Scruffy little weed shows Darwin was right as evolution moves on

Times Online | 2003-02-20 | Anthony Browne, Environment Editor

[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.

[f.Christian]

Trivia -- parallel -- comic book science === evolution !

How do you think the geologic column formed ?

Most of it formed from below ground --- even mountains // buttes // canyons too !

Pig science -- Latin ... everything backwards --- upsidedown !


FOOLS GOLD === evolution !

[Ichneumon]

There is no fossil evidence of one species evolving into another. period.

Utter nonsense. Or are you actually this ignorant of the fossil record?

HOWEVER, science cannot prove, much less give much evidence, that Amoebas evolved into Fish into Frogs into Lizards etc etc. The data simply isnt there.

Only if you stand there with your hands over your ears, loudly singing, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU, LA LA LA".

The reason evolution is followed so dogmatically is because people wont admit a God.

Gosh, you must have a really hard time explaining all the Christians who "follow evolution", then. Or is that another thing about which you do the "I CAN'T HEAR YOU" song?

I repeat, there is no fossil evidence nor observered evidence that new species evolved from difference species.

The willful blindness of creationists never ceases to amaze me. For just a small taste of the fossil evidence you refuse to see, check out the other reply to your post, which lists hundreds.

We have canine fossils and whale fossils, but no fossils that show one evolved from the other. None.

Of course not, goofy, because whales didn't evolve from dogs (nor vice versa). However, they both evolved from a common condylarth ancestor, and there's *plenty* of fossil and DNA evidence for that.

For example, tbere's Eoconodon, Microclaenodon, Dissacus, Hapalodectes, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus natans, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus isis, Protocetes, Indocetus ramani, Prozeuglodon, Eocetus, Dorudon intermedius, Agorophius, Prosqualodon, Aetiocetus, Mesocetus, Cimolestes, Cimolestes incisus & Cimolestes cerberoides, Cimolestes, Simpsonictis tenuis, Paroodectes, Vulpavus, Viverravus sicarius, Cynodictis, Hesperocyon, and Cynodesmus.

I'm sorry, what was that you were saying about there being "no fossils" showing one species arising from another quite different one?

We are arguing is species evolve into brand new species. And there. is. no. evidence. of. that. Period.

There are none so blind as he who will not see.

It's one thing to argue about the evidence. It's another thing entirely to just flat out claim that none exists, when *mountains* of evidence exists. To what do you owe your monumental lack of familiarity with the evidence?

That's a serious question -- what bizarre source are you using which assures you that there is "no" evidence of the kind published in the biological journals on a daily basis?

You really need to get better sources.

[Ichneumon]

"When they make new species which are reproductively isolated from other species, yes."

So species that are not reproductively isolated from other species, have not come about through evolution?

No, nor is such a silly thing even remotely close to what I said.

Care to try again?

[Ichneumon]

[Speaking of genes, though, they show *clear* evidence of common ancestry -- the kind you claim can't exist.]

Actually, they show *clear* evidence of a Creator using a common plan.

Horse manure. Try reading the explanation again, you clearly didn't understand it the first time.

These are not functional bits of DNA, these are *embedded remnants of past viral infections*. They're the DNA equivalent of chickenpox scars -- lasting damage from prior diseases action.

So unless you'd care to explain why a "Creator using a common plan" would decide to stuff random slices of viral DNA into our pristine "designed" chromosomes -- AND do it in *exactly* the same way as predicted by an evolutionary origin to fake us out while NOT ever doing it a way that would *contradict* an evolutionary origin -- I'm afraid your hand-waving just doesn't cut it.

It is, in fact, a remarkably disingenuous cop-out.

So all your charts, graphs, pictures, and conclusions are based on a FALSE assumption. You can make your nice drawings look impressive, but they are worthless as far as determining truth.

Oh look, yet another creationist who prefers to play the "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" game, rather than have to deal with the evidence in an honest manner...

Tell me, Con, why did God choose to "design" us in exactly the way that evolution would predict, right down to the kinds of trash that our DNA contains along with all the "good" stuff? If he went through all that trouble to make it look like evolution took place, don't you think we should believe him?

[Jael]

Walking dead said
keep rubbing you thumb on sandpaper, sooner or later you'll have a calous. Have the next 500 or so generations do the same, and you'll start having babies with reinforced thumb skin. It's just how it works, nature/need always drive evolution.

XMan said
Just like over 500 generations of circumcision among Jews produced pre-circumcised babies, right?

Jael cracked up at the flawless logic. IT WAS GREAT!!!!!!!

[Ichneumon]

[Genetic drift applies when a trait is both a) not genetically linked to other traits and b) strictly neutral to selection. That's not the case for wisdom teeth.]

Nice try at a tap dance, but your statement was a general one. "if it is not needed, it is dropped from the genetic code because it is NO longer necessary for survival, just as the appendix..."

"Nice try" yourself, but it wasn't "my" statement, it was Aric2000's. Try to keep the players straight, please.

And while his post could have been written more rigorously than it was, that doesn't change the fact that he's essentially right, and you're off-base by dragging genetic drift into a discussion about wisdom teeth, because they are not selectively neutral.

Anyway your favorite place has this to say about drift

Yeah, so? I'm glad that you've mastered the difficult art of cut-and-paste, but next time you might want to explain what point you're trying to make with it.

Note, by the way, that it speaks of genetic drift taking place "in the absence of all selective forces", as I was saying. Technically it takes place at all times, but in the presence of any selective pressures, the effect of genetic drift is generally swamped and plays a very minor role.

[f.Christian]

The darwinian dichotomy (( darloserian )) . . .

evolution is a dead branch (( hairy wart )) of science - - -

going to the fire (( laser surgery )) // ash heap of history ! !




Evolution is even worse (( blood poisoning )) than that . . .

some kind of alien vine choking science // society .. .. ..

pulling it down === aids virus // typhoid // mad witch === SPELL disease !

[Ichneumon]

One is within a creature's genetic ability and is observed, the other is

...is amply documented by countless examples in the fossil record. Don't try to pretend it's not, it just makes you look either grossly misinformed, or very dishonest.

You are making an ASSUMPTION that small changes, which do not add new genetic information

This is quite simply false -- try reading any relevant genetics research, son.

(and usually lose some) somehow become big gains in genetic information.

I'm not assuming it at all, there's ample evidence establishign the fact of macroevolution.

Read the analogy about the 12 foot tall 40 year old.

Screw analogies. Look at the evidence.

Analogies can be bone-headedly inappropriate, like your "12 foot tall" person analogy. There are clear limits to practical growth in humans (read up on the cube-square law sometime...). There are no such physical limits on genetic change.

[AndrewC]

"Nice try" yourself, but it wasn't "my" statement, it was Aric2000's. Try to keep the players straight, please.

I'm sorry, I didn't notice you had entered into the discussion. I understand "no longer necessary" with no mention of negative impact to mean neutral as to selection. Do you have a different explanation?

[AndrewC]

No, nor is such a silly thing even remotely close to what I said.

"When they make new species which are reproductively isolated from other species, yes."

Your statement reworded would be.--

If a new species and isolation then evolution

The contrapositive would be --

If not evolution then not (new species and isolation)

Or

If not evolution then not new species or not isolation

Now if we are not speaking of a new species the statement is not interesting.

This is interesting

If not evolution then new species or not isolation.

The above statement is logically "equivalent" to your statement. When reworded it produces

So species that are not reproductively isolated from other species, have not come about through evolution?

[Ichneumon]

Yeah, and when the dates do not match the theory, we will keep dating them until they do! (see KNM-ER 1470 for ONE example).

Lying doesn't help your case, son. And if you're going to repeat (creationist) Lubenow's propaganda, it would behoove you to know something about it first.

The dating of KNM-ER 1470 was difficult because it was embedded in sedimentary volcanic material from several eras. In short, volcanic flows (and other types of rock) of various ages had all been eroded by flowing water and deposited as "sand" onto skull KNM-ER 1470, burying it. This made dating it difficult, because it was surrounded by sand grains of *many* different ages. This difficulty was recognized *from the start*.

The skull was discovered in 1972, and since then numerous advances (and more careful testing of the particular specimen) have made it possible to refine the estimate of its age until it can very safely be said that it is 1.88 million years old.

This age was arrived at INDEPENDENT of any difficulty or match with evolutionary predictions. The date was radiometrically measured (an exact, objective standard) by carefully finding the youngest material in the sand (since that would have been "modern" material at the time the skull was buried and thus equal to it in age) and dating it in a number of trials. This date was then independently verified by various methods, including bracketing it by datable strata above and below it, matching characteristic fossils of known age in the same strata, consistency with magnetic reversals of known date, and so on.

Your implication that its date was monkeyed with until it "matched the theory" is not only disgusting, it's a lie. You would be advised to retract it and apologize -- or not, if you don't care about torpedoing your credibility.

For a *long* discussion of how KNM-ER 1470 was honestly dated using accepted (and evolution-independent) objective dating methods -- and how Lubenow has twisted and often simply lied about how it was dated -- see this long talk.origins discussion. (Save to disk then read in a text editor or WordPad). It's an excellent case study in how proper science is done -- and how creationists misrepresent it.

Con, you and your friends really might want to consider trying to get some of your knowledge from something *other* than those unreliable creationist screeds.

Coelecanth was an index fossil for things which lived 65 million years ago.

Not exactly -- various species of the Coelacanth *suborder* have been index fossils for particular eras, ranging from 65 million years ago to 380 million years ago, depending on the species, since each species lived in a determined era of time.

Now that it has been established that they live today, what does that bode for all the things dated BECAUSE of the coelecanth?

Nothing at all, see above. Those ancient coelacanth species are still extinct. Modern coelacanths are not only not the same species, they're not even the same genus. Modern coelacanths belong to the genus Latimera, whereas the ancient coelacanths belonged to the genus Macropoma. Another clue that it would be hard to mistake a modern coelacanth for an ancient one is that the ancient ones maxed out at about 55cm in length (less than two feet). Meanwhile, here's a modern one:

Needless to say, the difference would be pretty obvious to any geologist finding a fossil of unknown age.

New reality TV series: Evolutionary DATING GAMES!

Not nearly as fertile a field as "Creationist Misrepresentations, Misunderstandings, and Lies!"

[Ichneumon]

"When they make new species which are reproductively isolated from other species, yes."

Your statement reworded would be.--

If a new species and isolation then evolution

The contrapositive would be --

If not evolution then not (new species and isolation)

Are you missing the point on purpose, or does it come naturally?

By wording my statement as "If a new species and isolation then evolution", you divorce it entirely from its context, and falsely turn it into a generalization that I never meant. The fact that you've made a hash of it should have been obvious even to you by the fact that "If a new species" doesn't even make grammatical sense, much less logical sense. If a new species *WHAT*? If isolation *WHAT*?

The *specific*, *in context* claim I made is more accurately rendered as, "if hybridization makes a new species and that species is reproductively isolated from other species then that particular instance of hybridization demonstrates evolution in action."

The contrapositive of *that* would be, "if a hybridization does not demonstrate evolution in action, then [it's because] it has not made a reproductively isolated species." And I stand by *that* statement as well.

Before you attempt to logically analyze something, make sure you understand it.

[Ichneumon]

"If an argument doesn't work, Darwininians will coopt the opposite argument"

Thank you for noticing that "Darwinians" prefer arguments that actually work.

(Hint: You've got a fatal ambiguity there...)

[f.Christian]

God gave you the ability to make a total fool // animal out of yourself -- good show!

[Ichneumon]

There is no fossil evidence of one species evolving into another. period.

You'll have to do a lot better than simple, "IS NOT!"

Here's (one of the many) passages you failed to deal with in your response. Do try another stab at it:

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.

Which of those observed facts do you specifically disagree with, and why? Because if you *don't* disagree with them, you're going to have to admit that there is indeed very strong evidence that modern life arose from primitive life -- species *have* arisen from prior, different species.

Give it your best shot, Cap.

[Ichneumon]

[Since new phyla have arisen on Earth only about 35 times in several billion years]

Or essentially none in the last 530 million years if you look at a standard uniformitarian time scale.

Yes, exactly -- which is why I said it was disingenuous of you to hold out for "seeing" a phylum spring forth in your lifetime.

And those would be? I'm not aware of any transitional sequence of fossils which map out small step-wise changes documenting a process of evolution.

Odd, they've been pointed out to you on other threads, how soon you forget... But to refresh your memory, here's a quick overview of some of the transitional fossils

[PatrickHenry]

So many creos ... Placemarker.

[William Terrell]

Considering the number of generations that would be necessary for one organism to change into another, virtually every fossil discovered should be that of a transitional form.

[general_re]

...virtually every fossil discovered should be that of a transitional form.

More or less. Every fossil ever found is either a transitional form, or, if the species went extinct and left no descendants, a dead end. Every fossil ever found fits into one of those two categories.

I would expect that there are far more dead ends than truly transitional species, but we should keep in mind that the only thing that keeps a species from being a transitional species itself is the fact that it went extinct and left no descendants - had it left descendants behind before going extinct, or left descendants and continued to survive, it too would be a transitional form. Perhaps it's most useful to think of the dead ends as unrealized transitions.

[Dataman]

There is absolutely no distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution"

My kids don't look exactly like me. Therefore evolution is true?

Sorry, Ich. There's no reasoning with someone who throws reason out the window.