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.
The madder they make me -- the harder I THINK // smile (( laugh )) ==== my ideal -- goal !
oing - o + P = Bliss!
No, it most certainly is not. Extinction is as much a part of evolution as is the rise of new species.
Be sure you understand the field before you try to pontificate upon it.
You seem a little short on rigor here. Are all birds the same species or not? Humans and chimps share 98% or so identical DNA. Are they the same species? If the California Condor and the Emporer Penguin share less than 98% of their DNA are they different species?
Perfectly.. (in text) I do all the time here, as a matter of fact.
We came from a weed, we did, we did!!!!
silly, silly, silly....
The madder they make me -- the harder I THINK // smile (( laugh )) ==== my ideal -- goal !
I'm waiting for f.Christian's posts to evolve into sentences...
Since new phyla have arisen on Earth only about 35 times in several billion years, your insistence that you won't accept anything else as evidence until you can see a new phylum arise in your lifetime is either incredibly ignorant, or incredibly disingenuous. Which is it, so I'll know how better to address your posts in the future?
Then we are talking evolution.
Is it actually your contention that *only* the rise of a new phylum would be "evolution"? I repeat the question I asked you in the first part of this post.
No, once again you confuse the matter by postulating a difference where there is no difference. Large-scale evolution is just small-scale evolution accumulated over time until the differences combine to change enough of the species that people go, "wow, that's pretty different".
There is absolutely no distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution", except to the creationists who are forced to admit the existence of evolution but want to claim that it can "only" happen in small amounts -- without ever explaining what, exactly, they think would halt the accumulation of changes before they add up to large changes.
Before you start waving your hands, remember that there are fossil sequences which, when arranged chronologically, clearly map out small stepwise changes which, when comparing the final part of the sequence with the first part, add up to the rise of whole new groups of animals which did not previously exist.
When they make new species which are reproductively isolated from other species, yes.
What about random mutation and natural selection?
Those are at work too.
I don't understand it either..
Further, if you think about it.
If there's no God, then there's no morality.
There is no guide for what's "moral" "right" or "good"
The Rapist simply has "different views" than the non-rapist and so on..
Because, who can tell the rapist with authority that he is wrong? Who has a definitive answer on what "wrong" is?
At that point, "right" "wrong" "moral" and "immoral" are nothing but ideas put forth by men.. and they can be summarily rejected as such.
And will be. I know I have no respect for the thought's put forth by other men.. It must come from God before I will listen.
Is it any wonder we are in such dire straights?
No, actually, the number of evidences for evolution is far greater than that, but yes, this is yet another on the pile.
What will it be tomorrow?
Hard to predict in advance what form it will take, but if the past is any indication, then tomorrow will bring many more types of evidence for evolution.
How many can the creationists claim?
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.