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 Councils 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.
Ive been a plant evolutionary biologist all my life, but you dont think youll come across the origin of a new species in your lifetime. Weve caught the species as it has originated it is very satisfying, he told the Times. At a time in Earths 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 Abbotts 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.
We have a winner! Every fossil is a "transitional form."
You mean every fossil has fragments of wing elements, leg elements and other structures obviously in the formation or vestigial stage? The fossils I have seen are all of finished forms, and the few that are not are easilly explained as naturally malformed.
To quote someone else, "what vestigial stage?" ;)
In certain single-celled organisms, the bacterial flagella - Dr. Behe's favorite example, no less - is clearly related to the Type-III secretory mechanism found in certain other single-celled organisms. One is pretty clearly descended from the other, and yet both are completely and fully functional, albeit with different functions, with no hint of anything "vestigial" about either one.
You have simply inserted your own requirement of "vestigiality" into the notion of "transitional forms" - one that is neither required by the theory of evolution, nor is it necessarily observed within the evidence itself.
Because it left descendants that are clearly, given the available evidence, related to it. Essentially, "transitional" is a matter of definition - if it left descendants behind, it's a transitional form between its own ancestors, and its own descendants, in sort of the same way that you are the connection and the transition between your parents and your own children. You are the middle stage between those two other stages, so we can call you a "transitional form", of sorts.
No, it's not a perfect analogy by any stretch of the imagination, so please don't mistake the weaknesses of the analogy for weaknesses in the real concept of transitional species.
Or is it possible that partially formed structures are of a nature that resists fossilization.
That seems unlikely to be the case. While it would be nice to always have what are obviously vestigial structures appearing to form in situ, the reality is that that's not required in order to know that one species is a transitional form between two other species.
No it's not! It's creation!
Yes it is! It's evolution!
Is not! It's creation!
Is too! It's evolution!
Is not!
Is too!
...
Who cares? It's an interesting story that shows that science moves on. Granted that this story adds credence to the evolution argument, but even if it were a story about how scientists invented a way to go back in time and prove evolution at the source, the creationists would still argue the point. It's just an interesting story. That's all.
...
Is not!
Is too!
Is not!
Is too!
...
Well, I tried.
...
Is not!
Is too!
...
What is its context? With respect to my statement, that is your entire statement in shorthand. (Which you seem to have a difficult time understanding. You probably would go bonkers if I used "A" for the statement "hybrids make a new species", "B" for "which are reproductively isolated", and "C" for "evolution in action") . Here it is in context.
So now hybrids are evolution in action?
When they make new species which are reproductively isolated from other species, yes.
Finally, you are confused in this statement
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. [my emphasis]
Example:
If I am ten feet tall then I can touch a basketball rim.
Is not the same as --
If I am ten feet tall it's because I can touch a basketball rim.
Nothing is said about whether the opposite argument even works.
Okay, so show me where it has been OBSERVED that, through subsequent generations, turned into a tree (not just another kind of weed). Thanks.
You lose me when you state this. What God are you talking about? Just the Christian God? Can Hindus, Buddists, not be moral? When an agnostic refrains from murder is he not being moral?
If there's no God, then there's no morality.
Here is how I separate it out. Murder: would you prefer to be a) the victim; b) the murderer; or c) neither. No appeal to God is needed. Universally, without regard to culture, only a miniscule fraction would entertain option a. Murder is wrong, QED.
Plans were announced immediately for the abolition of all ideals, opinions, states, laws, concepts of right and wrong, etc., as the universe has finally been proved random and meaningless. Deciding for the first time in their history to be internally logically consistent, evolutionist scientists have agreed to cease all value judgements of their cretionist adversaries or of anyone else, since these are inherently meaningless in a random, meaningless, self-existent universe. Areas are being set aside for people to abandon their previous lives in order to act like the meaningless lumps of matter they in fact are. All crusades for any and all causes are being halted, as they are utterly meaningless.
However, some scientists disagree, saying that despite the ultimate meaninglessness of all things the immediate goals and causes for which people live are still valid. The only division here is over whether the inner compulsions for human beings is the equivalent of the instincts which compel ants to live in organized societies or of the phyisical forces that compel volcanic eruptions.
The latter group of scientists, who insist that ultimate meaningless doesn't count for very much in terms of practical, everyday life, insist that life can be giving an artificial meaning by a select group of humanistic ethicist adepts who will arive at a "rational consensus" as to what is right and wrong. Though ultimately the resultant morality cannot be universal and objective in a metaphysical sense, they can be given a practical "objectivity" by their enforcement by a totalitarian state.
Despite the various schools of thought, all agree that after mankind's liberation from the Fascist Tyrant of Heaven, mankind is now free to do anything sexual. However, racism, sexism, homophobia, and any other sin decided on by the school of humanistic ethicist adepts are still forbidden because, after all, we have to have rules, don't we?
(Hmmm. I wonder what species of plant was the parent of this new species.)
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.