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.

[AndrewC]

So now hybrids are evolution in action? What about random mutation and natural selection?

[Dataman]

The article seems to be self-refuting. Such silliness. I suppose this is the 110,000th proof of evolution. What will it be tomorrow?

Post-modernists are so anemic in the rational dept. that I almost wish for the good old days of plain modernism.

[Junior]

And where is the line between microevolution and macroevolution? Is there a magic cutoff switch that keeps those small changes from adding up into a big change? How does the fin know when to stop changing into a leg? Inquiring minds want to know. Evidently you do, so let's have it.

[Junior]

Speciation is speciation.

[PatrickHenry]

Sorry of some of you were already pinged by Junior.

[This ping list is for the evolution -- not creationism -- side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. To be added (or dropped), let me know via freepmail.]

[Con X-Poser]

<< Only creationists think whole new styles of critter spring full blown. You just keep on using your strawman version of evolution to argue against, >>

No, creationists don't think ANY critter has sprung full blown since the garden of Eden.It's been just varieties of them (like your weed) since then. That's all we've ever observed. That's all that can be determined by SCIENCE.

Variation is allowed for in the genes of the creature. Evolution into other kinds of creatures isn't. A sea-horse will not become a race-horse, no matter how many million years you wait. It will not become a half-and-half horse either.

You are the one with the straw man - ASSUMING that because a weed can show variation into a weed, that means it can eventually become a praying mantis, or a mouse, or a monkey, or a man. That's like assuming because a person grows from 18" to six feet by the time he's 16, that he will grow to 10 or 12 feet tall by the time he's 40.

[PatrickHenry]

A very few links from the famous "list-o-links" (so the creationists don't get to start each new thread from ground zero).

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense. From Scientific American
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use from Answers in Genesis.
300 Creationist Lies.
Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
Creation "Science" Debunked.

The foregoing is just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated Creationism vs. Evolution threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 20].

[Condorman]

Ah. So "weed" is a "kind"? Dandelions and kudzu are both weeds. Are they the same species or not?

[Con X-Poser]

<< And where is the line between microevolution and macroevolution? Is there a magic cutoff switch that keeps those small changes from adding up into a big change? >>

Yeah, the genes of the creature.

<< How does the fin know when to stop changing into a leg? Inquiring minds want to know. Evidently you do, so let's have it. >>

Fins don't evolve into legs. You should have learned that when the coelecanth was rediscovered and what were thought to be transitional fin/legs turned out to still be 100% fins, supposedly 65 million years later.

Next you'll propose that sexual claspers on whales are vestigial legs. At least your line won't reproduce if you can't tell the difference in that area.

[AndrewC]

Speciation is speciation.

Yes, as we all know, any just-so story that can be used to support Darwininianism is a good story although it really means nothing.

[walkingdead]

"A sea-horse will not become a race-horse, no matter how many million years you wait."

Well, what about a dodo bird? Can it become a pigeon?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0227_0228_dodo.html

[Con X-Poser]

<< 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. >>

He *noticed* it in 1979. That proves it didn't exist all along? Like noticing gorillas, pandas, and platypuses just before 1900 proves they didn't exist prior to then?

<< 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. >>

So it has been around before.That's evidence for evolution? Someone is really DESPERATE to prove a false theory.

[Jhoffa_]

You're giving me a headache.

(And I even agree with you..!)

[PatrickHenry]

Here's the website for the discoverer of the weed: Dr. Richard Abbott.

[f.Christian]

Hi everyone . . .

I am f.Christian - - -

a falling down recovering evolutionist // liberal // globalist - - -

not any more since . . . FR saved me (( link ))=== now I hate the stuff // lies ! !

[Con X-Poser]

<< Well, what about a dodo bird? Can it become a pigeon? >>

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

[laredo44]

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?

[f.Christian]

``I was a communist for 30 years ...

and I listened to so much of this . . . demagoguery (( link )) - - -

that now, with my democratic views, I can no longer stand it,'' Itar-Tass news agency

[walkingdead]

First off, this weed could be or could not be a new species. Maybe it was there all along, maybe not.

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. Environment/need driving change in the body/organism to make it more effecient?

Now, for my short disclaimer for FR. I don't pretend to know exactly where everything we see came from. Perhaps some "God" did start it all, but if so, science is just uncovering how it was done. Just my 1/2 cent after taxes....