Couldn't they have analyzed an edible one, such as a Rome or a Fuji?

.

FTA: "The researchers also discovered that the huge size of the apple genome originated when it got accidentally duplicated far back in its evolutionary history."

Uh, what? Careless science journalist, I suspect that there is something interesting behind that statement. Care to explain WTF it is?

And I concur with DPF above. "Golden Delicious" is tres oxymoronic.

DistendedPendulusFrenulum: Couldn't they have analyzed an edible one, such as a Rome or a Fuji?
Granny Smith?
.

FTFY.

A Golden Delicious is neither.

TheRaven7: DistendedPendulusFrenulum: Couldn't they have analyzed an edible one, such as a Rome or a Fuji?

.

The squishier ones are easier to crack.

Gaaaaarrrrrrr nothing worse than a mealy apple

.

What took them so long was they kept finding "one more thing" in the data.

doglover: DistendedPendulusFrenulum: Couldn't they have analyzed an edible one, such as a Rome or a Fuji?
Granny Smith?
.

FTFY.

A Golden Delicious is neither.

They have an apple in Minnesota--honeysomething--that's nearly as good a cooking apple as a Granny Smith

.

DistendedPendulusFrenulum: doglover: DistendedPendulusFrenulum: Couldn't they have analyzed an edible one, such as a Rome or a Fuji?
Granny Smith?
.

FTFY.

A Golden Delicious is neither.

They have an apple in Minnesota--honeysomething--that's nearly as good a cooking apple as a Granny Smith

.

GRANNY SMITHS ARE NOT COOKING APPLES!!

Apples are sour fruit. If it's sweet or soft, it's not an apply anymore, it's cider fodder.

Cue C&D order from Steve Jobs in 3.... 2.... 1....

doglover: Apples are sour fruit. If it's sweet or soft, it's not an apply anymore, it's cider fodder.

Fuji apples would beg to differ.

asciibaron: my beekeeping journal sent me this this morning. why are we farking with our food.

BEEEEEEEEEEEES?

.

doglover: D[..]

GRANNY SMITHS ARE NOT COOKING APPLES!!

[...].

Heretic

.

doglover:

Hey if you are in Japan, perhaps you get those enormous apples from Liaoning in China in the Fall. . .

.

Scientists from 20 institutions took two years to unravel the code - the largest plant genome uncovered to date...

The researchers also discovered that the huge size of the apple genome originated when it got accidentally duplicated far back in its evolutionary history.

Built with absolute ignorance. Decoded by 86 scientists over 2 years. Maybe they were really dumb scientists.

doglover: GRANNY SMITHS ARE NOT COOKING APPLES!!


Then what is she cooking?

jso2897:

Do what, now?

Oh, go read it. It's an unrelieved block of text comprised of out-of-context quotes that are so arcane there's no way possible to make it all add up to the same thing.

Kind of like the Bible

.

RatOmeter: Uh, what? Careless science journalist, I suspect that there is something interesting behind that statement. Care to explain WTF it is?

Probably an instance (or multiple instances) of polyploidy.

If you have two (or four) copies of the basic coding instructions, you can mutate one copy into insensibility (and thus, eventually into new meanings) without losing the basic function (since there's still another copy). Thus, more variation within the species genome.

Scientists from 20 institutions took two years to unravel the code - the largest plant genome uncovered to date...

The researchers also discovered that the huge size of the apple genome originated when it got accidentally duplicated far back in its evolutionary history.

Bevets:

Built with absolute ignorance. Decoded by 86 scientists over 2 years. Maybe they were really dumb scientists.


LasersHurt:

Basically Bevets believes that any time science discovers something, the fact that it took an intelligent person some time to decipher it means that God intelligently designed it.

Clearly, we all know that intelligent agents can create specified information and that information comes from minds. A computer user who traces the information on a screen back to its source invariably comes to a mind, that of a software engineer of programmer. The information in a book or a newspaper column or an ancient inscription ultimately derives from a writer or scribe -- from a mental, rather than a strictly material cause. The case for the causal adequacy of intelligent design should be obvious from our ordinary experience...

Indeed, unlike an argument form ignorance, an inference to the best explanation does not assert the adequacy of one causal explanation merely on the basis of the inadequacy of some other causal explanation. Instead, it asserts the superior explanatory power of a proposed cause based upon its proven -- its known causal adequacy and based upon a lack of demonstrated efficacy among the competing proposed causes... The inference to design, therefore, depends on present knowledge of the demonstrated causal powers of material entities and processes (inadequate) and intelligence (adequate). ~ Stephen Meyer

Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. ~ Philip Skell

Rules of atheism "Science":

Rule #1 God is IRRELEVANT
Rule #2 If God is relevant, see Rule #1
Rule #3 If God might be relevant, see Rule #1

Theists will consider natural causes.
Atheists will ONLY consider natural causes.

Where is your God now?

LasersHurt: TheRaven7: Why do you dumbasses respond to trolls? WHY? WHY? WHY?

Let's be fair, Bevets isn't a troll. He is what he is, but he's not a troll.

It's possible to put him on the defensive to the extent he actually writes something of his own.

But it will be brief


.

Bevets:

Rules of atheism
"Science":

Rule #1 God is IRRELEVANT
Rule #2 If God is relevant, see Rule #1
Rule #3 If God might be relevant, see Rule #1

Theists will consider natural causes.
Atheists will ONLY consider natural causes.

Firefly4F4:

Saying something DOESN'T exist due to lack of evidence is just as much a position of faith as saying it DOES when there is no evidence. A lack of evidence for something does not necessarily mean something does not exists; it just means it can be discounted.

The Circle of Atheism:
It is not possible to have evidence for someone who does not exist, therefore your evidence does not exist. (See Rule #1)

Bevets never responds to me. I think he doesn't believe I exist.

Bevets: Rules of atheism "Science":
Rule #1 God The unfathomable is IRRELEVANT
Rule #2 If God The unfathomable is relevant, see Rule #1
Rule #3 If God The unfathomable might be relevant, see Rule #1

FTFY.

Bevets: Theists will consider natural causes
...but always dismiss them, since...
Bevets: There can be no higher source for Truth than the Word of God.


/been a while since I've needed this bit off the clipboard