evolution on breeding

[BjornBee]

definition of evolution:
1)the gradual change that takes place as something develops into a different or more complicated form
2)the scientific theory that all plants and animal have developed from earlier forms by changes that took place over many years and were passed on from one generation to the next.

MB, has commented on another thread about "evolutionists". And made this comment:

>>>>"Some on this board will argue that evolution has something to do with breeding. I don't wish to spend my time on this discussion as evolution is irrelevant to breeding.>>>>

I do not understand why evolution does not have something to do with breeding. Why are the two not related?

I thought the ideas of bees changing to different environmental conditions or regions such as with comb size has been discussed and from what understood, documented. Wasn't Lusby or someone mapping such differences?

I also thought bees adapted or changed based or localized forage condition when it came to tongue length. Certainly not all bess have the same tongue length.

And didn't Dee Lusby also suggest that part of her success was the bees she used unique to her high desert environment?

What about the speed that Russians in terms of evolution, adjusted to mites in Russia, and seemingly developed smaller clusters for survival in cold climate?

Whether bees change, or just "highlight" characteristics they already have genetically, could you not expect changed from bees over time based on localized conditions, and thus take advantage of those bees with traits that best adapt them to survival?

We have over 2500 kinds of solitary bees in the states. Some are so specialized, that they are only found within small areas such as 5 or 10 square miles. No doubt localized forage and other environmental factors made them specialists in many ways. From how they build nests, to what forage they eat, etc.

Of course I am not talking about some breeder within a year saying his bees are evolving in leaps and bounds, when many years may or could be required to see changes. But are people still selecting "evolutionary" traits on a small scale when feral are used, when bees are left in place year after year, and other factors are figured in.

I'm confused about why evolution is not part of breeding, and why such factors as local, or regionalism development of bees is not considered real or plausible. If your selecting the best of the best, and some bees may do better on many criteria perhaps suited on localized conditions, are you not breeding from, or benefiting from small incremental evolution changes?

I broke this separate from the other thread so maybe a conversation can be found exploring this more. I don't have links to comb size differences around the country, tongue length, or even some claims of feral in some parts of the country exhibiting unique traits perhaps not found elsewhere. I'm just shooting from the hip, asking questions.

I am not starting this thread to argue. I started this to ask questions as this is foggy in my mind. I have not taken bees out of my yards for 7 years. I would like to hope that bees that favor or specialize in local floral sources, perhaps accentuate cluster survival, and other features, are being enhanced over time to allow bees to handle my climate and features they need to adapt for survival.

I don't think I'm an evolutionist. Not really sure what that means, or why the need to separate an "evolutionist" from a "breeder". Russians to me are a perfect example of bees that changed over time based on environment as they adapted in Russia. (and from what I understand in evolution terms, in a very short period of time) And I don't know why evolution, and how bees adapt and change, are not related or associated with breeders selecting bees based on these changes.

I can see how people say a bee is a bee and the same as a million years ago. That we have just selected traits already built into the bees. That we really don't change them, we just select what we want. But the fact is that bees have changed over time and if you look at world map of bee types, they certainly are changing or evolving as they moved from one area or another. Or is it because some feel that any changes that could be expected from breeding, would not happen in our lifetime?

***Please don't get bogged down on one small detail of my examples or post. I'm hoping for information from the big picture. If you know what I mean. ;)

Someone help me out here. Thank you.

[MichaelW]

Of course bees changed over time Bjorn. No need for the confusion.

Unless the wolf packs occasionally put out a Chihuahua, breeding lead to changes and traits not previously present in the wolf.

I'll follow the precedent in another thread on making blank slate statements about "evolutionists", "real breeders", and "geneticis"; and make a blanket statement about "anti-evolutionsists". They see evolution as man coming from a monkey, not your definition #1 nor definition #2. Science generally understands evolution as your definition #1 and #2.

http://www.purseblog.com/images/chinese-crested-elwood.jpg

We need a smilies code that looks like that.

[adamf]

Evolution is usually framed within the theory of Natural Selection.

Human selection pressure on populations (breeding) does not fit in Natural Selection.
Mechanisms might be similar, but Evolution is RANDOM. That's the key principle. Breeding is considered to be Artificial Selection.

Some insects have experienced synanthropy, however. Synanthropy: ecologically associated with humans
Cockroaches and honey bees are synanthropic!

Adam Finkelstein
adamf7@gmail.com

[BjornBee]

Adam,
I'm having a hard time understanding "random". If nature selects, based on such things as environmental conditions, and evolution is the advancement of traits that become dominate or more prevalent, while at the same time involves the loss of traits of unneeded traits and features, then how is this random. As a species, they "migrate" towards one end of a spectrum or another, based on stimuli, and in fact evolve in perhaps "straight lines". This could be hardly considered "random".

Within a breeding cycle, you may have a random variance of output, but over time, the selection is still slanted toward traits that give the best chance of survival. All frogs of a particular breed are green. All giraffe have long necks. I see nothing random in this selection process. Evolution is the increase in one trait, and the loss of other traits, based on selection processes.

I agree that mechanisms are similar between natural selection and artificial selection. But its reasons all the more question in my mind as to why was it stated that evolution is not relevant to breeding. Whether we call it "artificial" or not, its still evolution of a particular species is it not? Why is artificial selection not considered "evolution" when we are in fact changing the species by the very selection process we create? Are we not creating evolution (see the definition above in first post) through our breeding practices?

I understand the definitions of the terms. Its the point that one is not associated with the other that I am missing. Whether natural or artificial, I see evolution happening just the same. I can't see suggesting that breeding is not part of evolution due to the use separation of "natural" or "artificial". Its still evolution to me in that bees are changing over time.

Am I looking at this right?

[Beaches' Bee-Haven Apiary]

Honey Bees are highly adaptable animals. They have the ability to alter their behavior and adapt to many different situations and stimulies. But this doesn't mean they evolve. The poential is there, breeding just brings out the already present genetics of various bees.

-Nathanael:cool:

[mike haney]

"I'm having a hard time understanding "random". If nature selects, based on such things as environmental conditions, and evolution is the advancement of traits that become dominate or more prevalent, while at the same time involves the loss of traits of unneeded traits and features, then how is this random" my undersanding is the changes/mutations are whats random(one horn,two horns,three horns) and nature selects the ones that best enhance survieability.

[panubee]

Mike,

I do not intend to be argumentative. Please take my comments as friendly in nature.

[QUOTE=BjornBee;290564]definition of evolution:
"I do not understand why evolution does not have something to do with breeding. Why are the two not related?"



I am not trying to speak for Michael Bush. So the following is my splitting the hairs to try to define what I mean when I say evolution or breeding.

Evolution for me refers to a lower organism transforming into a higher organism, e.g. the dinosaur becoming a bird.

Breeding is the selection among genes within a species, with the progeny remaining part of the same species, e.g. the selection of color. My favorite example is the cross of a golden retriever with a weimareiner comes out black (our current dog). The breeder told me any cross with goldens come out black.

The one area of gray area may be the mutation of a single gene, such as the sickle cell anemia gene.



"I thought the ideas of bees changing to different environmental conditions or regions such as with comb size has been discussed and from what understood, documented. Wasn't Lusby or someone mapping such differences?"


I personnally don't believe that the adoptation to environmental conditions is a evolutionary issue but a breeding issue, i.e. the natural selection of a set of genes that thrive in a giiven environment.



" . . And didn't Dee Lusby also suggest that part of her success was the bees she used unique to her high desert environment?

"What about the speed that Russians in terms of evolution, adjusted to mites in Russia, and seemingly developed smaller clusters for survival in cold climate?"

"Whether bees change, or just "highlight" characteristics they already have genetically, could you not expect changed from bees over time based on localized conditions, and thus take advantage of those bees with traits that best adapt them to survival?"



Again, I would attribute these qualities to breeding, selecting out a set of genes that did not perform, not mutation of genes.



"We have over 2500 kinds of solitary bees in the states. Some are so specialized, that they are only found within small areas such as 5 or 10 square miles. No doubt localized forage and other environmental factors made them specialists in many ways. From how they build nests, to what forage they eat, etc."



This I would attribute to different sets of genes, or genetic mutation, not breeding.



"I'm confused about why evolution is not part of breeding, and why such factors as local, or regionalism development of bees is not considered real or plausible. If your selecting the best of the best, and some bees may do better on many criteria perhaps suited on localized conditions, are you not breeding from, or benefiting from small incremental evolution changes?"


It seems the differences I have with you is the we use the same terms to mean different things. I don't see the diffences between the races of bees as evolutionary. Instead, I look at it as a natural selection withing a species set of genes that thrive in a given environment.

I believe there are true genetic modifications that occur. The sickle cell anemia gene is an example. I would assume these modifications are relatively rare. Whether or not a species can transform itself into another species, is something on which I take an ignostic position.

Mike

[Kieck]

First off, Bjorn, nice thread!

"Evolution" is not necessarily random (it can be, but we'll get to that in a moment). The current theory, like mike haney suggests, is that mutations are random, but evolution is typically far from a random process. Selection drives evolution, and selection is not "random." If selection were random, no variations would be any more or any less likely to succumb to the selection than any other variations, and "selection" by definition would fail.

Evolution, however, can occur randomly in the absence of selection. One example that is commonly given is the "island effect." A few organisms colonize an "island" (really any isolated habitat, not necessarily isolated geographically). These colonists, because of their limited number, will not represent all of the variations present in the current species. Now, through chance (no selective pressure), some of those individuals die before they find mates. Those variations are gone from the tiny population. A mutation or two arises in any offspring, and, because of the limited population size, spreads through the population. Before long, the form of the organisms occupying the "island" is different enough from their ancestral form that they can be easily recognized as distinct. Given enough time, they become so distinct as to constitute a separate species.

This, in practice, is what divided honey bees into races. Given enough time and enough isolation, those races would either continue to differentiate into separate species or become extinct.

If you read Darwin's "On the Theory of Natural Selection," he begins with the principles of artificial selection in animal husbandry (such as pigeon fanciers creating novel breeds) as the foundation for "natural selection." The only difference, effectively, is that one is done at the hands of humans while the other may or may not involve humans. The end result is the same.

And evolution tends to work in little increments over great periods of time (it can progress very rapidly, but seems not to in most cases). So, rather than thinking of a pack of wolves producing a chihuahua, think of a wolf pack producing individuals that tend to be somewhat smaller than the average wolf. If those smaller individuals are more likely to survive and reproduce, and their offspring are similarly smaller, evolution can begin. If the selective pressure favors smaller size (not a specific size, but with a modern-sized wolf having less of a fitness advantage than a wolf of coyote proportions, and that wolf of coyote proportions having a lower evolutionary fitness than a wolf of fox proportions), smaller and smaller individuals will predominate for that type of organism.

Evolutionary principles, whether they profess to use them or not, are absolutely used by every breeder.

[BjornBee]

Honey Bees are highly adaptable animals. They have the ability to alter their behavior and adapt to many different situations and stimulies. But this doesn't mean they evolve. The poential is there, breeding just brings out the already present genetics of various bees.

-Nathanael:cool:

"Doesn't mean they evolve" Why not? What is evolution confined too? To say bees don't "evolve", on what level is that statement made? Are we saying that evolution is only centered on dna changes? or something else?

Are we not selecting more than just "traits" when we know that such items as SMR, and other behavior factors can be isolated to specific genes or dna material. Would not the selection of bees with certain dna fit the profile of evolution, in that bees dna is being changed over time? We now know that some behavior such as smr is related to specific dna. We are in fact not just breeding for a trait, but we are selecting for bees that express very particular dna, and thus changing the dna makeup passed from one generation to the next. Why is this not considered evolution of the species, even if considered "artificial"?

If we had a bee sample from 200 years ago, would the bees of today be the same identical dna as those of years past? Or has breeding changed the dna sequence? I don't know. But I would suppose that if we are applying pressure of selection, breeding for such factors as smr, would that be seen as permanent changes in the bees dna makeup? Or would bees completely resort back to exact copies of what bee were 200 years ago? If yes, they would, I would agree that we bred for just highlighted existing traits. But if no, then I would have to think that we have altered the bees dna, and thus have influenced evolution, making breeding and evolution very much interconnected. But could that really be answered? I don't know.

I'm not an expert on DNA, so maybe my use of the term would be better explained by using proteins, or some other scientific term I am ignorant of.

[Kieck]

Evolution for me refers to a lower organism transforming into a higher organism, e.g. the dinosaur becoming a bird. -panubee

That may be your connotation, but that's not what "evolution" means. Evolution is change over time. Speciation is the differentiation of organisms into distinct forms or "species." And what you're inferring is at even a higher level than speciation.


I personnally don't believe that the adoptation to environmental conditions is a evolutionary issue but a breeding issue, i.e. the natural selection of a set of genes that thrive in a giiven environment. -panubee

And that selection, by definition (assuming the bees that survive are different is some aspect than the bees that died) is "evolution."


Again, I would attribute these qualities to breeding, selecting out a set of genes that did not perform, not mutation of genes. -panubee

"Selecting for" or "selecting against" is a matter of perspective, I believe. I've heard some evolutionary biologists argue that natural selection only "selects against less fit traits." I've heard others make statements about conditions "favoring organisms with a specific suite of traits." When you choose a color for the car you drive, do you buy the color you like, or not buy all the colors you dislike?

Mutations are the source of all variation. Without mutation, variation would cease to exist. Doesn't matter which view you hold: "all life evolved from one or a few sources," or "some deity created life." If all organisms came from one source, how could they differ from one another? Mutation. If some deity created two of each species, how could any other variations arise within that species? Mutation.

Mutation in and of itself is not "evolution." Mutation creates variation, which creates differences that can lead to differential fitness, which can lead to evolution.

[Beaches' Bee-Haven Apiary]

I don't want to make this into a religious debate (so just ignore this paragraph:)), but here's my point of view. "In the beginning God created..." I believe that the first honey bee was a species with perfect genetics. I think the gene pool has actually devolved from there, and now breeders are trying to incorporate various genes to isolate the traits they want.

Bjorn,
When I think of evolution, and what the dictionary in essence states, is the progress of something simple, or inferior, to something more complex, or better. Like the American flag, or the airplane. Referring back to my belief that todays bees are descended from a genetically perfect race, I see the devolved genes of bees being remixed to try and isolate the desired traits. In other words there existed one pool of all the bee's genes. Now that pool has been divided among several different breeds. So now breeders have to take the various breeds and try to weed out the undesirable traits and isolate the desirables. The genetics are simply being shuffled around, not necessarily evolving.

-Nathanael:cool:

[MichaelW]

I don't want to make this into a religious debate...

Why do people keep posting what they say they don't want or are not doing? :confused:

[BjornBee]

Beaches,
Although I don't agree with your comments, I do want to say thank you. I am trying to understand certain ideas about breeding, evolution, and other issues, and thought that my main concern was just distinguishing between fact (Text book definitions and science) and those of opinion or misguided thoughts. It never occurred to me that some of the comments were based on religious beliefs. And my quest for a definition or clear thoughts on the matter could not get to an end process in my mind, if I didn't realize that some comments are not just differences or interpretation of definitions or theories, but may actually consist of much more than that.

Michael W. I hear ya! I'm not going to pull my hair out over it. Oh wait! Does that mean I really will, or.....ok, I'm confused. ;)

[Michael Bush]

It all comes down to "selection". You can only select OUT genes. You can't select them IN. They exist and you breed out the other possibilities for that gene and keep only the possibility of the one you want. That's selection. Natural selection is similar. The genes that were not well adapted to survive under the current circumstances die out. You now have LESS diversity because you only have the possibility of the version of that gene that survived and not the possibility of the version that didn't.

You can't breed IN a trait that is not already in the genes you have. Evolution is a theory about GAINING traits over millions or billions of years by some "miraculous" useful mutation. If you're waiting for a useful mutation, you're not a breeder, you are a gambler betting on the longest odds ever.

[drobbins]

Bjorn,

I'm not knowledgeable on this topic, but I have a good idea
go google "mendel's peas"
read the stuff you find there
it's the same principal and it's REALLY well documented and explained
Mendel didn't create any new traits in the peas, he simply figured out how to control them
that's what we want to do with bees
control the traits that are already there
I'm putting it on my reading list:)

Dave

[BjornBee]

You can't breed IN a trait that is not already in the genes you have. Evolution is a theory about GAINING traits over millions or billions of years by some "miraculous" useful mutation. If you're waiting for a useful mutation, you're not a breeder, you are a gambler betting on the longest odds ever.


In all my searches of definitions of evolution, and the information I have read....nowhere did I read anything such as this. All definitions I have read never even mentioned years, let alone millions of years to complete. Is there any references to this?

And I never read that it had to do with breeding "in" but not "out". I read it had to do with the increase of one trait, and the elimination of another. But it seemed to suggest both were involved with evolution. And that lost traits may be seen again with variations and mutations, but it was the traits passed on from generation to generation that defined "evolution".


My definition of evolution was stated in posts #1 based on dictionaries. Based on that, if the floral sources change over a number of years, and lets assume a lot less than a million or billion, lets say over twenty years (lets all laugh and say gore is correct that the world climate will change drastically in the next twenty years). And lets say that the bees with longer tongues adapted and survived due to a change in floral varieties, while the offspring of the same parents with shorter tongues all died out over this period. So at the end of the period, all bees had longer tongues due to this selection being a trait needed to survive. And this trait was then the standard and the dominate one passed from generation to generation. Why would this not be considered "evolution"?

This may be one example of many that could be discussed. But tongue length and the adaptation of bees to survive on floribunda of a particular area is plausible. I don't understand that unless a bee grows an extra set of legs, that anything less would not be "evolution" as defined in the definition stated earlier.

[BjornBee]

Bjorn,

I'm not knowledgeable on this topic, but I have a good idea
go google "mendel's peas"
read the stuff you find there
it's the same principal and it's REALLY well documented and explained
Mendel didn't create any new traits in the peas, he simply figured out how to control them
that's what we want to do with bees
control the traits that are already there
I'm putting it on my reading list:)

Dave

I still don't get the idea that traits whether already there or not, expressed or suppressed, is not evolution if those traits are then passed on as standard from generation to generation, whether it took a million years, or selected by man over a much shorter period of time. A permanent change is a permanent change, and if its passed on as a change that is now the dominate feature, then why is it not evolution? It fits the definition pure and simple, without adding too, suggesting bias, or interjecting personal belief.

I think the whole definition of evolution is convoluted to some drastic form.

[drobbins]

I think for the purposes of this discussion, evolution is a non-issue
it doesn't happen on our timescale
breeding is talking about manipulating existing traits
the issue is how to do it
it's a difficult problem given that almost all queens are open mated so you have very limited control of the drone side of the equation
discussing evolution is just a distraction
I have much more to learn on the subject

Dave

[BjornBee]

I think for the purposes of this discussion, evolution is a non-issue
it doesn't happen on our timescale
breeding is talking about manipulating existing traits
the issue is how to do it
it's a difficult problem given that almost all queens are open mated so you have very limited control of the drone side of the equation
discussing evolution is just a distraction
I have much more to learn on the subject

Dave

I agree. I have never really explored evolution and the finer discussion points. I ask these questions due to my own ignorance on the matter.

Dave, I will nitpick one last point. I do not agree that you have very limited control on the drone side. Many beekeepers have great control over drones by applying standard recommendations from any good bee breeding book in regards to drone saturation, drone yards, and control of stock. If breeders were doing what they were suppose to be doing, this would not be an issue. Yes, many do not do what they should. But that does not equate the fact that if queens are open mated, that little control can be achieved. Open mating is as good as what the breeder dictates. Never guaranteed or 100% for most, but limited controls due to other factors, not due to open mating.

[drobbins]

Bjorn,

we're on the same page
interesting point about drone control
I'm just a rookie with a couple of hives in my backyard
but I want to try to breed bees that work here
I wonder how to do it
I compare my situation to letting my female golden retriever run down the road and mate with whatever
I ain't gonna get golden puppies:rolleyes:
how do I solve this problem?
I can pen up the dog with a stud but I'm not going to do II on my bees (how do they pick those drones anyway?)
I do have a couple of friends within a couple of miles where I could put some hives to try to flood the area with "my" drones
I have 3 different strains of " desirable" bees, so I think I have good genetics
I'm looking for advice on how to proceed
but it has nothing to do with evolution:)

Dave

[drobbins]

dagnabit Bjorn,
you're making my brain spin on Friday night:rolleyes:
how bout this
you flood your area with your "preferred" drones
isn't this like I take my female golden and put her in a field full of "nice" golden males?
is this "selective" breeding?
I think not
I'll get goldens, but not "selected" ones
ok, let's look at II
this is like penning up my dog with a stud
where do they get the drones? the stud (I don't know)
can they look at those drones and determine what traits they express?
desirable traits?
you can with a dog
this just raises a lot of questions

Dave

[BjornBee]

Dave, I think its a numbers game. Simply put, the more drone colonies you have surrounding your breeding yard, the better chance that your queens will mate with drones that you have selected.

Some have remote yards, geographic features, and other aspects that help in this. But I think most breeders must factor in quality control issues based on ferals and other beekeepers in the area. And I NEVER assume that ferals are adding to my stock with some superior stock. Some ferals are good, and some are bad. But that means little to me as I want to control my stock, not leave it up to chance.

I'll use one of my breeding yards as example. It is on the edge of a state park that I used as a research area in a feral bee study that I completed three summers back. So I know the level of ferals in the area. Not a lot. Then I built two breeding yards one mile apart, with two separate lines. Then surrounding this, I have four additional yards, where full hives are maintained for drone saturation (about 40 hives). I also know two additional beekeepers who maintain bee yards on the outside 2 mile limit of the breeding yards, but they use russian stock from Jeff Davis who breeds russians from charlie Harper stock. In all, it took me over two years to find the yards and set up this breeding site.

Starting a breeding site, and then adding drone yards at intervals around your yard would be the goal. Certainly this is not achievable with a few hives. But as the numbers go up, the chances for better control also go up. Then its a matter of separating your lines to allow the queens to mate with a second maintained line.

If a bunch of clustered yards is not achievable, then I would suggest maintaining as good number of hives in one spot. Then grafting a breeder queen that is not related to the queens in that particular yard. I question how far out some queens fly, and you may see good results from this setup. Its not the classical setup as called for in the books, but it would work if thats what you are limited too.

With just a couple hives, you may just want to get a quality queen from a breeder you know every year and just graft from this new queen. You would then know that at least its a new line, mated to your existing stock, or ferals in the area.

Get a good breeding book. Much of this is covered.

[drobbins]

Bjorn,

understand that I'm not being critical of current breeding practices
I'm just noting their limitations
it's an incredibly difficult problem and the current protocols you mention are a best effort to deal with the situation
I think we need us one of those secluded islands in the south pacific for a breeding location
where do we sign up for the grant:)

Dave

[BjornBee]

Dave, Dave, Dave..... You sound like one of those Utopian society seekers, that hang out on tailgater dreaming of the perfect society without any problems. ;) Just kidding.

Its not a difficult problem. Just one that requires a little extra effort, and an understanding of whats needed. But that island sounds nice. Now only if Sheri was offering a job on that island.... ;)

[sierrabees]

There is an earlier comment that a breeder would have to wait a long time for mutation to produce an effect. I don't know how this stands today, but back in the dark ages when I was in school it was said that one in ten organisms produced carries some mutation due to a phenomena called recombination of genetic material. Theoreticly most of these mutations have no effect unless they specificly change the organism's interaction with it's environment. Some few are lethal no matter what the environment is and therefore dissapear from the environment quickly. An even smaller percetage are benificial regardless of the environment and become fixed in the population permenantly. What a breeder works with is that first class of mutation which is the most common type and presents a reasonably good possability of finding individuals that thrive in the environment we create for them. This differs from natural selection only in the fact that we manipulate the environment and therefore excercise some control over the result.

If the one in ten figure given above is reasonably accurate, and if a colony reproduces by swarming, supercedure, or being split by the beekeeper three to five times a year, then a breeder can expect to see a colony with some form of mutation in every two to five colonies. From there on it is just a numbers game. If you have ten or less colonies it could take many years to accumulate enough desirable traits to have a distinct differant strain of bees. If you run ten thousand colonies, are very observant and keep good records, you could breed a distinct strain in two or three years.

In essence, the only differance between natural selection and controled breeding is that one process selects for fitness to a natural environment and the other selects for fitness in a controled environment. The first process is crucial for the long term survival of the honey bee, and the second is crucial for survival of the beekeeper. Because the reproductive rate of bee colonies is relatively low (tens of thousands of worker bees don't even enter into the picture as far as evolution is concerned, only the queens and drones count) it would take thousands of years for a new species to evolve unless some extrordinary environmental preasure occured. New strains of the same species could evolve quite rapidly however, and their survival would be limited to the duration of whatever environmental change brought about the changes in the individual breeding stock.

Keep in mind, evolution does not produce a better, or higher animal. It only produces creatures that are better adapted to the environment they live in today. The higher up the evolutionary scale an animal is, the more fragil it's perch on the pyramid and the more specialized the animal the more likely it is to dissapear when the environment changes.

[adamf]

Great posts and great thinking from everyone!
I wish I had time to follow-up each person's reply. I'll try to summarize.

Bjorn's original question was: is breeding a form of Evolution? (If I'm not
correct Bjorn, let me know). A good question--one that draws input from
biology and philosophy of biology.

Within the context of Natural Selection, the theory C. Darwin arrived at
after thinking and observing, one must acknowledge that there is no design
or progress involved in speciation. There is no purpose. This is what I
meant by "random". Selection on populations in nature are not based on any
criteria, they just occur-- there's the environment, the organisms
in the population, and their interaction. Breeding, however, is based
on an ideal. There is progress, and design. The breeder, or selector if
you will, influences the outcome of the population. Thus, when Darwin
observed agricultural breeding in England, he compared the process,
in his thinking, to what he had seen in his travels--that there were
differences in the natural populations he saw, reminded him of
agricultural breeding.

Mendelism and a robust theory of heredity, the mechanism underlying the
populations dynamics observed, did not exist for Darwin
when he proposed Natural Selection.

Bjorn, and anyone else, one way to picture this is to imagine a long
see-saw with different honey bee types all across it. Remove your input,
so no breeding for anything a beekeeper finds desirable. Add a huge
amount of time and watch: as the conditions in the environment change,
different bees will either do well, do poorly, or just make it. As time
elapses, the see-saw will tip in the direction of the bees that have the
best traits for the current environment. They'll be thriving while the
bees with the less than suitable traits will die out. This example shows
that there is no "plan" for the outcome. There's no implied design other
than some bees will be more suitable to their environment than others. Hey,
all the bees might go extinct. That happens too. Oversimplified? Yes. But
that's the random in Natural Selection. No purpose. No progress. No point.

A breeder is certainly selecting with some ideal. As soon as the breeder
culls and chooses genotypes and phenotypes (genetic potential and how
the bees perform in real-time) the population is influenced. Those bees
are now not under Natural Selection. They have been manipulated with an
intent--a purpose. This is not random.
That's the basic difference between breeding and evolution.

Fascinatingly enough, honey bees have been involved with man so intensely
recently (in biological time) that one may even say that Natural Selection
has been suspended from the species. What's similar in nature? Dogs are a
good species example. Thus, if one finds true feral bees, one is seeing
how those of the species are moving away from the selection pressure of
Man. And since bees were introduced to the habitat in the USA, it will
take a long long time before one could determine what honey bees would
become without any influence from Man (artificial selection, breeding).

I hope this makes the concept of "random" clearer.

Adam Finkelstein
adamf7@gmail.com

[BjornBee]

Adam
But why are you defining "evolution" as within the confines of "natural selection"? I see evolution as the changing of a species from one generation to the next. Natural selection is but one mechanism for this change. But certainly species have changed over time without the classic "natural selection" being involved, whether through domestication, bringing about genetics from outside sources that nature had little to do with, or other processes.

I think Darwin used "natural selection" when he came out with the concept or idea of evolution. Natural selection was the mechanism for the change. It was his explanation at the time, for what he observed. But certainly species have changed outside the realm of natural selection for reasons other than pure "natural selection".

I understand natural selection. But I don't see it as a defining item in the term evolution as defined. I see evolution, that being "a change in any species from one generation to the next", from different stimuli and influences, not just natural selection. But we still need to recognize that the species evolved from one thing to another. In other-words, they "evolved", thus "evolution".

How's that sound?

[adamf]

Adam
But why are you defining "evolution" as within the confines of "natural selection"? I see evolution as the changing of a species from one generation to the next.


Bjorn,
Species do not change from one generation to the next. Actual speciation is quite elusive and is hard to pin down...many biologists look for speciation. Ifyou are refeing to a change in genotype/phenotype, sure. Evolution in the biological conotation, is a process that takes some biological time.



Natural selection is but one mechanism for this change. But certainly species have changed over time without the classic "natural selection" being involved, whether through domestication, bringing about genetics from outside sources that nature had little to do with, or other processes.

Yes, but what you are describing above is not considerd to be evolution in a biological conotation. Semantically, you are correct though.



I understand natural selection. But I don't see it as a defining item in the term evolution as defined. I see evolution, that being "a change in any species from one generation to the next", from different stimuli and influences, not just natural selection. But we still need to recognize that the species evolved from one thing to another. In other-words, they "evolved", thus "evolution".
How's that sound?

That's fine with me :) However, whenever one uses the word "Evolution" in a biological context, when dealing with species adapting in environments, the "Evolution" connotation deals with natural selection.

The "Evolution" denotation you are using, although denotativley accurate, is usually described as articfial selection or breeding. You are correct though.

Fun stuff!


Adam Finkelstein
adamf7@gmail.com

[NeilV]

I think this thread may involve a fundamental confusion over definition of the term evolution.

In reality, the theory of evolution refers to ideas about how new species come into being. That is why Darwins book was titiled On the Origin of Species. If we stick to that definition, then breeding does not have anything to do with evolution. Bee breeders don't want to create a new species. They want to improve a few individuals of a species to suit the breeders needs.

If you are using the term evolution to merely point to natural selection, then: (1) you are really not using the term evolution correctly; but (2) you would be correct to say that evolution (i.e., natural selection) has something to do with breeding. Breeding is really just natural selection with the breeder deciding what traits make the offspring the most fit. In other words, the offspring that don't meet the breeder's definition of fit don't live to pass on their genes (or at least not as much).

As to the general theory of evolution, I think that, to the extent that Darwin thought of evolution as a slow, steady process, that idea has largely been debunked. The fossil record actually shows that a whole bunch of new species and types of species tend to suddenly disappear and appear over relatively short periods of time.

ndvan

[Yuleluder]

Can I throw another wrench into the tool box? Why do we(humans) not consider ourselves part of nature? Let's say a few million years go by and our species becomes extinct, yet there is another species with an intellect above or equal to ours. Would they not consider homo sapiens as part of nature, having influenced the enviroment during "our' time on earth. Wouldn't homo sapiens then have played a part in the "natural selection" of species during our time period? I know a little off topic from Bjornbee's original post.

[NeilV]

Yuletider,

Humans are part of the environment, and we have had the most impact on the natural world of any other species ever. Consider all the changes that people have made on the environement, and, maybe of more importance, all the species that people have moved around to new places. If you look into your yard, how many species are not native. The honeybees (and their parasites) are just the start. Even the grass in your yard is probably an import.

ndvan

[deknow]

...i thought of this thread when i saw some news about research that claims all blue eyed people are descended from 1 individual with the original mutation (and that individual would have had one mutated recessive gene, so their eyes would have been brown...10,000 years ago)...and there are 300 million blue eyed people in the world.

deknow

[HVH]

I have been working as a scientist for about 30 years and have come to the conclusion that there may be some predictive value in the theory of evolution but much of it is more about faith than science. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the general theory is wrong, but I do find it lacking in the arena of empirical evidence. I think Darwin would be stunned by the lack of evidence from the fossil record. On the other hand, he would probably be pleased with the DNA sequence homology found between man and chimp.
So the amount of homology between man and chimp is supportive of the theory, but what about the whole phylogenetic tree we have all seen hanging on a wall in someone’s office. When Dayhoff aligned cytochrome sequences between mammals, birds, fish, insects, worms, plants, yeast and bacteria, he assayed for percent sequence difference and plotted the data in a matrix. A glance at the matrix is all that is needed to realize that all the lines on the phylogenetic tree are not supported by this experiment. In other words, the sequence difference between say bacteria (Rhodospirillium rubrum) and wheat was about 66% and the difference between the same bacteria and kangaroo was also 66%. In fact, the difference with the bacteria and all other members in the animal kingdom tested was between 64 and 72%. The whole matrix reads this way. Animals definitely fall into groups of homology but the groups are all roughly the same distance from one another. This is consistent with microevolution but not macroevolution.
The theory of evolution is not nearly as well supported as some would have you believe. If the theory was really that sound, advocates of evolution like Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge would not have developed a theory (Punctuated Equilibrium, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium) that tries to explain the utter lack of evidence in the fossil record. This does not mean that Darwin was wrong, but rather that we should still consider the theory tentative. If you read the Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins, which is considered one of the best pro-evolution books of our day, you will notice that he sites many examples of how evolution could have occurred. Until someone can show me strong evidence that evolution "did" occur and that we came from a common ancestor, I will put it in the "faith" category along with man made global warming.
Mendel’s discoveries are much more useful to the breeder than evolutionary theory. In fact, I would challenge anyone in this thread to come up with a way of utilizing the theory of evolution to their advantage. First, though, lets all agree that changes within a species do occur, some good, some bad and that anyone with half a brain will choose the good changes. With that said, how can Darwin be of assistance?

[deknow]

First, though, lets all agree that changes within a species do occur, some good, some bad and that anyone with half a brain will choose the good changes. With that said, how can Darwin be of assistance?

first, you must define good and bad....and you must distinguish between the individual and the gene pool.

don't do this carelessly...there is very little that i can think of that is inherently "bad".

deknow

[HVH]

first, you must define good and bad....and you must distinguish between the individual and the gene pool.

don't do this carelessly...there is very little that i can think of that is inherently "bad".

deknow

In evolutionary terms "good" would be considered "fit". This is an intellectually vapid concept, though, because it is a tautology. So we say that those that survived are fit. But when asked which were fit, we say those that survived. This is circular reasoning. If we ask a breeder what constitutes "good" traits, we will get the usual list which has much more meaning to those of us with bees. Since fitness can mean anything it really ends up meaning nothing. This is just one example where evolutionary biology offers no tools, or predictive value with any applications.

[Kieck]

Until someone can show me strong evidence that evolution "did" occur and that we came from a common ancestor, I will put it in the "faith" category along with man made global warming. -HVH

Numerous tests have been run using simple organisms, allowing or forcing them to mutate, preserving samples along the way, then attempting to reconstruct the phylogeny from just the last set of isolates. The phylogenies are remarkably accurate in reconstructing the actual sequence of divergences or changes.

I can try to get you some citations of some of these studies if you're interested. Otherwise, they shouldn't be difficult to find. They suggest quite well that proposed phylogenies ("who share which common ancestors") are highly accurate.

[HVH]

Numerous tests have been run using simple organisms, allowing or forcing them to mutate, preserving samples along the way, then attempting to reconstruct the phylogeny from just the last set of isolates. The phylogenies are remarkably accurate in reconstructing the actual sequence of divergences or changes.

I can try to get you some citations of some of these studies if you're interested. Otherwise, they shouldn't be difficult to find. They suggest quite well that proposed phylogenies ("who share which common ancestors") are highly accurate.

In discussions about evolution people have a tendency to jump back and forth between microevolution and macroevolution. The phylogenetic tree I was refering to connects phyla (macroevolution). I have already conceded that things change. The kind of changes you are citing would have been predicted in the absence of evolutionary theory. Darwin's contemporaries recognized diversity within a species and given a little understanding about DNA they would have expected the same results.

[Kieck]

In discussions about evolution people have a tendency to jump back and forth between microevolution and macroevolution. -HVH

How do you propose that one could exist (macro- or microevolution) without the other also existing?


The phylogenetic tree I was refering to connects phyla (macroevolution). -HVH

All phylogenetic trees are depictions of relationships among clades, whether the clades be large (phyla or orders or families) or small (species or subspecies/races/breeds or even isolates or individuals within species). Again, how do you determine that "evolution occurs within species, but species cannot arise/change?"


The kind of changes you are citing would have been predicted in the absence of evolutionary theory. -HVH

No, they wouldn't. Brush up on evolution and the theories behind evolution. Prior to proposals of evolution (and not necessarily Darwin's -- he wasn't the first, after all, just the first to formalize some of the ideas in widely-available, printed form), people assumed that organisms were unchanging. A honey bee would be identical to its parents, would be identical to its grandparents, would be identical to its great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents, and so on.

In fact, some even here on BeeSource will state that all genes in a particular species have been present since the creation of the species.

Fundamental question to your argument lies, really, in defining "species." What is a species? How much different does one group of organisms have to be from another group of organisms to differentiate the groups into "species?" How much variation can exist with a "species" before it becomes more than one? How little variation is necessary to separate one group from another? And how do we classify the organisms that fall between two defined "species" in the continuum that exists among organisms?

[HVH]

"No, they wouldn't. Brush up on evolution and the theories behind evolution. Prior to proposals of evolution (and not necessarily Darwin's -- he wasn't the first, after all, just the first to formalize some of the ideas in widely-available, printed form), people assumed that organisms were unchanging. A honey bee would be identical to its parents, would be identical to its grandparents, would be identical to its great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents, and so on."

Actually many of Darwin's contemporaries like Richard Own and Cuvier, Agassiz, and others were in a debate about the immutability of species not about whether changes within a species occur. People can define species to fit their argument, but one often cited criterion is viability of offspring. Even in 1859 it was understood that there were many varieties of dogs and breeding one to another produced yet another type of dog. People like me, really don't care that much about what people "believe" (although it does affect the social fabric of society). My only concern is about intellectual honesty. There is a real double standard that exists between believing in the "flying spaghetti Monster", God, evolution or global warming. Most people will choose to believe in something that they cannot "personally" defend and look down on others for their faith. Is there any evidence to support the theory of evolution - huge amounts for micro and not much at all for macro. After 149 years since the publication of the origin of species, we have made almost no progress to substantiate the general theory. In fact, if Darwin's theory had any obvious predictive value it would be that the fossil record would be rich in transition forms. I know there are people that can cite one or two putative missing links, but that falls very short of the prediction. There are now literally millions of documented fossils around the world and less than a handful of putative transitions between "kinds". People’s faith blinds them to the obvious: the general theory of evolution is still tentative.
I think this will soon change. Batch sequencing of DNA is getting more and more affordable each year. At some point in the near future sequences from thousands of genomes will be available for comparison. Of course the evolutionists will invoke punctuated equilibrium if the data still are missing the phylogenetic lines connecting "kinds" and the Christians will adopt theistic evolution if the data is not to their liking. But we are still left with how life began, so there will be room for theistic and non-theistic panspermia.
The only real high ground is to admit that we don't know how we got here. Personally I hope that life was designed. Somehow the cold impersonal idea of life being the product of undirected random events is less palitable.

[NeilV]

I enjoyed the HVH-Kieck dialouge posted above. HVH's statements sort of summarize some of my thoughts on this subject. However, based on those posts, I might be more convinced of the existence of God, a designer, a creator or whatever term you choose than he is. Also, if you really look at the evidence, particularly the fossil record, it does not indicate the progressive, slow evolution of species that is predicted by Darwinism. The fossil record shows that a bunch of differnt types of species just magically appear and disappear.

However, I am equally convinced that the ideas given by some "Creationists" are not based in reality. My intent is not to belittle anybody's religious beliefs, but I just can't figure out why people take the Genises account literally. (One of my best friends in the world is also one of the smartest people I know, and he is a literal Genesis believing Creationist, and after talking to him about the subject many times, I still don't get where he's coming from.)

In other words, it still seems to be a mystery how we got here, at least as to the details.

It seems to me that the idea underlying the mainstream, scientific view is simply to declare that "The basic concept of a creator/designer is not provable by the scientific method; therefore, it is per se not 'science' to even contemplate that possibility." The real problem I have with that is that science itself has no explanation for why anything at all exists. Why is there a universe and how did it get here? Science can say there was a big bang, but it gives no explantion for how or why that happened. The idea that a physical universe springs from nothing (and just so happens to be finely tuned to lead to organized matter and then life) is mind boggling.

So why is it more "scientific" to exclude the possibility of a designer/creator when the basic fact that anything is here at all cannot be explained, at least not by science? How can you evolutionists be so sure of your position?

Like HVH says, its all faith to me at some very basic level.

[Kieck]

People can define species to fit their argument, but one often cited criterion is viability of offspring. -HVH

Yes, that definition is a fairly common definition of "species" (called the "biological species concept"). It has appeal because it can be tested empirically -- if two organisms can successfully mate and produce viable offspring, they belong to the same species.

It fails apart under some circumstances, and is actually impossible to test under others. For instance, could a honey bee today produce a viable offspring with a honey bee from 500 years ago? If they could, then the species would be seen as unchanging over 500 years, at least. If they could not, then the species has changed over time to become a different species. (Just for clarification here: so far as we know, Apis mellifera is still the same species that it was 500 years ago.) The problem: we cannot overcome time to run such a test.

The other problem lies in blurring the lines of what are distinct species under other species concepts. For example, wolves (Canis lupus) and coyotes (Canis latrans) interbreed and produce viable offspring. Under the biological species definition, "wolves" and "coyotes" are really one species. Yet most people (including systematists) recognize "wolves" and "coyotes" as distinct species.

That is why defining "species" before beginning a discussion of "macroevolution" or speciation is so important.

Really, "species" are a very human construct. Systematists and taxonomists have proposed "species" as a fundamental unit of biology, yet the boundaries between species are flexible and open to some interpretation. What makes two similar organisms separate "species" rather than "subspecies?"

Here's an interesting example to provoke more thought along this line: two species of fruit flies (Drosophila) look identical (no known characters to distinguish one from the other). Differences in DNA cannot distinguish between the two at this point. One species lives low on the trunks of trees; the other in the canopies of trees. Scientists assumed, although separated by behavior, that the two were really one species. Lab tests revealed that cross matings between the two groups produce no offspring. So, how much difference is necessary to define "species," and how much difference can be accomodated within a "species" before it becomes necessary to call that group two "species?"

[HVH]

Kieck,

I think we are on the same page regarding the sloppy definitions of species. Perhaps where you and I may disagree, is at the level of extrapolation. Macro-evolutionists believe that since small changes in species can be seen over small amounts of time, then it must be true that large changes happen over large expanses of time (e.g. scales turn into feathers). Although this is appealing and logical, evidence is lacking.
I hope this doesn't turn into debating the legitimacy of a handful of putative transition forms, because I think Darwin was pretty clear in the "Origin of species" that he fully expected a more complete inventory of fossils to be replete with transition forms. He basically said he would throw out his theory if it were not so.
I personally think that in my lifetime I will have the answer. One of the stated goals in the arena of batch sequencing is to be able to sequence patient genomes for $1000.00. When we have the tooling for that, scientists with poorly funded labs will be waiting in line to get their pet species sequenced. Once we have the sequences there will be some fraud at the beginning so we will have to either sort it out ourselves or wait a little longer for a valid conclusion. Since most scientists are so heavily invested in the theory of evolution, the first papers will try desperately to fill in the phylogenetic lines connecting phyla whether the data fits or not (history supports my distrust). Eventually, though, the weight of the evidence, over time, should give us an accurate picture. Then everyone will adjust their belief system to fit the new evidence. I don't expect Christians to give up their faith even if it is demonstrated unequivocally that we evolved nor do I expect evolutionist to show up at church on Sunday if things don't go their way. There are only a small percentage of us that will be willing to abandon presuppositions in favor of "overwhelming evidence".

[Kieck]

Perhaps where you and I may disagree, is at the level of extrapolation. -HVH

Likely so. See, to my way of thinking, this:


. . . large changes happen over large expanses of time (e.g. scales turn into feathers). -HVH

is a logical extension of this:


. . .small changes in species can be seen over small amounts of time. . . . -HVH

Start with a minor change. Make a minor change to that change. Make a minor change to that, and so on. How big a difference now exists between the last in the list and the first in the list?


. . . because I think Darwin was pretty clear in the "Origin of species" that he fully expected a more complete inventory of fossils to be replete with transition forms. He basically said he would throw out his theory if it were not so. -HVH

I've read Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. Twice. I didn't come away with that impression. I'll have to go back and re-read the sections on the fossil record.


Although this is appealing and logical, evidence is lacking. -HVH

Depending on the scale you wish to use, a few examples that might interest you:

Finches in the Galapagos Islands (classic example, but if you read The Beak of the Finch, you'll find an example of speciation that occurred in just a few years, while the researchers were watching).

Apple maggot flies in apples and hawthorn differentiating into two species since the introduction of apples to North America.

European corn borers -- introduced to North America where they encountered corn; recent developments that suggest that the univoltine and bivoltine European corn borers may be in the process of splitting into separate species.


Once we have the sequences there will be some fraud at the beginning so we will have to either sort it out ourselves or wait a little longer for a valid conclusion. Since most scientists are so heavily invested in the theory of evolution, the first papers will try desperately to fill in the phylogenetic lines connecting phyla whether the data fits or not. -HVH

The biggest single problem that I see with this is, "How much different do DNA sequences have to be to constitute separate species?"

And, honestly, the technology may support the current theories, but it's just another tool that can be used. Other methods have been used to reconstruct phylogenies, and these other methods have been shown to be pretty reliable.

[HVH]

Kieck,
You are still discussing small enough changes, even if it leads to speciation, where you and I can agree that the special theory holds up. I just won't place this data in the general theory category because there aren't any major changes. Darwin also placed his Finches in the special theory. In Michael Denton's book, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" he also cites a couple of examples of speciation. I need more of a macro example.
Maybe a way to state my position clearly would be to use an illustration. If a series of numbers from 1 to 1,000,000 (increment of 1) were presented to me and I was asked what the next number was I would say it is highly likely to be 1,000,001. If asked the same of a series from 1 to 2 (increment of 1) I would say that I cannot say with any level of confidence. Data sets to support the general theory of evolution are wanting. If you were to suggest that we have enough data to believe in the general theory of evolution to be true, I would look at it in degrees of faith. It takes faith to believe the next number after 1,000,000 is 1,000,001 but not very much. It takes a lot of faith to believe 3 follows from 2 in the other series. Let's make matters worse for someone having faith in the theory of evolution, by extrapolating backwards in time. There is no theory of evolution without the first simple life form bubbling up from the primordial soup. I have been reading on this topic for many years and have never come across a plausible explanation to account for the first life. Dawkins took a stab at it but to suggest crystals as the first reproductive form falls short in my book. Of course this line of discussion usually leads to the 1953 Stanley Miller/Harold Urey experiment which is extremely easy to shred.
So in conclusion I would say that we may have evolved from a common ancestor but my confidence is not very high (requires lots of faith to believe). Again, I don't care if someone believes in evolution, but I do care about the effects its religious aspects have on our educational system and our society. And considering that the theory has not provided us with anything tangible, I get annoyed at the number of papers that I read where evolution is mentioned in the discussion or conclusion section when it has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

[Kieck]

I just won't place this data in the general theory catagory because there aren't any major changes. -HVH

You do understand that "evolution" and "speciation" are not interchangable terms, right? And speculating on the origins of life may be an extrapolation of "evolution," but it is not "the theory of evolution."

[indypartridge]

I think Darwin was pretty clear in the "Origin of species" that he fully expected a more complete inventory of fossils to be replete with transition forms. He basically said he would throw out his theory if it were not so.


I've read Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. Twice. I didn't come away with that impression. I'll have to go back and re-read the sections on the fossil record.


I can help on this point:

Regarding the lack of transitional fossils:
"Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."
C. Darwin, Origin of Species, 6th ed. 1872 (London: John Murray, 1902), p. 413

[HVH]

I can help on this point:

Regarding the lack of transitional fossils:
"Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."
C. Darwin, Origin of Species, 6th ed. 1872 (London: John Murray, 1902), p. 413

Thanks indypartridge.

"You do understand that "evolution" and "speciation" are not interchangable terms, right? And speculating on the origins of life may be an extrapolation of "evolution," but it is not "the theory of evolution."

Kieck -
I'm not clear about the point you are trying to make. I thought in your previous post about some examples of speciation you were trying to provide evidence of macroevolution.
I totally agree with the logic behind,
"Start with a minor change. Make a minor change to that change. Make a minor change to that, and so on. How big a difference now exists between the last in the list and the first in the list?"
But the evidence to support the argument should be the "finely graduated organic chain" that to this day has not been unearthed. This doesn't mean Darwin was wrong, but it certainly means that he may have been wrong. Science cannot prove anything but it certainly can increase the confidence level to near 100%. Until we approach that kind of certainty, I personally don't see any harm in teaching public school kids or college students about the strengths and weakenesses in the theory and not be afraid to discuss the concept of design. We homeschool our kids and much prefer a dialectic approach to rhetoric than demagogic. I teach my children to think for themselves and not be dogmatic about something they cannot defend. If everyone was trained to think critically, it would change the world.