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.
As I implied in post #293, "It is also my opinion that two plus two equals four" it is all opinions. You have attempted to gain some traction by asserting, if it's all opinions, one's as good as another. I'm saying not all opinions are equal.
Exactly.. All these notions of "moral" and "immoral" "right" and "wrong" are nothing but opinions put forth by men.
Unless they come from God.
I'm saying that in a secular world, my opinion of moral is just as suitable and correct as yours.
It's completely arbitrary and subjective unless God defines these things for us.
Gotta disagree. Murder is wrong. God or no God. 2+2 =5 is wrong. God or no God.
Gotta run now. Thanks for the debate. Perhaps I'll pick it up tomorrow.
P.S I bet we agree on a lot! Have a great weekend.
I was refering to "morality" here, as in "morally right and wrong" If you want to get into God's laws of physics and the other laws that control our universe then I really have no interest. I am kind of losing interest as it is actually.
And, there's nothing inherently immoral about murder unless God says so.
I mean, look out into the field.. That's how the animals get by. The big fish eat the small fish and one could take the view that it's fine for man to behave in the same fashion.
Hey, apart from God "moral" is just a word we can define however we wish to.
Because, if we agree on that point, then why do you phrase your arguments on matters of personal faith rather that some more objective measure that might be both more universal and thereforre more useful (e.g., science).
Because, somehow.. we got off on this side discussion.
And it's impossible to seperate it from personal faith.
But most people would not choose it. Just pointing out the pitfalls of morality by vote/behavior.
Not everyone finds it so but, nevermind, it's not worth pursuing further.
balrog
Incidently I'm not a "creationist". I think it equally absurd the notion that the Earth is only 5,000 years old. There's an entertaining feature to the crevo debates. Each side has spent so much time studying to prove each other wrong, both sides have succeeded. 
Actually, I disagree - it seems fair to describe the precursors to this new species of plant as being transitionals, now that we know that they have a descendant species.
Yes, I understand perfectly what you are asking for - non-functional structures or structures that are "partly" functional (whatever that might mean) because they are transitions between one sort of structure and another sort of structure. What I am trying to explain is that A) such things generally don't exist in the fossil record, and; B) such things are neither required nor necessarily expected by the theory of evolution. I understand that you would find it satisfying if they did exist - as would we all - but the theory of evolution does not demand that such a thing must exist. Therefore, the absence of same does not falsify the theory of evolution, any more than the absence of fairies falsifies evolution - the theory doesn't require or predict such non-functional or "partly" functional structures (still wondering what such a thing would look like, but there you go) any more than it predicts or requires fairies.
Now, you may wish to see such a thing, in order to satisfy your desire for proof, but the universe is not particularly obligated to satisfy any of us, I think - you will neeed to look elsewhere for proof or disproof of evolution ;)
You:
Actually, I disagree - it seems fair to describe the precursors to this new species of plant as being transitionals, now that we know that they have a descendant species.
Right. I was a bit sloppy. I should have said:
No individual creature, by itself, is identifiable as a member of a transitional species. Only when it is compared to an identifiable descendant species does its role as a "transitional" become obvious.
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.