 1923, George McCready Price, a Millerite and Seventh-day Adventist, wrote a book called "The New Geology" (he was not, in fact, a geologist), which established the earth at somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old, and claimed "The Genesis Flood" responsible for many modern geological features of the earth. This one book pretty much started the ball rolling among this fringe types.</p><p>As for this not being a mainstream belief... true. But not as true as you think. In 2008, Gallop conducted a poll, that indicated 44\% of US adults agreed with the statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so".</p><p>As for that number being thrown out... I understand this. I really don't care what various creatins believe, whether it's young earth, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster... as long as they keep it to themselves. But these folks have had a very, very dangerous effect on the policies of the USA, at least during the eight years of the Bush Administration. This does not sit will with those of us, such as myself, who value science over superstition,  logic over "what I feel in mah gut", etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That " 6000 " number may ( you did n't provide data ) only be touted by 0.1 \ % of religious groups , but they are the loudest out there... the radial , vocal far right.That number , and the whole Young Earth fairy tale , is a very recent invention .
In the 1700s , there was no major Christan group ( or any other Western Religion ) espousing such nonsense .
Various groups had once believed in a " young earth " , but it has been soundly rejected by all of them , centuries ago .
This is why most Europeans , even the devoutly religious , hear this stuff and do wonder about America.This all started in the early 1800s , in the USA .
William Miller , a New York farmer , came to believe that the Bible contained coded information , including the date of the " end of the world " .
This took form as the Seventh Day Adventist movement... followers of Miller organized and prepared for his calculated end of the world .
He gained a national following in the mid 1800s , and finally named a final year , based on his calculations : 1843 .
I 'm guessing he screwed up somewhere .
Then it was somewhere between March 21 , 1843 and March 21 , 1844 .
When that year passed by , he got out his pencil , did the calculations again , and pronounced the real date as April 18 , 1844 .
After that passed , he posted a new date : October 22 , 1844 .
Curiously , the world also did n't end then .
This final one became know as " The Great Disappointment " .Anyway , curiously enough , this crazy person 's religion did not fail based on these failures , but continued to grow , backed by followers... Miller himself went into seclusion .
In 1923 , George McCready Price , a Millerite and Seventh-day Adventist , wrote a book called " The New Geology " ( he was not , in fact , a geologist ) , which established the earth at somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old , and claimed " The Genesis Flood " responsible for many modern geological features of the earth .
This one book pretty much started the ball rolling among this fringe types.As for this not being a mainstream belief... true. But not as true as you think .
In 2008 , Gallop conducted a poll , that indicated 44 \ % of US adults agreed with the statement " God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so " .As for that number being thrown out... I understand this .
I really do n't care what various creatins believe , whether it 's young earth , Santa Claus , Easter Bunny , or the Flying Spaghetti Monster... as long as they keep it to themselves .
But these folks have had a very , very dangerous effect on the policies of the USA , at least during the eight years of the Bush Administration .
This does not sit will with those of us , such as myself , who value science over superstition , logic over " what I feel in mah gut " , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That "6000" number may (you didn't provide data) only be touted by 0.1\% of religious groups, but they are the loudest out there... the radial, vocal far right.That number, and the whole Young Earth fairy tale, is a very recent invention.
In the 1700s, there was no major Christan group (or any other Western Religion) espousing such nonsense.
Various groups had once believed in a "young earth", but it has been soundly rejected by all of them, centuries ago.
This is why most Europeans, even the devoutly religious, hear this stuff and do wonder about America.This all started in the early 1800s, in the USA.
William Miller, a New York farmer, came to believe that the Bible contained coded information, including the date of the "end of the world".
This took form as the Seventh Day Adventist movement... followers of Miller organized and prepared for his calculated end of the world.
He gained a national following in the mid 1800s, and finally named a final year, based on his calculations: 1843.
I'm guessing he screwed up somewhere.
Then it was somewhere between March 21, 1843 and March 21, 1844.
When that year passed by, he got out his pencil, did the calculations again, and pronounced the real date as April 18, 1844.
After that passed, he posted a new date: October 22, 1844.
Curiously, the world also didn't end then.
This final one became know as "The Great Disappointment".Anyway, curiously enough, this crazy person's religion did not fail based on these failures, but continued to grow, backed by followers... Miller himself went into seclusion.
In 1923, George McCready Price, a Millerite and Seventh-day Adventist, wrote a book called "The New Geology" (he was not, in fact, a geologist), which established the earth at somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old, and claimed "The Genesis Flood" responsible for many modern geological features of the earth.
This one book pretty much started the ball rolling among this fringe types.As for this not being a mainstream belief... true. But not as true as you think.
In 2008, Gallop conducted a poll, that indicated 44\% of US adults agreed with the statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so".As for that number being thrown out... I understand this.
I really don't care what various creatins believe, whether it's young earth, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster... as long as they keep it to themselves.
But these folks have had a very, very dangerous effect on the policies of the USA, at least during the eight years of the Bush Administration.
This does not sit will with those of us, such as myself, who value science over superstition,  logic over "what I feel in mah gut", etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30772336</id>
	<title>Perhaps</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263470400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're making it tastier for the ladies?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're making it tastier for the ladies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're making it tastier for the ladies?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766132</id>
	<title>Re:So from what I can gather...</title>
	<author>JimBobJoe</author>
	<datestamp>1263491220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Testicles sit outside of the body (because sperm can't handle internal body temperatures for too long)</p><p>This is indeed what people are typically taught, but this line of thinking should be questioned; correlation isn't causation. If mother nature wanted sperm that could handle high temperatures, she bloody well would have made some (and there are indeed examples of mammals with internal testicles.) As things go, evolution has solved far more complex problems than sperm unable to deal with high temperatures. And the currently solution is just plain stupid/inelegant.</p><p>One interesting alternative hypothesis is that the evolution of exterior testicles is a form of machismo. If, in evolutionary terms, the whole point of a male animal's life is to get his seed to a female, then it is a form of bad-assery to put the sperm tanks on the outside of the body in the most vulnerable position possible.</p><p>Interestingly, I'd argue that this hypothesis is reflected in language: An individual with "balls" is brave, strong, aggressive or perhaps risk-taking. On the surface, it would seem that saying a person is brave by citing the most vulnerable part of the body is ironic, but perhaps it's really not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Testicles sit outside of the body ( because sperm ca n't handle internal body temperatures for too long ) This is indeed what people are typically taught , but this line of thinking should be questioned ; correlation is n't causation .
If mother nature wanted sperm that could handle high temperatures , she bloody well would have made some ( and there are indeed examples of mammals with internal testicles .
) As things go , evolution has solved far more complex problems than sperm unable to deal with high temperatures .
And the currently solution is just plain stupid/inelegant.One interesting alternative hypothesis is that the evolution of exterior testicles is a form of machismo .
If , in evolutionary terms , the whole point of a male animal 's life is to get his seed to a female , then it is a form of bad-assery to put the sperm tanks on the outside of the body in the most vulnerable position possible.Interestingly , I 'd argue that this hypothesis is reflected in language : An individual with " balls " is brave , strong , aggressive or perhaps risk-taking .
On the surface , it would seem that saying a person is brave by citing the most vulnerable part of the body is ironic , but perhaps it 's really not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Testicles sit outside of the body (because sperm can't handle internal body temperatures for too long)This is indeed what people are typically taught, but this line of thinking should be questioned; correlation isn't causation.
If mother nature wanted sperm that could handle high temperatures, she bloody well would have made some (and there are indeed examples of mammals with internal testicles.
) As things go, evolution has solved far more complex problems than sperm unable to deal with high temperatures.
And the currently solution is just plain stupid/inelegant.One interesting alternative hypothesis is that the evolution of exterior testicles is a form of machismo.
If, in evolutionary terms, the whole point of a male animal's life is to get his seed to a female, then it is a form of bad-assery to put the sperm tanks on the outside of the body in the most vulnerable position possible.Interestingly, I'd argue that this hypothesis is reflected in language: An individual with "balls" is brave, strong, aggressive or perhaps risk-taking.
On the surface, it would seem that saying a person is brave by citing the most vulnerable part of the body is ironic, but perhaps it's really not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765090</id>
	<title>evolving fastest are related to sperm production?!</title>
	<author>Phizzle</author>
	<datestamp>1263487860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>great, evolution through pr0n!</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>great , evolution through pr0n !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>great, evolution through pr0n!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765554</id>
	<title>Re:Mod the article flamebait</title>
	<author>fastest fascist</author>
	<datestamp>1263489300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The headline plays with the common association between "evolution" and "improvement" in order to gather angry responses and its fair share of taunting.</p></div><p>No it doesn't. "To evolve" is a neutral term, quite apart from "better" and "worse". If people want to get riled up over that, it's their own damn fault.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The headline plays with the common association between " evolution " and " improvement " in order to gather angry responses and its fair share of taunting.No it does n't .
" To evolve " is a neutral term , quite apart from " better " and " worse " .
If people want to get riled up over that , it 's their own damn fault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The headline plays with the common association between "evolution" and "improvement" in order to gather angry responses and its fair share of taunting.No it doesn't.
"To evolve" is a neutral term, quite apart from "better" and "worse".
If people want to get riled up over that, it's their own damn fault.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764550</id>
	<title>Re:So from what I can gather...</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1263486180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly - neither of these have any relevance at all to Human Males evolving faster than females. You've basically shown why Male sperm are more likely to contribute to evolution to female eggs. However a Female or Male baby have a roughly equal chance of being formed.</p><p>You two have misunderstood the article. We are not evolving faster because of rapid sperm production - but rather the parts that are experiencing the most evolution right now are our sperm producing facilities. Since Women don't have testicles, they can't benefit from this evolution, and thus, it would appear males are evolving faster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly - neither of these have any relevance at all to Human Males evolving faster than females .
You 've basically shown why Male sperm are more likely to contribute to evolution to female eggs .
However a Female or Male baby have a roughly equal chance of being formed.You two have misunderstood the article .
We are not evolving faster because of rapid sperm production - but rather the parts that are experiencing the most evolution right now are our sperm producing facilities .
Since Women do n't have testicles , they ca n't benefit from this evolution , and thus , it would appear males are evolving faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly - neither of these have any relevance at all to Human Males evolving faster than females.
You've basically shown why Male sperm are more likely to contribute to evolution to female eggs.
However a Female or Male baby have a roughly equal chance of being formed.You two have misunderstood the article.
We are not evolving faster because of rapid sperm production - but rather the parts that are experiencing the most evolution right now are our sperm producing facilities.
Since Women don't have testicles, they can't benefit from this evolution, and thus, it would appear males are evolving faster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30770630</id>
	<title>Re:interesting factoid:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263463200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently a lot of our female ancestors were attracted to males with big external sacks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently a lot of our female ancestors were attracted to males with big external sacks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently a lot of our female ancestors were attracted to males with big external sacks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764608</id>
	<title>Re:Ahh the womens groups...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263486360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, yeah, it says men are evolving faster... specifically, the Y-chromosome, and more specifically, it's related to sperm production.</p><p>In short, your junk is evolving. Not necessarily anything else. That MIGHT not be considered a complementary thing, depending on how you feel about your particular junk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , yeah , it says men are evolving faster... specifically , the Y-chromosome , and more specifically , it 's related to sperm production.In short , your junk is evolving .
Not necessarily anything else .
That MIGHT not be considered a complementary thing , depending on how you feel about your particular junk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, yeah, it says men are evolving faster... specifically, the Y-chromosome, and more specifically, it's related to sperm production.In short, your junk is evolving.
Not necessarily anything else.
That MIGHT not be considered a complementary thing, depending on how you feel about your particular junk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30767074</id>
	<title>The Word "Evolved" is Inaccurate in this Context</title>
	<author>ideonexus</author>
	<datestamp>1263494340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
As the Y Chromosome <a href="http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/men/y\_of\_it\_all.htm" title="flatrock.org.nz" rel="nofollow">is a genetic dead zone</a> [flatrock.org.nz] filled with genes that don't do anything. The overwhelming majority of these changes are probably useless mutations that have no effect on the host organism and therefore didn't get bred out as harmful in the same way a mutation on the X chromosome would most likely kill the organism in which it expresses.
</p><p>
Think about it, we are 2 percent different genetically from chimpanzees, which accounts for the what we see as dramatic differences between our species, but this study found 20-plus percent genetic differences between our Y chromosome and our closest ancestor. Men are not 20-plus percent different from women as we are 2 percent different from chimpanzees.
</p><p>
The word "evolution" has nothing to do with this study. There is no natural selection involved, only random mutations amassing on a chromosome that is mostly empty space anyways.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As the Y Chromosome is a genetic dead zone [ flatrock.org.nz ] filled with genes that do n't do anything .
The overwhelming majority of these changes are probably useless mutations that have no effect on the host organism and therefore did n't get bred out as harmful in the same way a mutation on the X chromosome would most likely kill the organism in which it expresses .
Think about it , we are 2 percent different genetically from chimpanzees , which accounts for the what we see as dramatic differences between our species , but this study found 20-plus percent genetic differences between our Y chromosome and our closest ancestor .
Men are not 20-plus percent different from women as we are 2 percent different from chimpanzees .
The word " evolution " has nothing to do with this study .
There is no natural selection involved , only random mutations amassing on a chromosome that is mostly empty space anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
As the Y Chromosome is a genetic dead zone [flatrock.org.nz] filled with genes that don't do anything.
The overwhelming majority of these changes are probably useless mutations that have no effect on the host organism and therefore didn't get bred out as harmful in the same way a mutation on the X chromosome would most likely kill the organism in which it expresses.
Think about it, we are 2 percent different genetically from chimpanzees, which accounts for the what we see as dramatic differences between our species, but this study found 20-plus percent genetic differences between our Y chromosome and our closest ancestor.
Men are not 20-plus percent different from women as we are 2 percent different from chimpanzees.
The word "evolution" has nothing to do with this study.
There is no natural selection involved, only random mutations amassing on a chromosome that is mostly empty space anyways.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30777646</id>
	<title>Re:interesting factoid:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263562980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If our balls were internal then we couldn't shout "suck my balls" to anyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If our balls were internal then we could n't shout " suck my balls " to anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If our balls were internal then we couldn't shout "suck my balls" to anyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763676</id>
	<title>Does this change other predictions?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263482820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if this would counter the other studies saying that the y chromosome is doomed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if this would counter the other studies saying that the y chromosome is doomed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if this would counter the other studies saying that the y chromosome is doomed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764062</id>
	<title>Re:Ahh the womens groups...</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1263484560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Equating mechanical strength to physical superiority is specious. Overall survival value is the name of the game, and the physical strength of the strongest - or even average - individual doesn't speak to a survival advantage in modern or ancient society. The higher percentage body fat in female humans is a significant survival advantage in cold weather conditions, while the lower body mass and associated lower energy overhead can be the difference between starving exhaustion and mental and physical readiness. It's a complex issue and it was rather naive of you to announce a "winner" in a complex, argument-launching question on the basis of a single attribute.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Equating mechanical strength to physical superiority is specious .
Overall survival value is the name of the game , and the physical strength of the strongest - or even average - individual does n't speak to a survival advantage in modern or ancient society .
The higher percentage body fat in female humans is a significant survival advantage in cold weather conditions , while the lower body mass and associated lower energy overhead can be the difference between starving exhaustion and mental and physical readiness .
It 's a complex issue and it was rather naive of you to announce a " winner " in a complex , argument-launching question on the basis of a single attribute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Equating mechanical strength to physical superiority is specious.
Overall survival value is the name of the game, and the physical strength of the strongest - or even average - individual doesn't speak to a survival advantage in modern or ancient society.
The higher percentage body fat in female humans is a significant survival advantage in cold weather conditions, while the lower body mass and associated lower energy overhead can be the difference between starving exhaustion and mental and physical readiness.
It's a complex issue and it was rather naive of you to announce a "winner" in a complex, argument-launching question on the basis of a single attribute.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764652</id>
	<title>What the article seems to say is that...</title>
	<author>TechForensics</author>
	<datestamp>1263486480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...sperm superiority is so important to successfully passing on an organism's genes that the best sperm, the ones that "win" and partner in producing the zygote, carry along even detrimental traits, since the chromosome is taken as a whole.  No wonder Nature works on improving sperm more than anything else.  (Now cue the obligatory jokes about detrimental, or radical traits, all coming from the male.)  (Actually, there is some truth in this, since the Y chromosome cannot swap out its defective or its suboptimal parts with its pair, since it hasn't one, which accounts for more idiots AND more geniuses among the male vs. the female population.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...sperm superiority is so important to successfully passing on an organism 's genes that the best sperm , the ones that " win " and partner in producing the zygote , carry along even detrimental traits , since the chromosome is taken as a whole .
No wonder Nature works on improving sperm more than anything else .
( Now cue the obligatory jokes about detrimental , or radical traits , all coming from the male .
) ( Actually , there is some truth in this , since the Y chromosome can not swap out its defective or its suboptimal parts with its pair , since it has n't one , which accounts for more idiots AND more geniuses among the male vs. the female population .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...sperm superiority is so important to successfully passing on an organism's genes that the best sperm, the ones that "win" and partner in producing the zygote, carry along even detrimental traits, since the chromosome is taken as a whole.
No wonder Nature works on improving sperm more than anything else.
(Now cue the obligatory jokes about detrimental, or radical traits, all coming from the male.
)  (Actually, there is some truth in this, since the Y chromosome cannot swap out its defective or its suboptimal parts with its pair, since it hasn't one, which accounts for more idiots AND more geniuses among the male vs. the female population.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764910</id>
	<title>What about...</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1263487320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are we talking about the maturity curve of a male in which it takes to mature from being a child to being a man, or are we talking about the gene process in which to obtain a mutation from one generation to another...thereby causing males to change their cell sturcture<br>(could be like getting a set of gills as in waterworld...that would be cool!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are we talking about the maturity curve of a male in which it takes to mature from being a child to being a man , or are we talking about the gene process in which to obtain a mutation from one generation to another...thereby causing males to change their cell sturcture ( could be like getting a set of gills as in waterworld...that would be cool !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are we talking about the maturity curve of a male in which it takes to mature from being a child to being a man, or are we talking about the gene process in which to obtain a mutation from one generation to another...thereby causing males to change their cell sturcture(could be like getting a set of gills as in waterworld...that would be cool!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764254</id>
	<title>Re:So from what I can gather...</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1263485340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As we live a more sedentary lifestyle these days, penile and scrotal trauma are much less common. So any such trauma typically comes from masturbation.</p></div><p>That pretty much sums up why I post on Slashdot... minus the penile/scrotal trama.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As we live a more sedentary lifestyle these days , penile and scrotal trauma are much less common .
So any such trauma typically comes from masturbation.That pretty much sums up why I post on Slashdot... minus the penile/scrotal trama .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As we live a more sedentary lifestyle these days, penile and scrotal trauma are much less common.
So any such trauma typically comes from masturbation.That pretty much sums up why I post on Slashdot... minus the penile/scrotal trama.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764006</id>
	<title>Re:Mod the article flamebait</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263484260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An article that uses language associations to imply through it's headline that men improve faster than women is an evil flamebaiting taunting troll?</p><p>Have you been gone for the last 50 years of "women are better than men at XYZ" in every written medium every month?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An article that uses language associations to imply through it 's headline that men improve faster than women is an evil flamebaiting taunting troll ? Have you been gone for the last 50 years of " women are better than men at XYZ " in every written medium every month ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An article that uses language associations to imply through it's headline that men improve faster than women is an evil flamebaiting taunting troll?Have you been gone for the last 50 years of "women are better than men at XYZ" in every written medium every month?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765238</id>
	<title>Which way ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263488220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>ok, we evolve quickly, particularly our sperm but in a good or a bad direction ? (I mean sterility vs. fertility)</htmltext>
<tokenext>ok , we evolve quickly , particularly our sperm but in a good or a bad direction ?
( I mean sterility vs. fertility )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ok, we evolve quickly, particularly our sperm but in a good or a bad direction ?
(I mean sterility vs. fertility)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766400</id>
	<title>I finally have an arguement to use against my wife</title>
	<author>gubers33</author>
	<datestamp>1263492060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From now on it is going to be no I'm right because I am more evolved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From now on it is going to be no I 'm right because I am more evolved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From now on it is going to be no I'm right because I am more evolved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764206</id>
	<title>Error correction.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263485160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well that's what you get for using non error correcting memory err... DNA. The y branch does not have a second table to look things up in.</p><p>Also if I'm not mistaken we also evolve to get rid of this evolution since the y branch keeps getting shorter. At some point they will be v chromosomes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well that 's what you get for using non error correcting memory err... DNA. The y branch does not have a second table to look things up in.Also if I 'm not mistaken we also evolve to get rid of this evolution since the y branch keeps getting shorter .
At some point they will be v chromosomes : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well that's what you get for using non error correcting memory err... DNA. The y branch does not have a second table to look things up in.Also if I'm not mistaken we also evolve to get rid of this evolution since the y branch keeps getting shorter.
At some point they will be v chromosomes :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764364</id>
	<title>Re:Ahh the womens groups...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263485700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You know the womens groups will come out that this is sexist? I swear it's like the religious groups who come out with their nonsense when science disproves one of their "theories" - you know like the earth is not flat, does not reside in the center of the universe, and is not approximately 6000 years old.</i></p><p>Perhaps if you didn't flamebait them at every opportunity that arose?  I swear every damn article that talks about evolution has DOZENS of agnostic drones bitching about '<i>religious groups</i>'.  Wtf really...  Is it really that bad someone doesn't believe what you do?  They are not part of the borg so you call them out at every opportunity?  Perhaps you act as bad as you accuse others of doing?  Is this how you want to present yourself to others?  Sounds like you (and your parents) also missed the point of being called to the principals office.  You like to piss people off (btw that is not a good thing).  Not what the article was about...  So far my sample of 2 examples from your rant shows this about you.</p><p>But my little rant will not change your mind.  You will just blunder on thru life wondering why everyone around you is an 'idiot'.  Perhaps you need to reflect on what <b>*YOUR*</b> actions do to others.</p><p>Sorry to rant on you but the 6000 number is getting old.  I would be willing to bet cold hard cash 99.9\% of '<i>religious groups</i>' do not even believe that number.  You are generalizing what a fairly small group calculated out of the bible and what meme you heard on the internet about '<i>religious groups</i>'.</p><p>Perhaps if you attended some '<i>religious groups</i>' meetings you might get something from it instead of hatred (which is all I have seen from you so far).  Here is what I have gotten out of it.  You get out of life what you put into it.  In life you make good choices and bad choices all the time.  Ignore hatred it is self destructive and not helpful in life.</p><p>Are their loony jobs out there?  Yes, they tend to exist in all groups.  Just ask someone who collects every star wars memorabilia that exists.  While the rest of us played with the toys a bit and then let it go.  To give you an example my gf.  Her first encounter with star trek was a dude who built his own klingon costumes.  What sort of impression does that give to her?  She will not watch star trek.  She will not even give it a chance.  Oh and I call her out on this too so you are not alone.  Perhaps you do the same with other things in your life?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know the womens groups will come out that this is sexist ?
I swear it 's like the religious groups who come out with their nonsense when science disproves one of their " theories " - you know like the earth is not flat , does not reside in the center of the universe , and is not approximately 6000 years old.Perhaps if you did n't flamebait them at every opportunity that arose ?
I swear every damn article that talks about evolution has DOZENS of agnostic drones bitching about 'religious groups' .
Wtf really... Is it really that bad someone does n't believe what you do ?
They are not part of the borg so you call them out at every opportunity ?
Perhaps you act as bad as you accuse others of doing ?
Is this how you want to present yourself to others ?
Sounds like you ( and your parents ) also missed the point of being called to the principals office .
You like to piss people off ( btw that is not a good thing ) .
Not what the article was about... So far my sample of 2 examples from your rant shows this about you.But my little rant will not change your mind .
You will just blunder on thru life wondering why everyone around you is an 'idiot' .
Perhaps you need to reflect on what * YOUR * actions do to others.Sorry to rant on you but the 6000 number is getting old .
I would be willing to bet cold hard cash 99.9 \ % of 'religious groups ' do not even believe that number .
You are generalizing what a fairly small group calculated out of the bible and what meme you heard on the internet about 'religious groups'.Perhaps if you attended some 'religious groups ' meetings you might get something from it instead of hatred ( which is all I have seen from you so far ) .
Here is what I have gotten out of it .
You get out of life what you put into it .
In life you make good choices and bad choices all the time .
Ignore hatred it is self destructive and not helpful in life.Are their loony jobs out there ?
Yes , they tend to exist in all groups .
Just ask someone who collects every star wars memorabilia that exists .
While the rest of us played with the toys a bit and then let it go .
To give you an example my gf .
Her first encounter with star trek was a dude who built his own klingon costumes .
What sort of impression does that give to her ?
She will not watch star trek .
She will not even give it a chance .
Oh and I call her out on this too so you are not alone .
Perhaps you do the same with other things in your life ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know the womens groups will come out that this is sexist?
I swear it's like the religious groups who come out with their nonsense when science disproves one of their "theories" - you know like the earth is not flat, does not reside in the center of the universe, and is not approximately 6000 years old.Perhaps if you didn't flamebait them at every opportunity that arose?
I swear every damn article that talks about evolution has DOZENS of agnostic drones bitching about 'religious groups'.
Wtf really...  Is it really that bad someone doesn't believe what you do?
They are not part of the borg so you call them out at every opportunity?
Perhaps you act as bad as you accuse others of doing?
Is this how you want to present yourself to others?
Sounds like you (and your parents) also missed the point of being called to the principals office.
You like to piss people off (btw that is not a good thing).
Not what the article was about...  So far my sample of 2 examples from your rant shows this about you.But my little rant will not change your mind.
You will just blunder on thru life wondering why everyone around you is an 'idiot'.
Perhaps you need to reflect on what *YOUR* actions do to others.Sorry to rant on you but the 6000 number is getting old.
I would be willing to bet cold hard cash 99.9\% of 'religious groups' do not even believe that number.
You are generalizing what a fairly small group calculated out of the bible and what meme you heard on the internet about 'religious groups'.Perhaps if you attended some 'religious groups' meetings you might get something from it instead of hatred (which is all I have seen from you so far).
Here is what I have gotten out of it.
You get out of life what you put into it.
In life you make good choices and bad choices all the time.
Ignore hatred it is self destructive and not helpful in life.Are their loony jobs out there?
Yes, they tend to exist in all groups.
Just ask someone who collects every star wars memorabilia that exists.
While the rest of us played with the toys a bit and then let it go.
To give you an example my gf.
Her first encounter with star trek was a dude who built his own klingon costumes.
What sort of impression does that give to her?
She will not watch star trek.
She will not even give it a chance.
Oh and I call her out on this too so you are not alone.
Perhaps you do the same with other things in your life?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766014</id>
	<title>Idiocracy teaches...</title>
	<author>Stick32</author>
	<datestamp>1263490800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Evolution favors those that can reproduce faster and in greater numbers not those that are intelligent and/or strong.  From what stupid crap I see on break.com (which should be renamed OwwMyBalls.com), I don't want males to dictate the course of evolution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Evolution favors those that can reproduce faster and in greater numbers not those that are intelligent and/or strong .
From what stupid crap I see on break.com ( which should be renamed OwwMyBalls.com ) , I do n't want males to dictate the course of evolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evolution favors those that can reproduce faster and in greater numbers not those that are intelligent and/or strong.
From what stupid crap I see on break.com (which should be renamed OwwMyBalls.com), I don't want males to dictate the course of evolution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763876</id>
	<title>Re:So from what I can gather...</title>
	<author>ZeroExistenZ</author>
	<datestamp>1263483720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Males masturbate more than females, amirite?</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, I made the assumption it would be equal, but it is not.</p><p>Last week there was a small reunion of a class 10 years ago, and the "skinny unattractive girl" grown into a hottie, the "hottie" has gone through her batch of men and now has the hottie-attitude, still, yet has settle for far less you would've thought...</p><p>In this context, those two got into a whole sex-conversation, with giggles, what they had tried and such, and we ended up with the all "teen hormone driven fun" we used to have...</p><p>Somehow I came to state, because one claimed I would never have fantasized about her, "well, it's normal to masturbate fantasizing of girls around you", and nudged the guy next to me so he confirmed and agreed a bit hesitant to be as open. To the shock of these girls; "we weren't really occupied with those things as early.", after which there was an uncomfortable silence; "I'm not sure if I'm comfortable thinking the guys jerking off thinking of me back then", and the guy next to me uttered "c'mon!! You girls did it too!", to which they denied but listed girls who might've already been occupied with those things.It was pretty hilarious.</p><p>So, (this set of) women masturbate less? Could be, but they seem to catch up ALOT in later years once they discover their sexuality and the availability of men (women get it still pretty easy), while males seem to decline in sexual activity having sortof a "mismatch" in peak of sexuality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Males masturbate more than females , amirite ? Yes , I made the assumption it would be equal , but it is not.Last week there was a small reunion of a class 10 years ago , and the " skinny unattractive girl " grown into a hottie , the " hottie " has gone through her batch of men and now has the hottie-attitude , still , yet has settle for far less you would 've thought...In this context , those two got into a whole sex-conversation , with giggles , what they had tried and such , and we ended up with the all " teen hormone driven fun " we used to have...Somehow I came to state , because one claimed I would never have fantasized about her , " well , it 's normal to masturbate fantasizing of girls around you " , and nudged the guy next to me so he confirmed and agreed a bit hesitant to be as open .
To the shock of these girls ; " we were n't really occupied with those things as early .
" , after which there was an uncomfortable silence ; " I 'm not sure if I 'm comfortable thinking the guys jerking off thinking of me back then " , and the guy next to me uttered " c'mon ! !
You girls did it too !
" , to which they denied but listed girls who might 've already been occupied with those things.It was pretty hilarious.So , ( this set of ) women masturbate less ?
Could be , but they seem to catch up ALOT in later years once they discover their sexuality and the availability of men ( women get it still pretty easy ) , while males seem to decline in sexual activity having sortof a " mismatch " in peak of sexuality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Males masturbate more than females, amirite?Yes, I made the assumption it would be equal, but it is not.Last week there was a small reunion of a class 10 years ago, and the "skinny unattractive girl" grown into a hottie, the "hottie" has gone through her batch of men and now has the hottie-attitude, still, yet has settle for far less you would've thought...In this context, those two got into a whole sex-conversation, with giggles, what they had tried and such, and we ended up with the all "teen hormone driven fun" we used to have...Somehow I came to state, because one claimed I would never have fantasized about her, "well, it's normal to masturbate fantasizing of girls around you", and nudged the guy next to me so he confirmed and agreed a bit hesitant to be as open.
To the shock of these girls; "we weren't really occupied with those things as early.
", after which there was an uncomfortable silence; "I'm not sure if I'm comfortable thinking the guys jerking off thinking of me back then", and the guy next to me uttered "c'mon!!
You girls did it too!
", to which they denied but listed girls who might've already been occupied with those things.It was pretty hilarious.So, (this set of) women masturbate less?
Could be, but they seem to catch up ALOT in later years once they discover their sexuality and the availability of men (women get it still pretty easy), while males seem to decline in sexual activity having sortof a "mismatch" in peak of sexuality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30779752</id>
	<title>Keith</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263575580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh man the feminists are not gonna like this one.<br>Maybe they could catch up if they didnt spend so mich time crying and bitching...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh man the feminists are not gon na like this one.Maybe they could catch up if they didnt spend so mich time crying and bitching.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh man the feminists are not gonna like this one.Maybe they could catch up if they didnt spend so mich time crying and bitching...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764818</id>
	<title>Re:So from what I can gather...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263487020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget women's eggs don't carry the Y chromosome either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget women 's eggs do n't carry the Y chromosome either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget women's eggs don't carry the Y chromosome either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763634</id>
	<title>At last...</title>
	<author>ls671</author>
	<datestamp>1263482580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Al least some scientific data<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>Very seriously, I had a feminist girlfriend that wouldn't believe a child sex was defined by the spermatozoid. According to her the female genitals were as much responsible for the sex of the child.</p><p>I guess this article explains everything, she needs more evolution in order to understand those advanced concepts<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-))</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Al least some scientific data ; - ) Very seriously , I had a feminist girlfriend that would n't believe a child sex was defined by the spermatozoid .
According to her the female genitals were as much responsible for the sex of the child.I guess this article explains everything , she needs more evolution in order to understand those advanced concepts ; - ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Al least some scientific data ;-)Very seriously, I had a feminist girlfriend that wouldn't believe a child sex was defined by the spermatozoid.
According to her the female genitals were as much responsible for the sex of the child.I guess this article explains everything, she needs more evolution in order to understand those advanced concepts ;-))</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30767056</id>
	<title>Evolution vs. Improvement</title>
	<author>Tisha\_AH</author>
	<datestamp>1263494280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Evolution is not always a beneficial change. There are plenty of evolutionary traits that resulted in dead ends for some species.</p><p>The related articles off of the MIT site point out that the Y chromosome has areas of replication that can make the entire chromosome or parts of it fold back upon themselves, creating non-viable offspring.</p><p>The idea of the article points out that there is much changing in the Y chromosome and it does not have the mechanisms in place to prevent some of the gross errors in duplication.</p><p>I was careful to not use the word improvement in the title. Maybe some folks cannot make the distinction between an evolutionary change and an improvement but I can.</p><p>In some ways cro-mag was superior in design to modern h-sap. A shorter body build, better musculature, larger brain case, improved sinus design, etc.. But they still died out or were out-competed by h-sap.</p><p>We do not know what the relationship is between genetics and autism. Maybe (my speculation here) autism results from the human brain being turned up way too much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Evolution is not always a beneficial change .
There are plenty of evolutionary traits that resulted in dead ends for some species.The related articles off of the MIT site point out that the Y chromosome has areas of replication that can make the entire chromosome or parts of it fold back upon themselves , creating non-viable offspring.The idea of the article points out that there is much changing in the Y chromosome and it does not have the mechanisms in place to prevent some of the gross errors in duplication.I was careful to not use the word improvement in the title .
Maybe some folks can not make the distinction between an evolutionary change and an improvement but I can.In some ways cro-mag was superior in design to modern h-sap .
A shorter body build , better musculature , larger brain case , improved sinus design , etc.. But they still died out or were out-competed by h-sap.We do not know what the relationship is between genetics and autism .
Maybe ( my speculation here ) autism results from the human brain being turned up way too much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evolution is not always a beneficial change.
There are plenty of evolutionary traits that resulted in dead ends for some species.The related articles off of the MIT site point out that the Y chromosome has areas of replication that can make the entire chromosome or parts of it fold back upon themselves, creating non-viable offspring.The idea of the article points out that there is much changing in the Y chromosome and it does not have the mechanisms in place to prevent some of the gross errors in duplication.I was careful to not use the word improvement in the title.
Maybe some folks cannot make the distinction between an evolutionary change and an improvement but I can.In some ways cro-mag was superior in design to modern h-sap.
A shorter body build, better musculature, larger brain case, improved sinus design, etc.. But they still died out or were out-competed by h-sap.We do not know what the relationship is between genetics and autism.
Maybe (my speculation here) autism results from the human brain being turned up way too much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765110</id>
	<title>birth control is the selection pressure</title>
	<author>r00t</author>
	<datestamp>1263487920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most changes to defeat birth control are going<br>to be mental, but other changes can work too.</p><p>In this case, semen that spills out of a condom.</p><p>(BTW, for the women and the pill: hormone arms race)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most changes to defeat birth control are goingto be mental , but other changes can work too.In this case , semen that spills out of a condom .
( BTW , for the women and the pill : hormone arms race )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most changes to defeat birth control are goingto be mental, but other changes can work too.In this case, semen that spills out of a condom.
(BTW, for the women and the pill: hormone arms race)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763928</id>
	<title>Re:So from what I can gather...</title>
	<author>Penguinisto</author>
	<datestamp>1263483900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not just that, but look at the engineering here...</p><p>Testicles sit outside of the body (because sperm can't handle internal body temperatures for too long), so they get exposed to all kinds of fun stuff: radical temperature extremes, physical abuse, etc. Males generate new sperm all the time from scratch, and in huge frickin' numbers. Sperm cells are built to compete and operate at high energy, requiring high sugars just to survive (after all, they're literally shot into the vagina - or in most<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.'ers cases, into something else).</p><p>Women OTOH have all of their eggs tucked inside, deep in the abdomen, where they stay in a nice, consistent environment. IIRC, they also have all of their eggs present in their body when they are born. Women only drop like one egg a month (excepting twins, fertility drugs, etc), so there's no competition or rush for the egg cell as it drifts slowly down the uterus - either into oblivion or fertilization.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just that , but look at the engineering here...Testicles sit outside of the body ( because sperm ca n't handle internal body temperatures for too long ) , so they get exposed to all kinds of fun stuff : radical temperature extremes , physical abuse , etc .
Males generate new sperm all the time from scratch , and in huge frickin ' numbers .
Sperm cells are built to compete and operate at high energy , requiring high sugars just to survive ( after all , they 're literally shot into the vagina - or in most / .
'ers cases , into something else ) .Women OTOH have all of their eggs tucked inside , deep in the abdomen , where they stay in a nice , consistent environment .
IIRC , they also have all of their eggs present in their body when they are born .
Women only drop like one egg a month ( excepting twins , fertility drugs , etc ) , so there 's no competition or rush for the egg cell as it drifts slowly down the uterus - either into oblivion or fertilization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just that, but look at the engineering here...Testicles sit outside of the body (because sperm can't handle internal body temperatures for too long), so they get exposed to all kinds of fun stuff: radical temperature extremes, physical abuse, etc.
Males generate new sperm all the time from scratch, and in huge frickin' numbers.
Sperm cells are built to compete and operate at high energy, requiring high sugars just to survive (after all, they're literally shot into the vagina - or in most /.
'ers cases, into something else).Women OTOH have all of their eggs tucked inside, deep in the abdomen, where they stay in a nice, consistent environment.
IIRC, they also have all of their eggs present in their body when they are born.
Women only drop like one egg a month (excepting twins, fertility drugs, etc), so there's no competition or rush for the egg cell as it drifts slowly down the uterus - either into oblivion or fertilization.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30767152</id>
	<title>Wolverine was right!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263494700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Men do carry the mutant genes!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Men do carry the mutant genes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Men do carry the mutant genes!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763834</id>
	<title>Not surprising</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1263483540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To mate, must make happy one of the opposite sex. Now, <a href="http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2006/happy-woman-p1.php" title="boreme.com">the requirements for men are far more complex than for women</a> [boreme.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>To mate , must make happy one of the opposite sex .
Now , the requirements for men are far more complex than for women [ boreme.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To mate, must make happy one of the opposite sex.
Now, the requirements for men are far more complex than for women [boreme.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763742</id>
	<title>Our ADN is getting ready...</title>
	<author>Rhaban</author>
	<datestamp>1263483120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... for <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/01/13/2130205/Porn-Industry-Tiptoes-Into-3D-Video" title="slashdot.org">3D pron</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... for 3D pron [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... for 3D pron [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764730</id>
	<title>In Soviet Sweden...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263486720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Soviet Sweden sex is said to be a social construction. Research like this must be buried.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Soviet Sweden sex is said to be a social construction .
Research like this must be buried .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Soviet Sweden sex is said to be a social construction.
Research like this must be buried.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763778</id>
	<title>Ahh the womens groups...</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1263483300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know the womens groups will come out that this is sexist? I swear it's like the religious groups who come out with their nonsense when science disproves one of their "theories" - you know like the earth is not flat, does not reside in the center of the universe, and is not approximately 6000 years old.<br> <br>

I remember, in highschool, writing a science paper and basically went about that the strongest man is stronger then the strongest woman, and the average male strength is greater then the average female strength.  That physically, men were superior to women.<br> <br>

It caused an issue in school, and I was called into the principals room.  So where my mom and dad.  My dad was pissed...at the principal.  My mom just thought the principal was an idiot.<br> <br>

Now there is this article, stating men evolve faster then women.  I remember, a few years back, showing that men have a greater affinity for science/math, and women more for culture/literature and this extends beyond the nurture part of nature vs nurture.<br> <br>

FYI: The universe is not equal. The world is not equal. The genders are not equal.  It's not fiction, it's not sexism, it's fact.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know the womens groups will come out that this is sexist ?
I swear it 's like the religious groups who come out with their nonsense when science disproves one of their " theories " - you know like the earth is not flat , does not reside in the center of the universe , and is not approximately 6000 years old .
I remember , in highschool , writing a science paper and basically went about that the strongest man is stronger then the strongest woman , and the average male strength is greater then the average female strength .
That physically , men were superior to women .
It caused an issue in school , and I was called into the principals room .
So where my mom and dad .
My dad was pissed...at the principal .
My mom just thought the principal was an idiot .
Now there is this article , stating men evolve faster then women .
I remember , a few years back , showing that men have a greater affinity for science/math , and women more for culture/literature and this extends beyond the nurture part of nature vs nurture .
FYI : The universe is not equal .
The world is not equal .
The genders are not equal .
It 's not fiction , it 's not sexism , it 's fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know the womens groups will come out that this is sexist?
I swear it's like the religious groups who come out with their nonsense when science disproves one of their "theories" - you know like the earth is not flat, does not reside in the center of the universe, and is not approximately 6000 years old.
I remember, in highschool, writing a science paper and basically went about that the strongest man is stronger then the strongest woman, and the average male strength is greater then the average female strength.
That physically, men were superior to women.
It caused an issue in school, and I was called into the principals room.
So where my mom and dad.
My dad was pissed...at the principal.
My mom just thought the principal was an idiot.
Now there is this article, stating men evolve faster then women.
I remember, a few years back, showing that men have a greater affinity for science/math, and women more for culture/literature and this extends beyond the nurture part of nature vs nurture.
FYI: The universe is not equal.
The world is not equal.
The genders are not equal.
It's not fiction, it's not sexism, it's fact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763844</id>
	<title>TFA</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1263483600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article doesn't entrely match the summary, especially the title. It says little about the evolution of the X chromosome, only that the Y is evolving faster than they thought it did. TFA makes no comparison between the X and Y chromosomes. There can be in inferrence, as it mentions that the Y has no chance to swap genes as the other chromosomes do.</p><p>It also infers that it's the chimp's Y that is evolving more, and the "better" is sperm production, and it's the difference between how chimps and humans mate. One female chimp will have many sperm donors, while most human females don't.</p><p>So rather than saying that men's sex chromosome is evolving faster than the female's X, it could be said that chimp's Ys are the ones doing most of the diverging.</p><blockquote><div><p>Because multiple male chimpanzees may mate with a single female in rapid succession, the males' sperm wind up in heated reproductive competition. If a given male produces more sperm, that male would theoretically be more likely to impregnate the female, thereby passing on his superior sperm production genes, some of which may be residing on the Y chromosome, to the next generation.</p><p>Because selective pressure to pass on advantageous sperm production genes is so high, those genes may also drag along detrimental genetic traits to the next generation. Such transmission is allowed to occur because, unlike other chromosomes, the Y has no partner with which to swap genes during cell division. Swapping genes between chromosomal partners can eventually associate positive gene versions with each other and eliminate detrimental gene versions. Without this ability, the Y chromosome is treated by evolution as one large entity. Either the entire chromosome is advantageous, or it is not.</p><p>In chimps, this potent combination of intense selective pressure on sperm production genes and the inability to swap genes may have fueled the Y chromosome's rapid evolution. Disadvantages from a less-than-ideal gene version or even the deletion of a section of the chromosome may have been outweighed by the advantage of improved sperm production, resulting in a Y chromosome with far fewer genes than its human counterpart.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article does n't entrely match the summary , especially the title .
It says little about the evolution of the X chromosome , only that the Y is evolving faster than they thought it did .
TFA makes no comparison between the X and Y chromosomes .
There can be in inferrence , as it mentions that the Y has no chance to swap genes as the other chromosomes do.It also infers that it 's the chimp 's Y that is evolving more , and the " better " is sperm production , and it 's the difference between how chimps and humans mate .
One female chimp will have many sperm donors , while most human females do n't.So rather than saying that men 's sex chromosome is evolving faster than the female 's X , it could be said that chimp 's Ys are the ones doing most of the diverging.Because multiple male chimpanzees may mate with a single female in rapid succession , the males ' sperm wind up in heated reproductive competition .
If a given male produces more sperm , that male would theoretically be more likely to impregnate the female , thereby passing on his superior sperm production genes , some of which may be residing on the Y chromosome , to the next generation.Because selective pressure to pass on advantageous sperm production genes is so high , those genes may also drag along detrimental genetic traits to the next generation .
Such transmission is allowed to occur because , unlike other chromosomes , the Y has no partner with which to swap genes during cell division .
Swapping genes between chromosomal partners can eventually associate positive gene versions with each other and eliminate detrimental gene versions .
Without this ability , the Y chromosome is treated by evolution as one large entity .
Either the entire chromosome is advantageous , or it is not.In chimps , this potent combination of intense selective pressure on sperm production genes and the inability to swap genes may have fueled the Y chromosome 's rapid evolution .
Disadvantages from a less-than-ideal gene version or even the deletion of a section of the chromosome may have been outweighed by the advantage of improved sperm production , resulting in a Y chromosome with far fewer genes than its human counterpart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article doesn't entrely match the summary, especially the title.
It says little about the evolution of the X chromosome, only that the Y is evolving faster than they thought it did.
TFA makes no comparison between the X and Y chromosomes.
There can be in inferrence, as it mentions that the Y has no chance to swap genes as the other chromosomes do.It also infers that it's the chimp's Y that is evolving more, and the "better" is sperm production, and it's the difference between how chimps and humans mate.
One female chimp will have many sperm donors, while most human females don't.So rather than saying that men's sex chromosome is evolving faster than the female's X, it could be said that chimp's Ys are the ones doing most of the diverging.Because multiple male chimpanzees may mate with a single female in rapid succession, the males' sperm wind up in heated reproductive competition.
If a given male produces more sperm, that male would theoretically be more likely to impregnate the female, thereby passing on his superior sperm production genes, some of which may be residing on the Y chromosome, to the next generation.Because selective pressure to pass on advantageous sperm production genes is so high, those genes may also drag along detrimental genetic traits to the next generation.
Such transmission is allowed to occur because, unlike other chromosomes, the Y has no partner with which to swap genes during cell division.
Swapping genes between chromosomal partners can eventually associate positive gene versions with each other and eliminate detrimental gene versions.
Without this ability, the Y chromosome is treated by evolution as one large entity.
Either the entire chromosome is advantageous, or it is not.In chimps, this potent combination of intense selective pressure on sperm production genes and the inability to swap genes may have fueled the Y chromosome's rapid evolution.
Disadvantages from a less-than-ideal gene version or even the deletion of a section of the chromosome may have been outweighed by the advantage of improved sperm production, resulting in a Y chromosome with far fewer genes than its human counterpart.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30771216</id>
	<title>Exactly.</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1263465240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The idea that rapid changes in the Y chromosome is somehow the equivalent to "males evolve faster than females" is 1) unjustified by the article, and 2) just plain dumb on its face. But given the choice between an accurate headline and a headline that will draw more page views... the choice is obvious, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea that rapid changes in the Y chromosome is somehow the equivalent to " males evolve faster than females " is 1 ) unjustified by the article , and 2 ) just plain dumb on its face .
But given the choice between an accurate headline and a headline that will draw more page views... the choice is obvious , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea that rapid changes in the Y chromosome is somehow the equivalent to "males evolve faster than females" is 1) unjustified by the article, and 2) just plain dumb on its face.
But given the choice between an accurate headline and a headline that will draw more page views... the choice is obvious, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766838</id>
	<title>Re:interesting factoid:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263493560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its pretty clear. You mess around with a paw of an animal and it has a disadvantage. Make one little mistake with the sexual organs, no babies for him. Testes work, plain and simple. Mother nature doesn't care if you get kicked in the nads as its a favorite past-time of hers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its pretty clear .
You mess around with a paw of an animal and it has a disadvantage .
Make one little mistake with the sexual organs , no babies for him .
Testes work , plain and simple .
Mother nature does n't care if you get kicked in the nads as its a favorite past-time of hers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its pretty clear.
You mess around with a paw of an animal and it has a disadvantage.
Make one little mistake with the sexual organs, no babies for him.
Testes work, plain and simple.
Mother nature doesn't care if you get kicked in the nads as its a favorite past-time of hers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30767278</id>
	<title>Sure we evolve faster but ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263495120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>remember that one 'Aw Shit'  wipes out all the 'Atta Boys'  After all we had Hitler<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>remember that one 'Aw Shit ' wipes out all the 'Atta Boys ' After all we had Hitler ; - (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>remember that one 'Aw Shit'  wipes out all the 'Atta Boys'  After all we had Hitler ;-(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763944</id>
	<title>-1, Study fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263484020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They compared the speed of evolution of the Y cromosome in men and chimps, which compares men and chimps, not men and women. Women have no Y cromosome, so how could the speed of evolution of the Y cromosome in men say anything about men in relation to women? That's like saying that the Adam's apple in men evolves faster than the one in women.</p><p>What I would like to see is a study done on the size of the clitoris in women compared to the one found in chimp females.</p><p>I hate this 'Slow Down Cowboy!' shit, let me post already!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They compared the speed of evolution of the Y cromosome in men and chimps , which compares men and chimps , not men and women .
Women have no Y cromosome , so how could the speed of evolution of the Y cromosome in men say anything about men in relation to women ?
That 's like saying that the Adam 's apple in men evolves faster than the one in women.What I would like to see is a study done on the size of the clitoris in women compared to the one found in chimp females.I hate this 'Slow Down Cowboy !
' shit , let me post already !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They compared the speed of evolution of the Y cromosome in men and chimps, which compares men and chimps, not men and women.
Women have no Y cromosome, so how could the speed of evolution of the Y cromosome in men say anything about men in relation to women?
That's like saying that the Adam's apple in men evolves faster than the one in women.What I would like to see is a study done on the size of the clitoris in women compared to the one found in chimp females.I hate this 'Slow Down Cowboy!
' shit, let me post already!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764662</id>
	<title>Re:interesting factoid:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263486480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's exactly like peacock feathers.  They allow males to display the assets.</p><p>Personally I've never understood the need for pants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's exactly like peacock feathers .
They allow males to display the assets.Personally I 've never understood the need for pants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's exactly like peacock feathers.
They allow males to display the assets.Personally I've never understood the need for pants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765926</id>
	<title>Re:I thought the Y chromosome contained nothing</title>
	<author>NotSoHeavyD3</author>
	<datestamp>1263490500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Umm, actually he was a guy. Anyway the idea was that the sperm has 23 chromosomes (As does the egg.) and only one of those from each parent is a sex chromosome. (Mom always gives an X, dad can give an X or Y) The idea was that there's so many other chromosomes with so much other data that the Y only needed to have the info of "Turn on the guy stuff" and that data is recorded somewhere in the other chromosomes and gets executed. (Basically he said sex linked traits are on the X chromosome and if you're a guy you get them from mom and you only get 1 copy. Girls get sex linked traits from both parents and have 2 chromosomes full of data for it.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm , actually he was a guy .
Anyway the idea was that the sperm has 23 chromosomes ( As does the egg .
) and only one of those from each parent is a sex chromosome .
( Mom always gives an X , dad can give an X or Y ) The idea was that there 's so many other chromosomes with so much other data that the Y only needed to have the info of " Turn on the guy stuff " and that data is recorded somewhere in the other chromosomes and gets executed .
( Basically he said sex linked traits are on the X chromosome and if you 're a guy you get them from mom and you only get 1 copy .
Girls get sex linked traits from both parents and have 2 chromosomes full of data for it .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm, actually he was a guy.
Anyway the idea was that the sperm has 23 chromosomes (As does the egg.
) and only one of those from each parent is a sex chromosome.
(Mom always gives an X, dad can give an X or Y) The idea was that there's so many other chromosomes with so much other data that the Y only needed to have the info of "Turn on the guy stuff" and that data is recorded somewhere in the other chromosomes and gets executed.
(Basically he said sex linked traits are on the X chromosome and if you're a guy you get them from mom and you only get 1 copy.
Girls get sex linked traits from both parents and have 2 chromosomes full of data for it.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763614</id>
	<title>So from what I can gather...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263482520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Males masturbate more than females, amirite?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Males masturbate more than females , amirite ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Males masturbate more than females, amirite?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764082</id>
	<title>Mortality</title>
	<author>COMON$</author>
	<datestamp>1263484620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could our faster evolution be due to our higher mortality rate than females?<p>But isn't this kind of obvious?. Changes that effect reproduction should happen the fastest. I mean isnt that what evolution is all about, getting better more efficient ways to procreate?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could our faster evolution be due to our higher mortality rate than females ? But is n't this kind of obvious ? .
Changes that effect reproduction should happen the fastest .
I mean isnt that what evolution is all about , getting better more efficient ways to procreate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could our faster evolution be due to our higher mortality rate than females?But isn't this kind of obvious?.
Changes that effect reproduction should happen the fastest.
I mean isnt that what evolution is all about, getting better more efficient ways to procreate?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763954</id>
	<title>Re:So from what I can gather...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263484020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some scientists suspect that masturbation is actually a method to help provide non-damaging trauma to the testes, which can help alter, over time, the DNA that is contained within the spermatozoa.</p><p>In the wild, some testicular trauma is expected as part of everyday life. When human males were typically hunter-gatherers, as was the case for the vast majority of our existence, it was not unusual for a man to suffer scrotal injuries. One can only hunt deer for so long before an accident befalls one's genitals.</p><p>As we live a more sedentary lifestyle these days, penile and scrotal trauma are much less common. So any such trauma typically comes from masturbation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some scientists suspect that masturbation is actually a method to help provide non-damaging trauma to the testes , which can help alter , over time , the DNA that is contained within the spermatozoa.In the wild , some testicular trauma is expected as part of everyday life .
When human males were typically hunter-gatherers , as was the case for the vast majority of our existence , it was not unusual for a man to suffer scrotal injuries .
One can only hunt deer for so long before an accident befalls one 's genitals.As we live a more sedentary lifestyle these days , penile and scrotal trauma are much less common .
So any such trauma typically comes from masturbation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some scientists suspect that masturbation is actually a method to help provide non-damaging trauma to the testes, which can help alter, over time, the DNA that is contained within the spermatozoa.In the wild, some testicular trauma is expected as part of everyday life.
When human males were typically hunter-gatherers, as was the case for the vast majority of our existence, it was not unusual for a man to suffer scrotal injuries.
One can only hunt deer for so long before an accident befalls one's genitals.As we live a more sedentary lifestyle these days, penile and scrotal trauma are much less common.
So any such trauma typically comes from masturbation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764972</id>
	<title>Ron Burgundy</title>
	<author>sxltrex</author>
	<datestamp>1263487500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I'm a man who discovered the wheel and built the Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn. That's what kind of man I am. You're just a woman with a small brain. With a brain a third the size of us. It's science."</p><p>Finally, we have proof Ron Burgundy was right!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'm a man who discovered the wheel and built the Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn .
That 's what kind of man I am .
You 're just a woman with a small brain .
With a brain a third the size of us .
It 's science .
" Finally , we have proof Ron Burgundy was right !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'm a man who discovered the wheel and built the Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn.
That's what kind of man I am.
You're just a woman with a small brain.
With a brain a third the size of us.
It's science.
"Finally, we have proof Ron Burgundy was right!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764580</id>
	<title>just like fruit flys</title>
	<author>cinnamon colbert</author>
	<datestamp>1263486300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many years ago, I read a serious genetics paper about this. The scientist managed to setup up a colony of fruit flys (drosophilia melanogaster) so that the females remained static - they did not evolve - and the males did.<br>In fruit flys, multiple males mate with a female, so there is a lot of competition between the different sperm.<br>What happened is that the males evolved their ejaculate to become more aggressive, to outcompete the other males; in some cases, the ejaculate became toxic to the females.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many years ago , I read a serious genetics paper about this .
The scientist managed to setup up a colony of fruit flys ( drosophilia melanogaster ) so that the females remained static - they did not evolve - and the males did.In fruit flys , multiple males mate with a female , so there is a lot of competition between the different sperm.What happened is that the males evolved their ejaculate to become more aggressive , to outcompete the other males ; in some cases , the ejaculate became toxic to the females .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many years ago, I read a serious genetics paper about this.
The scientist managed to setup up a colony of fruit flys (drosophilia melanogaster) so that the females remained static - they did not evolve - and the males did.In fruit flys, multiple males mate with a female, so there is a lot of competition between the different sperm.What happened is that the males evolved their ejaculate to become more aggressive, to outcompete the other males; in some cases, the ejaculate became toxic to the females.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765618</id>
	<title>Re:interesting factoid:</title>
	<author>udoschuermann</author>
	<datestamp>1263489540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From an evolutionary standpoint, males with all their stuff on display received preferential treatment from the females. It doesn't have to be biologically optimal, it just has to beat out other options at any given time. And the extreme sensitivity of the testicles ensures that males take great care not to get injured there.</p><p>As for why, the following article on the baculum (penis bone) present in most mammals offers speculation on why humans rely on erectile tissue, instead of a baculum; I suspect that external testicles were simply part of the very same selection process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baculum</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From an evolutionary standpoint , males with all their stuff on display received preferential treatment from the females .
It does n't have to be biologically optimal , it just has to beat out other options at any given time .
And the extreme sensitivity of the testicles ensures that males take great care not to get injured there.As for why , the following article on the baculum ( penis bone ) present in most mammals offers speculation on why humans rely on erectile tissue , instead of a baculum ; I suspect that external testicles were simply part of the very same selection process : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baculum</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From an evolutionary standpoint, males with all their stuff on display received preferential treatment from the females.
It doesn't have to be biologically optimal, it just has to beat out other options at any given time.
And the extreme sensitivity of the testicles ensures that males take great care not to get injured there.As for why, the following article on the baculum (penis bone) present in most mammals offers speculation on why humans rely on erectile tissue, instead of a baculum; I suspect that external testicles were simply part of the very same selection process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baculum</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763682</id>
	<title>Mod the article flamebait</title>
	<author>vivaoporto</author>
	<datestamp>1263482880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mod the whole article flamebait. The headline plays with the common association between "evolution" and "improvement" in order to gather angry responses and its fair share of taunting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod the whole article flamebait .
The headline plays with the common association between " evolution " and " improvement " in order to gather angry responses and its fair share of taunting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod the whole article flamebait.
The headline plays with the common association between "evolution" and "improvement" in order to gather angry responses and its fair share of taunting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30767812</id>
	<title>Environmental reasons perhaps?</title>
	<author>houbou</author>
	<datestamp>1263496800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wonder if all this talk of estrogen in water supplies could be one of the reasons for the changes in the Y chromosome.  I remember an article about males fishes actually turning females because of this very reason.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wonder if all this talk of estrogen in water supplies could be one of the reasons for the changes in the Y chromosome .
I remember an article about males fishes actually turning females because of this very reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wonder if all this talk of estrogen in water supplies could be one of the reasons for the changes in the Y chromosome.
I remember an article about males fishes actually turning females because of this very reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30769562</id>
	<title>Re:That's because women keep changing their mind</title>
	<author>xirusmom</author>
	<datestamp>1263502260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would say we are pretty consistent:<br>in our teens, we want the bad-cool-cute boy<br>in our 20s, we want the hip-probably-gay guy<br>finally, in our 30s we come to our senses and discover the geeks....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say we are pretty consistent : in our teens , we want the bad-cool-cute boyin our 20s , we want the hip-probably-gay guyfinally , in our 30s we come to our senses and discover the geeks... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say we are pretty consistent:in our teens, we want the bad-cool-cute boyin our 20s, we want the hip-probably-gay guyfinally, in our 30s we come to our senses and discover the geeks....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765014</id>
	<title>Re:Does this change other predictions?</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1263487620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"I wonder if this would counter the other studies saying that the y chromosome is doomed."</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you, but <b>nothing</b> is going to change the fact that your Y chromosomes are doomed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I wonder if this would counter the other studies saying that the y chromosome is doomed .
" I 'm sorry to be the one to break it to you , but nothing is going to change the fact that your Y chromosomes are doomed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I wonder if this would counter the other studies saying that the y chromosome is doomed.
"I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you, but nothing is going to change the fact that your Y chromosomes are doomed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764350</id>
	<title>Not fast enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263485640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not fast enough, since we haven't evolved winged sperm yet. We basement dwellers may be a dying breed!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not fast enough , since we have n't evolved winged sperm yet .
We basement dwellers may be a dying breed !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not fast enough, since we haven't evolved winged sperm yet.
We basement dwellers may be a dying breed!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764012</id>
	<title>Re:A quick look at male behavior provides some clu</title>
	<author>MrMr</author>
	<datestamp>1263484320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As are Nobel prize winners.<br>Yet it is a popular concept that A. proves something about males and B. something about society, and not the reverse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As are Nobel prize winners.Yet it is a popular concept that A. proves something about males and B. something about society , and not the reverse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As are Nobel prize winners.Yet it is a popular concept that A. proves something about males and B. something about society, and not the reverse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765038</id>
	<title>Re:Mod the article flamebait</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1263487680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Mod the whole article flamebait. The headline plays with the common association between "evolution" and "improvement" in order to gather angry responses and its fair share of taunting.</p></div><p>Please demonstrate how these nine words: "Human males evolve at a faster pace than females", involves the notion of "improvement". Specifically, explain how these words betray an intent to gather angry taunts. Additionally, explain how the headline does not reflect the content of the article. Show your work. Otherwise, STFU because I'm pretty sure that urge to flame comes wholly from you, and not from that headline.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod the whole article flamebait .
The headline plays with the common association between " evolution " and " improvement " in order to gather angry responses and its fair share of taunting.Please demonstrate how these nine words : " Human males evolve at a faster pace than females " , involves the notion of " improvement " .
Specifically , explain how these words betray an intent to gather angry taunts .
Additionally , explain how the headline does not reflect the content of the article .
Show your work .
Otherwise , STFU because I 'm pretty sure that urge to flame comes wholly from you , and not from that headline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod the whole article flamebait.
The headline plays with the common association between "evolution" and "improvement" in order to gather angry responses and its fair share of taunting.Please demonstrate how these nine words: "Human males evolve at a faster pace than females", involves the notion of "improvement".
Specifically, explain how these words betray an intent to gather angry taunts.
Additionally, explain how the headline does not reflect the content of the article.
Show your work.
Otherwise, STFU because I'm pretty sure that urge to flame comes wholly from you, and not from that headline.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764940</id>
	<title>Re:interesting factoid:</title>
	<author>L3370</author>
	<datestamp>1263487380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many (most?) guys have an adolecent fascination with their balls that extends well into their adult life.
<br> <br>Without going into details here...Think of all the fun things you couldn't do with internally held testicles!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many ( most ?
) guys have an adolecent fascination with their balls that extends well into their adult life .
Without going into details here...Think of all the fun things you could n't do with internally held testicles !
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many (most?
) guys have an adolecent fascination with their balls that extends well into their adult life.
Without going into details here...Think of all the fun things you couldn't do with internally held testicles!
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764712</id>
	<title>Evolution doesn't exist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263486660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article is based on the mistaken assumption that there is such a thing as evolution.</p><p>As we all know, there is no such thing. Read the Bible.</p><p>Do not believe these false prophets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article is based on the mistaken assumption that there is such a thing as evolution.As we all know , there is no such thing .
Read the Bible.Do not believe these false prophets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article is based on the mistaken assumption that there is such a thing as evolution.As we all know, there is no such thing.
Read the Bible.Do not believe these false prophets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765172</id>
	<title>Yet somehow...</title>
	<author>bitflip</author>
	<datestamp>1263488100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somehow, the right female can devolve me right back into being a monkey.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow , the right female can devolve me right back into being a monkey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow, the right female can devolve me right back into being a monkey.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764860</id>
	<title>Possibly irrelevant</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1263487140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's worth noting that you can make a complete human being without a Y chromosome. Its main function is to just signal the production of the sex hormones necessary to transform the (by default, female) fetus into a male. In fact, Y chromosomes have been shrinking for some time across species, indicative of the relative importance of their mere presence versus their negligible contents. It may well be that the higher mutation rate is a byproduct of cells saving energy by not doing much repair work on a chromosome whose contents are largely irrelevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's worth noting that you can make a complete human being without a Y chromosome .
Its main function is to just signal the production of the sex hormones necessary to transform the ( by default , female ) fetus into a male .
In fact , Y chromosomes have been shrinking for some time across species , indicative of the relative importance of their mere presence versus their negligible contents .
It may well be that the higher mutation rate is a byproduct of cells saving energy by not doing much repair work on a chromosome whose contents are largely irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's worth noting that you can make a complete human being without a Y chromosome.
Its main function is to just signal the production of the sex hormones necessary to transform the (by default, female) fetus into a male.
In fact, Y chromosomes have been shrinking for some time across species, indicative of the relative importance of their mere presence versus their negligible contents.
It may well be that the higher mutation rate is a byproduct of cells saving energy by not doing much repair work on a chromosome whose contents are largely irrelevant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763734</id>
	<title>Re:So from what I can gather...</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1263483060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it means the Human monogamy is a very recent social concept. If this study is true, it means that only men with abundant, healthy sperm stand a greater chance at procreation. But AIDS is sure acting as one hellava counterweight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it means the Human monogamy is a very recent social concept .
If this study is true , it means that only men with abundant , healthy sperm stand a greater chance at procreation .
But AIDS is sure acting as one hellava counterweight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it means the Human monogamy is a very recent social concept.
If this study is true, it means that only men with abundant, healthy sperm stand a greater chance at procreation.
But AIDS is sure acting as one hellava counterweight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764380</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263485760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Soviet Sweden sex is said to be a social construction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Soviet Sweden sex is said to be a social construction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Soviet Sweden sex is said to be a social construction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764168</id>
	<title>Re:At last...</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1263485040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was a study a few years ago that showed that the woman's caloric intake shortly before conception (the several weeks/months leading up to conception) had a strong effect on the sex of the child. I can't remember now which sex a high caloric intake favored.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a study a few years ago that showed that the woman 's caloric intake shortly before conception ( the several weeks/months leading up to conception ) had a strong effect on the sex of the child .
I ca n't remember now which sex a high caloric intake favored .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a study a few years ago that showed that the woman's caloric intake shortly before conception (the several weeks/months leading up to conception) had a strong effect on the sex of the child.
I can't remember now which sex a high caloric intake favored.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764552</id>
	<title>Re:A quick look at male behavior provides some clu</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1263486180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Darwin Award only applies is the organism is childless. And most dangerous behavior exhibited by males is primarily tied to mating. Far more men get into bar faights over women than all other reasons put together, and many of those reasons are tied to copulation in some way (money, etc).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Darwin Award only applies is the organism is childless .
And most dangerous behavior exhibited by males is primarily tied to mating .
Far more men get into bar faights over women than all other reasons put together , and many of those reasons are tied to copulation in some way ( money , etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Darwin Award only applies is the organism is childless.
And most dangerous behavior exhibited by males is primarily tied to mating.
Far more men get into bar faights over women than all other reasons put together, and many of those reasons are tied to copulation in some way (money, etc).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764576</id>
	<title>Re:Mod the article flamebait</title>
	<author>dontPanik</author>
	<datestamp>1263486300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not that the word "Evolve" in the title is misleading, it's that the whole article has NOTHING to do with males evolving faster than females. It says that the Y chromosome is evolving rapidly. That's it. Nothing more. The Slashdot editor took that simple premise in the article and decided to create a masterpiece of flamebait. Thanks for turning what might have been an interesting genetic discussion into nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that the word " Evolve " in the title is misleading , it 's that the whole article has NOTHING to do with males evolving faster than females .
It says that the Y chromosome is evolving rapidly .
That 's it .
Nothing more .
The Slashdot editor took that simple premise in the article and decided to create a masterpiece of flamebait .
Thanks for turning what might have been an interesting genetic discussion into nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that the word "Evolve" in the title is misleading, it's that the whole article has NOTHING to do with males evolving faster than females.
It says that the Y chromosome is evolving rapidly.
That's it.
Nothing more.
The Slashdot editor took that simple premise in the article and decided to create a masterpiece of flamebait.
Thanks for turning what might have been an interesting genetic discussion into nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30774788</id>
	<title>They'd have to...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263485460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Males are genetically weaker -- having considerably greater vulnerabilities to genetically-inherited conditions like color-blindness and autism. There's nothing exceptional about the Y chromosome evolving slightly faster. It would only make sense for it to happen that way because men are XY and women are XX, there is always an X passed on. Because of the exclusivity of the inheritance of a Y chromosome -- it can only occur in XY males or in genetic deformities where the person is XXY, etc. -- it means that there's more chance for certain traits to just be discarded. Because there's more chance of having a trait just discarded, there's a stronger state of genetic Darwinism in effect. Despite the faster evolution, men are still much more vulnerable to certain genetically-inherited conditions, so there's obviously still a long ways to go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Males are genetically weaker -- having considerably greater vulnerabilities to genetically-inherited conditions like color-blindness and autism .
There 's nothing exceptional about the Y chromosome evolving slightly faster .
It would only make sense for it to happen that way because men are XY and women are XX , there is always an X passed on .
Because of the exclusivity of the inheritance of a Y chromosome -- it can only occur in XY males or in genetic deformities where the person is XXY , etc .
-- it means that there 's more chance for certain traits to just be discarded .
Because there 's more chance of having a trait just discarded , there 's a stronger state of genetic Darwinism in effect .
Despite the faster evolution , men are still much more vulnerable to certain genetically-inherited conditions , so there 's obviously still a long ways to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Males are genetically weaker -- having considerably greater vulnerabilities to genetically-inherited conditions like color-blindness and autism.
There's nothing exceptional about the Y chromosome evolving slightly faster.
It would only make sense for it to happen that way because men are XY and women are XX, there is always an X passed on.
Because of the exclusivity of the inheritance of a Y chromosome -- it can only occur in XY males or in genetic deformities where the person is XXY, etc.
-- it means that there's more chance for certain traits to just be discarded.
Because there's more chance of having a trait just discarded, there's a stronger state of genetic Darwinism in effect.
Despite the faster evolution, men are still much more vulnerable to certain genetically-inherited conditions, so there's obviously still a long ways to go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992</id>
	<title>interesting factoid:</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1263484200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>testicle size in simians is correlated with female permissiveness. such that, in chimpanzees, where a female in estrus is pretty much a gangbang, chimpanzees males have evolved humongous testicles. they need to, because in such a situation, the only strategy available to the male to ensure his genetic continuance is to simply overwhelm other male's sperm with sheer ejaculate volume</p><p>meanwhile, in highly monogamous simians who mate for life, such as gibbons, the testicles are tiny. there's simply no need for so much ejaculate volume, its a waste of resources. she's not going anywhere</p><p>interestingly enough, human males have intermediate sized testicles, owing to the fact that human females are semi-monogamous/ semi-polygamous</p><p>however, i've always wondered why testicles appeared on the outside of the male mammalian body. it seems a ridiculous vulnerability and i've never heard a good explanation as to why. for example, dolphins aren't swimming around with their balls out: the need to be streamlined. of course sperm need a lower temperature to develop, but thats an effect, not a cause. i'm saying wouldn't it be better to have your testicles inside your body and evolve sperm that develop at a higher temperature? its pretty ridiculous to have such an important organ dangling outside unprotected. i never understood why</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>testicle size in simians is correlated with female permissiveness .
such that , in chimpanzees , where a female in estrus is pretty much a gangbang , chimpanzees males have evolved humongous testicles .
they need to , because in such a situation , the only strategy available to the male to ensure his genetic continuance is to simply overwhelm other male 's sperm with sheer ejaculate volumemeanwhile , in highly monogamous simians who mate for life , such as gibbons , the testicles are tiny .
there 's simply no need for so much ejaculate volume , its a waste of resources .
she 's not going anywhereinterestingly enough , human males have intermediate sized testicles , owing to the fact that human females are semi-monogamous/ semi-polygamoushowever , i 've always wondered why testicles appeared on the outside of the male mammalian body .
it seems a ridiculous vulnerability and i 've never heard a good explanation as to why .
for example , dolphins are n't swimming around with their balls out : the need to be streamlined .
of course sperm need a lower temperature to develop , but thats an effect , not a cause .
i 'm saying would n't it be better to have your testicles inside your body and evolve sperm that develop at a higher temperature ?
its pretty ridiculous to have such an important organ dangling outside unprotected .
i never understood why</tokentext>
<sentencetext>testicle size in simians is correlated with female permissiveness.
such that, in chimpanzees, where a female in estrus is pretty much a gangbang, chimpanzees males have evolved humongous testicles.
they need to, because in such a situation, the only strategy available to the male to ensure his genetic continuance is to simply overwhelm other male's sperm with sheer ejaculate volumemeanwhile, in highly monogamous simians who mate for life, such as gibbons, the testicles are tiny.
there's simply no need for so much ejaculate volume, its a waste of resources.
she's not going anywhereinterestingly enough, human males have intermediate sized testicles, owing to the fact that human females are semi-monogamous/ semi-polygamoushowever, i've always wondered why testicles appeared on the outside of the male mammalian body.
it seems a ridiculous vulnerability and i've never heard a good explanation as to why.
for example, dolphins aren't swimming around with their balls out: the need to be streamlined.
of course sperm need a lower temperature to develop, but thats an effect, not a cause.
i'm saying wouldn't it be better to have your testicles inside your body and evolve sperm that develop at a higher temperature?
its pretty ridiculous to have such an important organ dangling outside unprotected.
i never understood why</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763688</id>
	<title>That's because women keep changing their mind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263482880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...at what they are looking for in a mate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...at what they are looking for in a mate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...at what they are looking for in a mate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763764</id>
	<title>Related to sperm production ...</title>
	<author>lolococo</author>
	<datestamp>1263483240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is it already, about us and our testicles?
Anyway, no wonder women look at us like we're mutants or something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is it already , about us and our testicles ?
Anyway , no wonder women look at us like we 're mutants or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is it already, about us and our testicles?
Anyway, no wonder women look at us like we're mutants or something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764276</id>
	<title>development analogy</title>
	<author>jackflap</author>
	<datestamp>1263485400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Men are the testing area<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P Y chromosome is the development brach, X is the stable?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Men are the testing area : P Y chromosome is the development brach , X is the stable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Men are the testing area :P Y chromosome is the development brach, X is the stable?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765916</id>
	<title>Re:A quick look at male behavior provides some clu</title>
	<author>Asic Eng</author>
	<datestamp>1263490500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's more of a taboo to make fun of dead females. Same with domestic abuse and sexual violations. That's not owed to feminism btw - it was like that long before feminism has appeared, it just stuck around.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's more of a taboo to make fun of dead females .
Same with domestic abuse and sexual violations .
That 's not owed to feminism btw - it was like that long before feminism has appeared , it just stuck around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's more of a taboo to make fun of dead females.
Same with domestic abuse and sexual violations.
That's not owed to feminism btw - it was like that long before feminism has appeared, it just stuck around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765154</id>
	<title>Re:Does this change other predictions?</title>
	<author>tmosley</author>
	<datestamp>1263487980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>writing errors==change==evolution.<br> <br>

They may not all be useful, but they do all produce some sort of change, even if it isn't apparent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>writing errors = = change = = evolution .
They may not all be useful , but they do all produce some sort of change , even if it is n't apparent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>writing errors==change==evolution.
They may not all be useful, but they do all produce some sort of change, even if it isn't apparent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764366</id>
	<title>Re:Mod the article flamebait</title>
	<author>forsey</author>
	<datestamp>1263485700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree.  They are NOT talking about evolution here, they are talking about mutation.  While a mutation can turn out to be an advancement which more or less makes it evolution, it could also be negative change that doesn't end up propagating to other members of the species.  On a side note, I bet that men, being a greater source of mutation, would also be a greater source of genetic birth defects.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
They are NOT talking about evolution here , they are talking about mutation .
While a mutation can turn out to be an advancement which more or less makes it evolution , it could also be negative change that does n't end up propagating to other members of the species .
On a side note , I bet that men , being a greater source of mutation , would also be a greater source of genetic birth defects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
They are NOT talking about evolution here, they are talking about mutation.
While a mutation can turn out to be an advancement which more or less makes it evolution, it could also be negative change that doesn't end up propagating to other members of the species.
On a side note, I bet that men, being a greater source of mutation, would also be a greater source of genetic birth defects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763840</id>
	<title>Misleading summary...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263483600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA doesn't say there's 33\% variation among humans. It says there is an unexpected amount of variation between human and chimpanzee Y chromosomes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA does n't say there 's 33 \ % variation among humans .
It says there is an unexpected amount of variation between human and chimpanzee Y chromosomes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA doesn't say there's 33\% variation among humans.
It says there is an unexpected amount of variation between human and chimpanzee Y chromosomes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30767976</id>
	<title>external testes</title>
	<author>RJBeery</author>
	<datestamp>1263497220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Caution!  I am in no way qualified to answer this...<br>
Anyway, I've wondered that same thing about the external testes, and here's my theory:<br> <br>The placement of the testicles is not to give the individual male a survival advantage, but rather to place an evolutionary force on the population as a whole.  When a male is overly stressed and/or insecure his testes are withdrawn and close to the body.  It is well known that this makes sperm production lower because of the body heat (this is why fertility doctors will recommend against tight underwear!).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Caution !
I am in no way qualified to answer this.. . Anyway , I 've wondered that same thing about the external testes , and here 's my theory : The placement of the testicles is not to give the individual male a survival advantage , but rather to place an evolutionary force on the population as a whole .
When a male is overly stressed and/or insecure his testes are withdrawn and close to the body .
It is well known that this makes sperm production lower because of the body heat ( this is why fertility doctors will recommend against tight underwear !
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Caution!
I am in no way qualified to answer this...
Anyway, I've wondered that same thing about the external testes, and here's my theory: The placement of the testicles is not to give the individual male a survival advantage, but rather to place an evolutionary force on the population as a whole.
When a male is overly stressed and/or insecure his testes are withdrawn and close to the body.
It is well known that this makes sperm production lower because of the body heat (this is why fertility doctors will recommend against tight underwear!
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763798</id>
	<title>bad headline?</title>
	<author>xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D</author>
	<datestamp>1263483420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The researchers said their finding, published this week in the journal Nature, doesn't mean that men are evolving faster than women, though.</p></div></blockquote><p>
<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/01/13/tech-biology-y-chromosome.html?ref=rss" title="www.cbc.ca">Uhh maybe a less sensationalist headline?</a> [www.cbc.ca]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The researchers said their finding , published this week in the journal Nature , does n't mean that men are evolving faster than women , though .
Uhh maybe a less sensationalist headline ?
[ www.cbc.ca ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The researchers said their finding, published this week in the journal Nature, doesn't mean that men are evolving faster than women, though.
Uhh maybe a less sensationalist headline?
[www.cbc.ca]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30780158</id>
	<title>Re:interesting factoid:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263577560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dolphins may have evolved to have their balls on the inside, but humans have evolved to have their balls on the outside so we can teabag people!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dolphins may have evolved to have their balls on the inside , but humans have evolved to have their balls on the outside so we can teabag people !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dolphins may have evolved to have their balls on the inside, but humans have evolved to have their balls on the outside so we can teabag people!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765346</id>
	<title>I don't feel like I'm evolving</title>
	<author>thelonious</author>
	<datestamp>1263488520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, males are evolving faster than females.  "<b>Hooray!!</b>"<br>
The part that's evolving is for sperm production. "<b>...[crickets]...</b>"</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , males are evolving faster than females .
" Hooray ! ! " The part that 's evolving is for sperm production .
" ... [ crickets ] ... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, males are evolving faster than females.
"Hooray!!"
The part that's evolving is for sperm production.
"...[crickets]..."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764046</id>
	<title>Re:At last...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263484440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; A slightly acidic environment is likely to kill more Y sperm, which aren't as tolerant as X sperm.</p><p>Some ammonia or bleach can fix that for you! I knew I'd find a use for those chemistry lessons...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; A slightly acidic environment is likely to kill more Y sperm , which are n't as tolerant as X sperm.Some ammonia or bleach can fix that for you !
I knew I 'd find a use for those chemistry lessons.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; A slightly acidic environment is likely to kill more Y sperm, which aren't as tolerant as X sperm.Some ammonia or bleach can fix that for you!
I knew I'd find a use for those chemistry lessons...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763988</id>
	<title>Old News...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263484200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This has been known for a long time. It is called "male driven evolution".

This happens because in humans (and most animals) the cells producing sperms divide about 6 times more than the egg cells.
And guess what: studies in a human gene that has a homologue in both X and Y chromosomes, showed that (you guessed it) the Y homologue changes about 6 times faster than the X one.
<br>
Did I say old news? 1947 old:
<br>
&ldquo;The primordial oocytes are mostly if not all formed at birth, whereas spermatogonia go on dividing throughout the sexual life of
a male. So if mutation is due to faulty copying of genes at a nuclear division, we might expect it to be commoner in males
than females.&rdquo;
<br>
&ldquo; we should expect higher mutability in the male to be a general property of human and perhaps other vertebrate genes.&rdquo;
<br>
J. B. S. Haldane. 1947. The mutation rate of the gene for haemophilia and its segregation ratios in males and females. Ann. Eugen. 13:262-271.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has been known for a long time .
It is called " male driven evolution " .
This happens because in humans ( and most animals ) the cells producing sperms divide about 6 times more than the egg cells .
And guess what : studies in a human gene that has a homologue in both X and Y chromosomes , showed that ( you guessed it ) the Y homologue changes about 6 times faster than the X one .
Did I say old news ?
1947 old :    The primordial oocytes are mostly if not all formed at birth , whereas spermatogonia go on dividing throughout the sexual life of a male .
So if mutation is due to faulty copying of genes at a nuclear division , we might expect it to be commoner in males than females.       we should expect higher mutability in the male to be a general property of human and perhaps other vertebrate genes.    J. B. S. Haldane. 1947 .
The mutation rate of the gene for haemophilia and its segregation ratios in males and females .
Ann. Eugen .
13 : 262-271 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has been known for a long time.
It is called "male driven evolution".
This happens because in humans (and most animals) the cells producing sperms divide about 6 times more than the egg cells.
And guess what: studies in a human gene that has a homologue in both X and Y chromosomes, showed that (you guessed it) the Y homologue changes about 6 times faster than the X one.
Did I say old news?
1947 old:

“The primordial oocytes are mostly if not all formed at birth, whereas spermatogonia go on dividing throughout the sexual life of
a male.
So if mutation is due to faulty copying of genes at a nuclear division, we might expect it to be commoner in males
than females.”

“ we should expect higher mutability in the male to be a general property of human and perhaps other vertebrate genes.”

J. B. S. Haldane. 1947.
The mutation rate of the gene for haemophilia and its segregation ratios in males and females.
Ann. Eugen.
13:262-271.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766776</id>
	<title>Re:Ahh the womens groups...</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1263493320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I remember, a few years back, showing that men have a greater affinity for science/math, and women more for culture/literature and this extends beyond the nurture part of nature vs nurture.</i></p><p>Actually plenty of studies have debunked that.  All it took was a note on a math test that "this test has been gender-balanced" and women did as well a men on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember , a few years back , showing that men have a greater affinity for science/math , and women more for culture/literature and this extends beyond the nurture part of nature vs nurture.Actually plenty of studies have debunked that .
All it took was a note on a math test that " this test has been gender-balanced " and women did as well a men on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember, a few years back, showing that men have a greater affinity for science/math, and women more for culture/literature and this extends beyond the nurture part of nature vs nurture.Actually plenty of studies have debunked that.
All it took was a note on a math test that "this test has been gender-balanced" and women did as well a men on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764622</id>
	<title>To all the girls who ever called me a Neandarthal</title>
	<author>jason.sweet</author>
	<datestamp>1263486420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm waiting for my apology.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm waiting for my apology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm waiting for my apology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30783734</id>
	<title>Re:So from what I can gather...</title>
	<author>Channing</author>
	<datestamp>1263549240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>also, IIRC sperm are responsible for genetic diversity. Sperm carry unique genetic payloads, eggs are just clones of the mother. Thats some serious creativity going on!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>also , IIRC sperm are responsible for genetic diversity .
Sperm carry unique genetic payloads , eggs are just clones of the mother .
Thats some serious creativity going on !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>also, IIRC sperm are responsible for genetic diversity.
Sperm carry unique genetic payloads, eggs are just clones of the mother.
Thats some serious creativity going on!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764056</id>
	<title>It's Simple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263484500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apparently size does matter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently size does matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently size does matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763998</id>
	<title>hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263484200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I for one welcome our...</p><p>No, it's nasty.  I can't do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one welcome our...No , it 's nasty .
I ca n't do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one welcome our...No, it's nasty.
I can't do it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765020</id>
	<title>Re:So from what I can gather...</title>
	<author>RogerWilco</author>
	<datestamp>1263487620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember from sex education back in highschool that the book claimed that 99\% of males and about 75\% of females masturbate. It's just one of those random facts that stuck in my head, probably because at the time it was a subject that certainly had my attention.</p><p>At least that's how I remember it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember from sex education back in highschool that the book claimed that 99 \ % of males and about 75 \ % of females masturbate .
It 's just one of those random facts that stuck in my head , probably because at the time it was a subject that certainly had my attention.At least that 's how I remember it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember from sex education back in highschool that the book claimed that 99\% of males and about 75\% of females masturbate.
It's just one of those random facts that stuck in my head, probably because at the time it was a subject that certainly had my attention.At least that's how I remember it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764390</id>
	<title>Be afraid...be VERY afraid</title>
	<author>hyades1</author>
	<datestamp>1263485760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i> "The portions of the chromosome evolving fastest are related to sperm production..."</i> </p><p> God help us if the little bastards learn how to fly. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The portions of the chromosome evolving fastest are related to sperm production... " God help us if the little bastards learn how to fly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  "The portions of the chromosome evolving fastest are related to sperm production..."  God help us if the little bastards learn how to fly. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763822</id>
	<title>Re:At last...</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1263483480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does she believe that all embryos start as female, and then some (approx half) evolve to male?  By that statement, I had to *FIGHT* to be a male.  Now I reached that goal and I have to deal with those who were "left behind" or didn't evolve....hmm actually the above was a joke but formed a thought in my head.<br> <br>

If we start out as females, and have to evolve to be males (hence why males have nipples), does that explain why males evolve faster then females?  Maybe because we have to do so to become males?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does she believe that all embryos start as female , and then some ( approx half ) evolve to male ?
By that statement , I had to * FIGHT * to be a male .
Now I reached that goal and I have to deal with those who were " left behind " or did n't evolve....hmm actually the above was a joke but formed a thought in my head .
If we start out as females , and have to evolve to be males ( hence why males have nipples ) , does that explain why males evolve faster then females ?
Maybe because we have to do so to become males ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does she believe that all embryos start as female, and then some (approx half) evolve to male?
By that statement, I had to *FIGHT* to be a male.
Now I reached that goal and I have to deal with those who were "left behind" or didn't evolve....hmm actually the above was a joke but formed a thought in my head.
If we start out as females, and have to evolve to be males (hence why males have nipples), does that explain why males evolve faster then females?
Maybe because we have to do so to become males?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763730</id>
	<title>A quick look at male behavior provides some clues</title>
	<author>dvoecks</author>
	<datestamp>1263483060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Darwin Award" winners are pretty overwhelmingly male.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Darwin Award " winners are pretty overwhelmingly male .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Darwin Award" winners are pretty overwhelmingly male.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766408</id>
	<title>Re:interesting factoid:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263492060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having them on the outside makes them much easier to scratch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having them on the outside makes them much easier to scratch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having them on the outside makes them much easier to scratch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764732</id>
	<title>Re:I thought the Y chromosome contained nothing</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1263486720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The idea was that the Y chromosome has almost nothing on it and is little more than a female to male switch.</i></p><p>That's completely contrary to what the biochemists are quoted as saying in TFA. I'll bet your prof was a female feminist. A little thought shows her wrong -- where else would male pattern baldness come from? Or facial and chest hair?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea was that the Y chromosome has almost nothing on it and is little more than a female to male switch.That 's completely contrary to what the biochemists are quoted as saying in TFA .
I 'll bet your prof was a female feminist .
A little thought shows her wrong -- where else would male pattern baldness come from ?
Or facial and chest hair ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea was that the Y chromosome has almost nothing on it and is little more than a female to male switch.That's completely contrary to what the biochemists are quoted as saying in TFA.
I'll bet your prof was a female feminist.
A little thought shows her wrong -- where else would male pattern baldness come from?
Or facial and chest hair?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765896</id>
	<title>Re:interesting factoid:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263490440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"i'm saying wouldn't it be better to have your testicles inside your body and evolve sperm that develop at a higher temperature? its pretty ridiculous to have such an important organ dangling outside unprotected. i never understood why"</p><p>You know why they're dangling out there (and you're right about your implication it is a *twisted* design to accomplish that), but you don't know why sperm need reduced temperature.  I went looking for info.  All I found was that spermatogenesis is more efficient at slightly lower temperature (2 deg C lower for humans), and that the effect is widespread in mammals (e.g., mice apparently are optimal at 8 deg C below their regular body temperature).  From the <a href="http://www.nature.com/cr/journal/v10/n4/full/7290056a.html" title="nature.com" rel="nofollow">papers</a> [nature.com] I <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3435194" title="nih.gov" rel="nofollow">found</a> [nih.gov], I get the sense that while the effect on spermatogenesis is well-studied, the exact cellular reasons for it are not well understood.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" i 'm saying would n't it be better to have your testicles inside your body and evolve sperm that develop at a higher temperature ?
its pretty ridiculous to have such an important organ dangling outside unprotected .
i never understood why " You know why they 're dangling out there ( and you 're right about your implication it is a * twisted * design to accomplish that ) , but you do n't know why sperm need reduced temperature .
I went looking for info .
All I found was that spermatogenesis is more efficient at slightly lower temperature ( 2 deg C lower for humans ) , and that the effect is widespread in mammals ( e.g. , mice apparently are optimal at 8 deg C below their regular body temperature ) .
From the papers [ nature.com ] I found [ nih.gov ] , I get the sense that while the effect on spermatogenesis is well-studied , the exact cellular reasons for it are not well understood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"i'm saying wouldn't it be better to have your testicles inside your body and evolve sperm that develop at a higher temperature?
its pretty ridiculous to have such an important organ dangling outside unprotected.
i never understood why"You know why they're dangling out there (and you're right about your implication it is a *twisted* design to accomplish that), but you don't know why sperm need reduced temperature.
I went looking for info.
All I found was that spermatogenesis is more efficient at slightly lower temperature (2 deg C lower for humans), and that the effect is widespread in mammals (e.g., mice apparently are optimal at 8 deg C below their regular body temperature).
From the papers [nature.com] I found [nih.gov], I get the sense that while the effect on spermatogenesis is well-studied, the exact cellular reasons for it are not well understood.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766816</id>
	<title>Re:interesting factoid:</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1263493440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a series on either the History or Discovery channel titled, "The Evolution of Sex." I don't recall the answer they gave, but they had an entire episode devoted to the evolutionary pressures that led to human genitalia evolution. If you have the gumption to go looking for the answer, that might be a good place to start. It's also quite an interesting series if you are interested in this type of discussion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a series on either the History or Discovery channel titled , " The Evolution of Sex .
" I do n't recall the answer they gave , but they had an entire episode devoted to the evolutionary pressures that led to human genitalia evolution .
If you have the gumption to go looking for the answer , that might be a good place to start .
It 's also quite an interesting series if you are interested in this type of discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a series on either the History or Discovery channel titled, "The Evolution of Sex.
" I don't recall the answer they gave, but they had an entire episode devoted to the evolutionary pressures that led to human genitalia evolution.
If you have the gumption to go looking for the answer, that might be a good place to start.
It's also quite an interesting series if you are interested in this type of discussion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766724</id>
	<title>Re:Mod the article flamebait</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1263493140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>gather angry responses and its fair share of taunting.</p></div><p>
That's half of what makes the internet fun =)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>gather angry responses and its fair share of taunting .
That 's half of what makes the internet fun = )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gather angry responses and its fair share of taunting.
That's half of what makes the internet fun =)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765228</id>
	<title>Re:So from what I can gather...</title>
	<author>Thiez</author>
	<datestamp>1263488220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Some scientists suspect that masturbation is actually a method to help provide non-damaging trauma to the testes, which can help alter, over time, the DNA that is contained within the spermatozoa.</p><p>Huh? That doesn't even begin to make sense.</p><p>1) What is the use of changing the DNA?<br>2) How can changing your DNA be called 'non-damaging'?<br>3) What masturbatory techniques do you use that cause significant trauma to your balls?</p><p>If nature had wanted us to traumatize our balls it wouldn't hurt so damn much &gt;</p><p>Please give a link to these 'some scientists' of yours.</p><p>Disclaimer: If by 'alter' you were referring to recombination rather than random mutation you may ignore point 1 and 2, although I would be suprised if a kick in the balls would improve this process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Some scientists suspect that masturbation is actually a method to help provide non-damaging trauma to the testes , which can help alter , over time , the DNA that is contained within the spermatozoa.Huh ?
That does n't even begin to make sense.1 ) What is the use of changing the DNA ? 2 ) How can changing your DNA be called 'non-damaging ' ? 3 ) What masturbatory techniques do you use that cause significant trauma to your balls ? If nature had wanted us to traumatize our balls it would n't hurt so damn much &gt; Please give a link to these 'some scientists ' of yours.Disclaimer : If by 'alter ' you were referring to recombination rather than random mutation you may ignore point 1 and 2 , although I would be suprised if a kick in the balls would improve this process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Some scientists suspect that masturbation is actually a method to help provide non-damaging trauma to the testes, which can help alter, over time, the DNA that is contained within the spermatozoa.Huh?
That doesn't even begin to make sense.1) What is the use of changing the DNA?2) How can changing your DNA be called 'non-damaging'?3) What masturbatory techniques do you use that cause significant trauma to your balls?If nature had wanted us to traumatize our balls it wouldn't hurt so damn much &gt;Please give a link to these 'some scientists' of yours.Disclaimer: If by 'alter' you were referring to recombination rather than random mutation you may ignore point 1 and 2, although I would be suprised if a kick in the balls would improve this process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30770812</id>
	<title>Data uses evolution as a fact to draw conclusion</title>
	<author>theendlessnow</author>
	<datestamp>1263463740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know that most here believe evolution IS a fact, but just wanted to point out the the so called scientific experiment done is predicated on the foundation that evolution is a fact.  So uses the conclusion at your own risk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know that most here believe evolution IS a fact , but just wanted to point out the the so called scientific experiment done is predicated on the foundation that evolution is a fact .
So uses the conclusion at your own risk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know that most here believe evolution IS a fact, but just wanted to point out the the so called scientific experiment done is predicated on the foundation that evolution is a fact.
So uses the conclusion at your own risk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763936</id>
	<title>This may be Degeneration, not Evolution</title>
	<author>viking80</author>
	<datestamp>1263483960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Evolving" might not be the right term. "Changing" might be better. Simplistically explained, so don't hang me for this: Evolving is genetic changes that is the result of environmental pressure. Evolving therefor results in better adaptation and superior individuals. Any disadvantageous mutation quickly perish. Very few changes are beneficial.</p><p>If there is no or little environmental pressure, any non-lethal mutation survives, and mutations flourish, good and bad.</p><p>If the rate of mutation increases rapidly, it is either due to intense environmental pressure, such as arriving on the Galapagos Island, or it is due to the fact that there is no environmental pressure on this genetic treat, and you survive either way. Literally Degeneration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Evolving " might not be the right term .
" Changing " might be better .
Simplistically explained , so do n't hang me for this : Evolving is genetic changes that is the result of environmental pressure .
Evolving therefor results in better adaptation and superior individuals .
Any disadvantageous mutation quickly perish .
Very few changes are beneficial.If there is no or little environmental pressure , any non-lethal mutation survives , and mutations flourish , good and bad.If the rate of mutation increases rapidly , it is either due to intense environmental pressure , such as arriving on the Galapagos Island , or it is due to the fact that there is no environmental pressure on this genetic treat , and you survive either way .
Literally Degeneration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Evolving" might not be the right term.
"Changing" might be better.
Simplistically explained, so don't hang me for this: Evolving is genetic changes that is the result of environmental pressure.
Evolving therefor results in better adaptation and superior individuals.
Any disadvantageous mutation quickly perish.
Very few changes are beneficial.If there is no or little environmental pressure, any non-lethal mutation survives, and mutations flourish, good and bad.If the rate of mutation increases rapidly, it is either due to intense environmental pressure, such as arriving on the Galapagos Island, or it is due to the fact that there is no environmental pressure on this genetic treat, and you survive either way.
Literally Degeneration.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766658</id>
	<title>Re:interesting factoid:</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1263492960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dolphins have access to a heat-sink. Animals that fight and hunt other fanged and clawed animals seem to be able to keep their balls, so external testes seem to work well enough for land mammals. Walking upright makes things more exposed, but humans are more likely manfuacture protection (see crotch flaps on soldiers' body armor) than evolve structurally.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dolphins have access to a heat-sink .
Animals that fight and hunt other fanged and clawed animals seem to be able to keep their balls , so external testes seem to work well enough for land mammals .
Walking upright makes things more exposed , but humans are more likely manfuacture protection ( see crotch flaps on soldiers ' body armor ) than evolve structurally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dolphins have access to a heat-sink.
Animals that fight and hunt other fanged and clawed animals seem to be able to keep their balls, so external testes seem to work well enough for land mammals.
Walking upright makes things more exposed, but humans are more likely manfuacture protection (see crotch flaps on soldiers' body armor) than evolve structurally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30769562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30767082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30770630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30767578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30768686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30768382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30771216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30767976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30767056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30783734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30780158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30767096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30768476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30777646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1358237_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1358237.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1358237.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1358237.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1358237.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30768476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763822
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764156
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1358237.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1358237.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764012
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1358237.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764732
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1358237.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30769562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30768686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1358237.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30767056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30771216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764006
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1358237.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1358237.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763876
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763954
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30767082
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765228
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764914
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764600
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763928
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30783734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1358237.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1358237.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763840
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1358237.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30770630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764396
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30767578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30777646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30767096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30768382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30780158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30767976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1358237.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763706
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1358237.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1358237.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1358237.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764364
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30765206
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30766378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1358237.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30763798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1358237.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1358237.30764056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
