Darwin & The York Groundsel

the bible is not a science book, just as Darwin's Origins of Species is'nt a religious work. it's like comparing apples and oranges. i haven't read all of Darwin's work, but i don't find any thing conflicting with the bible; only with some peoples interpretations.

Reference ANSERS IN GENESIS article: A new weed species—does it prove Creation wrong? by Philip Bell, AiG-UK, 3 March 2003

This article has to do with York Groundsel, the new "species" of weed in the UK which previously didn't exist but now does thanks to natural cross breeding of the Common Groundsel and the Oxford Ragwort. It is considered a new species because it cannot breed with either of its parent forms but only with itself. It is a hybrid that can reproduce but only with itself. Is this a statistical anomaly or a demonstration of evolution in action?

I would be curious to know if this cross breeding can be and has been confirmed by duplication; and whether there are objective witnesses. I would like to know whether the explanation is complete. How do we know that this hybrid did not pre-exist anywhere? I suppose it wouldn't matter if the new species is, in fact, generated out of the cross breeding. If it cannot be duplicated, then significant doubt is cast on its origins.

Assuming the foregoing is satisfied, it is a fascinating discovery because if so, it would seem to constitute a "transitional form" though it would seem to be the inverse of a transitional form. I have always thought that the existence of a transitional form (evolutionary divergence) would be definitely exhibited by the interbreeding capabilities of a species sequence "a-b-c" wherein a-b and b-c combinations are possible but a-c combinations are not since the genetic divergence would be too great. The Groundsel example seems to be the inverse of my self styled proof in that a-c combinations are possible but a-b and b-c combinations are not.

While this generation of a new species does not constitute an example of "creation" (but rather a combination of existing DNA) it does, at first blush, seem to demonstrate the concept of trans-speciation, however, I think it is too limited to demonstrate all the principles necessary for evolution to explain the uncountable living examples of genetic divergence (existing species).

The basic concept of evolution necessarily involves successive mutation ultimately resulting in sufficient genetic divergence to the point where a new species is generated - ie: cannot interbreed with its ancestors due to genetic divergence. The missing factor in the Groundsel example is "mutation". There is no genetic mutation here unless the happenstance combination of two separate DNA sequences combining to form a third sequence constitutes "mutation". If this is accepted as "mutation" it wouldn't seem to produce a new ability or some other means of distinguishing itself beyond the meaningless accidental inability to breed with the parent species. It is simply a crossbreed demonstrating a varietal of the parent species with the unique but meaningless characteristic of being unable to breed with its parent species.

Nor do I see a "beneficial mutation" since the combined DNA sequence has not produced a survival advantage over the "parent" sequences, at least not one that has been observed. That it is flourishing is not sufficient to establish a survival advantage. The discoverer himself, admits that this new species may be short lived. Indeed, the inability to breed with the parent species or other species of groundsel would seem to be a survival DISadvantage. If it does survive without a relative advantage, this would suggest that natural selection is unnecessary to trans-speciation but rather naked divergence can, by itself, generate a new species which flourishes and, in combination with substantial time, can explain the existence of all the species that has ever existed. That seems less viable than the traditional theory of evolution.

I am coming to the conclusion that, although the York Groundsel may technically constitute a new species, it is more likely a simple varietal of its parental varieties of groundsel with the unique characteristic of being unable to breed with other groundsel varieties. Further, it fails to demonstrate the (macro) evolutionary process of time+mutation+natural selection, though it seems to mimick one step (mutation) in a meaningless way but only if you accept this apparently unique DNA combination as "mutation".

Wow. You resurrect an 18-month-old thread for that? To smugly lecture us that, despite meeting all the common criteria for speciation, the York Groundsel isn't actually an example of speciation? Forgive me if I don't see the need to go to battle stations because of your pointed rebuttal.

__________________

It's party time for the guys in the tower of Babel
Sodom meet Gomorrah, Cain meet Abel
~Elton John


I couldn't if I tried.

More evolutionist nonsense. Someone somewhere may have been smoking weed, but I doubt if they found a newly evolved weed.

I thought you had it:

The theory of Evolution does not say anything about the origin of the universe, cosmology or abiogenesis.
Darwin did not explain the origin of species, but the origin of species.


edit: wow that was an old post... woops.