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.
Yes, I think your description is a good one -- but only until the creationist is confronted with some cold hard facts. At that point, the creationist is faced with some intellectual decisions that must be made; and all kinds of psychological mechanisms come into play.
True, but this bias requires an absurd double standard. Scientific frauds are rare (and always uncovered by other scientists, never laymen), yet this "evidence" is used to dismiss the work of all scientists. One bad apple spoils the barrel. By the same standard, all clergymen are Jimmy Swaggart. But no scientist makes that argument, because it's obviously silly. Still, the creationist is amazingly tolerant of fallen clergy (they weren't real Christians, after all), while demanding an impossible standard of zero defects for science.
More double standard examples: Yes, some misguided scientists are Marxists, or at least socialists. But so are many clergy, yet this doesn't discredit religion (after all, they aren't real Christians). Yes, scientists seek grants for their research, and although I'm no fan of government funding, this is hardly an issue of "greed" that discredits the scientific enterprise. Yet, look how many of the clergy live opulent lives -- far beyond the hopes of practicing scientists. Somehow, this never discredits the creationist cause. Yes, science has many as yet unanswered questions. But this is certainly true of religion also. And so it goes.
The fact is that the "debate" is wildly rigged from the start. Intellectual honesty demands that the same standards be applied to all. But of course, if that were done, the game would be over. And these issues relate only to the character of the players on both sides. There's also the more important substance of the debate -- a whole world of verifiable evidence which is out there, being somehow ignored by creationists.
The same arguments based on homology
They're based on a lot more than that, as you well know. Or at least you would if you bothered to learn the most basic facts about the field before you attempted to wave your hands and deny it exists.
Hint: If you get all your "information" from creationist sites, your education on these topics is not only woefully inadequate, it's severely distorted. Case in point is revealed by your very next statement:
- the transitional fossils are still missing as even Gould would admit.
Ah, yes, the old creationist "quote Gould grossly out of context" misrepresentation. Let's hear what Gould himself had to say about that, shall we?
Kirtley Mather, who died last year at age ninety, was a pillar of both science and Christian religion in America and one of my dearest friends. The difference of a half-century in our ages evaporated before our common interests. The most curious thing we shared was a battle we each fought at the same age. For Kirtley had gone to Tennessee with Clarence Darrow to testify for evolution at the Scopes trial of 1925. When I think that we are enmeshed again in the same struggle for one of the best documented, most compelling and exciting concepts in all of science, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.Note that this was written in 1981. Since then, countless more transitional fossils, both between species and between larger groups, have been found.[...]
Scientists regard debates on fundamental issues of theory as a sign of intellectual health and a source of excitement. Science is—and how else can I say it?—most fun when it plays with interesting ideas, examines their implications, and recognizes that old information might be explained in surprisingly new ways. Evolutionary theory is now enjoying this uncommon vigor. Yet amidst all this turmoil no biologist has been lead to doubt the fact that evolution occurred; we are debating how it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy. Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
[...]
The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. [...] For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larder body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?
Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of these practices.
[...]
A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuated and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane. Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."
-- Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," May 1981
Here's a quick refutation: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils
"Refutation"? I don't think you know what the word means. That's a rationalization at best.
It dishonestly picks one of the oldest transitions, which will necessarily be more spotty than more recent lineages, and whines about it being spotty, while failing to address the many more complete examples in the transitional fossils FAQ. It also dishonestly (or ignorantly) gripes about the looseness of such terms as "sharklike" and pretends that this reflects only a vague similarity in the actual fossils themselves, which it most certainly does not. The FAQ was written for a general audience, and wasn't intended to get bogged down with the minutae of how exactly each structure is unmistakably linked homologically to their predecessors and successors.
That "refutation" is mere handwaving and whistling past the graveyard.
Creationists need to stop lying about the fossil record, it only makes them look foolish and dishonest.
Gee I wonder why?
Got any real numbers to back this bald assertion? You obviously have counted the Mother Teresas along with the Pope and his personal millions.
Two words:
"Morton's Demon"
Creative is too kind a word.
Dr. Mastropaulo (the renown kinesiologist who was on the team of the Gossamer Albatross/Condor - the world's first and only fully man-powered flights, as well as holding a patent in crew conditioning for extended manned space missions)
Oh, now that's just sad...
Rather than apologize for trying to dishonestly present a single citation in a way that made it look like three separate works, you just bluster on and hope we won't notice that you failed to deal with the exposure of your cheap trick.
Do you really think this helps your credibility any?
Do you also think it helps your credibility to cite as your *only* support for your crackpot claim that "man is not a primate" a fellow who has no expertise in evolution, paleontology, developmental biology, etc. -- whose only expertise is in the mechanics of human motion?
I'm sure he's quite qualified in his own limited field, but when it comes to allegedly overturning a very accepted bit of scientific knowledge, I'd much prefer someone who wasn't working way outside his own field. I'd also prefer someone whose methods didn't sound like total nonsense (see below).
Furthermore, do you think it helps your credibility that you dodged the point that Mastropaolo has *never* submitted his "work" to a peer-review process where it could be examined and verified (or debunked) by people who *are* in the field? That's how *real* science is done -- by throwing your work out into the community and seeing if it stands or falls after heavy debate and examination. If it's worth anything, it will convince others and your ideas will become part of the scientific body of knowledge. If it's not worth anything, it'll be disproven and discarded. But Mastropaolo purposely chose not to do this, he presented an oral description of his work *once* at a minor conference of physiologists (*not* evolutionary biologists or paleontologists), then promptly *WITHDREW* it from sight (even withdrawing it from an online database of papers).
Mastropaolo seems a lot less confident of his work than even you are.
did meticulous, calibrated measurements, comparisons, and calculations with bones from several apes, monkeys, humans, and ardipithicus ramidus kadabba (kadabba dabba doooo!) and determined by scientific evidence that humans did not evolve from any of them,
First, you ignored the admission that he didn't measure bones, he measures *pictures* of the bones. Maybe that's good enough for a creationist audience, but it's unforgiveably casual for a real scientific study.
Second, it simply makes no sense -- how on earth can merely "measuring bones", by itself, prove or disprove evoutionary relationships? It can't. If it were that easy, it sure would save a lot of paleontologists a lot of painstaking work by letting them skip all the scores of *other* methods they use to tie together lineages, and just whipping out their rulers and knocking off early for lunch...
It just isn't that easy -- evolution causes things to change size often, sometimes growing, sometimes shrinking. A simple measurement of sizes in no way can disprove evolutionary relationships. It's junk science. Hell, it's no kind of science at all. Mastropaolo is using a personal crackpot methodology of his.
Furthermore, in order to actually convince anyone (other than gullible creationists) that his "bone measuring" overturns the accepted fact that primates are humans, he would not only have to provide a contradictory observation (which is *all* his measurements would be, *at best*), he would *also* have to deal with and provide alternative explanations for the *thousands* of existing bits of idependent evidence which seem to clearly indicate that humans are, indeed, primates. That's how science works -- theories don't go tumbling down just because you've (allegedly) found *one* unusual observation (e.g. bone size); if you want to dethrone a theory, you're going to have to convincingly demonstrate why *all* of the evidence that seems to support the old theory isn't what it seems. Needless to say, that takes a hell of a lot more work than just a ruler and some pictures.
Finally, it turns out that Mastropoalo's *own* conclusions fall far short of supporting your *own* even farther-out conclusion, as I described in my earlier post (and which you *also* failed to address -- this seems to be a habit of yours).
But hey, since you're so absolutely smitten by his work, do us all a favor and explain to us, IN DETAIL, exactly what his measurements were, and exactly how they can unarguably be used to prove or disprove evolutionary relationships. Go for it. We'll wait.
I mean, after all, in order to honestly accept his results, you have to have read and understood his paper (where, please?) and been able to verify its reliability, right? Right? For why else would you be so firmly defending his results as gospel and ridiculing anyone who remains skeptical of it?
Heaven forbid you should accept his "results" without examining his methods simply because you *prefer* his conclusion and since it reaffirms your prejudices it *must* be right, eh? I mean, only a dogmatic boob would do *that*, right? Creationists *never* do that sort of thing, do they?
and because his scientific evidence doesn't agree with your silly theory, you pooh-pooh his work.
You haven't a clue. I "pooh pooh" his work because it's nonsensical, for reasons I've already given, which you have failed to even attempt to address.
But ... If somebody who agrees with you lines up a few monkey skulls on a table and declares this proves they had a common ancestor with your uncle (a monkey's uncle!), you and your comrades call that "science".
You have no idea how science is actually done. No, I'm not going to accept someone just "lining up a few monkey skulls". Neither is any other scientist. Nor is that the nature of the abundant evidence for evolution. Try reading some of the actual research sometime instead of just swallowing creationist sources whole (in the manner you incorrectly accuse me of doing).
The evidence for evolution is abundant, clear, and rigorously determined, verified, and scrutinized. If you're ignorant of that, it's only because you read only the creationist sources which comfortably reinforce your preferred conclusions through misrepresentation and distortion. None is so blind as one who will not see.
Table 1. National employment and wage data from the Occupational Employment Statistics survey by occupation, 2001
Mean wages
Occupation Employment Median hourly
Hourly Average(1) wages
Life, physical, and social science occupations
Agricultural and food scientists 13,480 25.14 52,290 23.27
Biochemists and biophysicists 16,130 29.66 61,680 27.45
Microbiologists 15,520 26.20 54,500 23.98
Zoologists and wildlife biologists 12,940 22.79 47,410 22.22
Conservation scientists 12,750 23.78 49,460 23.54
Foresters 10,480 22.65 47,110 22.16
Epidemiologists 3,970 26.72 55,590 25.34
Medical scientists, except epidemiologists 46,430 30.12 62,650 26.90
Astronomers 900 36.73 76,390 37.29
Physicists 10,880 40.26 83,750 40.23
Atmospheric and space scientists 6,770 29.55 61,470 29.58
Chemists 84,870 26.86 55,880 24.93
Materials scientists 8,360 31.18 64,850 30.17
Environmental scientists and specialists, including health 57,430 24.37 50,700 22.75
Geoscientists, except hydrologists and geographers 23,020 30.83 64,130 28.02
Hydrologists 7,330 28.16 58,570 27.12
Economists 13,390 34.78 72,350 32.24
Market research analysts 108,930 27.99 58,230 25.70
Survey researchers 20,690 15.70 32,660 11.17
Clinical, counseling, and school psychologists 95,640 25.72 53,500 24.24
Industrial-organizational psychologists 1,380 33.63 69,950 31.74
Sociologists 1,820 27.20 56,580 26.39
Urban and regional planners 31,130 24.24 50,430 23.33
Anthropologists and archeologists 4,190 20.10 41,800 18.70
Geographers 760 24.10 50,120 23.27
Historians 2,010 21.56 44,850 20.64
Political scientists 4,220 37.94 78,920 39.11
Agricultural and food science technicians 17,310 14.30 29,750 13.24
Biological technicians 43,570 16.36 34,030 15.52
Chemical technicians 71,010 18.20 37,850 17.40
Geological and petroleum technicians 11,930 19.85 41,300 18.53
Nuclear technicians 5,240 29.56 61,490 28.70
Environmental science and protection technicians, including health 25,750 17.62 36,650 16.68
Forensic science technicians 6,730 19.38 40,300 18.45
Clergy 32,940 17.46 36,320 16.27
Directors, religious activities and education 12,120 15.09 31,400 13.18
Education, training, and library occupations
Business teachers, postsecondary 65,050 (2) 59,090 (2)
Computer science teachers, postsecondary 29,690 (2) 53,790 (2)
Mathematical science teachers, postsecondary 38,480 (2) 53,770 (2)
Architecture teachers, postsecondary 4,960 (2) 58,070 (2)
Engineering teachers, postsecondary 28,360 (2) 69,620 (2)
Agricultural sciences teachers, postsecondary 11,590 (2) 65,080 (2)
Biological science teachers, postsecondary 38,560 (2) 64,410 (2)
Forestry and conservation science teachers, postsecondary 1,950 (2) 65,190 (2)
Atmospheric, earth, marine, and space sciences teachers, postsecondary 7,620 (2) 64,210 (2)
Chemistry teachers, postsecondary 16,610 (2) 58,400 (2)
Environmental science teachers, postsecondary 3,630 (2) 61,240 (2)
Physics teachers, postsecondary 11,830 (2) 65,050 (2)
Anthropology and archeology teachers, postsecondary 4,240 (2) 61,230 (2)
Area, ethnic, and cultural studies teachers, postsecondary 5,050 (2) 59,700 (2)
Economics teachers, postsecondary 11,600 (2) 65,620 (2)
Geography teachers, postsecondary 3,600 (2) 58,210 (2)
Political science teachers, postsecondary 11,230 (2) 59,110 (2)
Psychology teachers, postsecondary 24,850 (2) 57,140 (2)
Sociology teachers, postsecondary 12,890 (2) 54,600 (2)
Health specialties teachers, postsecondary 85,220 (2) 66,850 (2)
Nursing instructors and teachers, postsecondary 34,390 (2) 51,290 (2)
Education teachers, postsecondary 40,490 (2) 50,680 (2)
Library science teachers, postsecondary 4,040 (2) 53,520 (2)
(1) Annual wages have been calculated by multiplying the hourly mean wage by a "year-round, full-time" hours figure of 2,080 hours;
for those occupations where there is not an hourly mean wage published, the annual wage has been directly calculated from the
reported survey data.
(2) Hourly wage rates for occupations where workers typically work fewer than 2,080 hours per year are not available.
(3) Represents a wage above $70.01 per hour
I'll just have to live with it.
Natural selection doesn't drive a species at all. The gentic changes cause the new species to be non-cross-fertile (--word) with the parent species. Further survival remains to be seen. Selection is an ex-post concept, not ex-ante.
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.