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.

[general_re]

Which claim is the extraordinary claim?

[farmer18th]

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.

When all else fails, re-state your faith. Interesting. The introduction of the "parent" species is merely claimed, not even remotely proven in the site you offered. There has not been one consistent defense of the new versus newly catalogued question. There has not been one single factual response to the dormant seed question. Any reasonable alternative interpretation is ignored in favor of the academy's god. I always thought biology was a reasonably hard science

[general_re]

The introduction of the "parent" species is merely claimed, not even remotely proven in the site you offered.

Right. I forgot - Abbott's thesis is subject to absolute, conclusive proof, unlike any alternate explanation, which merely has to be shown likely. My mistake.

There has not been one consistent defense of the new versus newly catalogued question. There has not been one single factual response to the dormant seed question.

There is not one single shred of evidence in favor of any of those. None. Not a scrap, just your assertion that they are "reasonable". Why speculate on such things, when they are thus far indistinguishable from "seeds from Mars" theories?

Any reasonable alternative interpretation is ignored in favor of the academy's god.

I expect you'll be off to do some field-work, then? Any thesis so eminently "reasonable" ought to be easy enough to support. Abbott has evidence for his theory - you can't even seem to meet your own standard of "likely" for alternate explanations, unless we suddenly decide that your personal judgement of something being "reasonable" is prima facie equivalent to that something being "likely". In which case, I expect your services will be widely in demand in the near future.

Not that this is likely to happen - if "reasonableness" is the touchstone here, how "reasonable" are theories such as yours that have absolutely no evidence to support them? How "reasonable" is a theory that is purely speculative, especially when compared to one that has evidence to support it?

It's not, of course - the "reasonable" standard is not your friend here, not so long as your preferred explanations are only so much whistling in the dark.

[colorado tanker]

Wow, 543 posts arguing over something a little Weed-B-Gone could take care of real quick.

[general_re]

Unless it manages to spread beyond its little patch, it may not be long for this world, Roundup or no - gotta pack all the fighting in while it's still around ;)

[colorado tanker]

LOL! I've got some stuff in my yard that must be evolving a way to transform brush killer into fertilizer. Would that be micro, macro or Martian?

[RobRoy]

>>Which claim is the extraordinary claim? <<

That it is new.

[general_re]

Would that be micro, macro or Martian?

If you've had any pets or other small animals go missing lately, I'd say "Martian", definitely ;)

[Junior]

Recipricol PlacemarkerekramecalP locirpiceR

[general_re]

That it is new.

Why? We already know that plants and animals exist now that didn't exist before, by looking at the fossil record - now we've just caught the process responsible for that fact in the act, so to speak...

[farmer18th]

Right. I forgot - Abbott's thesis is subject to absolute, conclusive proof,..

Actually, the answers to a few simple questions would be helpful. The question was: what is the documentation that the parent species was introduced into Britain? A web site that states "In England, Oxford ragwort was introduced?" What were the circumstances of that introduction? A single pot in a greenhouse? A planting of several thousand plants on a hillside? (Surely you can understand how one circumstance might have hidden a plant stow-away better than another.)

Farmer18th: There has not been one consistent defense of the new versus newly catalogued question.
General_re: There is not one single shred of evidence in favor of any of those

English gardener, circa 1903: Dearest, I believe I've discovered a plant without a name! I don't see it any of the field guides.

English gardener, circa 2003: What a find, this! Evolution at work, man! It's not in any of the field guides.

Who, really, is from Mars, here? Why is it so difficult to answer the simple question: why do you consider the current naming of the plant inventory complete?

[general_re]

What were the circumstances of that introduction? A single pot in a greenhouse? A planting of several thousand plants on a hillside? (Surely you can understand how one circumstance might have hidden a plant stow-away better than another.)

What plant is supposed to have stowed away? Are you positing that this new plant was actually hidden away among the Oxford ragworts as it was planted in England for the first time? Is that your new "reasonable" (and therefore "likely") hypothesis?

Why not look up the article where the introduction of the Oxford ragwort is discussed? Here, I'll even give you the cite:

Abbott, R.J., James, J.K., Irwin, J.A. & Comes, H.P. (2000) Hybrid origin of the Oxford ragwort, Senecio squalidus L. Watsonia 23: 123-138.

Why is it so difficult to answer the simple question: why do you consider the current naming of the plant inventory complete?

Probably because it's the first time you've asked it directly? And when you've hinted at it before, I pointed you to the definitive guide to British flora, which you then suggested - not in so many words, of course - was an impossible project and not worthy of your attention?

You haven't met even your own standard, by showing that some other hypothesis is likely. Abbott has, but of course that's not good enough for the evolutionary explanation, is it?

[farmer18th]

Abbott, R.J., James, J.K., Irwin, J.A. & Comes, H.P. (2000) Hybrid origin of the Oxford ragwort, Senecio squalidus L. Watsonia 23: 123-138.

Oh, please! A link? Has this ground-breaking proof of evolution reached the internet or must we rely on the pop-science acolytes?

Regarding new additions to the catalogue and the basis for concluding "there is nothing new:" I have been asking, and asking, and asking for some rationale, if not proof, for justifying the conclusion that any new species found in Britain necessarily has to be evolution. Look back at the posts.

[RobRoy]

So some are easier to convince than others, depending on the subject. Let me give you an example. I was working out on an exercise bicycle today that has heart sensors located on the handlebars. Now, every now and then I remove one hand or both to towel off some sweat and it loses the signal. It temporarily goes into a different mode, and assumes I have just removed my hands, as opposed to gone into cardiac arrest.

It really is POSSIBLE that I went into cardiac arrest, but PROBABLE that I just removed a hand from the sensor. That is why alarms don’t go off every time the machine loses a pulse. A machine in a hospital DOES have alarms because the probability of the worst is much higher there.

The same concept is true here. It is POSSIBLE that the weed is new, but PROBABLE that it was just missed. I assume the probable until the “possible but improbable” has been proved to my satisfaction. ‘Course, each person has a different level of evidence needed before he will believe an improbable claim, depending on his trust of the source of the info.

That Is why I needed more evidence before I could be convinced that this weed is really new.

That is also why I am a Creationist who believes in Micro-evolution, although I consider it actually micro-devolution. I think of it as rust. It is merely the decay of something created – and the rust most definitely did not create it.

Besides, evolutionary science is about how, Creationism is about WHY.

[general_re]

Oh, please! A link? Has this ground-breaking proof of evolution reached the internet or must we rely on the pop-science acolytes?

Oh, please. Surely at Stanford you found your way into the library occasionally, with its large collection of scientific journals not accessible electronically? Sound familiar? Vaguely? They even subscribe to Watsonia, according to their online catalog...

I have been asking, and asking, and asking for some rationale, if not proof, for justifying the conclusion that any new species found in Britain necessarily has to be evolution. Look back at the posts.

Nobody has made such a claim except you; rather, the claim is made that this species is newly created as a result of speciation, which is an event predicted by the theory of evolution. Look back at the posts yourself - the rationale for this claim is explained as succinctly as I know how in post 535.

[general_re]

It is POSSIBLE that the weed is new, but PROBABLE that it was just missed.

What evidence do you have to support the idea that it was just missed? And if you don't have any, isn't the idea that it was more likely missed simply your unsupported assumption? In which case, why should someone believe it over the (supported) theory that it is new?

[RobRoy]

>>What evidence do you have to support the idea that it was just missed?<<

What evidence?

It is assumed that it is an existing species WITHOUT EVIDENCE, until sufficient evidence is unearthed to support the IMPROBABLE condision that it is new. The burden of proof lies on the one making the statement that the IMPROBABLE is true. And stating that ANY plant is a new species is an exercise in the improbable until proven otherwise. That is where the burden of proof lies.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

>>In which case, why should someone believe it over the (supported) theory that it is new? <<

The word in parenthesis is a subjective opinion with which I happen to disagree.

[general_re]

It is assumed that it is an existing species WITHOUT EVIDENCE, until sufficient evidence is unearthed to support the IMPROBABLE condision that it is new.

First off, there is evidence. Second, how do you know that it being missed is probable? How do you know that it is more probable than it being new?

>>In which case, why should someone believe it over the (supported) theory that it is new? <<

The word in parenthesis is a subjective opinion with which I happen to disagree

Well, I can't make you read the article...

[Con X-Poser]

<< Humans have a greater cognitive capacity than the great apes. >>

Now THAT is the understatement of the century. It's only the third year into the 21st century, but I'd bet that holds up until the 22nd century.

[RobRoy]

Seems we disagree...