[Sabertooth]

Cool article, thanks for the post and the pings. I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me if this thought's been posted before.

Here's what I see: the emergence of a new species via an unusual hybridization.

Here's what I don't see: the emergence of a new species via random mutation or natural selection.

There may possibly have been random mutation at work, but there may also be some unknown genetic principle at work as a result of this unusual hybridization, which caused the mutation, in the same manner that groups of genes can be turned on or off given certain triggers.

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?

So, I see two species generating a third, but I don't see one species becoming a second.

That doesn't negate the importance of this discovery, it just adds a little perspective, as I see it.

Regards

[general_re]

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?

I don't think there's necessarily an advantage in that particular aspect either, but it may turn out that this new species is somehow better adapted than its parents, inheriting adaptive qualities from both and combining them in some new way - e.g., it inherits some resistance to cold weather from parent "A", and some resistance to some sort of bug from parent "B". In which case, the new species may find life a bit easier than either of its parents did, and be successful where they are not.

Or, maybe it inherited the worst qualities from both, and it's not long for this world. Or maybe it's a mixed bag as to its traits, and we'll just have to wait and see how it shakes out. Which will probably be the case anyway - we'll just have to wait and see how it does on its own. If, in twenty years, this thing is gone, or it's turned into the British equivalent of kudzu, choking the life out of the country, we'll have a pretty clear answer ;)

[PatrickHenry]

Here's what I don't see: the emergence of a new species via random mutation or natural selection.

The article says: "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."

So what you do see here is: (1) mutation; and (2) speciation. We've both observed creationists who say that mutation is always fatal and thus cannot be the source of speciation. We've also observed creationists claim that speciation itself is impossible, because that's (gasp!) macro-evolution.

You are correct in not seeing natural selection. Not yet. That takes time. This little weed may not have what it takes to become a well-established species. Neighboring weeds may choke it out; insects may devour all its seeds, etc. But this weed, whether it survives or not, is nevertheless very instructive.

[Junior]

Evolution is not an either-or proposition. Hybridization producing new species does not preclude mutation/natural selection (another thread currently deals with evidence of just such an occurance in the human lineage).

[Doctor Stochastic]

Also, I don't see where natural selection would drive a hybrid species to be unable to reproduce with either of its parent species

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.

[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?