<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_25_0252257</id>
	<title>Humans Nearly Went Extinct 1.2M Years Ago</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1264425480000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"Scientific American has a story on researchers from the University of Utah who have calculated that 1.2 million years ago, at a time when our ancestors Homo erectus, H. ergaster, and archaic H. sapiens were spreading through Africa, Europe, and Asia, there were probably only <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=early-human-population-size-genetic-diversity">about 18,500 individuals capable of breeding</a> in all these species together (<a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/01/06/0909000107">PNAS paper here</a>). Pre-humans were an endangered species with a smaller population than today's gorillas and chimpanzees. Researchers scanned two completely sequenced modern human genomes for a type of mobile element called Alu sequences, then compared the nucleotides in these old regions with the overall diversity in the two genomes to estimate differences in effective population size, and thus genetic diversity between modern and early humans. Human geneticist Lynn Jorde says that the diminished genetic diversity one million years ago suggests <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news183278038.html">human ancestors experienced a catastrophic event</a> at that time as devastating as the Toba super-volcano in Indonesia that triggered a nuclear winter and is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba\_catastrophe\_theory">thought to have nearly annihilated humans 70,000 years ago</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " Scientific American has a story on researchers from the University of Utah who have calculated that 1.2 million years ago , at a time when our ancestors Homo erectus , H. ergaster , and archaic H. sapiens were spreading through Africa , Europe , and Asia , there were probably only about 18,500 individuals capable of breeding in all these species together ( PNAS paper here ) .
Pre-humans were an endangered species with a smaller population than today 's gorillas and chimpanzees .
Researchers scanned two completely sequenced modern human genomes for a type of mobile element called Alu sequences , then compared the nucleotides in these old regions with the overall diversity in the two genomes to estimate differences in effective population size , and thus genetic diversity between modern and early humans .
Human geneticist Lynn Jorde says that the diminished genetic diversity one million years ago suggests human ancestors experienced a catastrophic event at that time as devastating as the Toba super-volcano in Indonesia that triggered a nuclear winter and is thought to have nearly annihilated humans 70,000 years ago .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "Scientific American has a story on researchers from the University of Utah who have calculated that 1.2 million years ago, at a time when our ancestors Homo erectus, H. ergaster, and archaic H. sapiens were spreading through Africa, Europe, and Asia, there were probably only about 18,500 individuals capable of breeding in all these species together (PNAS paper here).
Pre-humans were an endangered species with a smaller population than today's gorillas and chimpanzees.
Researchers scanned two completely sequenced modern human genomes for a type of mobile element called Alu sequences, then compared the nucleotides in these old regions with the overall diversity in the two genomes to estimate differences in effective population size, and thus genetic diversity between modern and early humans.
Human geneticist Lynn Jorde says that the diminished genetic diversity one million years ago suggests human ancestors experienced a catastrophic event at that time as devastating as the Toba super-volcano in Indonesia that triggered a nuclear winter and is thought to have nearly annihilated humans 70,000 years ago.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30893366</id>
	<title>Re:Insightful Troll!</title>
	<author>toriver</author>
	<datestamp>1264447080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Vikings also believed in a flat Earth, with a great worm (one of Loki's children) encircling the world of men (Midgard) with separate worlds for gods (Asgard) and "monsters" (Jotunheim).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Vikings also believed in a flat Earth , with a great worm ( one of Loki 's children ) encircling the world of men ( Midgard ) with separate worlds for gods ( Asgard ) and " monsters " ( Jotunheim ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Vikings also believed in a flat Earth, with a great worm (one of Loki's children) encircling the world of men (Midgard) with separate worlds for gods (Asgard) and "monsters" (Jotunheim).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888854</id>
	<title>This means ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264429560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this means that we're really all brothers and sisters, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this means that we 're really all brothers and sisters , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this means that we're really all brothers and sisters, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889472</id>
	<title>Didnt we already know this?</title>
	<author>Nidi62</author>
	<datestamp>1264432920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean, don't we already know that our species went through several bottlenecks?  If I remember correctly, at one point we went through a bottleneck so small that the total number of breeding females was in the double digits.  What I am more concerned about is when the next bottleneck is going to happen, and what will be the cause of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , do n't we already know that our species went through several bottlenecks ?
If I remember correctly , at one point we went through a bottleneck so small that the total number of breeding females was in the double digits .
What I am more concerned about is when the next bottleneck is going to happen , and what will be the cause of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, don't we already know that our species went through several bottlenecks?
If I remember correctly, at one point we went through a bottleneck so small that the total number of breeding females was in the double digits.
What I am more concerned about is when the next bottleneck is going to happen, and what will be the cause of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888864</id>
	<title>So... BSG was right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264429680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously this is when Adama and the fleet landed on Earth. BSG was right all along!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously this is when Adama and the fleet landed on Earth .
BSG was right all along !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously this is when Adama and the fleet landed on Earth.
BSG was right all along!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30894380</id>
	<title>EXTINCTION?  Puh-lease.</title>
	<author>professorguy</author>
	<datestamp>1264451700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's say the population of inter-breedable humans went continuously up so population rose every year.  In this case you could still have genetics that indicated "near extinctions."  That's because some families died out even as other families were thriving.  So even though the population never went down, it'd still look like we were down to just a few couples (my gosh, we were nearly extinct!) since only their descendants made it all the way through.
<br> <br>
This implies that had those families not survived, some others would have and it would still seem like we were on the brink (a different brink perhaps) of extinction.  That is to say, WE WERE NEVER IN DANGER OF EXTINCTION.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's say the population of inter-breedable humans went continuously up so population rose every year .
In this case you could still have genetics that indicated " near extinctions .
" That 's because some families died out even as other families were thriving .
So even though the population never went down , it 'd still look like we were down to just a few couples ( my gosh , we were nearly extinct !
) since only their descendants made it all the way through .
This implies that had those families not survived , some others would have and it would still seem like we were on the brink ( a different brink perhaps ) of extinction .
That is to say , WE WERE NEVER IN DANGER OF EXTINCTION .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's say the population of inter-breedable humans went continuously up so population rose every year.
In this case you could still have genetics that indicated "near extinctions.
"  That's because some families died out even as other families were thriving.
So even though the population never went down, it'd still look like we were down to just a few couples (my gosh, we were nearly extinct!
) since only their descendants made it all the way through.
This implies that had those families not survived, some others would have and it would still seem like we were on the brink (a different brink perhaps) of extinction.
That is to say, WE WERE NEVER IN DANGER OF EXTINCTION.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890520</id>
	<title>Re:say that to the tasmanian wolf</title>
	<author>genghisjahn</author>
	<datestamp>1264436880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where would you go that your chances of survival would be better than staying on Earth?  If such a place exists, it'd cost a lot more than a TV in every room to get there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where would you go that your chances of survival would be better than staying on Earth ?
If such a place exists , it 'd cost a lot more than a TV in every room to get there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where would you go that your chances of survival would be better than staying on Earth?
If such a place exists, it'd cost a lot more than a TV in every room to get there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30892190</id>
	<title>Re:Pfft...</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1264442400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Imagine how much smarter we'd be if our parents weren't related.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine how much smarter we 'd be if our parents were n't related .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine how much smarter we'd be if our parents weren't related.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889928</id>
	<title>Interesting</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1264434600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I wonder if this might be the psychological root-event of the persistent and widespread human eschatological theme of 'world destruction by fire' etc.  One might even see a parallel event in the Christian Bible's expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden - prevented from returning by "...a flaming sword which turned every way..." (KJV).</p><p>It seems that since Troy, we're finding that all the great myths and legends that have come down to us through the ages seem to have some kernel of truth at the core, overlaid by 00's if not 000's of generations of encrustations of ignorance, superstition, and the (apparent) human compulsion to make a sensible story out of the chaotic universe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I wonder if this might be the psychological root-event of the persistent and widespread human eschatological theme of 'world destruction by fire ' etc .
One might even see a parallel event in the Christian Bible 's expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden - prevented from returning by " ...a flaming sword which turned every way... " ( KJV ) .It seems that since Troy , we 're finding that all the great myths and legends that have come down to us through the ages seem to have some kernel of truth at the core , overlaid by 00 's if not 000 's of generations of encrustations of ignorance , superstition , and the ( apparent ) human compulsion to make a sensible story out of the chaotic universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I wonder if this might be the psychological root-event of the persistent and widespread human eschatological theme of 'world destruction by fire' etc.
One might even see a parallel event in the Christian Bible's expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden - prevented from returning by "...a flaming sword which turned every way..." (KJV).It seems that since Troy, we're finding that all the great myths and legends that have come down to us through the ages seem to have some kernel of truth at the core, overlaid by 00's if not 000's of generations of encrustations of ignorance, superstition, and the (apparent) human compulsion to make a sensible story out of the chaotic universe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30894334</id>
	<title>H. ergaster?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264451460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"H. ergaster"? They surely mean H. <em>melano</em>gaster, our little winged, fruit-loving lab overlords.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" H. ergaster " ? They surely mean H. melanogaster , our little winged , fruit-loving lab overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"H. ergaster"? They surely mean H. melanogaster, our little winged, fruit-loving lab overlords.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889066</id>
	<title>Re:The new dogma of genetics</title>
	<author>TheKidWho</author>
	<datestamp>1264430880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But why should we assume a uniform rate over time, when evolutionary theory says that genetic differentiation happens in leaps and bounds?</i></p><p>See, here is your problem, you're assuming evolutionary theory is correct to begin with.</p><p><i>Indeed, much of science is based on a giant leap of faith in linear regression; physicists, chemists, doctors, engineers, all use linear regression without questioning its assumptions.</i></p><p>No, they use linear regression and then <b>test</b> to prove it's a reasonable assumption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But why should we assume a uniform rate over time , when evolutionary theory says that genetic differentiation happens in leaps and bounds ? See , here is your problem , you 're assuming evolutionary theory is correct to begin with.Indeed , much of science is based on a giant leap of faith in linear regression ; physicists , chemists , doctors , engineers , all use linear regression without questioning its assumptions.No , they use linear regression and then test to prove it 's a reasonable assumption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But why should we assume a uniform rate over time, when evolutionary theory says that genetic differentiation happens in leaps and bounds?See, here is your problem, you're assuming evolutionary theory is correct to begin with.Indeed, much of science is based on a giant leap of faith in linear regression; physicists, chemists, doctors, engineers, all use linear regression without questioning its assumptions.No, they use linear regression and then test to prove it's a reasonable assumption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890304</id>
	<title>What's wrong with this picture?</title>
	<author>fullymodo</author>
	<datestamp>1264436160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:</p><blockquote><div><p>...the extent of genetic diversity among hominins living one million years ago was between 1.7 and 2.9 times <b>greater</b> than among humans today</p></div></blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>..and in the next paragraph:</p><blockquote><div><p>Jorde thinks that the diminished genetic diversity one million years ago suggests human ancestors experienced a catastrophic event...</p></div></blockquote><p>Um. What?</p><p>So, according to the research, 1 million years ago the human population was about 55,000 with a genetic diversity 2-3 times greater than that of modern humans.  Can someone help me understand how they get to a near extinction conclusion?  Is it just that the population is lower than expected?  TFA is not very clear on the point...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : ...the extent of genetic diversity among hominins living one million years ago was between 1.7 and 2.9 times greater than among humans today ..and in the next paragraph : Jorde thinks that the diminished genetic diversity one million years ago suggests human ancestors experienced a catastrophic event...Um .
What ? So , according to the research , 1 million years ago the human population was about 55,000 with a genetic diversity 2-3 times greater than that of modern humans .
Can someone help me understand how they get to a near extinction conclusion ?
Is it just that the population is lower than expected ?
TFA is not very clear on the point.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:...the extent of genetic diversity among hominins living one million years ago was between 1.7 and 2.9 times greater than among humans today ..and in the next paragraph:Jorde thinks that the diminished genetic diversity one million years ago suggests human ancestors experienced a catastrophic event...Um.
What?So, according to the research, 1 million years ago the human population was about 55,000 with a genetic diversity 2-3 times greater than that of modern humans.
Can someone help me understand how they get to a near extinction conclusion?
Is it just that the population is lower than expected?
TFA is not very clear on the point...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.31018986</id>
	<title>Re:say that to the tasmanian wolf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264960140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We can't allow the ruskies an advantage via the Mine Shaft Gap!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We ca n't allow the ruskies an advantage via the Mine Shaft Gap !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can't allow the ruskies an advantage via the Mine Shaft Gap!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890130</id>
	<title>Re:say that to the tasmanian wolf</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1264435380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Humans nearly went extinct during the nuclear missile crisis</p></div><p>In that event, I would not rule out the chance to preserve a nucleus of human specimens. It would be quite easy at the bottom of some of our deeper mine shafts. The radioactivity would never penetrate a mine some thousands of feet deep. And in a matter of weeks, sufficient improvements in dwelling space could easily be provided. Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely. Greenhouses could maintain plant life. Animals could be bred and slaughtered. A quick survey would have to be made of all the available mine sites in the country. But I would guess that dwelling space for several hundred thousands of our people could easily be provided. With the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within say, twenty years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Humans nearly went extinct during the nuclear missile crisisIn that event , I would not rule out the chance to preserve a nucleus of human specimens .
It would be quite easy at the bottom of some of our deeper mine shafts .
The radioactivity would never penetrate a mine some thousands of feet deep .
And in a matter of weeks , sufficient improvements in dwelling space could easily be provided .
Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely .
Greenhouses could maintain plant life .
Animals could be bred and slaughtered .
A quick survey would have to be made of all the available mine sites in the country .
But I would guess that dwelling space for several hundred thousands of our people could easily be provided .
With the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say , ten females to each male , I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within say , twenty years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Humans nearly went extinct during the nuclear missile crisisIn that event, I would not rule out the chance to preserve a nucleus of human specimens.
It would be quite easy at the bottom of some of our deeper mine shafts.
The radioactivity would never penetrate a mine some thousands of feet deep.
And in a matter of weeks, sufficient improvements in dwelling space could easily be provided.
Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely.
Greenhouses could maintain plant life.
Animals could be bred and slaughtered.
A quick survey would have to be made of all the available mine sites in the country.
But I would guess that dwelling space for several hundred thousands of our people could easily be provided.
With the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within say, twenty years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30901714</id>
	<title>Re:The new dogma of genetics</title>
	<author>drkim</author>
	<datestamp>1264501800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's interesting you use the word 'faith'. <i>"...It is based on a faith that DNA mutates at a uniform rate over time..."</i>
<br> <br>
You see - science - and more specifically DNA mutation rates - aren't based on 'faith' at all.
<br> <br>
'Faith' is what people use to believe in things like: "If I have 'faith' in a magical corpse-on-a stick; I will live forever!!!"
<br> <br>
That is why - if you travel the world - people have 'faith' in all kinds of different things - and think everyone elses 'faith' is wrong.
<br> <br>
Science is based on rigorous, repeatable testing of the physical world; which is why scientists and engineers and doctors and mathematicians all pretty much believe the <b>same</b> things, and a medicine that works in Iceland, works just as well in Jakarta. And a plane that can fly over Mexico, can also fly over Dubai.
<br> <br>
<i>"...evolutionary theory says that genetic differentiation happens in leaps and bounds..."</i>
<br> <br>
No, it doesn't. Evolutionary theory says that genetic change is a fairly slow, fractional process; you're fairly similar to your parents, who are similar to their parents and so on... going back millions of years. Only people who believe the biblical creation fable think that people were created in a single leap and bound - i.e. one day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's interesting you use the word 'faith' .
" ...It is based on a faith that DNA mutates at a uniform rate over time... " You see - science - and more specifically DNA mutation rates - are n't based on 'faith ' at all .
'Faith ' is what people use to believe in things like : " If I have 'faith ' in a magical corpse-on-a stick ; I will live forever ! ! !
" That is why - if you travel the world - people have 'faith ' in all kinds of different things - and think everyone elses 'faith ' is wrong .
Science is based on rigorous , repeatable testing of the physical world ; which is why scientists and engineers and doctors and mathematicians all pretty much believe the same things , and a medicine that works in Iceland , works just as well in Jakarta .
And a plane that can fly over Mexico , can also fly over Dubai .
" ...evolutionary theory says that genetic differentiation happens in leaps and bounds... " No , it does n't .
Evolutionary theory says that genetic change is a fairly slow , fractional process ; you 're fairly similar to your parents , who are similar to their parents and so on... going back millions of years .
Only people who believe the biblical creation fable think that people were created in a single leap and bound - i.e .
one day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's interesting you use the word 'faith'.
"...It is based on a faith that DNA mutates at a uniform rate over time..."
 
You see - science - and more specifically DNA mutation rates - aren't based on 'faith' at all.
'Faith' is what people use to believe in things like: "If I have 'faith' in a magical corpse-on-a stick; I will live forever!!!
"
 
That is why - if you travel the world - people have 'faith' in all kinds of different things - and think everyone elses 'faith' is wrong.
Science is based on rigorous, repeatable testing of the physical world; which is why scientists and engineers and doctors and mathematicians all pretty much believe the same things, and a medicine that works in Iceland, works just as well in Jakarta.
And a plane that can fly over Mexico, can also fly over Dubai.
"...evolutionary theory says that genetic differentiation happens in leaps and bounds..."
 
No, it doesn't.
Evolutionary theory says that genetic change is a fairly slow, fractional process; you're fairly similar to your parents, who are similar to their parents and so on... going back millions of years.
Only people who believe the biblical creation fable think that people were created in a single leap and bound - i.e.
one day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918</id>
	<title>The new dogma of genetics</title>
	<author>dorpus</author>
	<datestamp>1264429980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Genetics today is obsessed with conserved DNA sequences as "proof" of evolutionary kinship.  It is based on a faith that DNA mutates at a uniform rate over time.  But why should we assume a uniform rate over time, when evolutionary theory says that genetic differentiation happens in leaps and bounds?  DNA homology amounts to a linear extrapolation, when it is known that evolution takes curvy, twisted paths.  I venture to guess that DNA homology will turn out to be about as reliable as phrenology.  I'm getting my PhD in statistics, and I've taken several courses in genetics -- enough to know that all theories in genetics are wrong.  Indeed, much of science is based on a giant leap of faith in linear regression; physicists, chemists, doctors, engineers, all use linear regression without questioning its assumptions.  The assumptions implicit in linear regression are not justified by real world data when examined closely, but very few science papers go into this level of inquiry.  I used to be an atheist, but I've come to the conclusion that science is just as irrational as Wahabbism.  They say mathematics is the one infallible science, but numbers are just an idealization of reality; they fail to capture all the complexity.  Science wants simple explanations, yet the world isn't simple; it is inherently an exercise in circular logic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Genetics today is obsessed with conserved DNA sequences as " proof " of evolutionary kinship .
It is based on a faith that DNA mutates at a uniform rate over time .
But why should we assume a uniform rate over time , when evolutionary theory says that genetic differentiation happens in leaps and bounds ?
DNA homology amounts to a linear extrapolation , when it is known that evolution takes curvy , twisted paths .
I venture to guess that DNA homology will turn out to be about as reliable as phrenology .
I 'm getting my PhD in statistics , and I 've taken several courses in genetics -- enough to know that all theories in genetics are wrong .
Indeed , much of science is based on a giant leap of faith in linear regression ; physicists , chemists , doctors , engineers , all use linear regression without questioning its assumptions .
The assumptions implicit in linear regression are not justified by real world data when examined closely , but very few science papers go into this level of inquiry .
I used to be an atheist , but I 've come to the conclusion that science is just as irrational as Wahabbism .
They say mathematics is the one infallible science , but numbers are just an idealization of reality ; they fail to capture all the complexity .
Science wants simple explanations , yet the world is n't simple ; it is inherently an exercise in circular logic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Genetics today is obsessed with conserved DNA sequences as "proof" of evolutionary kinship.
It is based on a faith that DNA mutates at a uniform rate over time.
But why should we assume a uniform rate over time, when evolutionary theory says that genetic differentiation happens in leaps and bounds?
DNA homology amounts to a linear extrapolation, when it is known that evolution takes curvy, twisted paths.
I venture to guess that DNA homology will turn out to be about as reliable as phrenology.
I'm getting my PhD in statistics, and I've taken several courses in genetics -- enough to know that all theories in genetics are wrong.
Indeed, much of science is based on a giant leap of faith in linear regression; physicists, chemists, doctors, engineers, all use linear regression without questioning its assumptions.
The assumptions implicit in linear regression are not justified by real world data when examined closely, but very few science papers go into this level of inquiry.
I used to be an atheist, but I've come to the conclusion that science is just as irrational as Wahabbism.
They say mathematics is the one infallible science, but numbers are just an idealization of reality; they fail to capture all the complexity.
Science wants simple explanations, yet the world isn't simple; it is inherently an exercise in circular logic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889252</id>
	<title>Re:Toba volcano ? Nuclear winter ?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1264432020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe the flood was the near extinction 70K years ago? However, it's been found that there was a flood inbiblical times, but not a worldwide flood so wouldn't have caused mankind to go extinct. It created the Dead Sea, and if you'd lived there it would have seemed as if the whole world had flooded.</p><p>BTW, I have a white beard, and was an amateur magician when I was about 12. But I don't think even David Copperfield could make humans go extinct. Your attempts to annoy with your athiest flamebait are fruitless, son. Try again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the flood was the near extinction 70K years ago ?
However , it 's been found that there was a flood inbiblical times , but not a worldwide flood so would n't have caused mankind to go extinct .
It created the Dead Sea , and if you 'd lived there it would have seemed as if the whole world had flooded.BTW , I have a white beard , and was an amateur magician when I was about 12 .
But I do n't think even David Copperfield could make humans go extinct .
Your attempts to annoy with your athiest flamebait are fruitless , son .
Try again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the flood was the near extinction 70K years ago?
However, it's been found that there was a flood inbiblical times, but not a worldwide flood so wouldn't have caused mankind to go extinct.
It created the Dead Sea, and if you'd lived there it would have seemed as if the whole world had flooded.BTW, I have a white beard, and was an amateur magician when I was about 12.
But I don't think even David Copperfield could make humans go extinct.
Your attempts to annoy with your athiest flamebait are fruitless, son.
Try again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888928</id>
	<title>Nuclear winter? Volcano? Paging xenu...</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1264430040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm just saying, there's some suspicious congruencies there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just saying , there 's some suspicious congruencies there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just saying, there's some suspicious congruencies there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30896810</id>
	<title>Re:We were saved!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264417800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Luckily, magic underwear was discovered and humans survived the event.</p></div><p>I'm reading about a new theory that argues H. Sapiens actually DID die out and was replaced by the nearly identical H. Idioticus. Personally, I could see such a genus appealing to magic underwear for survival.</p></div><p>But that was only like, fifteen years ago</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Luckily , magic underwear was discovered and humans survived the event.I 'm reading about a new theory that argues H. Sapiens actually DID die out and was replaced by the nearly identical H. Idioticus. Personally , I could see such a genus appealing to magic underwear for survival.But that was only like , fifteen years ago</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Luckily, magic underwear was discovered and humans survived the event.I'm reading about a new theory that argues H. Sapiens actually DID die out and was replaced by the nearly identical H. Idioticus. Personally, I could see such a genus appealing to magic underwear for survival.But that was only like, fifteen years ago
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890072</id>
	<title>Re:The Ancients died of a plague and most of them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264435140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That last season of SG1 was really hard to watch. And Daniel ascending was really stupid also.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That last season of SG1 was really hard to watch .
And Daniel ascending was really stupid also .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That last season of SG1 was really hard to watch.
And Daniel ascending was really stupid also.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889176</id>
	<title>Re:This means ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264431600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, because we don't all share at least one parent. Unless you wish to render the term "brothers and sisters" redundant and meaningless, then yes why the fuck not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , because we do n't all share at least one parent .
Unless you wish to render the term " brothers and sisters " redundant and meaningless , then yes why the fuck not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, because we don't all share at least one parent.
Unless you wish to render the term "brothers and sisters" redundant and meaningless, then yes why the fuck not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30913422</id>
	<title>Re:say that to the tasmanian wolf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264525140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>20 to 1 huh? Ok, I'm in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>20 to 1 huh ?
Ok , I 'm in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>20 to 1 huh?
Ok, I'm in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30894468</id>
	<title>imagine: if the whole human race were wiped out</title>
	<author>porky\_pig\_jr</author>
	<datestamp>1264452060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that long ago, we would have never had an Apple Tablet on January 27th. What a scary thought!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that long ago , we would have never had an Apple Tablet on January 27th .
What a scary thought !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that long ago, we would have never had an Apple Tablet on January 27th.
What a scary thought!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888892</id>
	<title>Slow news day?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264429800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/24/2148235" title="slashdot.org">Humans Nearly Went Extinct 70,000 Years Ago </a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Humans Nearly Went Extinct 70,000 Years Ago [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Humans Nearly Went Extinct 70,000 Years Ago  [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889186</id>
	<title>Re:This means ...</title>
	<author>Rude Turnip</author>
	<datestamp>1264431660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In some societies, cousins are considered the same as brothers and sisters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In some societies , cousins are considered the same as brothers and sisters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In some societies, cousins are considered the same as brothers and sisters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30892330</id>
	<title>Re:Pfft...</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1264442940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, I didn't know Adam was the first to yank his bone. I guess that's why they call him the first man.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , I did n't know Adam was the first to yank his bone .
I guess that 's why they call him the first man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, I didn't know Adam was the first to yank his bone.
I guess that's why they call him the first man.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889286</id>
	<title>Castastrophic Event?</title>
	<author>FurtiveGlancer</author>
	<datestamp>1264432200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The advent of <b>Karaoke</b>!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The advent of Karaoke !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The advent of Karaoke!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889024</id>
	<title>Another of the lying faithful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264430640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahh, another christer pretending to have been reclaimed from atheism.<br>The logical response to believing that a particular bit of science is wrong is not to become religious. Its hardly a motivation at all. Google maps gave me the wrong directions - its time to become buddhist.<br>Isn't it a premise of your faith to be honest?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahh , another christer pretending to have been reclaimed from atheism.The logical response to believing that a particular bit of science is wrong is not to become religious .
Its hardly a motivation at all .
Google maps gave me the wrong directions - its time to become buddhist.Is n't it a premise of your faith to be honest ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahh, another christer pretending to have been reclaimed from atheism.The logical response to believing that a particular bit of science is wrong is not to become religious.
Its hardly a motivation at all.
Google maps gave me the wrong directions - its time to become buddhist.Isn't it a premise of your faith to be honest?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30892172</id>
	<title>Re:There's a message in this somewhere</title>
	<author>Gilmoure</author>
	<datestamp>1264442340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damn you spotted owl. Damn you to HELL!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn you spotted owl .
Damn you to HELL !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn you spotted owl.
Damn you to HELL!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888832</id>
	<title>Pfft...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264429380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's nothing.  I mean, the whole race started from just two people, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's nothing .
I mean , the whole race started from just two people , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's nothing.
I mean, the whole race started from just two people, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890356</id>
	<title>Re:This means ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264436340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, the family tree doesn't really branch out. It's more like a piece of rope that weaves in and out. Some ropes are just more narrow than others.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-p</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , the family tree does n't really branch out .
It 's more like a piece of rope that weaves in and out .
Some ropes are just more narrow than others .
; -p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, the family tree doesn't really branch out.
It's more like a piece of rope that weaves in and out.
Some ropes are just more narrow than others.
;-p</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889138</id>
	<title>Insightful Troll!</title>
	<author>freaker\_TuC</author>
	<datestamp>1264431360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this is a troll, it must be a kick-ass troll<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>I think parent poster should be getting insightful instead; talking about not trusting blindly; even if it is science<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>It's only with an open mind, more options can be found. Remember; there used to be science about the earth being flat ages ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this is a troll , it must be a kick-ass troll ...I think parent poster should be getting insightful instead ; talking about not trusting blindly ; even if it is science ...It 's only with an open mind , more options can be found .
Remember ; there used to be science about the earth being flat ages ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this is a troll, it must be a kick-ass troll ...I think parent poster should be getting insightful instead; talking about not trusting blindly; even if it is science ...It's only with an open mind, more options can be found.
Remember; there used to be science about the earth being flat ages ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30900776</id>
	<title>Re:This means ...</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1264445880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>100 years ago, you'd be fortunate to see some first cousins once or twice in your lifetime. Now it is common to see most of them several times a year, along with any other common relatives</i>
</p><p>That sounds completely backwards.  I would have expected that in historically closer-knit communities, with relatively much less travel and relocation than the modern world, the exact opposite to be true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>100 years ago , you 'd be fortunate to see some first cousins once or twice in your lifetime .
Now it is common to see most of them several times a year , along with any other common relatives That sounds completely backwards .
I would have expected that in historically closer-knit communities , with relatively much less travel and relocation than the modern world , the exact opposite to be true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 100 years ago, you'd be fortunate to see some first cousins once or twice in your lifetime.
Now it is common to see most of them several times a year, along with any other common relatives
That sounds completely backwards.
I would have expected that in historically closer-knit communities, with relatively much less travel and relocation than the modern world, the exact opposite to be true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30901500</id>
	<title>"I thought Genesis was a Jewish story..."</title>
	<author>drkim</author>
	<datestamp>1264498560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was, and Jesus was a Jew, too.
<br> <br>
The Christians think that by binding two separate book together, makes them all one 'book.'
<br> <br>
Of course in Deuteronomy - the <b>last</b> book of the Torah (12:32) - it says that you: shouldn't add anything to this work or remove anything from it.
<br> <br>
Of course slash-dotters know perfectly well what the bible was: it was <b>humanity's first hard drive!</b> Think about it... a fairly random collection of things we decided to save for latter like: family records (begat, begat begat), recipes (there's one for honey cakes I found once), prOn (Song of Solomon), cool battle stories, song lyrics, practical survival advice...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was , and Jesus was a Jew , too .
The Christians think that by binding two separate book together , makes them all one 'book .
' Of course in Deuteronomy - the last book of the Torah ( 12 : 32 ) - it says that you : should n't add anything to this work or remove anything from it .
Of course slash-dotters know perfectly well what the bible was : it was humanity 's first hard drive !
Think about it... a fairly random collection of things we decided to save for latter like : family records ( begat , begat begat ) , recipes ( there 's one for honey cakes I found once ) , prOn ( Song of Solomon ) , cool battle stories , song lyrics , practical survival advice.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was, and Jesus was a Jew, too.
The Christians think that by binding two separate book together, makes them all one 'book.
'
 
Of course in Deuteronomy - the last book of the Torah (12:32) - it says that you: shouldn't add anything to this work or remove anything from it.
Of course slash-dotters know perfectly well what the bible was: it was humanity's first hard drive!
Think about it... a fairly random collection of things we decided to save for latter like: family records (begat, begat begat), recipes (there's one for honey cakes I found once), prOn (Song of Solomon), cool battle stories, song lyrics, practical survival advice...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30893180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30893602</id>
	<title>This is old news...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264447980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1.2 million years old</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1.2 million years old</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.2 million years old</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30900456</id>
	<title>Re:This means ...</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1264442640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>this means that we're really all brothers and sisters, right?</p></div><p>Cousins. Except for the ones that <em>really</em> are your brothers and sisters.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>this means that we 're really all brothers and sisters , right ? Cousins .
Except for the ones that really are your brothers and sisters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this means that we're really all brothers and sisters, right?Cousins.
Except for the ones that really are your brothers and sisters.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30894002</id>
	<title>Stop Sephiroth</title>
	<author>BlueFiberOptics</author>
	<datestamp>1264450080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Guys, we have to prevent Sephiroth from summoning Meteor or we'll all be wiped out again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Guys , we have to prevent Sephiroth from summoning Meteor or we 'll all be wiped out again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guys, we have to prevent Sephiroth from summoning Meteor or we'll all be wiped out again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890136</id>
	<title>Expectations for future reports include....</title>
	<author>gaelfx</author>
	<datestamp>1264435380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...a report by the NRA that the first human weapons resembling guns were developed at precisely the time we *almost* went extinct. Coincidence? I think not. More at 11...</htmltext>
<tokenext>...a report by the NRA that the first human weapons resembling guns were developed at precisely the time we * almost * went extinct .
Coincidence ? I think not .
More at 11.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...a report by the NRA that the first human weapons resembling guns were developed at precisely the time we *almost* went extinct.
Coincidence? I think not.
More at 11...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30892686</id>
	<title>Re:This means ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264443960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That might work on a pure mathematical level, but I seriously doubt that the calculations take mobility into account. I can see no way how I could share a common ancestor within the last 1000 years with, say, an amazon Indian or an Australian aborigine. Everyone within certain subpopulations, e.g. every European, that I could believe. Do you by chance have a link to this story? Interesting topic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That might work on a pure mathematical level , but I seriously doubt that the calculations take mobility into account .
I can see no way how I could share a common ancestor within the last 1000 years with , say , an amazon Indian or an Australian aborigine .
Everyone within certain subpopulations , e.g .
every European , that I could believe .
Do you by chance have a link to this story ?
Interesting topic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That might work on a pure mathematical level, but I seriously doubt that the calculations take mobility into account.
I can see no way how I could share a common ancestor within the last 1000 years with, say, an amazon Indian or an Australian aborigine.
Everyone within certain subpopulations, e.g.
every European, that I could believe.
Do you by chance have a link to this story?
Interesting topic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889348</id>
	<title>Re:Pfft...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264432500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, that was just the Jews.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , that was just the Jews .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, that was just the Jews.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30893032</id>
	<title>a super-volcano could save earth?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264445700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After reading this one, I've read about super-volcanoes on wikipiedia, and it says those eruption lower earth's temperature and can trigger a small ice age.<br>Maybe an eruption like that could save us from global warming?<br>It's a little bit scary anyway...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading this one , I 've read about super-volcanoes on wikipiedia , and it says those eruption lower earth 's temperature and can trigger a small ice age.Maybe an eruption like that could save us from global warming ? It 's a little bit scary anyway.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading this one, I've read about super-volcanoes on wikipiedia, and it says those eruption lower earth's temperature and can trigger a small ice age.Maybe an eruption like that could save us from global warming?It's a little bit scary anyway...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30894036</id>
	<title>Re:say that to the tasmanian wolf</title>
	<author>aflag</author>
	<datestamp>1264450260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who cares if human kind exists for more 70,000 years or 5,000? Do you <i>really</i> care about it? Or all you really want is to be able to explore new planets because it's freaking awesome? I don't care for how well the species go, after I die the world has pretty much ended anyway... I think it's very hard to be happy when your goal is for something impossible to happen: to live forever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares if human kind exists for more 70,000 years or 5,000 ?
Do you really care about it ?
Or all you really want is to be able to explore new planets because it 's freaking awesome ?
I do n't care for how well the species go , after I die the world has pretty much ended anyway... I think it 's very hard to be happy when your goal is for something impossible to happen : to live forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares if human kind exists for more 70,000 years or 5,000?
Do you really care about it?
Or all you really want is to be able to explore new planets because it's freaking awesome?
I don't care for how well the species go, after I die the world has pretty much ended anyway... I think it's very hard to be happy when your goal is for something impossible to happen: to live forever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888898</id>
	<title>Summary is wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264429860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 18500 people quoted is not the number of people capable of breeding, but the "effective population", an abstract measure of genetic diversity in a species. According to TFA, the effective population of modern humanity is about 10000, and the argument in the article is that this much lower diversity indicates that a lot of genetic material must have been lost in a near-extinction event.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 18500 people quoted is not the number of people capable of breeding , but the " effective population " , an abstract measure of genetic diversity in a species .
According to TFA , the effective population of modern humanity is about 10000 , and the argument in the article is that this much lower diversity indicates that a lot of genetic material must have been lost in a near-extinction event .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 18500 people quoted is not the number of people capable of breeding, but the "effective population", an abstract measure of genetic diversity in a species.
According to TFA, the effective population of modern humanity is about 10000, and the argument in the article is that this much lower diversity indicates that a lot of genetic material must have been lost in a near-extinction event.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889492</id>
	<title>Re:Summary is wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264432980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With a pool of about 10000, does that mean you can only bang 10K women and then you've seen it all?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With a pool of about 10000 , does that mean you can only bang 10K women and then you 've seen it all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With a pool of about 10000, does that mean you can only bang 10K women and then you've seen it all?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891002</id>
	<title>Re:Didnt we already know this?</title>
	<author>wisdom\_brewing</author>
	<datestamp>1264438560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Chuck Norris</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chuck Norris</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chuck Norris</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30898292</id>
	<title>Weakened purifying selection</title>
	<author>interactive\_civilian</author>
	<datestamp>1264425060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Besides, there was the other near extinction 70K years ago. Wht I find interesting is the near extinctions were probably what led to modern humans' intelligence and other traits (like humor) that makes us so different from other species.</p></div><p>This is not a bad hypothesis. Large populations tend to undergo strong purifying selection (selection for the "normal" of a trait and against the extremes). Because of this, any new traits that appear in a large population by random mutation have a good chance of "getting lost in the noise" so to speak. They have a smaller chance of becoming fixed in the population.</p><p>However, if you weaken the purifying selection (the two easiest ways of doing this are reducing the population through a bottleneck or by the founder effect of a small population immigrating into a new ecosystem) new traits have a better chance of getting fixed and propagating in the resulting population(s). Human populations have gone through bottlenecks and come out with new abilities on the other side, so the possibility that such a situation is what gave rise to human level intelligence is a good one.</p><p>Weakened purifying selection is the main cause of increased genome complexity and the arise of new adaptations, more powerful and "sudden" than gradual change by natural selection. Sometimes a population has to do very badly in order to have a chance to gain the adaptations necessary for survival.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides , there was the other near extinction 70K years ago .
Wht I find interesting is the near extinctions were probably what led to modern humans ' intelligence and other traits ( like humor ) that makes us so different from other species.This is not a bad hypothesis .
Large populations tend to undergo strong purifying selection ( selection for the " normal " of a trait and against the extremes ) .
Because of this , any new traits that appear in a large population by random mutation have a good chance of " getting lost in the noise " so to speak .
They have a smaller chance of becoming fixed in the population.However , if you weaken the purifying selection ( the two easiest ways of doing this are reducing the population through a bottleneck or by the founder effect of a small population immigrating into a new ecosystem ) new traits have a better chance of getting fixed and propagating in the resulting population ( s ) .
Human populations have gone through bottlenecks and come out with new abilities on the other side , so the possibility that such a situation is what gave rise to human level intelligence is a good one.Weakened purifying selection is the main cause of increased genome complexity and the arise of new adaptations , more powerful and " sudden " than gradual change by natural selection .
Sometimes a population has to do very badly in order to have a chance to gain the adaptations necessary for survival .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides, there was the other near extinction 70K years ago.
Wht I find interesting is the near extinctions were probably what led to modern humans' intelligence and other traits (like humor) that makes us so different from other species.This is not a bad hypothesis.
Large populations tend to undergo strong purifying selection (selection for the "normal" of a trait and against the extremes).
Because of this, any new traits that appear in a large population by random mutation have a good chance of "getting lost in the noise" so to speak.
They have a smaller chance of becoming fixed in the population.However, if you weaken the purifying selection (the two easiest ways of doing this are reducing the population through a bottleneck or by the founder effect of a small population immigrating into a new ecosystem) new traits have a better chance of getting fixed and propagating in the resulting population(s).
Human populations have gone through bottlenecks and come out with new abilities on the other side, so the possibility that such a situation is what gave rise to human level intelligence is a good one.Weakened purifying selection is the main cause of increased genome complexity and the arise of new adaptations, more powerful and "sudden" than gradual change by natural selection.
Sometimes a population has to do very badly in order to have a chance to gain the adaptations necessary for survival.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889924</id>
	<title>Re:Insightful Troll!</title>
	<author>EvilAlphonso</author>
	<datestamp>1264434600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Remember; there used to be science about the earth being flat ages ago.</p></div><p>[Citation needed]</p><p>12th Century fighting techniques manuscripts show that earth was actually already known as spherical at that point in Europe.</p><p>The Greeks had a pretty accurate idea of its shape and dimension a few centuries BCE.</p><p>The only widely circulated book talking of a flat earth that I can think of would be the bible (the bit about climbing on a mountain so high, one could see the four corners of the earth)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember ; there used to be science about the earth being flat ages ago .
[ Citation needed ] 12th Century fighting techniques manuscripts show that earth was actually already known as spherical at that point in Europe.The Greeks had a pretty accurate idea of its shape and dimension a few centuries BCE.The only widely circulated book talking of a flat earth that I can think of would be the bible ( the bit about climbing on a mountain so high , one could see the four corners of the earth )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember; there used to be science about the earth being flat ages ago.
[Citation needed]12th Century fighting techniques manuscripts show that earth was actually already known as spherical at that point in Europe.The Greeks had a pretty accurate idea of its shape and dimension a few centuries BCE.The only widely circulated book talking of a flat earth that I can think of would be the bible (the bit about climbing on a mountain so high, one could see the four corners of the earth)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889016</id>
	<title>PNAS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264430640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hear a counterargument has been published in the <b>F</b>irst <b>A</b>nnual <b>J</b>ournal of the <b>I</b>nternational <b>N</b>aturalism <b>A</b>ssociation...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear a counterargument has been published in the First Annual Journal of the International Naturalism Association.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear a counterargument has been published in the First Annual Journal of the International Naturalism Association...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888900</id>
	<title>say that to the tasmanian wolf</title>
	<author>chichilalescu</author>
	<datestamp>1264429860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(not trying to rain on your parade or anything)<br>Back on topic. Humans nearly went extinct during the nuclear missile crysis... In terms of survival requirements, we should have already sent a few groups to the moon and mars.<br>People enjoy watching disaster movies like 2012 (I saw it as a comedy myself), but they should realise that focusing all your resources (as a species) on "I want a TV in every room" is a losing strategy.<br>If I had the money, I would be long gone. "Yes, 21st century society is very advanced and we have everything we need, but if they have a power outage or similar in a hidden bunker in Russia, we all die".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( not trying to rain on your parade or anything ) Back on topic .
Humans nearly went extinct during the nuclear missile crysis... In terms of survival requirements , we should have already sent a few groups to the moon and mars.People enjoy watching disaster movies like 2012 ( I saw it as a comedy myself ) , but they should realise that focusing all your resources ( as a species ) on " I want a TV in every room " is a losing strategy.If I had the money , I would be long gone .
" Yes , 21st century society is very advanced and we have everything we need , but if they have a power outage or similar in a hidden bunker in Russia , we all die " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(not trying to rain on your parade or anything)Back on topic.
Humans nearly went extinct during the nuclear missile crysis... In terms of survival requirements, we should have already sent a few groups to the moon and mars.People enjoy watching disaster movies like 2012 (I saw it as a comedy myself), but they should realise that focusing all your resources (as a species) on "I want a TV in every room" is a losing strategy.If I had the money, I would be long gone.
"Yes, 21st century society is very advanced and we have everything we need, but if they have a power outage or similar in a hidden bunker in Russia, we all die".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30895820</id>
	<title>well fair</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264414320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"..., there were probably only about 18,500 individuals capable of breeding in all these species together<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>So the ancient overlords put them all on Welfare and they suddenly started breeding prolifically.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... , there were probably only about 18,500 individuals capable of breeding in all these species together ... " So the ancient overlords put them all on Welfare and they suddenly started breeding prolifically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"..., there were probably only about 18,500 individuals capable of breeding in all these species together ..."So the ancient overlords put them all on Welfare and they suddenly started breeding prolifically.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891184</id>
	<title>Re:There's a message in this somewhere</title>
	<author>ucblockhead</author>
	<datestamp>1264439160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole "cockroaches will survive nuclear war" thing is a bit of a myth.  Sure, they might survive the blasts, but they are a tropical species that can't survive below 50F, so they'll die off in most temperate climes with no humans to pay the heating bill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole " cockroaches will survive nuclear war " thing is a bit of a myth .
Sure , they might survive the blasts , but they are a tropical species that ca n't survive below 50F , so they 'll die off in most temperate climes with no humans to pay the heating bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole "cockroaches will survive nuclear war" thing is a bit of a myth.
Sure, they might survive the blasts, but they are a tropical species that can't survive below 50F, so they'll die off in most temperate climes with no humans to pay the heating bill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30893960</id>
	<title>Re:Pfft...</title>
	<author>Foobar of Borg</author>
	<datestamp>1264449840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Hey, your bias against <b>the small but extremely loud minority of fundamentalists</b> is showing!</p></div></blockquote><p>FTFY.  But then, you probably don't consider Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, and so on to be *Real* Christians.</p><blockquote><div><p>You must be a liberal. You know, tolerant of everything, except for the things you aren't.</p></div></blockquote><p>I think you'll find liberals aren't very "tolerant" of Nazis, either.  Conservatives, however, will tend to point and make fun of people who look different than they do or do "absurd" things like use chopsticks.  Perhaps you have no idea of what tolerance means.</p><blockquote><div><p>I'd make fun of your beliefs but you dont really have any.</p></div></blockquote><p>Ah, the old "they aren't a fundie like me, so they must be atheist" routine.  I get that from you fundie Pat Robertson loving nutjobs even after I've made it abundantly clear that I am *not* an atheist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , your bias against the small but extremely loud minority of fundamentalists is showing ! FTFY .
But then , you probably do n't consider Catholics , Eastern Orthodox , Lutherans , Anglicans , and so on to be * Real * Christians.You must be a liberal .
You know , tolerant of everything , except for the things you are n't.I think you 'll find liberals are n't very " tolerant " of Nazis , either .
Conservatives , however , will tend to point and make fun of people who look different than they do or do " absurd " things like use chopsticks .
Perhaps you have no idea of what tolerance means.I 'd make fun of your beliefs but you dont really have any.Ah , the old " they are n't a fundie like me , so they must be atheist " routine .
I get that from you fundie Pat Robertson loving nutjobs even after I 've made it abundantly clear that I am * not * an atheist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, your bias against the small but extremely loud minority of fundamentalists is showing!FTFY.
But then, you probably don't consider Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, and so on to be *Real* Christians.You must be a liberal.
You know, tolerant of everything, except for the things you aren't.I think you'll find liberals aren't very "tolerant" of Nazis, either.
Conservatives, however, will tend to point and make fun of people who look different than they do or do "absurd" things like use chopsticks.
Perhaps you have no idea of what tolerance means.I'd make fun of your beliefs but you dont really have any.Ah, the old "they aren't a fundie like me, so they must be atheist" routine.
I get that from you fundie Pat Robertson loving nutjobs even after I've made it abundantly clear that I am *not* an atheist.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888994</id>
	<title>Up next</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264430520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pigs could have developed the ability to fly 900.000 years ago had a catastrophicly hungry species not eaten to extinction the pig subspecies that had the avian gene found in modern day crows!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pigs could have developed the ability to fly 900.000 years ago had a catastrophicly hungry species not eaten to extinction the pig subspecies that had the avian gene found in modern day crows !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pigs could have developed the ability to fly 900.000 years ago had a catastrophicly hungry species not eaten to extinction the pig subspecies that had the avian gene found in modern day crows!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891170</id>
	<title>Re:This means ...</title>
	<author>TheRealMindChild</author>
	<datestamp>1264439160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not that it truly matters. There are roughly <a href="http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4266" title="ncsl.org">27</a> [ncsl.org] states in which you can marry your FIRST cousin. To many, this seems "sick" because of the social implications it presents (100 years ago, you'd be fortunate to see some first cousins once or twice in your lifetime. Now it is common to see most of them several times a year, along with any other common relatives). However, you are genetically diverse enough from your first cousin that there are no genetic problems, other than sharing undesirable, recessive, genetic diseases.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that it truly matters .
There are roughly 27 [ ncsl.org ] states in which you can marry your FIRST cousin .
To many , this seems " sick " because of the social implications it presents ( 100 years ago , you 'd be fortunate to see some first cousins once or twice in your lifetime .
Now it is common to see most of them several times a year , along with any other common relatives ) .
However , you are genetically diverse enough from your first cousin that there are no genetic problems , other than sharing undesirable , recessive , genetic diseases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that it truly matters.
There are roughly 27 [ncsl.org] states in which you can marry your FIRST cousin.
To many, this seems "sick" because of the social implications it presents (100 years ago, you'd be fortunate to see some first cousins once or twice in your lifetime.
Now it is common to see most of them several times a year, along with any other common relatives).
However, you are genetically diverse enough from your first cousin that there are no genetic problems, other than sharing undesirable, recessive, genetic diseases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30895596</id>
	<title>Re:So... BSG was right.</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1264413420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The B Ark, to be exact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The B Ark , to be exact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The B Ark, to be exact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890854</id>
	<title>Re:Slow news day?</title>
	<author>clarkcox3</author>
	<datestamp>1264437960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, how insightful. You post a link to a story about a related near-extinction event<br> <br>... that is discussed in the summary.

Good job.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , how insightful .
You post a link to a story about a related near-extinction event ... that is discussed in the summary .
Good job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, how insightful.
You post a link to a story about a related near-extinction event ... that is discussed in the summary.
Good job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889762</id>
	<title>Re:There's a message in this somewhere</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1264434060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have my doubts that giving weapons of mass destruction to cockroaches is an effective way to exterminate them. In that sense we are not quite as hard to kill as cockroaches.</p><p>(In other news, I've just come up with the Sci-Fi/horror plot of the year.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have my doubts that giving weapons of mass destruction to cockroaches is an effective way to exterminate them .
In that sense we are not quite as hard to kill as cockroaches .
( In other news , I 've just come up with the Sci-Fi/horror plot of the year .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have my doubts that giving weapons of mass destruction to cockroaches is an effective way to exterminate them.
In that sense we are not quite as hard to kill as cockroaches.
(In other news, I've just come up with the Sci-Fi/horror plot of the year.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889842</id>
	<title>Great Scott!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264434360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this a headline from 1.2 million years in the future?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this a headline from 1.2 million years in the future ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this a headline from 1.2 million years in the future?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30894792</id>
	<title>Re:Pfft...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264410180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two people and a few monkeys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two people and a few monkeys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two people and a few monkeys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889468</id>
	<title>Re:The new dogma of genetics</title>
	<author>Mr. Underbridge</author>
	<datestamp>1264432920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Genetics today is obsessed with conserved DNA sequences as "proof" of evolutionary kinship. It is based on a faith that DNA mutates at a uniform rate over time. But why should we assume a uniform rate over time, when evolutionary theory says that genetic differentiation happens in leaps and bounds? </i>
</p><p>Science fail.  DNA does mutate uniformly.  Genetic differentiation based on the mutations goes in leaps in bounds because of selection pressures that drive evolution,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Genetics today is obsessed with conserved DNA sequences as " proof " of evolutionary kinship .
It is based on a faith that DNA mutates at a uniform rate over time .
But why should we assume a uniform rate over time , when evolutionary theory says that genetic differentiation happens in leaps and bounds ?
Science fail .
DNA does mutate uniformly .
Genetic differentiation based on the mutations goes in leaps in bounds because of selection pressures that drive evolution,</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Genetics today is obsessed with conserved DNA sequences as "proof" of evolutionary kinship.
It is based on a faith that DNA mutates at a uniform rate over time.
But why should we assume a uniform rate over time, when evolutionary theory says that genetic differentiation happens in leaps and bounds?
Science fail.
DNA does mutate uniformly.
Genetic differentiation based on the mutations goes in leaps in bounds because of selection pressures that drive evolution,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890092</id>
	<title>Re:Summary is wrong</title>
	<author>RivenAleem</author>
	<datestamp>1264435200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well that's what we get for relying on Human geneticists. We need to get a few more non-humans studying genetics to be able to get their unique perspective on the subject.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well that 's what we get for relying on Human geneticists .
We need to get a few more non-humans studying genetics to be able to get their unique perspective on the subject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well that's what we get for relying on Human geneticists.
We need to get a few more non-humans studying genetics to be able to get their unique perspective on the subject.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30895004</id>
	<title>Re:So... BSG was right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264410900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Say We All!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Say We All !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Say We All!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889080</id>
	<title>Re:The new dogma of genetics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264431000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate to agree with a statistician being a physicist myself but you are mostly correct. Yes all sciences use regression and curve fitting but it should be used to test and create models.  As scientists, our job is to understand the natural world to the best of our ability and the only way we can test that understanding is with predictive models requiring mathematical language.  We collect facts, make mathematical model, test the model to see if our predictions are correct then repeat.  If the model is correct we push it farther or move on to something different, if it isn't we add the new facts to the old and start over.  Statistics is just a tool like a computer to help with our understanding.  Sometimes we don't need to know all the theory behind it to make it useful.<br>As for the biological aspect of it, if a prediction can't be tested it is a useless prediction.  It is like saying magical pixies came down and started life.  That is the major problem with biology, most of what they jabber on about are either so vague to be useless or completely untestable.  This is one of those untestable theories.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to agree with a statistician being a physicist myself but you are mostly correct .
Yes all sciences use regression and curve fitting but it should be used to test and create models .
As scientists , our job is to understand the natural world to the best of our ability and the only way we can test that understanding is with predictive models requiring mathematical language .
We collect facts , make mathematical model , test the model to see if our predictions are correct then repeat .
If the model is correct we push it farther or move on to something different , if it is n't we add the new facts to the old and start over .
Statistics is just a tool like a computer to help with our understanding .
Sometimes we do n't need to know all the theory behind it to make it useful.As for the biological aspect of it , if a prediction ca n't be tested it is a useless prediction .
It is like saying magical pixies came down and started life .
That is the major problem with biology , most of what they jabber on about are either so vague to be useless or completely untestable .
This is one of those untestable theories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to agree with a statistician being a physicist myself but you are mostly correct.
Yes all sciences use regression and curve fitting but it should be used to test and create models.
As scientists, our job is to understand the natural world to the best of our ability and the only way we can test that understanding is with predictive models requiring mathematical language.
We collect facts, make mathematical model, test the model to see if our predictions are correct then repeat.
If the model is correct we push it farther or move on to something different, if it isn't we add the new facts to the old and start over.
Statistics is just a tool like a computer to help with our understanding.
Sometimes we don't need to know all the theory behind it to make it useful.As for the biological aspect of it, if a prediction can't be tested it is a useless prediction.
It is like saying magical pixies came down and started life.
That is the major problem with biology, most of what they jabber on about are either so vague to be useless or completely untestable.
This is one of those untestable theories.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890774</id>
	<title>Re:The new dogma of genetics</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1264437720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is an XKCD for everything.  Here is yours.</p><p><a href="http://www.xkcd.com/675/" title="xkcd.com">http://www.xkcd.com/675/</a> [xkcd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is an XKCD for everything .
Here is yours.http : //www.xkcd.com/675/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is an XKCD for everything.
Here is yours.http://www.xkcd.com/675/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889114</id>
	<title>we're next (north americans)</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1264431180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone\_Caldera" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone\_Caldera</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>ah yes, i've heard of mexicans and canadians, there's only a few in the world, but they're real. as for these so-called "americans", i believe this is a mythical nationality, i don't think they ever really existed. they're just bogeymen made up to scare small children</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone \ _Caldera [ wikipedia.org ] ah yes , i 've heard of mexicans and canadians , there 's only a few in the world , but they 're real .
as for these so-called " americans " , i believe this is a mythical nationality , i do n't think they ever really existed .
they 're just bogeymen made up to scare small children</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone\_Caldera [wikipedia.org]ah yes, i've heard of mexicans and canadians, there's only a few in the world, but they're real.
as for these so-called "americans", i believe this is a mythical nationality, i don't think they ever really existed.
they're just bogeymen made up to scare small children</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30893098</id>
	<title>Re:This means ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264446060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>this means that we're really all brothers and sisters, right?</p></div><p>Yep!  Welcome to West Virginia.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>this means that we 're really all brothers and sisters , right ? Yep !
Welcome to West Virginia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this means that we're really all brothers and sisters, right?Yep!
Welcome to West Virginia.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889110</id>
	<title>This explains why humans prevailed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264431180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The humans had a huge mineshaft gap over the neanderthals, and were smart enough to keep 10 women for every one man in their mines!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The humans had a huge mineshaft gap over the neanderthals , and were smart enough to keep 10 women for every one man in their mines !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The humans had a huge mineshaft gap over the neanderthals, and were smart enough to keep 10 women for every one man in their mines!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889624</id>
	<title>I'm looking forward to your articles</title>
	<author>kanweg</author>
	<datestamp>1264433520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm looking forward to your articles on this subject in scientific journals.</p><p>Bert</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm looking forward to your articles on this subject in scientific journals.Bert</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm looking forward to your articles on this subject in scientific journals.Bert</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890276</id>
	<title>Re:"Nuclear" Winter</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1264436040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Alternate explanation, it IS nuclear, but because<br>
- In the future we invent time deflectors: you attack us with nuclear warheads, we deflect them to the past<br>
- Atlantis legend was true, and they managed to get nuclear power and blow their entire civilization<br>
- Star Trek XXV, plan to eradicate the new Kirk in particular and Federation in general killing all human predecessors a millon years ago <br>
- LHC (still should be more probable than it open a hole thru time and makes a nuclear winter back then than creating now a earth swallowing black hole)<br>
- AVP, low tech (nuclear) version, Is cleaner to play it in some primitive and yet unhabited planet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Alternate explanation , it IS nuclear , but because - In the future we invent time deflectors : you attack us with nuclear warheads , we deflect them to the past - Atlantis legend was true , and they managed to get nuclear power and blow their entire civilization - Star Trek XXV , plan to eradicate the new Kirk in particular and Federation in general killing all human predecessors a millon years ago - LHC ( still should be more probable than it open a hole thru time and makes a nuclear winter back then than creating now a earth swallowing black hole ) - AVP , low tech ( nuclear ) version , Is cleaner to play it in some primitive and yet unhabited planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alternate explanation, it IS nuclear, but because
- In the future we invent time deflectors: you attack us with nuclear warheads, we deflect them to the past
- Atlantis legend was true, and they managed to get nuclear power and blow their entire civilization
- Star Trek XXV, plan to eradicate the new Kirk in particular and Federation in general killing all human predecessors a millon years ago 
- LHC (still should be more probable than it open a hole thru time and makes a nuclear winter back then than creating now a earth swallowing black hole)
- AVP, low tech (nuclear) version, Is cleaner to play it in some primitive and yet unhabited planet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889392</id>
	<title>Re:Toba volcano ? Nuclear winter ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264432620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From <a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/news/sumerians\_look\_on\_in\_confusion\_as" title="theonion.com">The Onion:</a> [theonion.com]</p><p>Sumerians Look On In Confusion As God Creates World</p><p>"Members of the earth's earliest known civilization, the Sumerians, looked on in shock and confusion some 6,000 years ago as God, the Lord Almighty, created Heaven and Earth.<br>
&nbsp; YIR numbers web 5</p><p>According to recently excavated clay tablets inscribed with cuneiform script, thousands of Sumerians--the first humans to establish systems of writing, agriculture, and government--were working on their sophisticated irrigation systems when the Father of All Creation reached down from the ether and blew the divine spirit of life into their thriving civilization.</p><p>"I do not understand," reads an ancient line of pictographs depicting the sun, the moon, water, and a Sumerian who appears to be scratching his head. "A booming voice is saying, 'Let there be light,' but there is already light. It is saying, 'Let the earth bring forth grass,' but I am already standing on grass."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From The Onion : [ theonion.com ] Sumerians Look On In Confusion As God Creates World " Members of the earth 's earliest known civilization , the Sumerians , looked on in shock and confusion some 6,000 years ago as God , the Lord Almighty , created Heaven and Earth .
  YIR numbers web 5According to recently excavated clay tablets inscribed with cuneiform script , thousands of Sumerians--the first humans to establish systems of writing , agriculture , and government--were working on their sophisticated irrigation systems when the Father of All Creation reached down from the ether and blew the divine spirit of life into their thriving civilization .
" I do not understand , " reads an ancient line of pictographs depicting the sun , the moon , water , and a Sumerian who appears to be scratching his head .
" A booming voice is saying , 'Let there be light, ' but there is already light .
It is saying , 'Let the earth bring forth grass, ' but I am already standing on grass .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From The Onion: [theonion.com]Sumerians Look On In Confusion As God Creates World"Members of the earth's earliest known civilization, the Sumerians, looked on in shock and confusion some 6,000 years ago as God, the Lord Almighty, created Heaven and Earth.
  YIR numbers web 5According to recently excavated clay tablets inscribed with cuneiform script, thousands of Sumerians--the first humans to establish systems of writing, agriculture, and government--were working on their sophisticated irrigation systems when the Father of All Creation reached down from the ether and blew the divine spirit of life into their thriving civilization.
"I do not understand," reads an ancient line of pictographs depicting the sun, the moon, water, and a Sumerian who appears to be scratching his head.
"A booming voice is saying, 'Let there be light,' but there is already light.
It is saying, 'Let the earth bring forth grass,' but I am already standing on grass.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889068</id>
	<title>The Ancients died of a plague and most of them asc</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264430880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Ancients died of a plague and most of them ascended.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Ancients died of a plague and most of them ascended .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Ancients died of a plague and most of them ascended.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889588</id>
	<title>Re:There's a message in this somewhere</title>
	<author>justthisdude</author>
	<datestamp>1264433340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are reading the message wrong: we went from edge of extinction to what we are today: a threat to the entire ecosystem.   Clearly there must be some secret advantage to springing back from extinction, and if we can do it so can the other guys.  <p>
This plainly shows that our real enemies are all those creatures presently on the endangered species list.  In the name of all that is holy, I call on you all to go out and hunt down the remaining grey wolves and pandas before they devour us all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are reading the message wrong : we went from edge of extinction to what we are today : a threat to the entire ecosystem .
Clearly there must be some secret advantage to springing back from extinction , and if we can do it so can the other guys .
This plainly shows that our real enemies are all those creatures presently on the endangered species list .
In the name of all that is holy , I call on you all to go out and hunt down the remaining grey wolves and pandas before they devour us all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are reading the message wrong: we went from edge of extinction to what we are today: a threat to the entire ecosystem.
Clearly there must be some secret advantage to springing back from extinction, and if we can do it so can the other guys.
This plainly shows that our real enemies are all those creatures presently on the endangered species list.
In the name of all that is holy, I call on you all to go out and hunt down the remaining grey wolves and pandas before they devour us all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889054</id>
	<title>Re:The new dogma of genetics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264430760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I'm getting my PhD in statistics, and I've taken several courses in genetics -- enough to know that all theories in genetics are wrong.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  I used to be an atheist, but I've come to the conclusion that science is just as irrational as Wahabbism.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  Science wants simple explanations, yet the world isn't simple; it is inherently an exercise in circular logic.</p></div><p>You sound like that idiot (Jonathan Wells?) sponsored by Reverend Moon to get a Ph D in biology so that he can destroy the Theory of Evolution from inside.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm getting my PhD in statistics , and I 've taken several courses in genetics -- enough to know that all theories in genetics are wrong .
... I used to be an atheist , but I 've come to the conclusion that science is just as irrational as Wahabbism .
... Science wants simple explanations , yet the world is n't simple ; it is inherently an exercise in circular logic.You sound like that idiot ( Jonathan Wells ?
) sponsored by Reverend Moon to get a Ph D in biology so that he can destroy the Theory of Evolution from inside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I'm getting my PhD in statistics, and I've taken several courses in genetics -- enough to know that all theories in genetics are wrong.
...  I used to be an atheist, but I've come to the conclusion that science is just as irrational as Wahabbism.
...  Science wants simple explanations, yet the world isn't simple; it is inherently an exercise in circular logic.You sound like that idiot (Jonathan Wells?
) sponsored by Reverend Moon to get a Ph D in biology so that he can destroy the Theory of Evolution from inside.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889504</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear Volcano?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1264433040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The term comes from the liklihood of nuclear annhailation that we faced in my youth. "Nuclear winter" was the dust from all those thousands of atomic weapons blocking sunlight, keeping plants from growing.</p><p>The term morphed to include other causes of the "winter" besides nuclear war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The term comes from the liklihood of nuclear annhailation that we faced in my youth .
" Nuclear winter " was the dust from all those thousands of atomic weapons blocking sunlight , keeping plants from growing.The term morphed to include other causes of the " winter " besides nuclear war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The term comes from the liklihood of nuclear annhailation that we faced in my youth.
"Nuclear winter" was the dust from all those thousands of atomic weapons blocking sunlight, keeping plants from growing.The term morphed to include other causes of the "winter" besides nuclear war.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30893462</id>
	<title>Re:The new dogma of genetics</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1264447440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First of all, we know that certain types of DNA do mutate at roughly linear rates because the biochemistry shows that they should. SNPs in long-stretches of non-coding DNA for example must work this way. Moreover, if our basic models of mutation were wrong we wouldn't see data that makes sense: we'd see a lot of gibberish when we tried to work out  relationships by age. Moreover, the vast majority of evolutionary relationships worked out using DNA comparison aren't making statements about the time periods, merely woking out relative trees, which works out even if your mutation rates are changing drastically. You still get a nested hierarchy. I'm deeply worried by your claim that you are getting a PhD in statistics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , we know that certain types of DNA do mutate at roughly linear rates because the biochemistry shows that they should .
SNPs in long-stretches of non-coding DNA for example must work this way .
Moreover , if our basic models of mutation were wrong we would n't see data that makes sense : we 'd see a lot of gibberish when we tried to work out relationships by age .
Moreover , the vast majority of evolutionary relationships worked out using DNA comparison are n't making statements about the time periods , merely woking out relative trees , which works out even if your mutation rates are changing drastically .
You still get a nested hierarchy .
I 'm deeply worried by your claim that you are getting a PhD in statistics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, we know that certain types of DNA do mutate at roughly linear rates because the biochemistry shows that they should.
SNPs in long-stretches of non-coding DNA for example must work this way.
Moreover, if our basic models of mutation were wrong we wouldn't see data that makes sense: we'd see a lot of gibberish when we tried to work out  relationships by age.
Moreover, the vast majority of evolutionary relationships worked out using DNA comparison aren't making statements about the time periods, merely woking out relative trees, which works out even if your mutation rates are changing drastically.
You still get a nested hierarchy.
I'm deeply worried by your claim that you are getting a PhD in statistics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888916</id>
	<title>There's a message in this somewhere</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1264429980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think this means we are a stubborn infestation, successfully resisting the Universe's attempts to exterminate us thus far.  The Universe realized that we are harder to kill than cockroaches, and concluded that the only way to wipe us out is to place the means of our destruction in our own hands.  Now, it's just a waiting game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this means we are a stubborn infestation , successfully resisting the Universe 's attempts to exterminate us thus far .
The Universe realized that we are harder to kill than cockroaches , and concluded that the only way to wipe us out is to place the means of our destruction in our own hands .
Now , it 's just a waiting game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this means we are a stubborn infestation, successfully resisting the Universe's attempts to exterminate us thus far.
The Universe realized that we are harder to kill than cockroaches, and concluded that the only way to wipe us out is to place the means of our destruction in our own hands.
Now, it's just a waiting game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889848</id>
	<title>Re:Toba volcano ? Nuclear winter ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264434360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wasn't this on <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heGcvWu\_JMs" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Cosmos</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't this on Cosmos [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't this on Cosmos [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30903276</id>
	<title>this was about the time that monolith landed . . ?</title>
	<author>vaporland</author>
	<datestamp>1264517040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>then that song started playing, and the caveman threw the bone up into the air, next thing, we're in space.</htmltext>
<tokenext>then that song started playing , and the caveman threw the bone up into the air , next thing , we 're in space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>then that song started playing, and the caveman threw the bone up into the air, next thing, we're in space.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890486</id>
	<title>slashdotters not capable of breeding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264436760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there were over a million slashdot subscribers at the time, but their inability to get laid removed them from the gene pool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there were over a million slashdot subscribers at the time , but their inability to get laid removed them from the gene pool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there were over a million slashdot subscribers at the time, but their inability to get laid removed them from the gene pool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30894186</id>
	<title>Name a supervolcano that erupted 1.2 mil years ago</title>
	<author>Asterra</author>
	<datestamp>1264450920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yellowstone, the largest supervolcano, erupted 1.3 million years ago.  Is that within the margin of error for calculating a near extinction from so long ago?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yellowstone , the largest supervolcano , erupted 1.3 million years ago .
Is that within the margin of error for calculating a near extinction from so long ago ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yellowstone, the largest supervolcano, erupted 1.3 million years ago.
Is that within the margin of error for calculating a near extinction from so long ago?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890472</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>StripedCow</author>
	<datestamp>1264436760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Humans Nearly Went Extinct 1.2M Years Ago</p></div><p>So, Microsoft, RIAA, MPAA, and software patents existed back then also?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Humans Nearly Went Extinct 1.2M Years AgoSo , Microsoft , RIAA , MPAA , and software patents existed back then also ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Humans Nearly Went Extinct 1.2M Years AgoSo, Microsoft, RIAA, MPAA, and software patents existed back then also?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30898210</id>
	<title>Re:We were saved!</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1264424760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm reading about a new theory that argues H. Sapiens actually DID die out and was replaced by the nearly identical H. Idioticus. </i></p><p>That's a theory only an idiot would concoct!</p><p>So... I guess it makes a lot of sense then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm reading about a new theory that argues H. Sapiens actually DID die out and was replaced by the nearly identical H. Idioticus. That 's a theory only an idiot would concoct ! So... I guess it makes a lot of sense then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm reading about a new theory that argues H. Sapiens actually DID die out and was replaced by the nearly identical H. Idioticus. That's a theory only an idiot would concoct!So... I guess it makes a lot of sense then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30895420</id>
	<title>Re:Insightful Troll!</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1264412760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's true that learned people believed the earth was flat once.  Sometime before Euclid.</p><p>That intelligent and informed people believed the earth was flat during the middle ages is false.  And the argument against Columbus was that he was drastically underestimating the size of the earth.  They were right about that, and Columbus never did reach India.  Fortunately there were these other continents that nobody knew about.  (There were myths, but they were appallingly vague, and nobody really believed them anyway.)  If it hadin't been for Columbus, the American continents would have been discoved by some Viking, Hibernian, or British sailor.  Or possibly the Chinese would have emerged from isolation and resumed trade with South America.   Remember, by that time the Vikings had colonized Iceland, and established a temporary settlement on Greenland (which failed when the climate worsened).  All they would have had to do was go into seal hunting or fishing in a big way, and they would soon have re-discovered Vinland.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's true that learned people believed the earth was flat once .
Sometime before Euclid.That intelligent and informed people believed the earth was flat during the middle ages is false .
And the argument against Columbus was that he was drastically underestimating the size of the earth .
They were right about that , and Columbus never did reach India .
Fortunately there were these other continents that nobody knew about .
( There were myths , but they were appallingly vague , and nobody really believed them anyway .
) If it hadi n't been for Columbus , the American continents would have been discoved by some Viking , Hibernian , or British sailor .
Or possibly the Chinese would have emerged from isolation and resumed trade with South America .
Remember , by that time the Vikings had colonized Iceland , and established a temporary settlement on Greenland ( which failed when the climate worsened ) .
All they would have had to do was go into seal hunting or fishing in a big way , and they would soon have re-discovered Vinland .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's true that learned people believed the earth was flat once.
Sometime before Euclid.That intelligent and informed people believed the earth was flat during the middle ages is false.
And the argument against Columbus was that he was drastically underestimating the size of the earth.
They were right about that, and Columbus never did reach India.
Fortunately there were these other continents that nobody knew about.
(There were myths, but they were appallingly vague, and nobody really believed them anyway.
)  If it hadin't been for Columbus, the American continents would have been discoved by some Viking, Hibernian, or British sailor.
Or possibly the Chinese would have emerged from isolation and resumed trade with South America.
Remember, by that time the Vikings had colonized Iceland, and established a temporary settlement on Greenland (which failed when the climate worsened).
All they would have had to do was go into seal hunting or fishing in a big way, and they would soon have re-discovered Vinland.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30903678</id>
	<title>Re:This means ...</title>
	<author>formfeed</author>
	<datestamp>1264518900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The near extinction happened after Ogh said "What could possibly go wrong?" and went ahead with it despite the warnings of the wise elders. <p>
Unfortunately, the wise elders died but Ogh survived and became our common ancestor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The near extinction happened after Ogh said " What could possibly go wrong ?
" and went ahead with it despite the warnings of the wise elders .
Unfortunately , the wise elders died but Ogh survived and became our common ancestor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The near extinction happened after Ogh said "What could possibly go wrong?
" and went ahead with it despite the warnings of the wise elders.
Unfortunately, the wise elders died but Ogh survived and became our common ancestor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889096</id>
	<title>Re:This means ...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1264431060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More than that, I read a year or so ago (it may have been covered at slashdot, I don't remember) that it was mathematically proven that everyone on earth shares common anscestors from as little as a thousand years ago.</p><p>Besides, there was the other near extinction 70K years ago. Wht I find interesting is the near extinctions were probably what led to modern humans' intelligence and other traits (like humor) that makes us so different from other species.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More than that , I read a year or so ago ( it may have been covered at slashdot , I do n't remember ) that it was mathematically proven that everyone on earth shares common anscestors from as little as a thousand years ago.Besides , there was the other near extinction 70K years ago .
Wht I find interesting is the near extinctions were probably what led to modern humans ' intelligence and other traits ( like humor ) that makes us so different from other species .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More than that, I read a year or so ago (it may have been covered at slashdot, I don't remember) that it was mathematically proven that everyone on earth shares common anscestors from as little as a thousand years ago.Besides, there was the other near extinction 70K years ago.
Wht I find interesting is the near extinctions were probably what led to modern humans' intelligence and other traits (like humor) that makes us so different from other species.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888834</id>
	<title>We were saved!</title>
	<author>Daevad</author>
	<datestamp>1264429380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Luckily, magic underwear was discovered and humans survived the event.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Luckily , magic underwear was discovered and humans survived the event .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Luckily, magic underwear was discovered and humans survived the event.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889012</id>
	<title>So, Only 18,500 Individuals Capable of Breeding?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264430640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like where we'll be at after another three seasons of American Idol.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like where we 'll be at after another three seasons of American Idol .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like where we'll be at after another three seasons of American Idol.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891666</id>
	<title>Humans Nearly Went Extinct 1.2M Years Ago</title>
	<author>3-State Bit</author>
	<datestamp>1264440600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bah, you call that <b>news</b>?  Try:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=Stanislav\%20Petrov" title="google.com">"Humans Nearly Went Extinct <b>27 Years Ago</b>"</a> [google.com]<br>the commander's Wikipedia entry says he:</p><blockquote><div><p> "deviated from standard Soviet doctrine by correctly identifying a missile attack warning as a false alarm on September 26, 1983.[1]  This decision most likely resulted in preventing an accidental retaliatory nuclear attack on the United States and its Western Allies."</p></div></blockquote><p>You can follow any of the links in the above search, or <a href="http://www.psychsound.com/2006/08/the\_nuclear\_nearmiss.html" title="psychsound.com">here's a particularly lively read.</a> [psychsound.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bah , you call that news ?
Try :       " Humans Nearly Went Extinct 27 Years Ago " [ google.com ] the commander 's Wikipedia entry says he : " deviated from standard Soviet doctrine by correctly identifying a missile attack warning as a false alarm on September 26 , 1983 .
[ 1 ] This decision most likely resulted in preventing an accidental retaliatory nuclear attack on the United States and its Western Allies .
" You can follow any of the links in the above search , or here 's a particularly lively read .
[ psychsound.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bah, you call that news?
Try:
      "Humans Nearly Went Extinct 27 Years Ago" [google.com]the commander's Wikipedia entry says he: "deviated from standard Soviet doctrine by correctly identifying a missile attack warning as a false alarm on September 26, 1983.
[1]  This decision most likely resulted in preventing an accidental retaliatory nuclear attack on the United States and its Western Allies.
"You can follow any of the links in the above search, or here's a particularly lively read.
[psychsound.com]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30900744</id>
	<title>Re:There's a message in this somewhere</title>
	<author>Cywiro</author>
	<datestamp>1264445580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...we are harder to kill than cockroaches...</p></div><p>I think you'll find that only applies to Keith Richards, not humans in general.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...we are harder to kill than cockroaches...I think you 'll find that only applies to Keith Richards , not humans in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...we are harder to kill than cockroaches...I think you'll find that only applies to Keith Richards, not humans in general.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891100</id>
	<title>Re:We were saved!</title>
	<author>interval1066</author>
	<datestamp>1264438920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Luckily, magic underwear was discovered and humans survived the event.</p></div><p>I'm reading about a new theory that argues H. Sapiens actually DID die out and was replaced by the nearly identical H. Idioticus. Personally, I could see such a genus appealing to magic underwear for survival.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Luckily , magic underwear was discovered and humans survived the event.I 'm reading about a new theory that argues H. Sapiens actually DID die out and was replaced by the nearly identical H. Idioticus. Personally , I could see such a genus appealing to magic underwear for survival .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Luckily, magic underwear was discovered and humans survived the event.I'm reading about a new theory that argues H. Sapiens actually DID die out and was replaced by the nearly identical H. Idioticus. Personally, I could see such a genus appealing to magic underwear for survival.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30895840</id>
	<title>Re: DNA</title>
	<author>bdabautcb</author>
	<datestamp>1264414380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The idea of 'junk' DNA is being modified. This DNA has been found to contribute to epigenetic processes, which is a profound discovery. Whether the 'junk' provides chemical structure, aides in protein folding, or does anything to affect the translation of genetic material into functioning systems (organs), I do not know. But we do now know that the discovery of iteration of nucleic acids is the foundation of passing on information through generations.

That we have discovered the basis of a process does not mean that we understand how it works. As an employee at a home improvement store, I can tell you where just about anything you want to complete a project is. But I can not tell you your local codes, the best way to finish your project, or what materials you should buy. I offer suggestions; the result is a amalgam of what the individual chooses to buy and how they use those materials.

Tradesmen know some of these things. They know what material to choose and how to install it. Some are better than others, they will choose a material that fits the project and is most effective, whether effectiveness is speed, durability, asthetic, et al.

Genetic material is beyond that, as it has accumulated knowledge for what I assume to be in the billion year range. One mistake that is often made is to call a genetic phenomena a "trait" or a "gene for something". There is a lot more that goes into creating an organ than one sequence of DNA. The location of that DNA, the chemistry around it, and the physical structure around it are precisely why it becomes what it becomes.

While I am long talking, the final point. Most significant pieces of DNA migrate with 'junk' DNA. It is not just the code for the particular protein that migrates, but the structure that allows that protein to form in any translation environment that is important.

In the course of a shit-load of time (3,000 years since Noah built his ark), expression of DNA has changed quite a bit. All mammals build bone from calcium. So do reptiles. Mammals have mammary glands. Reptiles do not. They produce calcium in shells to protect their DNA as it matures into... young reptiles.

'Junk DNA' has been overlooked in the concept of introns and extrons for a long time. However, the biochemical material that surrounds codons has to have a large influence on how that genetic material is manufactured into mature biological molecules. To argue otherwise is naive and short-sited.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea of 'junk ' DNA is being modified .
This DNA has been found to contribute to epigenetic processes , which is a profound discovery .
Whether the 'junk ' provides chemical structure , aides in protein folding , or does anything to affect the translation of genetic material into functioning systems ( organs ) , I do not know .
But we do now know that the discovery of iteration of nucleic acids is the foundation of passing on information through generations .
That we have discovered the basis of a process does not mean that we understand how it works .
As an employee at a home improvement store , I can tell you where just about anything you want to complete a project is .
But I can not tell you your local codes , the best way to finish your project , or what materials you should buy .
I offer suggestions ; the result is a amalgam of what the individual chooses to buy and how they use those materials .
Tradesmen know some of these things .
They know what material to choose and how to install it .
Some are better than others , they will choose a material that fits the project and is most effective , whether effectiveness is speed , durability , asthetic , et al .
Genetic material is beyond that , as it has accumulated knowledge for what I assume to be in the billion year range .
One mistake that is often made is to call a genetic phenomena a " trait " or a " gene for something " .
There is a lot more that goes into creating an organ than one sequence of DNA .
The location of that DNA , the chemistry around it , and the physical structure around it are precisely why it becomes what it becomes .
While I am long talking , the final point .
Most significant pieces of DNA migrate with 'junk ' DNA .
It is not just the code for the particular protein that migrates , but the structure that allows that protein to form in any translation environment that is important .
In the course of a shit-load of time ( 3,000 years since Noah built his ark ) , expression of DNA has changed quite a bit .
All mammals build bone from calcium .
So do reptiles .
Mammals have mammary glands .
Reptiles do not .
They produce calcium in shells to protect their DNA as it matures into... young reptiles .
'Junk DNA ' has been overlooked in the concept of introns and extrons for a long time .
However , the biochemical material that surrounds codons has to have a large influence on how that genetic material is manufactured into mature biological molecules .
To argue otherwise is naive and short-sited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea of 'junk' DNA is being modified.
This DNA has been found to contribute to epigenetic processes, which is a profound discovery.
Whether the 'junk' provides chemical structure, aides in protein folding, or does anything to affect the translation of genetic material into functioning systems (organs), I do not know.
But we do now know that the discovery of iteration of nucleic acids is the foundation of passing on information through generations.
That we have discovered the basis of a process does not mean that we understand how it works.
As an employee at a home improvement store, I can tell you where just about anything you want to complete a project is.
But I can not tell you your local codes, the best way to finish your project, or what materials you should buy.
I offer suggestions; the result is a amalgam of what the individual chooses to buy and how they use those materials.
Tradesmen know some of these things.
They know what material to choose and how to install it.
Some are better than others, they will choose a material that fits the project and is most effective, whether effectiveness is speed, durability, asthetic, et al.
Genetic material is beyond that, as it has accumulated knowledge for what I assume to be in the billion year range.
One mistake that is often made is to call a genetic phenomena a "trait" or a "gene for something".
There is a lot more that goes into creating an organ than one sequence of DNA.
The location of that DNA, the chemistry around it, and the physical structure around it are precisely why it becomes what it becomes.
While I am long talking, the final point.
Most significant pieces of DNA migrate with 'junk' DNA.
It is not just the code for the particular protein that migrates, but the structure that allows that protein to form in any translation environment that is important.
In the course of a shit-load of time (3,000 years since Noah built his ark), expression of DNA has changed quite a bit.
All mammals build bone from calcium.
So do reptiles.
Mammals have mammary glands.
Reptiles do not.
They produce calcium in shells to protect their DNA as it matures into... young reptiles.
'Junk DNA' has been overlooked in the concept of introns and extrons for a long time.
However, the biochemical material that surrounds codons has to have a large influence on how that genetic material is manufactured into mature biological molecules.
To argue otherwise is naive and short-sited.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30898776</id>
	<title>indeed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264427700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, two people. They both were white. The male had a big white beard, wore a red outfit &amp; flew a chariot pulled by reindeer through the sky.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , two people .
They both were white .
The male had a big white beard , wore a red outfit &amp; flew a chariot pulled by reindeer through the sky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, two people.
They both were white.
The male had a big white beard, wore a red outfit &amp; flew a chariot pulled by reindeer through the sky.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890622</id>
	<title>Re:So... BSG was right.</title>
	<author>Jizzbug</author>
	<datestamp>1264437240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And the ancients knew it, as I explain in <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1522782&amp;cid=30889820" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">this comment</a> [slashdot.org] to the parent story...</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the ancients knew it , as I explain in this comment [ slashdot.org ] to the parent story.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the ancients knew it, as I explain in this comment [slashdot.org] to the parent story...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888852</id>
	<title>"Nuclear" Winter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264429560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... is either a thoughtless use of words or pathetic effort to sensationalize. Neither is flattering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... is either a thoughtless use of words or pathetic effort to sensationalize .
Neither is flattering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... is either a thoughtless use of words or pathetic effort to sensationalize.
Neither is flattering.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30893180</id>
	<title>Re:Pfft...</title>
	<author>Labcoat Samurai</author>
	<datestamp>1264446360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Christians?  I thought Genesis was a Jewish story, first.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Christians ?
I thought Genesis was a Jewish story , first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Christians?
I thought Genesis was a Jewish story, first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890906</id>
	<title>Re:There's a message in this somewhere</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1264438200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who are you to say we are a "stubborn infestation"? Our current knowledge states life in the universe is a very rare thing. We "humanity" might be the only chance the universe has at spreading life to other worlds. Basically, we would be filling a void. Not displacing something more valuable such as nothingness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who are you to say we are a " stubborn infestation " ?
Our current knowledge states life in the universe is a very rare thing .
We " humanity " might be the only chance the universe has at spreading life to other worlds .
Basically , we would be filling a void .
Not displacing something more valuable such as nothingness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who are you to say we are a "stubborn infestation"?
Our current knowledge states life in the universe is a very rare thing.
We "humanity" might be the only chance the universe has at spreading life to other worlds.
Basically, we would be filling a void.
Not displacing something more valuable such as nothingness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890148</id>
	<title>alternative: small population left africa</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1264435440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The TWO (only two) genomes analyzed were from the subpopulation which left Africa.  If you fully sequence a native south African more genomic variety, this hypothesis may not hold up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The TWO ( only two ) genomes analyzed were from the subpopulation which left Africa .
If you fully sequence a native south African more genomic variety , this hypothesis may not hold up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The TWO (only two) genomes analyzed were from the subpopulation which left Africa.
If you fully sequence a native south African more genomic variety, this hypothesis may not hold up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30895646</id>
	<title>Re:Do the same tests on different species</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1264413540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Except in a few circumstances migration is not part of their lifestyle, but they have a tremendous latent capacity to migrate, probably greater and certainly more flexible than any land animal.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm pretty sure the rats are much better than the humans in that respect.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except in a few circumstances migration is not part of their lifestyle , but they have a tremendous latent capacity to migrate , probably greater and certainly more flexible than any land animal.I 'm pretty sure the rats are much better than the humans in that respect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except in a few circumstances migration is not part of their lifestyle, but they have a tremendous latent capacity to migrate, probably greater and certainly more flexible than any land animal.I'm pretty sure the rats are much better than the humans in that respect.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891296</id>
	<title>Re:This means ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264439460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yay, as they say, "keep it in the family"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yay , as they say , " keep it in the family "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yay, as they say, "keep it in the family"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889428</id>
	<title>Re:say that to the tasmanian wolf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264432740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We do have the technology to put hundreds of people on Mars every year, but we do not have the technology to build a self-sufficient colony with such a small number of people. Remember that they have to be able to produce air and clean water. For that you need electricity. For that you need solar cells. For that you need a factory. For that you need tooling and raw materials. For that you need more factories. You probably also need computers and electronics such as FPGAs. More factories, more mines, more people. It is simply beyond our current technology.</p><p>However, the number of people per factory is being cut drastically here on Earth as we speak. The natural conclusion of that development is that factories will have almost no workers. At some point along the way it will become realistic to colonize Mars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do have the technology to put hundreds of people on Mars every year , but we do not have the technology to build a self-sufficient colony with such a small number of people .
Remember that they have to be able to produce air and clean water .
For that you need electricity .
For that you need solar cells .
For that you need a factory .
For that you need tooling and raw materials .
For that you need more factories .
You probably also need computers and electronics such as FPGAs .
More factories , more mines , more people .
It is simply beyond our current technology.However , the number of people per factory is being cut drastically here on Earth as we speak .
The natural conclusion of that development is that factories will have almost no workers .
At some point along the way it will become realistic to colonize Mars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We do have the technology to put hundreds of people on Mars every year, but we do not have the technology to build a self-sufficient colony with such a small number of people.
Remember that they have to be able to produce air and clean water.
For that you need electricity.
For that you need solar cells.
For that you need a factory.
For that you need tooling and raw materials.
For that you need more factories.
You probably also need computers and electronics such as FPGAs.
More factories, more mines, more people.
It is simply beyond our current technology.However, the number of people per factory is being cut drastically here on Earth as we speak.
The natural conclusion of that development is that factories will have almost no workers.
At some point along the way it will become realistic to colonize Mars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30899368</id>
	<title>So that's how it happened</title>
	<author>Tibia1</author>
	<datestamp>1264432560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While the few thousand left faced extinction, they all simultaneously realized it and said 'lets build a spear and a roof.' Ah, the birth of technology.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While the few thousand left faced extinction , they all simultaneously realized it and said 'lets build a spear and a roof .
' Ah , the birth of technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the few thousand left faced extinction, they all simultaneously realized it and said 'lets build a spear and a roof.
' Ah, the birth of technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891728</id>
	<title>volcanic eruption == "nuclear winter"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264440780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Terminology fail, amirite?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Terminology fail , amirite ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Terminology fail, amirite?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30892750</id>
	<title>humor isn't so unique</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264444320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>non-human animals have humor. they play jokes on each other in nature and sometimes laugh. this is not intended to be a funny comment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>non-human animals have humor .
they play jokes on each other in nature and sometimes laugh .
this is not intended to be a funny comment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>non-human animals have humor.
they play jokes on each other in nature and sometimes laugh.
this is not intended to be a funny comment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888986</id>
	<title>Re:This means ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264430460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read somewhere the the most removed any two humans are from each other is 53rd cousins, but I can't remember the source just now and I'm too lazy to search for it 'cause its about time to actually start working.  Anyway, not "brothers and sisters," but definitely cousins to some degree.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read somewhere the the most removed any two humans are from each other is 53rd cousins , but I ca n't remember the source just now and I 'm too lazy to search for it 'cause its about time to actually start working .
Anyway , not " brothers and sisters , " but definitely cousins to some degree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read somewhere the the most removed any two humans are from each other is 53rd cousins, but I can't remember the source just now and I'm too lazy to search for it 'cause its about time to actually start working.
Anyway, not "brothers and sisters," but definitely cousins to some degree.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30892414</id>
	<title>Timetabe confusion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264443120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if the population really went down to 1000-10000 individuals back 70,000 years ago, how can they extrapolate back 50,000 years further and site 18,000 individuals?  Doesn't the 70,000 year old event effectively pinch off the genetic diversity at that point?  How can you look back further?  Did the new study show any signs of the 70,000 year event, or is that now thrown more into doubt by the new data?  Maybe they are actually the same event?  I can't imagine that they know enough about all the variables of genetic drift over time to have too much certainty of either the numbers or dates.  Seems like geneticist voodo to me</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if the population really went down to 1000-10000 individuals back 70,000 years ago , how can they extrapolate back 50,000 years further and site 18,000 individuals ?
Does n't the 70,000 year old event effectively pinch off the genetic diversity at that point ?
How can you look back further ?
Did the new study show any signs of the 70,000 year event , or is that now thrown more into doubt by the new data ?
Maybe they are actually the same event ?
I ca n't imagine that they know enough about all the variables of genetic drift over time to have too much certainty of either the numbers or dates .
Seems like geneticist voodo to me</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if the population really went down to 1000-10000 individuals back 70,000 years ago, how can they extrapolate back 50,000 years further and site 18,000 individuals?
Doesn't the 70,000 year old event effectively pinch off the genetic diversity at that point?
How can you look back further?
Did the new study show any signs of the 70,000 year event, or is that now thrown more into doubt by the new data?
Maybe they are actually the same event?
I can't imagine that they know enough about all the variables of genetic drift over time to have too much certainty of either the numbers or dates.
Seems like geneticist voodo to me</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30897528</id>
	<title>Re:say that to the tasmanian wolf</title>
	<author>downhole</author>
	<datestamp>1264421520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lots of people have already pointed out that by no means would nuclear war lead to human extinction, so I won't bother with that. But I will point out that IMHO, we are a long way away from being able to put a truly self-sustaining colony on another planet. This isn't like colonizing a new continent on Earth, where a few dozen people with the right skillset and tools can produce everything they need to survive from the local environment. People on Mars or the Moon will need a tremendous amount of high-tech gear to survive, and producing it locally will require a large population and a lot of technological infrastructure. I don't know that anyone has tried to do a realistic calculation of what would be needed, but I wouldn't be surprised if you needed at least tens of thousands of people, if not hundreds of thousands or millions to create a self-sustaining high-tech civilization. Just imagine the cost of establishing the physical infrastructure to do all the needed manufacturing on another planet and move all of those people there. And we haven't even gotten into exactly what sort of political and economic system those people will live under that will allow them to produce what they need to survive while also maintaining the knowledge base and physical infrastructure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of people have already pointed out that by no means would nuclear war lead to human extinction , so I wo n't bother with that .
But I will point out that IMHO , we are a long way away from being able to put a truly self-sustaining colony on another planet .
This is n't like colonizing a new continent on Earth , where a few dozen people with the right skillset and tools can produce everything they need to survive from the local environment .
People on Mars or the Moon will need a tremendous amount of high-tech gear to survive , and producing it locally will require a large population and a lot of technological infrastructure .
I do n't know that anyone has tried to do a realistic calculation of what would be needed , but I would n't be surprised if you needed at least tens of thousands of people , if not hundreds of thousands or millions to create a self-sustaining high-tech civilization .
Just imagine the cost of establishing the physical infrastructure to do all the needed manufacturing on another planet and move all of those people there .
And we have n't even gotten into exactly what sort of political and economic system those people will live under that will allow them to produce what they need to survive while also maintaining the knowledge base and physical infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of people have already pointed out that by no means would nuclear war lead to human extinction, so I won't bother with that.
But I will point out that IMHO, we are a long way away from being able to put a truly self-sustaining colony on another planet.
This isn't like colonizing a new continent on Earth, where a few dozen people with the right skillset and tools can produce everything they need to survive from the local environment.
People on Mars or the Moon will need a tremendous amount of high-tech gear to survive, and producing it locally will require a large population and a lot of technological infrastructure.
I don't know that anyone has tried to do a realistic calculation of what would be needed, but I wouldn't be surprised if you needed at least tens of thousands of people, if not hundreds of thousands or millions to create a self-sustaining high-tech civilization.
Just imagine the cost of establishing the physical infrastructure to do all the needed manufacturing on another planet and move all of those people there.
And we haven't even gotten into exactly what sort of political and economic system those people will live under that will allow them to produce what they need to survive while also maintaining the knowledge base and physical infrastructure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30893168</id>
	<title>Re:Pfft...</title>
	<author>Zoolander</author>
	<datestamp>1264446300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So that's what 'Ribbed for Your pleasure' comes from!</htmltext>
<tokenext>So that 's what 'Ribbed for Your pleasure ' comes from !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So that's what 'Ribbed for Your pleasure' comes from!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889820</id>
	<title>The Bible Even Says So!</title>
	<author>Jizzbug</author>
	<datestamp>1264434240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Leave it to Deseret University (a.k.a., University of Utah), founded by Brigham Young, to come out with these scientific findings...

</p><p>But the ancient wisdom of the Bible already spoke of this timeline...  Daniel 5:25, 7:25, 12:7; Revelation 12:14: "time, times, and half a time", or [y = x + 2x + x/2].

</p><p>In Revelation, "time, times, and half a time" is spoken of as a three and a half year period (to simplify the equation above, y = 3.5x [Rev. 11:2,3, 12:6, 13:5]).  It is given as a time that man would flee from the beast (as nature is red in tooth and claw).

</p><p>To interpret the length of this time period, we can employ the idea that "one day for God is as 1,000 years for us" (2 Peter 3:8, Psalm 90:4).

</p><p>If <i>x</i> is equal to one year of days according to God's reckoning, then <i>x</i> = 365*1000...  To substitute this value of <i>x</i> into our equation above, we get [y = 3.5(365*1000)].

</p><p>Or...

</p><p>y = 1.2775 million years that man has been fighting the fight of evolution with nature

</p><p>These equations also relate to star polygonal arithmetic and points equidistant on the perimeter of perfect circles, but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader (hint: y = 7 * x/2).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Leave it to Deseret University ( a.k.a. , University of Utah ) , founded by Brigham Young , to come out with these scientific findings.. . But the ancient wisdom of the Bible already spoke of this timeline... Daniel 5 : 25 , 7 : 25 , 12 : 7 ; Revelation 12 : 14 : " time , times , and half a time " , or [ y = x + 2x + x/2 ] .
In Revelation , " time , times , and half a time " is spoken of as a three and a half year period ( to simplify the equation above , y = 3.5x [ Rev .
11 : 2,3 , 12 : 6 , 13 : 5 ] ) .
It is given as a time that man would flee from the beast ( as nature is red in tooth and claw ) .
To interpret the length of this time period , we can employ the idea that " one day for God is as 1,000 years for us " ( 2 Peter 3 : 8 , Psalm 90 : 4 ) .
If x is equal to one year of days according to God 's reckoning , then x = 365 * 1000... To substitute this value of x into our equation above , we get [ y = 3.5 ( 365 * 1000 ) ] .
Or.. . y = 1.2775 million years that man has been fighting the fight of evolution with nature These equations also relate to star polygonal arithmetic and points equidistant on the perimeter of perfect circles , but I 'll leave that as an exercise for the reader ( hint : y = 7 * x/2 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leave it to Deseret University (a.k.a., University of Utah), founded by Brigham Young, to come out with these scientific findings...

But the ancient wisdom of the Bible already spoke of this timeline...  Daniel 5:25, 7:25, 12:7; Revelation 12:14: "time, times, and half a time", or [y = x + 2x + x/2].
In Revelation, "time, times, and half a time" is spoken of as a three and a half year period (to simplify the equation above, y = 3.5x [Rev.
11:2,3, 12:6, 13:5]).
It is given as a time that man would flee from the beast (as nature is red in tooth and claw).
To interpret the length of this time period, we can employ the idea that "one day for God is as 1,000 years for us" (2 Peter 3:8, Psalm 90:4).
If x is equal to one year of days according to God's reckoning, then x = 365*1000...  To substitute this value of x into our equation above, we get [y = 3.5(365*1000)].
Or...

y = 1.2775 million years that man has been fighting the fight of evolution with nature

These equations also relate to star polygonal arithmetic and points equidistant on the perimeter of perfect circles, but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader (hint: y = 7 * x/2).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30893154</id>
	<title>Re:This means ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous Struct</author>
	<datestamp>1264446240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And it also explains why we'll never get along, especially around the holidays.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it also explains why we 'll never get along , especially around the holidays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it also explains why we'll never get along, especially around the holidays.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30896914</id>
	<title>Re:This means ...</title>
	<author>TempeTerra</author>
	<datestamp>1264418280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>you are genetically diverse enough from your first cousin that there are no genetic problems, other than sharing undesirable, recessive, genetic diseases.</p></div></blockquote><p>What kind of genetic problems would anyone have other than 'sharing undesirable, recessive, genetic diseases'? I thought that was what first cousins were distant enough to make a negligible concern.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you are genetically diverse enough from your first cousin that there are no genetic problems , other than sharing undesirable , recessive , genetic diseases.What kind of genetic problems would anyone have other than 'sharing undesirable , recessive , genetic diseases ' ?
I thought that was what first cousins were distant enough to make a negligible concern .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you are genetically diverse enough from your first cousin that there are no genetic problems, other than sharing undesirable, recessive, genetic diseases.What kind of genetic problems would anyone have other than 'sharing undesirable, recessive, genetic diseases'?
I thought that was what first cousins were distant enough to make a negligible concern.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888926</id>
	<title>Nuclear Volcano?</title>
	<author>Drethon</author>
	<datestamp>1264430040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What happened to those?  Sounds like an excellent power source...</htmltext>
<tokenext>What happened to those ?
Sounds like an excellent power source.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happened to those?
Sounds like an excellent power source...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889446</id>
	<title>Re:Do the same tests on different species</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264432800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree.  I think you'd see the same correlations in <em>some</em> species, but not necessarily all.</p><p>Let's posit some kind of catastrophic event that puts pressure on early hominids. It does not follow that <em>every</em> species is put under evolutionary pressure, only those that rely on the certain ecological resources to survive.  So it doesn't have to be an event like nuclear winter.</p><p>Furthermore we might not see these effects in other species because most of the species that survived found the changes brought on by the event favorable to them.  The ones that didn't for the most part may not have survived, or may have only survived in certain niches.</p><p>Hominids are a special case.  Except in a few circumstances migration is not part of their lifestyle, but they have a tremendous latent capacity to migrate, probably greater and certainly more flexible than any land animal.  So our posited "disaster" happens, but it doesn't look like a disaster to most of the species that survived. As for those for whom it was a disaster, many perish and a few manage to hold on in isolated geographic niches.  These are almost certain to include hominids, with their adaptability and latent capacity to migrate great distances.  Most of the hominids either don't get moving quickly enough or don't find a place to survive in, but enough of them do to maintain a breeding population.</p><p>Of course, this scenario isn't a scientific one. It's more of a counterscenario demonstrating that we wouldn't necessarily expect to see the same genetic phenomena everywhere we looked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
I think you 'd see the same correlations in some species , but not necessarily all.Let 's posit some kind of catastrophic event that puts pressure on early hominids .
It does not follow that every species is put under evolutionary pressure , only those that rely on the certain ecological resources to survive .
So it does n't have to be an event like nuclear winter.Furthermore we might not see these effects in other species because most of the species that survived found the changes brought on by the event favorable to them .
The ones that did n't for the most part may not have survived , or may have only survived in certain niches.Hominids are a special case .
Except in a few circumstances migration is not part of their lifestyle , but they have a tremendous latent capacity to migrate , probably greater and certainly more flexible than any land animal .
So our posited " disaster " happens , but it does n't look like a disaster to most of the species that survived .
As for those for whom it was a disaster , many perish and a few manage to hold on in isolated geographic niches .
These are almost certain to include hominids , with their adaptability and latent capacity to migrate great distances .
Most of the hominids either do n't get moving quickly enough or do n't find a place to survive in , but enough of them do to maintain a breeding population.Of course , this scenario is n't a scientific one .
It 's more of a counterscenario demonstrating that we would n't necessarily expect to see the same genetic phenomena everywhere we looked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
I think you'd see the same correlations in some species, but not necessarily all.Let's posit some kind of catastrophic event that puts pressure on early hominids.
It does not follow that every species is put under evolutionary pressure, only those that rely on the certain ecological resources to survive.
So it doesn't have to be an event like nuclear winter.Furthermore we might not see these effects in other species because most of the species that survived found the changes brought on by the event favorable to them.
The ones that didn't for the most part may not have survived, or may have only survived in certain niches.Hominids are a special case.
Except in a few circumstances migration is not part of their lifestyle, but they have a tremendous latent capacity to migrate, probably greater and certainly more flexible than any land animal.
So our posited "disaster" happens, but it doesn't look like a disaster to most of the species that survived.
As for those for whom it was a disaster, many perish and a few manage to hold on in isolated geographic niches.
These are almost certain to include hominids, with their adaptability and latent capacity to migrate great distances.
Most of the hominids either don't get moving quickly enough or don't find a place to survive in, but enough of them do to maintain a breeding population.Of course, this scenario isn't a scientific one.
It's more of a counterscenario demonstrating that we wouldn't necessarily expect to see the same genetic phenomena everywhere we looked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30893748</id>
	<title>Re:So... BSG was right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264448700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Came here to post this, leaving satisfied.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Came here to post this , leaving satisfied .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Came here to post this, leaving satisfied.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889844</id>
	<title>Hopefully it doesn't happen again</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1264434360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Back then, I'm assuming survival from a cataclysm had a lot to do with being at the right place at the right time, and you only had to fight for scarce resources with the people nearby. If a cataclysm happened today, it would be easier for people to escape to the remaining habitable areas, and we have a lot more tools to use to fight over those scarce resources. If we ever have a nuclear apocalypse, I bet it will be due to a sudden world war triggered by a natural disaster.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back then , I 'm assuming survival from a cataclysm had a lot to do with being at the right place at the right time , and you only had to fight for scarce resources with the people nearby .
If a cataclysm happened today , it would be easier for people to escape to the remaining habitable areas , and we have a lot more tools to use to fight over those scarce resources .
If we ever have a nuclear apocalypse , I bet it will be due to a sudden world war triggered by a natural disaster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back then, I'm assuming survival from a cataclysm had a lot to do with being at the right place at the right time, and you only had to fight for scarce resources with the people nearby.
If a cataclysm happened today, it would be easier for people to escape to the remaining habitable areas, and we have a lot more tools to use to fight over those scarce resources.
If we ever have a nuclear apocalypse, I bet it will be due to a sudden world war triggered by a natural disaster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30894536</id>
	<title>Re:The new dogma of genetics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264452300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because evolutionary theory DOES NOT assume that genetic differentiation happens in "leaps and bounds." Far from it.</p><p>If you're reading "punctuated equilibrium" as meaning "abrupt change," you have the picture wrong.  Careful study has confirmed that change is gradual. There are occasions where it appears relatively rapid in local areas of fossilization, but the key terms here are "relatively" and "local." An apparently abrupt changes can still take place over tens of thousands of generations and what's recorded in one location may be not a sharp change, but the migration of organisms that evolved gradually in another location.</p><p>Both theory and study have confirmed that the vast majority of change is gradual. No leaping. No bounding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because evolutionary theory DOES NOT assume that genetic differentiation happens in " leaps and bounds .
" Far from it.If you 're reading " punctuated equilibrium " as meaning " abrupt change , " you have the picture wrong .
Careful study has confirmed that change is gradual .
There are occasions where it appears relatively rapid in local areas of fossilization , but the key terms here are " relatively " and " local .
" An apparently abrupt changes can still take place over tens of thousands of generations and what 's recorded in one location may be not a sharp change , but the migration of organisms that evolved gradually in another location.Both theory and study have confirmed that the vast majority of change is gradual .
No leaping .
No bounding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because evolutionary theory DOES NOT assume that genetic differentiation happens in "leaps and bounds.
" Far from it.If you're reading "punctuated equilibrium" as meaning "abrupt change," you have the picture wrong.
Careful study has confirmed that change is gradual.
There are occasions where it appears relatively rapid in local areas of fossilization, but the key terms here are "relatively" and "local.
" An apparently abrupt changes can still take place over tens of thousands of generations and what's recorded in one location may be not a sharp change, but the migration of organisms that evolved gradually in another location.Both theory and study have confirmed that the vast majority of change is gradual.
No leaping.
No bounding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30915004</id>
	<title>Re:say that to the tasmanian wolf</title>
	<author>MightyDrunken</author>
	<datestamp>1264591200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Humans nearly went extinct during the nuclear missile crisis</p></div><p>In that event, I would not rule out the chance to preserve a nucleus of human specimens. It would be quite easy at the bottom of some of our deeper mine shafts. The radioactivity would never penetrate a mine some thousands of feet deep. And in a matter of weeks, sufficient improvements in dwelling space could easily be provided. Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely. Greenhouses could maintain plant life. Animals could be bred and slaughtered. A quick survey would have to be made of all the available mine sites in the country. But I would guess that dwelling space for several hundred thousands of our people could easily be provided. With the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within say, twenty years.</p></div><p>There is even a <a href="http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/" title="bay12games.com" rel="nofollow">simulation</a> [bay12games.com] for this!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Humans nearly went extinct during the nuclear missile crisisIn that event , I would not rule out the chance to preserve a nucleus of human specimens .
It would be quite easy at the bottom of some of our deeper mine shafts .
The radioactivity would never penetrate a mine some thousands of feet deep .
And in a matter of weeks , sufficient improvements in dwelling space could easily be provided .
Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely .
Greenhouses could maintain plant life .
Animals could be bred and slaughtered .
A quick survey would have to be made of all the available mine sites in the country .
But I would guess that dwelling space for several hundred thousands of our people could easily be provided .
With the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say , ten females to each male , I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within say , twenty years.There is even a simulation [ bay12games.com ] for this !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Humans nearly went extinct during the nuclear missile crisisIn that event, I would not rule out the chance to preserve a nucleus of human specimens.
It would be quite easy at the bottom of some of our deeper mine shafts.
The radioactivity would never penetrate a mine some thousands of feet deep.
And in a matter of weeks, sufficient improvements in dwelling space could easily be provided.
Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely.
Greenhouses could maintain plant life.
Animals could be bred and slaughtered.
A quick survey would have to be made of all the available mine sites in the country.
But I would guess that dwelling space for several hundred thousands of our people could easily be provided.
With the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within say, twenty years.There is even a simulation [bay12games.com] for this!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30893062</id>
	<title>heh...  he said PNAS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264445820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>heh... he said PNAS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>heh... he said PNAS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>heh... he said PNAS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890584</id>
	<title>Re:Do the same tests on different species</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264437120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While that's interesting, I suggest that there's another question which immediately impacts every single person on this planet. Namely, what type of nuclear winter would be comparable to the Volcano induced winter that decimated Earth's species?</p><p>There have been recent reports that it takes a smaller number of nuclear explosions to trigger a nuclear winter. So, does this mean that Iran or North Korea have the ability to wipe out the human species. That conclusion is, ahem, chilling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While that 's interesting , I suggest that there 's another question which immediately impacts every single person on this planet .
Namely , what type of nuclear winter would be comparable to the Volcano induced winter that decimated Earth 's species ? There have been recent reports that it takes a smaller number of nuclear explosions to trigger a nuclear winter .
So , does this mean that Iran or North Korea have the ability to wipe out the human species .
That conclusion is , ahem , chilling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While that's interesting, I suggest that there's another question which immediately impacts every single person on this planet.
Namely, what type of nuclear winter would be comparable to the Volcano induced winter that decimated Earth's species?There have been recent reports that it takes a smaller number of nuclear explosions to trigger a nuclear winter.
So, does this mean that Iran or North Korea have the ability to wipe out the human species.
That conclusion is, ahem, chilling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889102</id>
	<title>Re:The new dogma of genetics</title>
	<author>MrMr</author>
	<datestamp>1264431120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You sound like a crackpot in training.<br>Everybody in the field knows that DNA mutation rates need not be uniform, so the alleged 'faith' only exists in your imagination.<br>Furthermore ascribing random claims to evolutionary theory and pretending to have been an atheist is characteristic for the dumber religiously inspired anti-evolutionist pamphlets.<br>I wonder why you felt the need to post this rubbish when you clearly can be smarter than this.<br>Or did you just leave your terminal unattended?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You sound like a crackpot in training.Everybody in the field knows that DNA mutation rates need not be uniform , so the alleged 'faith ' only exists in your imagination.Furthermore ascribing random claims to evolutionary theory and pretending to have been an atheist is characteristic for the dumber religiously inspired anti-evolutionist pamphlets.I wonder why you felt the need to post this rubbish when you clearly can be smarter than this.Or did you just leave your terminal unattended ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sound like a crackpot in training.Everybody in the field knows that DNA mutation rates need not be uniform, so the alleged 'faith' only exists in your imagination.Furthermore ascribing random claims to evolutionary theory and pretending to have been an atheist is characteristic for the dumber religiously inspired anti-evolutionist pamphlets.I wonder why you felt the need to post this rubbish when you clearly can be smarter than this.Or did you just leave your terminal unattended?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30895138</id>
	<title>Re:We were saved!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264411500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Parent should be marked as flame-bait and not funny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Parent should be marked as flame-bait and not funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parent should be marked as flame-bait and not funny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889112</id>
	<title>Migration explains this just as well</title>
	<author>Kanel</author>
	<datestamp>1264431180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok so they find that humans are genetically homogeneous compared to other species. But how do other species develop diversity? One way is to have isolated populations. If we imagine that humans were different from chimps and other primates in that humans travelled far and wide, there would be no isolated groups of humans, the whole of central africa would be effectively one gene pool. That alone could make humans less genetically diverse than other primates, without invoking any theory of a near-extinction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok so they find that humans are genetically homogeneous compared to other species .
But how do other species develop diversity ?
One way is to have isolated populations .
If we imagine that humans were different from chimps and other primates in that humans travelled far and wide , there would be no isolated groups of humans , the whole of central africa would be effectively one gene pool .
That alone could make humans less genetically diverse than other primates , without invoking any theory of a near-extinction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok so they find that humans are genetically homogeneous compared to other species.
But how do other species develop diversity?
One way is to have isolated populations.
If we imagine that humans were different from chimps and other primates in that humans travelled far and wide, there would be no isolated groups of humans, the whole of central africa would be effectively one gene pool.
That alone could make humans less genetically diverse than other primates, without invoking any theory of a near-extinction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30896132</id>
	<title>would selection be another explanation?</title>
	<author>WiFiBro</author>
	<datestamp>1264415460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Researchers scanned two completely sequenced modern human genomes for a type of mobile element called Alu sequences, then compared the nucleotides in these old regions with the overall diversity in the two genomes to estimate differences in effective population size, "</p><p>Is there anybody here in the know about ALUs?<br>I can live with 18.500 individuals, it makes some large strides in the evolution of the brain more likely.<br>But I can also imagine that we do not know about extinct ALUs. Sat there were more people genetically more prone to jump of cliffs, and this was linked to some different ALU which was missed in this survey due to rareness or extinction, then there could have been a larger worldwide population than this calculation suggests,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Researchers scanned two completely sequenced modern human genomes for a type of mobile element called Alu sequences , then compared the nucleotides in these old regions with the overall diversity in the two genomes to estimate differences in effective population size , " Is there anybody here in the know about ALUs ? I can live with 18.500 individuals , it makes some large strides in the evolution of the brain more likely.But I can also imagine that we do not know about extinct ALUs .
Sat there were more people genetically more prone to jump of cliffs , and this was linked to some different ALU which was missed in this survey due to rareness or extinction , then there could have been a larger worldwide population than this calculation suggests,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Researchers scanned two completely sequenced modern human genomes for a type of mobile element called Alu sequences, then compared the nucleotides in these old regions with the overall diversity in the two genomes to estimate differences in effective population size, "Is there anybody here in the know about ALUs?I can live with 18.500 individuals, it makes some large strides in the evolution of the brain more likely.But I can also imagine that we do not know about extinct ALUs.
Sat there were more people genetically more prone to jump of cliffs, and this was linked to some different ALU which was missed in this survey due to rareness or extinction, then there could have been a larger worldwide population than this calculation suggests,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889092</id>
	<title>Re:The new dogma of genetics</title>
	<author>Rhaban</author>
	<datestamp>1264431060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But why should we assume a uniform rate over time, when evolutionary theory says that genetic differentiation happens in leaps and bounds?</p></div><p>Sources should always be cited when making this kind of argument. I'll do it for you this time:</p><p><i>Pr. Charles Xavier, X-Men movie introduction speech</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But why should we assume a uniform rate over time , when evolutionary theory says that genetic differentiation happens in leaps and bounds ? Sources should always be cited when making this kind of argument .
I 'll do it for you this time : Pr .
Charles Xavier , X-Men movie introduction speech</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But why should we assume a uniform rate over time, when evolutionary theory says that genetic differentiation happens in leaps and bounds?Sources should always be cited when making this kind of argument.
I'll do it for you this time:Pr.
Charles Xavier, X-Men movie introduction speech
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30892170</id>
	<title>Re:So... BSG was right.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264442340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question is: Was it, right before they landed, or right <em>after</em>?<br>You know how this ended when Columbus came to America...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is : Was it , right before they landed , or right after ? You know how this ended when Columbus came to America.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is: Was it, right before they landed, or right after?You know how this ended when Columbus came to America...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889122</id>
	<title>Re:"Nuclear" Winter</title>
	<author>harris s newman</author>
	<datestamp>1264431240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The proper description would be volcanic winter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The proper description would be volcanic winter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The proper description would be volcanic winter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30892194</id>
	<title>Re:The Ancients died of a plague and most of them</title>
	<author>metlin</author>
	<datestamp>1264442400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure there's a Daniel Jackson joke in there somewhere...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure there 's a Daniel Jackson joke in there somewhere.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure there's a Daniel Jackson joke in there somewhere...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30892202</id>
	<title>Re:say that to the tasmanian wolf</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264442460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TV? Who still has a TV?<br>I thought the Internet solved that one...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TV ?
Who still has a TV ? I thought the Internet solved that one.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TV?
Who still has a TV?I thought the Internet solved that one...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889552</id>
	<title>Re:So... BSG was right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264433220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lame. So very lame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lame .
So very lame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lame.
So very lame.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890216</id>
	<title>Re:say that to the tasmanian wolf</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1264435740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know... for a species that has gone to every continent but Antarctica with stone-age technology, I think we are doing just fine with our natural "TV in every room" instincts. As a society, we haven't been able to muster enough resources and organization to put colonies on the moon and Mars for scientific and exploration purposes. But say a private company starts moon holidays with a private spaceship, and some young couple on their honeymoon decide that the moon is a really beautiful place...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know... for a species that has gone to every continent but Antarctica with stone-age technology , I think we are doing just fine with our natural " TV in every room " instincts .
As a society , we have n't been able to muster enough resources and organization to put colonies on the moon and Mars for scientific and exploration purposes .
But say a private company starts moon holidays with a private spaceship , and some young couple on their honeymoon decide that the moon is a really beautiful place.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know... for a species that has gone to every continent but Antarctica with stone-age technology, I think we are doing just fine with our natural "TV in every room" instincts.
As a society, we haven't been able to muster enough resources and organization to put colonies on the moon and Mars for scientific and exploration purposes.
But say a private company starts moon holidays with a private spaceship, and some young couple on their honeymoon decide that the moon is a really beautiful place...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30900774</id>
	<title>Minervans</title>
	<author>wallsg</author>
	<datestamp>1264445820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're actually descended from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giants\_series" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Minerva's lunar colony</a> [wikipedia.org], you know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're actually descended from Minerva 's lunar colony [ wikipedia.org ] , you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're actually descended from Minerva's lunar colony [wikipedia.org], you know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888940</id>
	<title>That was the reason!</title>
	<author>dangle</author>
	<datestamp>1264430160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More evidence supporting the B Ark theory of human origins...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More evidence supporting the B Ark theory of human origins.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More evidence supporting the B Ark theory of human origins...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890364</id>
	<title>Re:Summary is wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264436340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sewall Wright defined Effective Population as "the number of breeding individuals in an idealized population that would show the same amount of dispersion of allele frequencies under random genetic drift or the same amount of inbreeding as the population under consideration".</p></div><p>There seems to be a lot of questionable inference in and from this article, including the conclusion that "we" were anywhere near extinction as a result of the catastrophic events of 70k or 1.2M years ago. My recent recreational reading includes the notion that the absolute number of individuals necessary to sustain a genetically viable species population is approximately 5000. <i>N</i> in this paper was reported to be 55,000, an order of magnitude larger, and an effective population of 3x this minimum would seem to support of level redundancy from which such a population could easily rebound when challenged by natural disaster. This assumes that the population was sufficiently dispersed to protect the population against loss of diversity and yet not so spread out as to preclude genetic mixing within the overall population.</p><p>Perhaps this points to the natural tendencies of war and conquest as advantageous behavior from the standpoint that it ensured the sustainability of genetic diversity among dispersed groups of homo sapiens sapiens. I believe this line of inquiry may have been covered by Jared Diamond.</p><p>Couldn't these concepts be tested by distributing memes on Twitter? Gibberish could represent nonviable mutation, and thoughtful interaction resulting in meme recombination could represent viable genetic mutation. Repetition represent successful breeding.</p><p>No... forget I suggested that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sewall Wright defined Effective Population as " the number of breeding individuals in an idealized population that would show the same amount of dispersion of allele frequencies under random genetic drift or the same amount of inbreeding as the population under consideration " .There seems to be a lot of questionable inference in and from this article , including the conclusion that " we " were anywhere near extinction as a result of the catastrophic events of 70k or 1.2M years ago .
My recent recreational reading includes the notion that the absolute number of individuals necessary to sustain a genetically viable species population is approximately 5000 .
N in this paper was reported to be 55,000 , an order of magnitude larger , and an effective population of 3x this minimum would seem to support of level redundancy from which such a population could easily rebound when challenged by natural disaster .
This assumes that the population was sufficiently dispersed to protect the population against loss of diversity and yet not so spread out as to preclude genetic mixing within the overall population.Perhaps this points to the natural tendencies of war and conquest as advantageous behavior from the standpoint that it ensured the sustainability of genetic diversity among dispersed groups of homo sapiens sapiens .
I believe this line of inquiry may have been covered by Jared Diamond.Could n't these concepts be tested by distributing memes on Twitter ?
Gibberish could represent nonviable mutation , and thoughtful interaction resulting in meme recombination could represent viable genetic mutation .
Repetition represent successful breeding.No... forget I suggested that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sewall Wright defined Effective Population as "the number of breeding individuals in an idealized population that would show the same amount of dispersion of allele frequencies under random genetic drift or the same amount of inbreeding as the population under consideration".There seems to be a lot of questionable inference in and from this article, including the conclusion that "we" were anywhere near extinction as a result of the catastrophic events of 70k or 1.2M years ago.
My recent recreational reading includes the notion that the absolute number of individuals necessary to sustain a genetically viable species population is approximately 5000.
N in this paper was reported to be 55,000, an order of magnitude larger, and an effective population of 3x this minimum would seem to support of level redundancy from which such a population could easily rebound when challenged by natural disaster.
This assumes that the population was sufficiently dispersed to protect the population against loss of diversity and yet not so spread out as to preclude genetic mixing within the overall population.Perhaps this points to the natural tendencies of war and conquest as advantageous behavior from the standpoint that it ensured the sustainability of genetic diversity among dispersed groups of homo sapiens sapiens.
I believe this line of inquiry may have been covered by Jared Diamond.Couldn't these concepts be tested by distributing memes on Twitter?
Gibberish could represent nonviable mutation, and thoughtful interaction resulting in meme recombination could represent viable genetic mutation.
Repetition represent successful breeding.No... forget I suggested that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889884</id>
	<title>Re:There's a message in this somewhere</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264434480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>actually, you're not very far off. satan does this.</p><p>and we won't go extinct until the dragon rises and gives it's power/authority to the beast, who will rule the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>actually , you 're not very far off .
satan does this.and we wo n't go extinct until the dragon rises and gives it 's power/authority to the beast , who will rule the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>actually, you're not very far off.
satan does this.and we won't go extinct until the dragon rises and gives it's power/authority to the beast, who will rule the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30896434</id>
	<title>Re:Insightful Troll!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264416420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Remember; there used to be science about the earth being flat ages ago.</p></div><p>Bullshit.  From at least the ancient Greeks onward people having been talking about a spherical Earth.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember ; there used to be science about the earth being flat ages ago.Bullshit .
From at least the ancient Greeks onward people having been talking about a spherical Earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember; there used to be science about the earth being flat ages ago.Bullshit.
From at least the ancient Greeks onward people having been talking about a spherical Earth.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30900704</id>
	<title>Re:say that to the tasmanian wolf</title>
	<author>Cywiro</author>
	<datestamp>1264445100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man .
Now , would n't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship , I mean , as far as men were concerned ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man.
Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889322</id>
	<title>Hands up, everybody who...</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1264432320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...thought at first that the headline was "Humans Went Extinct Nearly 1.2M Years Ago" and thought, "Boy, we're doing pretty well for an extinct species..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...thought at first that the headline was " Humans Went Extinct Nearly 1.2M Years Ago " and thought , " Boy , we 're doing pretty well for an extinct species... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...thought at first that the headline was "Humans Went Extinct Nearly 1.2M Years Ago" and thought, "Boy, we're doing pretty well for an extinct species..."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890076</id>
	<title>Re:say that to the tasmanian wolf</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1264435200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Humans nearly went extinct during the nuclear missile crysis [<i>sic</i>]</p></div><p>Nuclear war would not have wiped out humanity. It could've killed tens of millions of people immediately, and maybe hundreds of millions more after two years of poor crops and contaminated water, but large pockets would've survived pretty much unscathed. Most of South America, Africa, and Australasia (with the obvious exception of Australia itself on the coasts) would not have been hit at all, in all likelihood. And life would've been rough for those people for a few years, the earth has phenomenal ability to heal itself. Hell, people live in Hiroshima and have picnics at ground zero; I hardly doubt later nuclear weapons would've had longer-lasting effects than the first weak, but extremely dirty, bombs did.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Humans nearly went extinct during the nuclear missile crysis [ sic ] Nuclear war would not have wiped out humanity .
It could 've killed tens of millions of people immediately , and maybe hundreds of millions more after two years of poor crops and contaminated water , but large pockets would 've survived pretty much unscathed .
Most of South America , Africa , and Australasia ( with the obvious exception of Australia itself on the coasts ) would not have been hit at all , in all likelihood .
And life would 've been rough for those people for a few years , the earth has phenomenal ability to heal itself .
Hell , people live in Hiroshima and have picnics at ground zero ; I hardly doubt later nuclear weapons would 've had longer-lasting effects than the first weak , but extremely dirty , bombs did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Humans nearly went extinct during the nuclear missile crysis [sic]Nuclear war would not have wiped out humanity.
It could've killed tens of millions of people immediately, and maybe hundreds of millions more after two years of poor crops and contaminated water, but large pockets would've survived pretty much unscathed.
Most of South America, Africa, and Australasia (with the obvious exception of Australia itself on the coasts) would not have been hit at all, in all likelihood.
And life would've been rough for those people for a few years, the earth has phenomenal ability to heal itself.
Hell, people live in Hiroshima and have picnics at ground zero; I hardly doubt later nuclear weapons would've had longer-lasting effects than the first weak, but extremely dirty, bombs did.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888872</id>
	<title>Do the same tests on different species</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264429680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>There should be some sort of correlation in the results.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There should be some sort of correlation in the results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There should be some sort of correlation in the results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889166</id>
	<title>Re:The new dogma of genetics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264431540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Science seeks to explain, ie. to make complex things plain and amenable to human understanding, which is by definition a reductionistic activity. That's hardly a new insight. Your attempt to blame science for the simplicity of its explanations betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what science can do. Science that is so impressed by "complexity" that it shrinks back from it is obscurantism.</p><p>Oh yes - "I used to be an atheist" is a complete non-sequitur in my opinion, especially if the opinions that accompany the statement are an embarrassment to any reasonable theory of science. Get your PhD in statistics if you like. But if your genetics courses were so bad, what makes you so sure that your stats curriculum isn't equally flawed? And have you ever actually talked with your engineering friends? I happen to be an engineer, and have used linear regression, being painfully aware of its assumptions and limitations. There's absolutely no "leap of faith" here. It's acquiring a mental toolset and learning how to use it appropriately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Science seeks to explain , ie .
to make complex things plain and amenable to human understanding , which is by definition a reductionistic activity .
That 's hardly a new insight .
Your attempt to blame science for the simplicity of its explanations betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what science can do .
Science that is so impressed by " complexity " that it shrinks back from it is obscurantism.Oh yes - " I used to be an atheist " is a complete non-sequitur in my opinion , especially if the opinions that accompany the statement are an embarrassment to any reasonable theory of science .
Get your PhD in statistics if you like .
But if your genetics courses were so bad , what makes you so sure that your stats curriculum is n't equally flawed ?
And have you ever actually talked with your engineering friends ?
I happen to be an engineer , and have used linear regression , being painfully aware of its assumptions and limitations .
There 's absolutely no " leap of faith " here .
It 's acquiring a mental toolset and learning how to use it appropriately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science seeks to explain, ie.
to make complex things plain and amenable to human understanding, which is by definition a reductionistic activity.
That's hardly a new insight.
Your attempt to blame science for the simplicity of its explanations betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what science can do.
Science that is so impressed by "complexity" that it shrinks back from it is obscurantism.Oh yes - "I used to be an atheist" is a complete non-sequitur in my opinion, especially if the opinions that accompany the statement are an embarrassment to any reasonable theory of science.
Get your PhD in statistics if you like.
But if your genetics courses were so bad, what makes you so sure that your stats curriculum isn't equally flawed?
And have you ever actually talked with your engineering friends?
I happen to be an engineer, and have used linear regression, being painfully aware of its assumptions and limitations.
There's absolutely no "leap of faith" here.
It's acquiring a mental toolset and learning how to use it appropriately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888896</id>
	<title>Toba volcano ? Nuclear winter ?</title>
	<author>DrYak</author>
	<datestamp>1264429860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But, but...<br>I though it was the white-bearded magical man who did it !<br>With a big rain and a big flood !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But , but...I though it was the white-bearded magical man who did it ! With a big rain and a big flood !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But, but...I though it was the white-bearded magical man who did it !With a big rain and a big flood !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890608</id>
	<title>Right...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264437180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Volcanoes huh? That explains the whole Xenu thing...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Volcanoes huh ?
That explains the whole Xenu thing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Volcanoes huh?
That explains the whole Xenu thing...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889004</id>
	<title>Re:The new dogma of genetics</title>
	<author>Vanderhoth</author>
	<datestamp>1264430640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can't have circular logic with out logic to begin the circle. I'd suggest picking a place to start then figure out if where you started is the right place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't have circular logic with out logic to begin the circle .
I 'd suggest picking a place to start then figure out if where you started is the right place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't have circular logic with out logic to begin the circle.
I'd suggest picking a place to start then figure out if where you started is the right place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890676</id>
	<title>Re:This means ...</title>
	<author>quenda</author>
	<datestamp>1264437360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I read somewhere the the most removed any two humans are from each other is 53rd cousins,</p> </div><p>That would mean a common ancestor only a 1000 or so years back.<br>How isolated were the Australian Aborigines over the last few thousand years before white settlement? There are still "full bloods" remaining.<br>Or do they all have traces of shipwrecked Portuguese sailors and Indonesian fishermen in their blood?<br>The Tasmanian Aboriginals were more isolated, but none are left.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read somewhere the the most removed any two humans are from each other is 53rd cousins , That would mean a common ancestor only a 1000 or so years back.How isolated were the Australian Aborigines over the last few thousand years before white settlement ?
There are still " full bloods " remaining.Or do they all have traces of shipwrecked Portuguese sailors and Indonesian fishermen in their blood ? The Tasmanian Aboriginals were more isolated , but none are left .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read somewhere the the most removed any two humans are from each other is 53rd cousins, That would mean a common ancestor only a 1000 or so years back.How isolated were the Australian Aborigines over the last few thousand years before white settlement?
There are still "full bloods" remaining.Or do they all have traces of shipwrecked Portuguese sailors and Indonesian fishermen in their blood?The Tasmanian Aboriginals were more isolated, but none are left.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890394</id>
	<title>Re:Toba volcano ? Nuclear winter ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264436460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"I do not understand," reads an ancient line of pictographs depicting the sun, the moon, water, and a Sumerian who appears to be scratching his head. "A booming voice is saying, 'Let there be light,' but there is already light. It is saying, 'Let the earth bring forth grass,' but I am already standing on grass."</i></p><p>So... an alternate headline would be "Ancient Sumerian on grass hears voice of God".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I do not understand , " reads an ancient line of pictographs depicting the sun , the moon , water , and a Sumerian who appears to be scratching his head .
" A booming voice is saying , 'Let there be light, ' but there is already light .
It is saying , 'Let the earth bring forth grass, ' but I am already standing on grass. " So.. .
an alternate headline would be " Ancient Sumerian on grass hears voice of God " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I do not understand," reads an ancient line of pictographs depicting the sun, the moon, water, and a Sumerian who appears to be scratching his head.
"A booming voice is saying, 'Let there be light,' but there is already light.
It is saying, 'Let the earth bring forth grass,' but I am already standing on grass."So...
an alternate headline would be "Ancient Sumerian on grass hears voice of God".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891222</id>
	<title>Re:Summary is wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264439280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>18500 capable of breeding? Has so much changed? Seinfeld says that like 99\% of the population is undate-able.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>18500 capable of breeding ?
Has so much changed ?
Seinfeld says that like 99 \ % of the population is undate-able .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>18500 capable of breeding?
Has so much changed?
Seinfeld says that like 99\% of the population is undate-able.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889018</id>
	<title>mo/3 up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264430640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>cuntwipes Jordan hear you. Also, if FrreBSD showed legitimise doing there are to the original with the number distributions Or make loud noises</htmltext>
<tokenext>cuntwipes Jordan hear you .
Also , if FrreBSD showed legitimise doing there are to the original with the number distributions Or make loud noises</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cuntwipes Jordan hear you.
Also, if FrreBSD showed legitimise doing there are to the original with the number distributions Or make loud noises</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30904436</id>
	<title>Re:Pfft...</title>
	<author>NSN A392-99-964-5927</author>
	<datestamp>1264521720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's nothing.  I mean, the whole race started from just two people, right?</p></div><p>Fancy a shag?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's nothing .
I mean , the whole race started from just two people , right ? Fancy a shag ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's nothing.
I mean, the whole race started from just two people, right?Fancy a shag?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891092</id>
	<title>Re:So... BSG was right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264438860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More likely it was Noah and his fleet, er, ark.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More likely it was Noah and his fleet , er , ark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More likely it was Noah and his fleet, er, ark.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889028</id>
	<title>Re:The new dogma of genetics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264430640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The DNA that creates different physical traits does mutate in (more or less) unpredictable leaps and bounds as time goes on. But that's not the DNA they look at in cases like this. There's long strings of junk DNA that does nothing at all - random leftover of mutations that didn't happen to affect our survival one way or the other. Because these don't affect physical traits, they aren't selected for or against and are subject to only one 'force', genetic drift. That's why they're fairly constant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The DNA that creates different physical traits does mutate in ( more or less ) unpredictable leaps and bounds as time goes on .
But that 's not the DNA they look at in cases like this .
There 's long strings of junk DNA that does nothing at all - random leftover of mutations that did n't happen to affect our survival one way or the other .
Because these do n't affect physical traits , they are n't selected for or against and are subject to only one 'force ' , genetic drift .
That 's why they 're fairly constant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The DNA that creates different physical traits does mutate in (more or less) unpredictable leaps and bounds as time goes on.
But that's not the DNA they look at in cases like this.
There's long strings of junk DNA that does nothing at all - random leftover of mutations that didn't happen to affect our survival one way or the other.
Because these don't affect physical traits, they aren't selected for or against and are subject to only one 'force', genetic drift.
That's why they're fairly constant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889688</id>
	<title>Re:Pfft...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264433820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, your bias against Christians is showing!<br>You must be a liberal. You know, tolerant of everything, except for the things you aren't. I'd make fun of your beliefs but you dont really have any. So I guess I'll just feel bad for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , your bias against Christians is showing ! You must be a liberal .
You know , tolerant of everything , except for the things you are n't .
I 'd make fun of your beliefs but you dont really have any .
So I guess I 'll just feel bad for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, your bias against Christians is showing!You must be a liberal.
You know, tolerant of everything, except for the things you aren't.
I'd make fun of your beliefs but you dont really have any.
So I guess I'll just feel bad for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30894568</id>
	<title>Re:Pfft...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264452420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've had ribs that good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've had ribs that good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've had ribs that good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888992</id>
	<title>Monkeys were still safe ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264430520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This makes me related to monkeys how ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This makes me related to monkeys how ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This makes me related to monkeys how ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30898018</id>
	<title>Re:Do the same tests on different species</title>
	<author>Curmudgeonlyoldbloke</author>
	<datestamp>1264423920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hominids are a special case</p></div><p>I'm not convinced that they are.  The way that the dice have rolled over the last portion of geological time has led to hominid success, but that's because of our ancestors' ability to handle planet-changing disaster 65 million years ago (and at earlier times).  A similar argument could have been made for dinosaurs 70 million years ago or Permian fish earlier still.</p><p>There's no guarantee that a different event won't happen that will affect hominids but not, say, jellyfish.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hominids are a special caseI 'm not convinced that they are .
The way that the dice have rolled over the last portion of geological time has led to hominid success , but that 's because of our ancestors ' ability to handle planet-changing disaster 65 million years ago ( and at earlier times ) .
A similar argument could have been made for dinosaurs 70 million years ago or Permian fish earlier still.There 's no guarantee that a different event wo n't happen that will affect hominids but not , say , jellyfish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hominids are a special caseI'm not convinced that they are.
The way that the dice have rolled over the last portion of geological time has led to hominid success, but that's because of our ancestors' ability to handle planet-changing disaster 65 million years ago (and at earlier times).
A similar argument could have been made for dinosaurs 70 million years ago or Permian fish earlier still.There's no guarantee that a different event won't happen that will affect hominids but not, say, jellyfish.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890422</id>
	<title>Re:There's a message in this somewhere</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1264436520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That depends how tribal and territorial the cockroaches become.  I figure that all we need to start a cockroach war is create a two different tribes with social hierarchy and resource scarcity, and war will inevitably follow.   Oh, and if that scifi plot goes anywhere, remember to split the royalties with me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That depends how tribal and territorial the cockroaches become .
I figure that all we need to start a cockroach war is create a two different tribes with social hierarchy and resource scarcity , and war will inevitably follow .
Oh , and if that scifi plot goes anywhere , remember to split the royalties with me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That depends how tribal and territorial the cockroaches become.
I figure that all we need to start a cockroach war is create a two different tribes with social hierarchy and resource scarcity, and war will inevitably follow.
Oh, and if that scifi plot goes anywhere, remember to split the royalties with me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30902032</id>
	<title>Re:We were saved!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264506120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I prefer H. Creomythicus Ritualensis Hypocriticus - Man who believes in myth through hypocritical rituals</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer H. Creomythicus Ritualensis Hypocriticus - Man who believes in myth through hypocritical rituals</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer H. Creomythicus Ritualensis Hypocriticus - Man who believes in myth through hypocritical rituals</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889808</id>
	<title>Re:Pfft...</title>
	<author>xouumalperxe</author>
	<datestamp>1264434180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean, the whole race started from just two people, right?</p></div><p>More like from a guy having sex with his rib.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , the whole race started from just two people , right ? More like from a guy having sex with his rib .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, the whole race started from just two people, right?More like from a guy having sex with his rib.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890694</id>
	<title>Re:This means ...</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1264437480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I read somewhere the the most removed any two humans are from each other is 53rd cousins</p></div></blockquote><p>First cousins have a common ancestor two generations back.  So 53rd cousins should have a common ancestor 54 generations back.
</p><p>54 generations ago, you had (theoretically) 2^54 ancestors (~180,000 trillion).  Which means that statistically speaking, every human alive ~1200 years ago was about 200,000,000 of your ancestors.
</p><p>In other words, such a number is pretty much meaningless....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read somewhere the the most removed any two humans are from each other is 53rd cousinsFirst cousins have a common ancestor two generations back .
So 53rd cousins should have a common ancestor 54 generations back .
54 generations ago , you had ( theoretically ) 2 ^ 54 ancestors ( ~ 180,000 trillion ) .
Which means that statistically speaking , every human alive ~ 1200 years ago was about 200,000,000 of your ancestors .
In other words , such a number is pretty much meaningless... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read somewhere the the most removed any two humans are from each other is 53rd cousinsFirst cousins have a common ancestor two generations back.
So 53rd cousins should have a common ancestor 54 generations back.
54 generations ago, you had (theoretically) 2^54 ancestors (~180,000 trillion).
Which means that statistically speaking, every human alive ~1200 years ago was about 200,000,000 of your ancestors.
In other words, such a number is pretty much meaningless....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888986</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30892330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30913422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30893180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30901500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30900704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30893366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30892414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30895420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30892202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30892686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30892190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30894792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30901714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30892170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30895138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30900776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.31018986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30892172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30904436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30895646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30894568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30897528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30900456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30900774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30902032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30900744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30903678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30893462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30892194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30894536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30898018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30898292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30892750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30895004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30893098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30893168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30896810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30896434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30898210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30893748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30894036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30893154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30895596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30896914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30915004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_0252257_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30893960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_0252257.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_0252257.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889762
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889588
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30892172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30900744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_0252257.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890130
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30915004
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30900704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.31018986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30913422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30892202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30897528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30894036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_0252257.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30892170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30893748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891092
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30895596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30895004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_0252257.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30893462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889924
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30893366
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30895420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30896434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30894536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30901714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889166
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_0252257.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889096
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30903678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30898292
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30892750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30892686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30893098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891296
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890694
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891170
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30900776
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30896914
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890356
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30893154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30900456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889012
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_0252257.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890854
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_0252257.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_0252257.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_0252257.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30892190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30894792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30893960
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30893180
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30901500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30892330
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30894568
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30893168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30904436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_0252257.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30895138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891100
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30896810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30898210
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30900774
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30902032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_0252257.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891002
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_0252257.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30892194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_0252257.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891728
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_0252257.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30891222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_0252257.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889504
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_0252257.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889322
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_0252257.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30892414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889446
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30895646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30898018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_0252257.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889848
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_0252257.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30888852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30890276
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_0252257.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_0252257.30889110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
