Posted on 02/20/2003 2:30:45 PM PST by Junior
IT STARTED with a biologist sitting on a grassy river bank in York, eating a sandwich. It ended in the discovery of a “scruffy little weed with no distinguishing features” that is the first new species to have been naturally created in Britain for more than 50 years.
The discovery of the York groundsel shows that species are created as well as made extinct, and that Charles Darwin was right and the Creationists are wrong. But the fragile existence of the species could soon be ended by the weedkillers of York City Council’s gardeners.
Richard Abbott, a plant evolutionary biologist from St Andrews University, has discovered “evolution in action” after noticing the lone, strange-looking and uncatalogued plant in wasteland next to the York railway station car park in 1979. He did not realise its significance and paid little attention. But in 1991 he returned to York, ate his sandwich and noticed that the plant had spread.
Yesterday, Dr Abbott published extensive research proving with DNA analysis that it is the first new species to have evolved naturally in Britain in the past 50 years.
“I’ve been a plant evolutionary biologist all my life, but you don’t think you’ll come across the origin of a new species in your lifetime. We’ve caught the species as it has originated — it is very satisfying,” he told the Times. “At a time in Earth’s history when animal and plant species are becoming extinct at an alarming rate, the discovery of the origin of a new plant species in Britain calls for a celebration.”
The creation of new species can takes thousands of years, making it too slow for science to detect. But the York groundsel is a natural hybrid between the common groundsel and the Oxford ragwort, which was introduced to Britain from Sicily 300 years ago. Hybrids are normally sterile, and cannot breed and die out.
But Dr Abbott’s research, published in the journal of the Botanical Society of the British Isles, shows that the York Groundsel is a genetic mutant that can breed, but not with any other species, including its parent species. It thus fits the scientific definition of a separate species.
“It is a very rare event — it is only known to have happened five times in the last hundred years” Dr Abbott said. It has happened twice before in the UK — the Spartina anglica was discovered in Southampton 100 years ago, and the Welsh groundsel, discovered in 1948.
The weed sets seed three months after germinating and has little yellow flowers. The species, which came into existance about 30 years ago, has been called Senecio eboracensis, after Eboracum, the Roman name for York. According to the research, it has now spread to spread to several sites around York, but only ever as a weed on disturbed ground.
However, more than 90 per cent of species that have lived subsequently become extinct, and its future is by no means certain.
“It is important for it to build up its numbers rapidly, or it could get rubbed out — which would be sad. The biggest threat to the new species is the weedkillers from the council,” Dr Abbott said.
However, he does not plan to start a planting programme to ensure his discovery lives on. “The next few years will be critical as to whether it becomes an established part of the British flora or a temporary curiosity. But we will let nature take its course,” he said.
Also, your assertion that "from now on the new species will only diverge further from its parent species" is supposition, unsupportable from the evidence in this article. Unless there is a connected trail of evidence concerning the continued divergence of one life-form from another, then the conclusion you have drawn is only a conclusion - not an established fact.
BTW - Thanks for replying with information - I often avoid these kinds of threads because I prefer at least semi-informed debate to the smug ranting these threads often devolve into.
It's my understanding that plant hybrids are much more likely to become successful new species than animal hybrids.
Your ignorance is flabbergasting--at least, it would be if I hadn't run into so many creationists here already.
The majority of Coelocanthi (or any other species of fish) could have kept their fins while a small subset evolved away into a new and distinct species. Evolution is treelike, single species branch into multiple species.
There is no reason for all Coelocanths to have been replaced by Coelocanths with legs--obviously Coeloes with fins will outcompete their hypothetical legged cousins in the water, while losing out on land. That's why finned fish remain in the ocean.
I shouldn't even waste time typing replies to this sort of nonsense.
The discovery of the York groundsel shows that species are created as well as made extinct, and that Charles Darwin was right and the Creationists are wrong. { humorous emphasis mine }
Beyond the humor, why is it just the “Creationist” that is wrong here? Seriously, isn’t it really anyone who doubts the Theory of Common Descent, observes intelligent design in biology, and does not adhere to only a natural/material explanation for life? Let’s not single out the Creationist here. If Darwin is truly correct we should be unable to observe anything other than RM&NS for the fortuitous ecosystem and life we now have. Unfortunately, natural selection extends out into the universe and the laws of physics… and well, we must accept this as a natural occurrence as well - or be subject to ridicule for ‘thinking’ otherwise.
So again, why is the ‘Creationist’ singled out? The theistic evolutionist believes in miracles – let’s all have our laugh at him as well… Actually, we can all have our laugh at everyone with the exception of the naturalist/ materialist.
---That’s the current rule of science .
I admit that I have gone off on a rant so… back to the weed. What if we just applied Mendel’s Laws here and that Darwin’s Theory of Common Descent was never posed. How would the present ‘science’ suffer? If science starts with a question, forms a hypothesis, and then seeks evidence – What if the question at the beginning is wrong? (The Theory of Common Descent is the question)
NOW??? LOL, hybridization has always been a viable method for speciation.
Don't be ridiculous. Of course it is.
Now, such an amazing claim ("a human is not a primate") requires some amazing evidence, so let's see what sort of documentation "Con X-Poser" provides, shall we? He cites:
Apes, like chimpanzees, may have been the ancestors of monkeys but not humans. See (1) Mastropaolo, Joseph. An objective ancestry test for fossil bones. The Physiologist 45 (4): 343, 2002. Abstract. (2) Mastropaolo, Joseph. An objective ancestry test for fossil bones. TJ, The In-Depth Journal of Creation 16(3): 84-88, 2002. (3) Krupa, Donna. Discovery Of The Oldest Human Ancestor Is (again) Called Into Question. Press release for An Objective Ancestry Test For Fossil Bones,by the American Physiological Society Intersociety Meeting, The Power of Comparative Physiology: Evolution, Integration, and Adaptation, August 24-28, 2002, San Diego, CA.
Wow, three whole citations. Looks impressive. Until you realize that they're all references to THE SAME PAPER BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
Let's look at them one at a time:
(1) Mastropaolo, Joseph. An objective ancestry test for fossil bones. The Physiologist 45 (4): 343, 2002. Abstract.
Okay, that's one. We'll examine it below. But note that although "The Physiologist" is a respectable publication, it's not a peer-reviewed journal. Nor is it a journal that actually publishes any research papers at all. According to its website, it's just a "newsletter" that includes "articles on [American Physiology] Society affairs and announcements", and "abstracts of volunteered papers submitted for the APS conferences". It is *not* a science journal by any means, it's a newsletter of bulletins and announcements. Note also the #1 citation admits that only the "Abstract" (summary) of Mastropaolo's paper was published in the newsletter. Big whoop-de-do. The Psysiologist is archived online, here's the section which contains the cited summary (opens as a PDF file). And again, it's just there to let people know that the paper will be presented at the upcoming conference (and as one who has given papers at various petroleum conferences, I can attest that conferences don't bother checking whether your paper is nonsense or not, they're just happy to fill their schedule).
But now let's look at citation #2:
(2) Mastropaolo, Joseph. An objective ancestry test for fossil bones. TJ, The In-Depth Journal of Creation 16(3): 84-88, 2002.
Um, exsqueeze me, that's the same author and same title. Is there any reason you chose to list it twice, as if that gave it twice as much credibility? And although this appears to be a citation for the paper itself (but probably isn't, see below), note that it's not in a respected peer-reviewed science journal, it's in a creationist rag, which specifically requires submissions to be "dedicated to upholding the authority of the 66 books of the Bible, especially in the area of origins". And rather than objectively following the evidence where it leads, its editors are required to subscribe to a Statment of Faith" which includes, among other things, the statement that "The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ". Oh, yeah, *there's* an objective journal...
Also from the "Instructions to potential TJ Authors" page for that publication is this gem: "Be careful of too many big or extra words". Uh huh...
Finally, as you can see on this overview of the contents of that issue of the creationist publication, Mastropaolo's work was published as only "Research Notes", not as a "Paper". So it appears that Mastropaolo's actual data or methods DON'T EVEN APPEAR IN PUBLISHED FORM where they can be double-checked by anyone. Typical creationist "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, just take my word for it."
Now let's look at citation #3:
(3) Krupa, Donna. Discovery Of The Oldest Human Ancestor Is (again) Called Into Question. Press release for An Objective Ancestry Test For Fossil Bones,by the American Physiological Society Intersociety Meeting, The Power of Comparative Physiology: Evolution, Integration, and Adaptation, August 24-28, 2002, San Diego, CA
This is *AGAIN* a citation to the *same* paper by Mastropaolo, although by erroneously listing "Donna Krupa" it tries to make it look like the work of a different author. So how did Donna Krupa get dragged into this? Answer is here -- she was just the contact at the APS conference who was coordinating the speakers who would be appearing. How in the HELL did she end up being cited as an author, then? Note, by the way, that that link mentions Mastropaolo's paper, so this is clearly the same conference, and the SAME work described in citations #1 and #2.
If the creationists are this sloppy about their simple citations, how can we trust them with the hard stuff?
So what we have are three different references to the SAME work, presented as if they were three independent research findings (*NOT* very honest), and the work itself is not even published in full IN ANY OF THEM. #1 is a summary, #2 is "notes", #3 is an oral presentation at a conference.
So WHERE on earth is the actual paper?
I'm glad you asked...
Newswise.com maintains an archive of "news releases from top institutions engaged in scientific, medical, liberal arts and business research". Normally, you can download released (but not necessarily published) papers from there. The only direct link anywhere on the web I could find to Mastropaolo's paper appears on this Newswise page. So what happens when you click on the link to read the paper submitted to the conference? You get this:
American Physiological Society (APS)Doesn't exactly inspire confidence, does it?
27-Aug-02
Library: SCI
This story has been withdrawn at the request of the contributor.
Keywords: FOSSILS JOSEPH MASTROPAOLO
The only semi-detailed info I could find on this work was here, and the passage on Mastropaolo's "methods" sounded like complete gobbledegook:
For each bone, for each decile proximal to distal, all the lateral distances were tabulated in order followed by all the medial distances. These scores determined the correlational r, the mathematical magnitude of the similarity expressed from 0.0, no similarity, to 1.0, perfect in similarity. This test was validated by determining the correlation of the bone with itself at a different magnification. This test should be independent of image magnification and the correlation should approach 1.0.Basically, he measured some bones, but the methods and calculations appear to be, shall we say, questionable at best -- and at worst nonsensical. Furthermore, note that he didn't even examine the bones directly, he was working off of *PICTURE* of the fossil bone, and PICTURES of human/chimp/monkey bones in "anthropological atlases". FOR PETE'S SAKE... This would get laughed out of any respectable science journal, but it's par for the course for creationists.This test also was affirmed by identifying the correlation of the same bone in two different anthropological atlases. Given atlases with perfect fidelity, this test ought to be independent of the atlas employed and the correlation ought to approach 1.0. The criterion for similarity was that correlations exceed the correlation between the phalanx 1 toe bone and its anatomical neighbor, the phalanx 2 toe bone. A correlation equal to or less than that was considered as dissimilar as a bone for an anatomically neighboring bone. A correlation equal to or less than the one between the phalanx 1 and phalanx 3 toe bones was considered as grossly dissimilar as a bone for an anatomical neighbor two bones away.
Nor, I'm afraid to say, similar or disimilar sizes demonstrate the assertion Con X-poser makes above, that "man is not a primate" -- especially since the measurements were done only *on* primate bones of various types. Even if man was found to be more dissimilar to one primate bone or another, without making any comparisons *outside* the primate family, it can in no way determine whether man is closer to [name some other family] than to the primate family, or whether he's simply an unusual kind of primate (which we already knew).
Sheesh, Con X-poser, is this the best you can do?
Then why didn't our teeth shrink along with our jaws?
Because evolution isn't able to plan ahead.
God, presumably, would have been able to, so why did he (allegedly) make us with too many teeth?
More to the point, "how come" you keep saying this even though I've already (on other threads) pointed you to precambrian fossils (including some you can buy from a catalog)?
Given that I have known people royally screwed by a snail darter, I agree with you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Then how would you account for the fact that whales returned to the sea after once having been a terrestrial quadruped?
You mean like when a hybrid of two separate species is able to breed with itself, but is reproductively isolated from the two parent species? No evidence of that? None at all?
And where is your proof of this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.