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.

[Jhoffa_]

Again, I think we agree..

But I have no idea what leads me to that conclusion..

I guess it's just faith in your good nature. Because it's certainly not the argument you have presented.

[walkingdead]

And how is that a stretch. Isn't something that lives in water but doesn't swim (organism maybe), but evolves to where it can swim evolution?

Oh and for the sea monkeys, if they had no place to go but land or death, they'd become race horses sooner or later. Or they'd be dead.... extinct!

[Lurking Libertarian]

A bird evolving into ... a bird! Now we're getting somewhere. In our next episode we'll have a fish evolve into ... a fish!

How about a primate into a primate-- like, say, a chimpanzee into a human?

[f.Christian]

bw ...

religious holiday for the god (little g) of Darwin worshippers. ---

It would be sort of like Kwanza for "scientist".


278 posted on 02/14/2003 8:35 PM PST by Busywhiskers

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

To: Con X-Poser A bird evolving into ... a bird! Now we're getting somewhere. In our next episode we'll have a fish evolve into ... a fish! You're not making any sense dude. Birds are all one species? Fish are all one species? 38 posted on 02/20/2003 3:27 PM PST by laredo44

Now, a squid turning into monkey would be a real story!

[f.Christian]

Headache ? ? ?

Imagine how I feel ! ! !

Evolution (( overlords )) is -- full on -- brainwashing (( redacting // deleting -- HATING God -- conservatism )) and . . .

indoctrinating // programming LIBERALISM -- LOVING LEFTIST lies // bias -- all through America // society ! ! !

All unashamedly on the FR too ==== "fraud // corruption" ==== UNADULTERED tyranny // blasphemy -- slavery !

Aids of the soul (( MIND )) // society === America !

[walkingdead]

I keep waiting for a subliminal message to come out of one of your posts....... are you trying to brainwash me, they look sort of like coded messages.... :^)

[laredo44]

Now, a squid turning into monkey would be a real story!

Indeed it would. But how does that fit into this discussion?

[walkingdead]

"Indeed it would. But how does that fit into this discussion?" Because we all know that evolution can never be proved until you see you neighbor turn into a '68 Chevy, and your dog wake up one day a gay prostitute in S.F.

[Con X-Poser]

<< You're not making any sense dude. Birds are all one species? Fish are all one species? >>

I think the problem is that it makes too much sense. Birds (and fish) could easily all be the same kind of creature, just like dogs are.

But even if there is more than one kind of bird, some DNA similarity doesn't prove a dodo evolved into a pidgeon. They may both be variations of the same bird, in which case, they are both birds - the same kind of creature.

[f.Christian]

The wall -- defense (( resistance )) to love // TRUTH -- me === is futile !

The madder they make me -- the harder I THINK // smile (( laugh )) ==== my ideal -- goal !

[laredo44]

Because we all know that evolution can never be proved until you see you neighbor turn into a '68 Chevy, and your dog wake up one day a gay prostitute in S.F.

Ah! So there may be confusion on the part of some between evolution and morphing. I agree.

[Richard Kimball]

Without taking sides, this is a notoriously weak argument for evolution, if it's intended to persuade or prove creationists incorrect. Cross-breeding of species that produce a mixture with some of the characteristics of each has never been in dispute.

The American Kennel Association has a defined system for creating new breeds of dogs (so many dogs of each species generating so many puppies for so many generations).

It may be an interesting discovery, but the only groundbreaking that's going on is when the weed breaks through the earth. This guy is trying to get his name in the annals of science by sheer P.T. Barnum techniques.

[Buggman]

Wow. I've been avoiding these threads for a while now (I no longer have the time needed to see one through), but the debate must be going really bad for the Evos here if you're all glomming onto this weed as the "proof" you need.

Since crossbreeding somehow proves evolution and refutes creation now, I guess the next article will be about broco-flower.

Yours in Truth,

[Jhoffa_]

Again, I have no idea what you typed.. because it makes no sense..

But, somehow we agree all the same.

All the evidence I need for the existance of a creator is provided me when I walk outside.

The only question left, if anyone should need to ask is "Am I worshiping the right one?"

The question of "does a creator exist?" is a settled matter in my mind.

[Con X-Poser]

<< How about a primate into a primate-- like, say, a chimpanzee into a human? >>

Except a human is not a primate.

Apes, like chimpanzees, may have been the ancestors of monkeys but not humans. See (1) Mastropaolo, Joseph. An objective ancestry test for fossil bones. The Physiologist 45 (4): 343, 2002. Abstract. (2) Mastropaolo, Joseph. An objective ancestry test for fossil bones. TJ, The In-Depth Journal of Creation 16(3): 84-88, 2002. (3) Krupa, Donna. Discovery Of The Oldest Human Ancestor Is (again) Called Into Question. Press release for An Objective Ancestry Test For Fossil Bones,by the American Physiological Society Intersociety Meeting, The Power of Comparative Physiology: Evolution, Integration, and Adaptation, August 24-28, 2002, San Diego, CA.

Joseph

[Ichneumon]

I don't recall Creationism addressing what's happening now, only what happened then.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Creationists frequently make claims about what can/can't "happen now" with regards to evolution and speciation. They just happen to be wrong most of the time.

[Con X-Poser]

<< But the question I pose is what about human wisdom teeth. Aren't these remenants of a long ago needed human trait? If so, isn't the fact that we don't need them now sort of prove evolution. >>

LOSING something is not evidence for evolution. Evolution requires GAINING something.

How can an amoeba lose enough things to evolve into a tadpole and a tadpole lose enough to evolve into a lizard,and a lizard lose enough things to become a bird, etc.?

[walkingdead]

What is a human then? Where did we come from? Adam and Eve?

[Ichneumon]

A weed changed into ... a weed - and this is supposed to confirm that weeds and worms, walruses and whales and women & men all came from a common amoeba?

Not all by itself, but it's yet another datapoint to add the to enormous pile which confirms evolution.

If you want more direct confirmation about the specific connections you list, all you need do is examine the fossil record and the DNA evidence. It's entirely consistent with the evolutionary view, and entirely inconsistent with the creationist view.