Evolution in action: new plant species

[Thumbo]

This seems timely given the other active threads ongoing:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-584528,00.html

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.

Any comment or opinion from the biologists here?

 

[spoonhandler]

Sadly, I'm not sure this is really an example of evolution and it's likely to be shredded by creationists.

This plant appears to be the result of cross-fertilisation between two related species. The fact the resulting hybrid was fertile is certainly interesting and the inability of the new plant to breed with either parent plant does show it to be a new species, but is it evolution?

Is it too simple to see evolution in terms not involving cross-breeding to engender new characteristics? We would normally look to a genetic mutant of organism A finding a selective advantage and outcompeting non-mutated forms of organism A without the introduction of genetic material from organism B. The York groundsel would appear to be the result of one genetic event (the 'accident' that allowed the offspring of two different species to be fertile).

I'm also assuming the team addressed the question of whether the common groundsel and the Oxford ragwort are indeed separate species and not simply racial varieties of the same plant.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Speciation is speciation. Provided it can be verified that this is indeed a new species, it doesn't matter whether it came by from mutation or cross-breeding. Evolution theory is not based on some certain method of speciation, surely speciation has happened through the ages by cross-breeding, gene swapping, mutation, and possibly other methods as well.

If verified, this IS a slap in the face of any Creationist who says "we have never watched a species evolve".

Hans

 

[Jon_in_london]

I dont agree with you spoon-

The principle driving force of evolution is not mutation- as is commonly understood but is recombination. As is the case here.

I think this is an excellent example of speciation of a higher organism.

Creationist: How do you know God didnt put it there?

Other Creationist: The speed at which this species evolved shows that the earth is only 6,000 years old

 

[Hazelip]

Is it too simple to see evolution in terms not involving cross-breeding to engender new characteristics?

Yes.

 

[Guest]

If the genetic of the plant is unique and there has been no evidence of cross breeding then it is evolution, but as with many plants they all arise from cross breeding there lies the fatal flaw in deciding what is a genuine new unknown plant and what is just another cross bred hybrid species etc.


Technically the exact same flaw can be readily applied to humans. We are all a result of cross breeding, and not as a result of evolution, but then again on the other hand we are all new species that have adapted and evolved via our genetic makeup to be a new species.

 

[hard_head]

[sarcasm]

It's just variation within a kind. after all it's still a plant. show me a plant that gives rise to a cat and maybe i'll reconsider.
[/sarcasm]


good news for our team, but they will ignore it.

 

[Guest]

Recombination is the principal driving force for diploid organisms. "Cross-breeding" that results in speciation is what is claimed here. It is speciation because the hybrid cannot be mated back to either parent. This constitutes reproductive isolation, therefore a new species, and, therefore, evolution.

Yes, the fundies will pick it apart, but we need to keep our evolutionary understanding sharp to defend against the wretched onslaught.

Cheers,

 

[Guest]

If verified, this IS a slap in the face of any Creationist who says "we have never watched a species evolve".

Hans

It is one of many, Hans. Unfortunately, fundy "logic" feeds at a different trough.

Cheers,

 

[Peter Soderqvist]

Blind natural selection, is the evolution's only driving force!

Suppose its is a survival advantage for a rabbit to have long legs, and loci x in the chromosome 12, is the loci for the "gene for longer legs" and its competitor for this loci, is a gene for shorter legs. It is reasonable to assume that this allele competition will end up with the gene for short legs as extinct. For instance; a fox is only running for his dinner, but the rabbit is running for his life, the fox can afford with to lose this hunting race, time to time, but rabbits will end up as dinner every time they lose, so on average; a rabbit is naturally selected to run little faster than foxes! But genes for shorter legs are favored in the mole gene pool, and thus genes for longer legs tend to go extinct there. Of course the working ground for natural selection is mutation either for longer, or shorter legs, or some other traits. There is a kind of Arms Race between gene-replicators, and bodies are their survival-machines!

When you consider the Darwinian description, don't forget its panorama!
Random mutation, and nonrandom natural selection; I mean its variation and selection is a mechanism in evolutionary biology. A parallel can be drawn to the basics in economy, namely, its supply and demand! A market place supply a variation of products, and its costumers selecting the products they need, the mechanism can be found close to everywhere, for instance in arts, and music, etc, this market consists of different styles, and predilections and so forth!

 

[Soapy Sam]

"Species" is a human concept, as is "speciation". Nature neither knows nor cares. Speciation has occurred when our definition of a species says it has. Our definition is satisfied when a non- interbreeding stable sub population exists.

Now define "stable".
Now define "Non-interbreeding".

Darwin struggled mightily with the variant / subspecies/species question. We still do.

Given the way genes now appear to leap specific, generic and probably higher taxonomic boundaries, maybe it's time we dropped the term "species" as a useful division and accepted the fact that all life is a continuous spectrum. (Except of course, the uniquely created Homo Fundamentostrichensis- head firmly buried in the sands of time). Some things remain true to type.

 

[rwald]

Creationists will just say that it's "variation within a kind." Of course, they won't specify what a "kind" really is...

 

[hammegk]

Creationists will just say that it's "variation within a kind." Of course, they won't specify what a "kind" really is...

We could chat about the kazillion generations of fruit flies that have been poked & prodded every way imaginable.

Any wasps yet?

Some new thing along those lines would be a start, I'd think.

 

[rwald]

Seriously, you want to debate the veracity of evolution? I'd truly cherish the experience of doing so. Should I create a new thread, or shall we commence our debate here?

 

[hammegk]

Seriously, you want to debate the veracity of evolution? I'd truly cherish the experience of doing so. Should I create a new thread, or shall we commence our debate here?

Perhaps another time. I am on-board with evolution from an idealist's point of view.

I am curious, have we seen any wasps yet?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

We could chat about the kazillion generations of fruit flies that have been poked & prodded every way imaginable.

Any wasps yet?

Some new thing along those lines would be a start, I'd think.

There's a reason why the call it "Natural" Selection.

Also, and I know you know this, but a fruit fly would not evolve into a wasp. It would evolve into a different type of fly and descent with modification might produce an entirely different insect form, let's say it's called a "stanzio," but a fly would not give birth to a wasp.

You only find that sorta stuff happening in the KJV Bible.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Perhaps another time. I am on-board with evolution from an idealist's point of view.

I am curious, have we seen any wasps yet?

Yeah, but not in the dramatic Frankenstein's lab that most creationists want.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[Jon_in_london]

I am curious, have we seen any wasps yet?

Havent seen any since winter set in.

 

[Guest]

Perhaps another time. I am on-board with evolution from an idealist's point of view.

I am curious, have we seen any wasps yet?

Puh-leeze. Enough with the drive-by assertions, man. Post after post devoid of content, yet each one putting in a little jab, followed by one long duck.

If you want to go toe to toe on this issue, my shoes and socks are off. Are you prepared to discuss either the evidence or the theory? Are you prepared to defend yet another drive-by?

Cheers,

 

[Peter Soderqvist]

Regarding the continuous spectrum and descent with modification

TO SOAPY SAM AND UNREPENTANT SINNER

Soapy Sam wrote 02-20-2003 05:03 PM: Given the way genes now appear to leap specific, generic and probably higher taxonomic boundaries, maybe it's time we dropped the term "species" as a useful division and accepted the fact that all life is a continuous spectrum.

Unrepentant Sinner wrote 02-21-2003 10:11 AM: Also, and I know you know this, but a fruit fly would not evolve into a wasp. It would evolve into a different type of fly and descent with modification might produce an entirely different insect form, let's say it's called a "stanzio," but a fly would not give birth to a wasp.

Soderqvist1: The continuous spectrum with descent with modification will not do the job! Because home breeders has the last ten thousand years through artificial selection (directed evolution) turned wolfs into various dogs, but the loop is not broken, because a Pekinese can still interbreed with a wolf by artificial insemination! This is what selection pressure can do on genes and its alleles. We need the discontinuous action of mutation in order to break the loop, and so make new species, as quoted from my home side! But on the other hand, you are right that the borderline between variation in a species, and speciation is fuzzy!

WHAT IS LIFE? ERWIN SCHRODINGER CHAPTER 3
'JUMP-LIKE' MUTATIONS -THE WORKING- GROUND OF NATURAL SELECTION
De Vries called that a mutation. The significant fact is the discontinuity. It reminds a physicist of quantum theory -no intermediate energies occurring between two neighboring energy levels. He would be inclined to call de Vries 's mutation theory, figuratively, the quantum theory of biology. We shall see later that this is much more than figurative. The mutations are actually due to quantum jumps in the gene molecule. But quantum theory was but two years old when de Vries first published his discovery, in 1902. Small wonder that it took another generation to discover the intimate connection! On the other hand, by virtue of their breeding true, mutations are a suitable material on which natural selection may work and produce the species as described by Darwin, by eliminating the unfit and letting the fittest survive. In Darwin's theory, you just have to substitute 'mutations' for his 'slight accidental variations' (just as quantum theory substitutes 'quantum jump' for 'continuous transfer of energy'). In all other respects little change was necessary in Darwin's theory that is, if I am correctly interpreting the view held by the majority of biologists.

Soderqvist1: A gene consists of nucleotides A. T .C and G molecules which are strung together, a mutation is new configuration of these nucleotides, it is a random wrong spelling, some is bad, some is nonsense, some is good, and these good ones are the working ground for natural selection to work on, and produce the species as described by Darwin!