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 usual you are violating the rules of FR in abusing a poster and using dirty words by abbreviation. Seems you never have much to contribute here except vileness. >>
If some guy with 666 in his ID considers me "buffoon of the month", then I think I'm having a pretty good month. I think I'll frame his award and hang it on my wall.
Even if you were to develop a way to travel back in time and bring back irrefutable living proof of evolution, the creationists would just find a way to adjust their argument, so as to have an excuse to dismiss that proof. Notice that when the facts can't be denied, they resort to theological arguments that ignore the facts. To understand why they do this, you have but to look at the underlying questions that are present in most of those theological posts. If you think about it, you know the questions that I'm talking about.
Those are just a few of the questions that plague them. Sometimes they put them into words (see posts 77, 143, 234, 289, 295 and more). But, even when they are not asked, you can sense them lying just under the surface. So what is it about those questions that explains the refusal of creationists to accept the facts, when plainly presented? Well, just look at the questions.
Those are the type of questions that are indicative of an insecure person.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with being insecure. Most people have some sort of insecurity at some time in their life. When I was young, I myself had a lot of insecurity about flying. I wasn't afraid of flying. But, when I was on a plane, I was constantly asking myself questions like, "What if the engines fail?", "What if the pilot falls asleep" and a host of other questions that come with that particular insecurity. My crutch was to close my eyes and try to imagine that I was somewhere else. But, I finally got tired of that crutch and did something about it. I faced my insecurity head on. I jumped out of a perfectly good airplane. I was never so scared in my life. Fortunately, the chute opened a few thousand feet later. Since then, I can't get enough of the sky and flying and have been skydiving on many occasions, flown my own hang glider and ultralight and plan to buy my own helicopter soon. Hey, I've even bungee jumped.
The problem is that most people just can't get up enough kahones to face their insecurity. Just deciding to make that first jump was the hardest thing that I ever did. Actually going out the door was easy in comparison, though still tough. I still remember how insecure I used to be on an airplane and I feel sincere compassion for anyone who suffers from any insecurity and I can understand why they can't face their insecurity.
But, that's why they will never accept any facts about evolution, regardless of how irrefutable they are. Some people feel insecure in the dark, so they sleep with a light on to avoid having to deal with the dark. Some people are insecure in confined spaces, so they take the stairs instead of the elevator, to avoid having to deal with a confined space. And some people are insecure about their own mortality, so they develop a belief system that allows them to avoid having to deal with their mortality.
When faced with irrefutable facts, creationists have always and will continue, to simply adjust their beliefs to allow them to discount those facts. Their chosen illusions are as much of a mental need to them, as food and water are a physical need. No matter how hard you try, you can't push them out of that rhetorical airplane, nor should you try. They must make that decision on their own. Besides, their chosen beliefs are mostly harmless. The only time that they present any threat and the only time that I personally challenge their chosen illusions, is when they try to convince our educators to ignore the facts, in favor of those illusions.
That's when the excellent facts and sources that you folks have presented here will be most appreciated. Just don't expect the creationists to ever accept the facts. They just aren't wired for it.
Personally, I think that evolution works exactly the way God designed it to work.
Fallacy of converse accident.
The same arguments based on homology - the transitional fossils are still missing as even Gould would admit. Here's a quick refutation: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils
Not really, no. "New species found" = "more evidence that Darwin was right", if you prefer a somewhat less breathless conclusion.
Scientific pop journalism is reaching new lows...
On this, I will agree.
What makes you think so, for this particular plant?
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.