Slashdot Mirror
Evolution in Action
An anonymous reader writes "A new species of plant came into existence about 30 years ago. It is a fertile hybrid which cannot breed with either of its parent species."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
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.
This is the part where I imagine Anthony Browne, the columnist, doing a little dance, and thumbing his nose at those bad ol creationists. News Bulletin to Mr Browne, this can be construed as further proving the validity of an already accepted idea in Evolution theory, but finding a weed, no matter how genetically shiney, in a field does not disprove the existance of God, nor the notion that the universe was created by the afforementioned entity.
"Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
about 30 years ago
I know Slashdot is usually the last one to post news headlines, but this is getting ridiculous.
It is a fertile hybrid which cannot breed with either of its parent species.
This is not all that impressive.
I know a whole bunch of people that are in exactly that same category.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
For example, Yeah, right. There are probably dozens if not thousands more; the only way to prove this statement is to catalog every single living organism in Britain. It may be the first new species known to have been created by unintentional hybridisation. It shows nothing of the sort. There are many flavors of creationism, and some believe that creation is ongoing through divinely ordained natural processes such as hybridisation. Further, Charles Darwin believed that women were mentally inferior to men - how exactly does this new plant species prove or disprove that part of his belief system? No, new species typically are created in a single breeding cycle. Think about it, does the first member of a new species stay in the womb for millenia? The generally accepted doctrine of "Punk Eke" or punctuated equilibrium (for which the late S.J. Gould can claim half of the credit) states that species evolve in rapid bursts due to strong environmental pressures such as geologic upheavals, overpopulation, human destructiveness, population isolation or mass extinction events, etc. etc. etc.. This bit about "creation of new species taking thousands of years" is straight out of Darwin, and it's one of the things that this discovery could be said to disprove.
No, hybrids are often sterile, and many of those that are not often de-hybridise and revert to parent forms in the wild. Nonetheless, fertile hybrids abound.
Most "scientific" articles written for non-scientists sacrifice some precision for accessibility. But this article has more false statements than real information, by a rather large margin.
Well, not really. Depends on who you're talking to. If you're talking to a strict fundamentalist who has no science background, then yes, it does disprove his breed of creationism. It doesn't, however, disprove Dr. Michael Behe's breed of "creationism".
What it does disprove, though, is that speciation is possible, but that's rather obvious to anyone who looks at the genetic/chromosomal make-up of, say, chimps, gorrillas and humans.
If you're truly interested in this debate, then I would recommend a book called "The Science of God" by Gerald L. Schroeder. He's a physicist who is also a creationist, but with a rather different take on the whole thing. He maintains that God did create the world in 7 literal days, but that it also took roughly 13.5 Billion years. Has to do with the theory of relativity of time... He's also Jewish, and has an incredible grasp on the Hebrew underlying the English in Genesis, and brings to light several key verses that could have either been translated better, or simply lost something in translation. Great stuff.
As a creationist who also has a degree in genetics and did research under an evolutionary geneticist, I've seen both sides of the spectrum. both sides extremes have their intellectual/theological bigots who aren't willing to budge simply for spites sake. However, those that are willing to at least listen generally can have very unique viewpoints.
Then you concluded incorrectly. Evolution has been observed in nature and is an established fact. It is as scientific as the laws of physics. The details can still be argued but that's all.
Sure, I'll agree with that, both creationism and evolution are models. The problem is that creationism is a religious belief and evolution is a science. All the outrage in the world cannot change that.
What do you think?
How many people saw this little gem:
t em_crash/system_crash_resources.html)
2 ) this calculation assumes a uniform creation of new species all over the (productive) land area of Earth. One would assume areas with more speciation would experience more growth.
"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 "It" is not explicitly defined in the text, but it appears to refer to a new species occuring: one which cannot breed with it's parent species. (Or to be more precise, a new genetic mutant occuring which, by not being able to breed with its parents, yet being able to breed with like mutants, qualifies as a new species.)
So this is not the first new species (?) to have evolved recently. Apparently, there is some evidence that 4 (or 5?) other species have come into existance recently - and 3 of 5 (or 3 of 6 - sorry the article is vague on this point) have occured in England. One would assume this is because lots of people stare at plants in England, and that the flora species are well known. But imagine the potential for large numbers of species to be evolving all over the world all the time.
A simple calculation could proceede as follows:
* Assume we found all new species in England. 3 per 100 years. The land area of England is 12.7x10^6 hectares.
The total land of Earth (which is productive) is about 3278x10^6 hectares (source:http://www.upstarts.net.au/site/ideas/sys
Now multiply the rate (3/100 years) by the fraction of surface area of the Earth England occupies and we get: 7.7 species per year.
Two notes:
(1) there are *large* numbers of species going extinct per year (estimates range from 10,000 to 100,000 per year! Source: http://www.whole-systems.org/extinctions.html)
(
a war on terrorism? How can we end a war on a method?
Science and religion can coincide perfectly with one another.
Sure, as long as you don't try to provide religious answers to scientific questions. Something like, "what was the mechanism for biological adaptation?"--well, god is not a scientific answer, no matter how you slice it. And that's what most creationists, as they call themselves and are generally known to the world, would have you believe. So sure, have your religion, but like I said, keep your peanut butter out of my chocolate. Or was it chocolate out of my peanut butter? Don't remember...you get the picture.
So you are saying that creationism means different things depending on the context? Is this the same for evolution?
Creationism: yes, evolution: no (although the word evolution itself means different things itself in different contexts, and possibly even scientific contexts). We're talking the difference between pseudo-science and science here, remember. People who engage in pseudo-science, or religion, can change terms at will as suits their objectives...like you've been doing with this thread. Scientists are required to maintain a common language so they can actually communicate and forward the progress of learning. Big difference there.
Got the philosophy part down.
Sorry, I didn't express myself very well there. When I said tackle philosophy, I meant something like: "solve" philosophy. Can't do it? Didn't think so. There's the beginnings of the problems of introducing god(s) into science; people can't agree upon basic terms well enough to even solve the problems of whether or not god(s) exist. And because science is essentially pragmatic, we can't really introduce god(s) into it if 1) we can't prove the existence of said entity(ies), 2) (and perhaps more importantly) we can't even agree what god(s) is(are). Follow me? I would think you'd be able to, with all your high-falutin philosophical knowledge!
This also goes back to answer your question about why science and god are a bad mix, if you didn't figure that out already.
Otherwise, check a handy dictionary for the words 'sarcasm' and 'symbolism'.
Hmm...yes...sarcasm...
Those who believe in evolution and in creation are obviously both trying to come up with guesses based on what they have observed in the world! The only difference is that their experiments are not simple but based on an entire lifetime of observations. I do not see evolutionists changing their mind every time a discovery is made that seems to go against evolution. Why? The same reason a Creationist doesn't -- An entire lifetime of observations.
Historically, science has not limited itself to the idea that there is no possibilty of God, outside forces, etc. Newton was sure of his theories only up to the point that God or outside forces could be working. It was not until the last hundred years that the scientific community has assumed the nonexistance of God in scientific theories. (This doesn't mean that they took a stance saying there is no god, but that the assumption that no gods can be interfering with the "laws" of the universe is required or else nothing can be determined to be always true.) While this idea makes some sense, it also means that what you are calling SCIENCE CANNOT BE USED TO DISPROVE GOD OR ANY OF HIS ACTIONS! Any scientific theory that is not assumed to be accompanied with the phrase "Unless there is an unseen god or "force" extrenal to the universe" is BY ITS VERY NATURE CIRCULAR REASONING. This means evolution is a valid theory as long as the hand of God (or some other intelligent "being") played no part in species development. Even if a new species is observed today, does that prove that a god did not have an unseed hand in creating the mutation?
The idea that God created all species in a progression is a perfect answer to what is observed in nature, but is not considered a scietific explanation based only on the modern definition of science.