Darwin & The York Groundsel

[Nelzador]

I don't normally come into this forum, but I discovered this article and thought I'd post it. If it's already been done then I apologize for boring you all.

aritcle taken from The Times

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.

Opinions? Don't shoot the messenger

 

[chickenman]

"waits for the plate of "no new information" tripe"

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 04:32 AM Nelzador said this in Post #1
Opinions? Don't shoot the messenger

""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.  ""

I think the statement: "Charles Darwin was right and the Creationists are wrong" is very interesting. Then I noticed: "that species are created as well as made extinct" and I wondered about this in light of the following statement that creationism is wrong. How can something be "created" if "creationism" is wrong. Then the third thing I noticed was the statement: "But the fragile existence of the species could soon be ended by the weedkillers of York City Council’s gardeners." Ahh, a plot, murder, mystory. All leading me to believe I am reading some creative writting here. Perhaps a artical that if it were written for a collage level creative writting class would bring a good grade. But sense there is no such thing as "creationism" then this artical could not be a fine example of creative writting. It had to have evolved by putting a monkey in front of a computer terminal and letting him randomly hit the keys. Then over a million year period of time, through random selection that monkey must have hit the send key to transmit the artical to the editor for publication. Of course that is nothing, sense it must have taken billions of years for the computer terminal to evolve through many stages of mutatons. Or was it the monkey that evolved though mutations?

It remains to be seen if the weed this person found, that he claims is something new, is indeed something new. It is most likely a product of cross breeding. For example some flowers they can cross breed to come up with up to 1000 variations. People breed horses, dogs, cattle and so forth.

 

[Zadok001]

John:

"Then I noticed: "that species are created as well as made extinct" and I wondered about this in light of the following statement that creationism is wrong. How can something be "created" if "creationism" is wrong (sic)."

Semantics. Something can be created independant of 'creationism.' They share a root word, and little else.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 10:12 AM Zadok001 said this in Post #4
Semantics. Something can be created independant of 'creationism.' They share a root word, and little else.

To create, you have to have a creator. That is why Darwin came up with the theory of evolution. He tried to claim the universe was not created, it evolved.

That is why evolution theory is simply a product of the imagination being used in the creative process. As you can see it is possible for man to use his creative abilities and his imagination in a way that not only does not honor God, but could dishonor Him.

Genesis 8:21b the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; 





 

 

[notto]

Today at 04:45 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #5 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=665063#post665063)

To create, you have to have a creator. That is why Darwin came up with the theory of evolution. He tried to claim the universe was not created, it evolved.

 

Darwin said nothing of the creation of the universe.
Darwin also said nothing about the existence of a creator in his scientific work and his work on evolution does not ever state that there is not a creator.

John, this is a bald faced misrepresentation of the truth (and I think you have been informed on Darwins beliefs before).

Concidering you have never read Origins or Darwins works by your own admission, you might want to concider not commenting on his motivations or the beliefs behind his writing. A reading of any Darwin biography would also help clear of these misconceptions that you continuously repeat.

Perhaps you could back up your false assertions with actual quotes from Darwisn work?

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 12:06 PM notto said this in Post #6

Darwin said nothing of the creation of the universe.

Oh sorry wrong word. Should I have used the word creation? We could say creation evolved but that maybe a contradiction.

John, this is a bald faced misrepresentation of the truth 

 

Listen guy, unless you tone it down a bit, you may find yourself having a conversation with yourself. I see so many people come here with a slash and burn approach and the next thing I know the board is shut down and no one is talking about anything, because they are tired of the insults.

The only way a board like this is going to work is if you somehow manage to engage a person in conversation with your about something. If you chase people off, there will be no discussion. The board will just sit there and go no where.  

 

[Nathan David]

No, you used the word "universe". Darwin only wrote about biology, a teeny-tiny subset of the whole universe. He wrote nothing about the beginning of the universe.

This has been pointed out to you numerous times, John. The fact that you still try to link evolution with astronomy is probably what led to the accusation of "blatant misrepresentation of the facts." If you object to that characterization, then please explain what evolution has to do with astronomy.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 11:45 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #5

To create, you have to have a creator. That is why Darwin came up with the theory of evolution. He tried to claim the universe was not created, it evolved.  

Semantics, John.  According to special creation, new species cannot be "created" because they were created in unchangeable form.  The new groundsel species appeared in the last 50 years.  Where are the reports of God zapping the new species into existence?

Yes, hybridization is one way of getting a new species, especially in plants.  This is not by any means the only such observation, many of them observing the entire process, not just the end product as this botanist did.

For instance, John, there was this article in Science several years ago:

Speciation in action  Science 72:700-701, 1996

What happened was that the researchers produced in the greenhouse the genetic changes leading to the formation of a naturally occurring species of sunflower.  The species is Helianthus anomalus and molecular evidence suggested it was formed by recombinational speciation of H.annuus and H. petiolarus.  This is a process in which two species hybridize, and the mixed genome of the hybrid becomes a third species that is reproductively isolated from its ancestors.

So what the researchers did was hybridize H. annuus and H. petiolarus  and produced 3 independent hybrid lines undergoing different regimes of mating to siblings and backcrossing to H. annuus. After 5 generations the DNA was analyzed for comparison to the wild type to see which ancestral genes persisted in the hybrids.  It matched with the wild type.  Remarkably, despite the different crossing regimes, all 3 lines converged to nearly the identical gene combinations.  The gene recombinations were complex, but repeatable in all 3 hybrid lines.

In this case artificial selection and natural selection reached the same end product.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 11:45 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #5

To create, you have to have a creator. That is why Darwin came up with the theory of evolution. He tried to claim the universe was not created, it evolved. 

Darwin was talking only about biology, and he never tried to claim that the universe, or even life for that matter, were not created. This is a fantasy of your own. I have posted these quotes from Darwin before, John, but you always ignore them.  Please do me the courtesy of reading and commenting on them this time:

"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual."  pg. 449.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."  C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

Now, where is denial of "creation" here?  Please, John, point it out for us.  Or drop the false witness claim against Darwin and evolution.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 02:09 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #7

Listen guy, unless you tone it down a bit, you may find yourself having a conversation with yourself. I see so many people come here with a slash and burn approach and the next thing I know the board is shut down and no one is talking about anything, because they are tired of the insults. 

This presumes we wish to have a "discussion" with someone who consistently misrepresents the truth. Several times I have posted the quotes from Darwin to show that he had no intention of denying creation, only creationism.  You never respond.

I for one do not wish to continue a "discussion" with someone who consistently misrepresents the truth.  I have much better things to do with my time. The only reasons I reply to you, John, are:

1. To correct your blatant misrepresentations of the truth for the other people who read this forum and

2. To alert Christians to the severe danger you pose to Christianity.

As to having topics to discuss, we could have some fun times discussing the details of evolutionary theory and other theories ikn science.  So if you want to pick up your marbles and go home, John, please do so.  I for one won't miss you.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 03:37 PM lucaspa said this in Post #11

This presumes we wish to have a "discussion" with someone who consistently misrepresents the truth.

You have shown me no evidence that you even know the truth. So you have no way of knowing if I misrepresent it or not. The only thing you have shown me is a disregard for truth and a disregard for the God who created you. But in the end, you will go before God and you will give an account. Do you think that He is going to be well pleased with you on that day?

I for one do not wish to continue a "discussion" with someone who consistently misrepresents the truth. 

Well, your having a discusson with me, so that must mean that I represent the truth.

 I have much better things to do with my time.

Yeah? What? You have a hamster to feed or something?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 06:44 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #12 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=665960#post665960)

You have shown me no evidence that you even know the truth. So you have no way of knowing if I misrepresent it or not.

Considering what is being discussed is Darwin's work and his views on the creator, lucaspa has shown a far better understanding than you, John.

However, you do have option of reading The Origin of Species online (for free). Maybe this will help you understand Darwin's work better, so silly tiffs like this can be avoided in the future.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 03:31 PM lucaspa said this in Post #10 

"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual."  pg. 449.

Now, where is denial of "creation" here?  Please, John, point it out for us.  Or drop the false witness claim against Darwin and evolution.

Lets get this into context.

"Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual."

First of all, this is no different than the twisted lies that the serpent gave Eve in the garden of Eden. "Authors of the highest eminence" means God has spoken, now lets see what the serpent has to say: "To my mind it accords better" The serpent seems to think that he knows "better" than God. Like the serpent is suppose to be a better expert witness than God is.

What does he say next: "with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator". "Impressed" What does that mean? Psalm 2:3 "Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us." Darwin is saying, why should we allow this creator to press His law upon us, we can be free!

Only his freedom is not freedom at all, it is bondage, and in the end the result is death.

Then Darwin goes on, after doing all he can to discredit the creator, he then attempts to give the reader something in place of what God has given to us.

What was the lie that the serpent gave to Eve in the Garden of Eden? What did the serpent say she could have? "your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods"

Darwins lie is the same lie that the serpent gave to Eve in the Garden of Eden. Almost 6000 years later and it is still the same lie. So your falling for the same lie that Eve fell for almost 6000 years ago. It worked on her then and now it working on you now.

Were Eve's eyes opened? No just the opposite. Remember the serpent turned out to be a liar and not trustworthy.




   




 

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 08:09 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #14 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=666103#post666103)

What does he say next: "with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator". "Impressed" What does that mean? Psalm 2:3 "Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us." Darwin is saying, why should we allow this creator to press His law upon us, we can be free!

He seems to be saying, quite clearly, that the Creator is responsible for the physical laws of the universe. Why you seem to take that to mean something else is a mystery.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 08:36 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #15

He seems to be saying, quite clearly, that the Creator is responsible for the physical laws of the universe. Why you seem to take that to mean something else is a mystery.

The serpent takes the truth and twists it into a lie. If you do not know the truth, then it is easier for him to get you to accept a lie as if it were true.

There are so many problems with this paragraph from a theology viewpoint that it is unreal. Darwin had some good theology courses, but he managed to twist it into a lie. Of course he could not pass it off to theologians, they know better. But somehow he got the Biologists to buy into it.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 09:02 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #16 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=666185#post666185)

The serpent takes the truth and twists it into a lie. If you do not know the truth, then it is easier for him to get you to accept a lie as if it were true.

There are so many problems with this paragraph from a theology viewpoint that it is unreal. Darwin had some good theology courses, but he managed to twist it into a lie. Of course he could not pass it off to theologians, they know better. But somehow he got the Biologists to buy into it.

The only problem with that paragraph is that it doesn't jive with your theological viewpoint. However, not everyone shares the same view (and please don't cry "Satan's deceiving you!"; that can just as easily apply to you).

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 09:08 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #17  (and please don't cry "Satan's deceiving you!"; that can just as easily apply to you).

About as much as you could say a Biologist knows nothing about Biology. I have studied theology intensly for a long time now.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 09:27 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #18 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=666268#post666268)

I have studied theology intensly for a long time now.

So? There are plenty of theologians who have studied theology intensely for a long time and have arrived at different conclusions than you. Including accepting evolutionary theory as the mechanism by which God has created life on this planet.

What makes your view so special? How do I know you haven't been deceived by Satan?

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 09:44 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #19

So? There are plenty of theologians who have studied theology intensely for a long time and have arrived at different conclusions than you. 

Who are they, let me see their work.  

What makes your view so special? How do I know you haven't been deceived by Satan? [/B]

Do you mean me personal, or the entire Ernest Angley organization? The preaching is only one third, the miracles are a third, and the music is a third. If you don't like the preaching, then maybe you will like the music.

http://www.ernestangley.org/Music/music.htm