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.

[longshadow]

"smoke and mirrors" placemarker

[PatrickHenry]

I didn't see where the article mentioned what the other two were?

Piltdown Man and the Loch Ness monster.

[Con X-Poser]

‘No single, essential difference separates human beings from other animals.’ So began a feature article on evolution in TIME magazine (‘How Man Began’, March 14, 1994). The more I thought about this sweeping statement the more I began to warm to it.

For example, like humans, apes have well formed rational faculties. Their ability to develop an argument, follow a line of logic, draw conclusions and frame hypotheses is quite remarkable.

Also like humans, apes have a marked faculty for language. (This, of course, is intertwined with their powers of reason.) Their vocabulary is enormous, their grammar complex, and their conversations deep and meaningful.

The apes’ ability to codify language in writing is further proof of their close relationship to humans. In this respect, it was most gratifying to see the number of apes who wrote to TIME magazine in response to the article on ‘How Man Began’. I was particularly interested to follow the line of reasoning of the orangutan who argued that apes had evolved from humans, not vice versa.

Like humans, apes also have a strong spirit of inquiry. Their research in the fields of astronomy, mathematics, medicine and physics is noteworthy.

Apes also (again, like humans) yearn for meaning in life. This is why they devote so much of their time to philosophy, theology and ethics. The religious sentiments and practices of all apes can be traced back to their intense and endless quest for meaning.

Apes are concerned about questions not only of origin but also of destiny. The best proof I can offer for this claim is the maxim by one famous ape philosopher who said, ‘Whether my life leads ultimately to the dirt or to the Judgment, either way, I've got a problem.’

Apes also have, like humans, a refined aesthetic sense. They admire beauty and long to surround themselves with it. When an ape cultivates a garden, puts flowers in a vase, or hangs up a painting, what is it doing if not expressing a love of beauty?

Again like humans, apes have a strong creative impulse. This is seen in their poetry, painting, dance, drama and music. To a lesser extent their creativity is also evident in the way they gather in weekly craft groups to weave baskets, spin wool, knit shawls, and cover photo albums.

The sense of humour shared by all apes is another proof of their close kinship to humans. Their delight in the ridiculous and their love of a good laugh is plain from the popular ape jokes they tell.

Reason, language, inquiry, wonder, longing, religion, morality, aesthetics, creativity, imagination, aspiration and humour…such intangible but fundamental qualities are by no means unique to humans, as I hope I have conclusively shown. Therefore, in the profound words of TIME magazine: ‘No single, essential difference separates human beings from other animals’.

This being the case, Christians are plainly wrong to insist that humans and animals are vastly different. And they are also obviously wrong to insist that this difference arises from the fact that God created us humans in His own likeness. And if they are wrong to insist that God made us in His own likeness, then they are wrong to insist that God has any claim on us.

Furthermore, if God has no claim on us, then we are free—free to be animals like our evolutionary ancestors—free to be as low-down as snakes, and to make pigs of ourselves, and to act like donkeys.

Did I say 'free'?

Hiss! Oink! Heehaw!

ANDREW LANSDOWN, B.A., B.A. (Hons), Dip. Ed., is a writer, teacher and pastor He is well known for his articles on social and spiritual issues, and for his poetry and fiction.

X: I will be more than happy to discuss this matter with any non-human primate who cares to make a case for himself and contend he and we are all primates.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

LOL!

What about g3?

[gomaaa]

First I'd like to note that it's only been about 6.5 hours since the thread started and there's already 500+ posts. As a newbie to this list, that strikes me as impressive.

"No, I'm afraid you do. Abbot claims he has found a new species. It is his obligation to proove that it really is new, and he must do that by providing some evidence as to why the more conventional, and reasonable explanations--dormant seed, uncatalogued existing plants, bird crap from france, etc.--are not likely in this case. "

This is only a small point, but it is very probable that he has done a far better job of proving this than is outlined in the article. This is only a report by some journalist, and not the greatest job of science writing I've ever seen. It would be interesting to read the actual journal article sometime. I actually found the journal listing ( http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~plantevo/index.html ) and the web page for his research group ( http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~plantevo/index.html ), but nowhere is the article itself printed.

[gomaaa]

My bad. Time zone issues. 3 and a half hours and 500+ posts. Even more impressive!

[gore3000]

Nowhere in you posts is Darwin advocating destruction of 'lesser humans'

Aaah, the semantic defense. Yes he did not call them 'lesser humans', he called them inferior races and imbeciles and such. Yes, he did not come out and say 'let's murder them', but he said the world would be better off without them. I don't think Hitler ever came out saying 'let's murder the Jews and lesser races' either. He did not use such words, but he sure meant it.

Let it also be noted that the racism and eugenics in those words are not just a 'personal' thing of Darwin, but they are imbued completely in evolutionary theory with his concepts of races, species, etc. always becoming more advanced through the struggle for life.

[Rudder]

Also, I don't see where natural selection would drive a hybrid species to be unable to reproduce with either of its parent species. Where's the advantage in that?

You sound like Clinton--obscuring the meaning of "species," again. What does the definition of "species" tell you?

[Sabertooth]

See my #376. I think the defnition of species is actually a little fuzzy at the margins.

[Rudder]

...one of our definitions of species, a population only able to reproduce fertile offspring among themselves, not always a good yardstick..."

Yeah, but in words of the immortal Lyndon B. Johnson, "I'm the only yardstick you have."

Hint:

Speciation is driven by reproductive failure!

[Condorman]

Humans have a greater cognitive capacity than the great apes. Stipulated. And?

"Except a human is not a primate."
56 posted on 02/20/2003 6:48 PM EST by Con X-Poser

For someone so touchingly devoted to that assertion, you sure seem to have an inordinate amount of trouble supporting it. You have had 5 days to come up with ANYTHING and the best you can do is one retracted paper and one opinion piece authored by a fiction-writing pastor-poet?

You're an easy sell, ain'tcha, bucko? Whoever feeds you an opinion first, wins.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[farmer18th]

Oh, no - all he has to do to persuade you is prove a whole host of negative theses that you have arbitrarily designated as "conventional".

There's a difference between proving a negative ("this species never existed before") and showing why dormant seed germination would be unlikely, or introduction would be unlikely, or a failure to have catalogued the species before would be unlikely or even fraud would be unlikely.

If empirical likelihoods are the stock and trade of science, why is there no discussion of these more prosaic explanations? If the value of this discovery is so valuable to the cause of proving evolution, so unique, doesn't it have to attain that singular status by discounting the more conventional explanations?

Let's return to the facts here. Abbot didn't witness this new species erupt in his laboratory. He stumbled upon a plant he had never seen before in a field. He compared this plant to the currently known British plants and found that it wasn't in the book. A more humble, and perhaps less ideologically inclined scientist of an earlier generation, might have concluded this was an occasion for the inclusion of a species not yet catalogued, but not necessarily "new." In this case, because of genetic similarities to an allegedly introduced plant, he concludes that it is a new species. This is a leap that might better be understood if he could explain why he thinks the current catalogue is full. Have there been so few instances of newly catalogued plants that he feels safe in making this assumption? Were there, for example, 300 newly catalogued in the 1790s, 50 in the 1860s, 20 in the 1920s and so on in a mathematical projection approaching 0 on the y axis? What would be the mathematical model for concluding there was nothing new to catalogue? What was the nature of its introduction into Britain and is it possible this "new" plant was also introduced? Do trans-European birds ever introduce plants from the continent? Has any known "Piltdown" style fraud occured in this field of study?

Those seem to be questions an esteemed botanist could answer fairly easily. The fact that they make supporters of evolution bristle, doesn't speak well for the cause.

[farmer18th]

Thanks for that reference. I looked at the site as well and couldn't find any reference to the York Groundsel.

I do find it interesting, though, that its very name, "Plant Evolutionary Biology Research Group," essentially requires it to approach the biological world with a good pair of Darwin spectacles firmly in place.

"Get with the program, Watson, of course we're seeing evolution here, man! (nudge,nudge) It's out on the sign-board!"

[general_re]

There's a difference between proving a negative ("this species never existed before") and showing why dormant seed germination would be unlikely, or introduction would be unlikely, or a failure to have catalogued the species before would be unlikely or even fraud would be unlikely.

I see. You subject your hypotheses to a standard of "likely" or "unlikely", but Abbott's is subject to absolute proof.

What more can I possibly add to that?

If the value of this discovery is so valuable to the cause of proving evolution, so unique, doesn't it have to attain that singular status by discounting the more conventional explanations?

The article overstates the case here. We're way beyond needing proof any more. This plant simply fits in with what is already known to be true - the theory of evolution.

In this case, because of genetic similarities to an allegedly introduced plant, he concludes that it is a new species.

Your shading of the facts does not help you make your case. It is derived from the Oxford ragwort, which is known to have been introduced in England in the 1700's. Therefore, this hybridization/speciation event can only have taken place in the last few hundred years - whether it was yesterday or 200 years ago is simply irrelevant. We know that the Oxford ragwort was introduced - or rather, anyone who bothers to check the facts knows - because it was deliberately introduced into the Oxford Botanical gardens as an ornamental plant. Both the time and manner of introduction are known as a matter of fact.

The Oxford ragwort is a plant known to have been introduced in the recent past. This new plant fits the definition of "species". It is a hybrid of the Oxford ragwort and another plant. This hybridization can only have occurred in the recent past, by virtue of the fact that the Oxford ragwort did not exist in England until recently. Therefore, this species is new and recently developed. QED.

The fact that they make supporters of evolution bristle, doesn't speak well for the cause.

It's not a manner of your questions making anyone bristle - rather, it's that you are clearly assigning a high standard of proof to the suggestion that this is the result of evolutionary mechanisms, and a much lower standard of proof to any other possible explanation. If I were a cynic, I might suggest that you don't want evolution to be the case here, and are therefore creating a system of evaluation designed to steer the interpretation of the evidence in any direction but evolution.

But I am not a cynic, fortunately for you.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Bristling placemarker.

[PatrickHenry]

Ragwort placemarker.

[RobRoy]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...

[longshadow]

cynical placemarker

[general_re]

Bring me your tired, huddled markers, yearning to be free...