Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 48
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Clarksville, TN USA EEUU
    Posts
    131

    Post

    I suppose some of you already knew this, but I was excited to learn something from simple observations from looking in my observation hive.
    "Washboarding" is discussed in most beekeeping books, but I have never seen any that mention it occuring within the hive itself and not just on the landing board/front porch.
    I was watching them the other day and sure enough, they were Washboarding on the inside of the O.H.
    On the glass and on top of the wood on the deep(frame) I noticed this.
    I also noticed other bees moving rapidly and jumping. They were attacking another bee on top of the deep. She kept running back and forth and in circles to avoid them. They didn't ball her, but just casually attacked her one or two at a time. They didn't appear to be stinging her, but may have. I noticed that her abdomen was a third or nearly half as long as the other workers, but otherwise normal. Later I saw her on the ground outside the hive barely moving. I wonder if bees throw out others based on appearance or odor or both or something else...
    Jason

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    45,403

    Post

    She was probably a robber.
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 40y 200h 37yTF

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Clarksville, TN USA EEUU
    Posts
    131

    Post

    I noticed another short-abdomen bee today on the ground outside the hive. She looked as if she had just been thrown out too. It just doesn't seem like a robber situation Michael.
    Jason

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    169

    Post

    Maybe deformed or something else wrong with her?

    Martha
    Martha

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,525

    Post

    Jason, you're not gonna believe this but... There are actually more than three genders of bees. We usually say Queen, worker and Drone because that's what we're used to dealing with. The bees don't tolerate the others and they don't last long. It takes an OH to see these. Sorry I don't have a link for you but it's not real interesting and kinda sick. Long live haplodipoidy.

    Hawk
    KC0YXI

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Clarksville, TN USA EEUU
    Posts
    131

    Post

    Amazing! I have never heard of this before, but I always thought it was interesting that ants and termites have more than one "caste" and bees...didn't as I thought. TELL ME MORE!!
    Jason

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,525

    Post

    <TELL ME MORE!!> I told you it's kinda sick look it up yourself right here.

    http://members.aol.com/glennapiar/od...#anchor2831823

    lol

    Hawk
    KC0YXI

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Clarksville, TN USA EEUU
    Posts
    131

    Post

    I suppose the shortened abdomen is a dominant mutation in this colony since I have seen at least two so far. Both were thrown out.
    Hawk, It doesn't appear that this site give any information to show that another "caste" of bees exists within a colony.
    I thought you were speaking of another "castes" not mutations. I have always found it interesting how that 95 - 100% of all mutations are non-enhancing or beneficial to the creature. For example, you said that the white eyed bees cannot see. This is obviously a detriment and certainly not beneficial in any way.
    It really make me laugh to think that the hypothesis of Evolution is based almost entirely upon the idea of mutations and billions of years.
    Even if there were a positive mutation every once in a while, there would have to be another creature with the same mutation that would mate with the other like it and then successfully reproduce and then the offspring would become recessive as statistically speaking they would not be able to find any other like-mutated creature with which to mate to create a dominant mutation.
    This is supposing that the mutation were even good to begin with. The probability of this occurring is 1 x 10 to the 4XX,XXX,XXX. Additionally, it would be wise to note that any number above the 50th degree IS impossible according to the award winning Mathematician Emile Borél.
    See this site for more info...
    http://www.faithalone.com/probability.htm
    Jason

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    1,933

    Post

    Then how did the USDA develop the SMR line?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Clarksville, TN USA EEUU
    Posts
    131

    Post

    SMR? I don't recall this, but know it has to do with bees. I assume that it has to do with variations of bees or animals. There is no problem with positive changes that benefit creatures, but there is a problem with negative/detrimental changes. Since mutations are nearly all negative/detrimental, it will not help the creature to live and thus the chances that it will be able to survive much less mate and propigate itself...even if it could find another like-disadvantaged creature with which to procreate. Evolution depends upon mutations to be successful...laughable IMO.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    1,933

    Post

    There is a diffence between mutations such as funny looking blind bees and a benificial mutation. There are certainly significant beneficial mutations.

    SMR queens are a line of bees developed by the USDA to be "hygenic" or mite resistant. They did this by first selecting some bees that had survived varroa infestations. Then they reproduced generations of bees and made observations. They then selected bees that had better traits for mite resistance and culled the rest. They bred these bees again selected the best and culled again. So on and so forth. We will call this breeding. Breeding is a sped up version of natural selection, where the beneficial traits are selected by survival. The improved stock is selected "for" by outcompeting the lower quality and the lower quality dying out is selected "against". The differences between traits that improve or degrade a stock are known as mutations. Benifical mutations are selected "for" in nature, while negative mutations are selected "against".

    Lets look at another species. A long time ago an Incan, or was it an Aztec, maybe a Myan, started farming a wild plant that had a small head of grain on the end. The head of grain was a little bit larger than what is found on wheat. They planted these crops and decided they needed to save seed to plant again next year. They picked the largest and best grain heads for their seed. They wanted to choose the strongest mother for their next years crop. The next year they planted again. Some of the grains where like the year before some smaller and some larger. Again they chose the strongest and best mothers to seed their crops the next year. What caused some of the plants to be larger? Mutation. Now we multiply generations of this crop out till the pilgrims come over. The crop has spread across North and South America and has developed into what they called Maize. Then the white man got a hold of it and modern agriculture. They did seclection/breeding and we have what we now call corn. Corn is much bigger than the small heads of grains the indians first collected in the wild. The larger heads were seleceted for.

    Mutations are usually very subtle, not like blind green eyed bees, Mothra, and Mutant Ninga Turtles. The term mutations can make you think of extremes. It is only through multiple generations that these benefical subtle mutations are selected for and species change. Undesirable mutations can be subtle too.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    McMinnville, TN, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post

    Selected breeding works wonders. It is plauseable that natural selection made this world what it is but where I have a problem with evolution is the beginning. How did a chemical reaction make life at the bottom of the ocean? Ok maybe I should not have gone there. Please no creation/evolution arguments.

    I raise wingless fruit flies to feed my fish. Fish breeding is my other hobby. Wingless fruit flies are a mutation which have no wings. The flightless fruit flies have twisted stumpy wings. Both of these mutations are recessive traits. So if you breed these to a regular fruit fly you get all regular fruit flies. If you breed these regular looking offspring together one in four will be wingless. This goes by Mendel's Law. You know the famous pea guy LOL. Wingless fruit flies in nature would die out because of lack of transportation from one feeding place to the next. Helpful mutations are like putting one wingless fruit fly in a jar with hundreds of regular ones. The chance of the right combination lining up to make the whole population wingless is not feesable but is plausable if you did millions and millions of experiments and generations. But when the genetic researcher found the wingless fruit fly(like finding any good trait) it was a single mutation. He took this wingless one fly and bred it to a regular one. He then bred the offspring to gether and selected the wingless ones to start this line. If only good bee traits were so easy to see to select them.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Danbury,Ct. USA
    Posts
    1,966

    Post

    A Large part of the puzzle is missing in these discussions and bears saying. "Individuals do not evolve; populations do!" The positive mutations allow more access to life, mating and propagation. The hardier, smarter, stronger and those fittest for their environment make more babies (seeds). These genes reside in the population. Incidentally. all change doesn't come from mutations. The genetic variability already within the population insures change as random breeding eventually put these positive genes together. And lets not forget...evolution has eternity to accomplish things.

    Dick Marron

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Clarksville, TN USA EEUU
    Posts
    131

    Post

    I have no bones to pick with Mendel...or should I say PEAS! [img]smile.gif[/img] I am a strong believer in the obvious, that through natural selection we are able to produce certain beneficial traits in plants and animals.
    However, these are not true mutations in the sense of the word. These changes are variations of the SAME animal or plant.
    What I am saying is that according to the contational definition of the word, Evolution relies upon mutations to completely change one animal into another over "millions and millions" of years. As has been pointed out, corn is still corn, fruit flies are still fruit flies and bees are still bees. What Evolutionists preach is that creatures, given enough MILLENIA will eventually change into another creature. This is simply not true.
    I enjoyed science class...in fact, I remember much of what was taught. I still remember the very first thing that they taught us...and still teach in most schools about science. The SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Anyone remember the rules SM?
    The hypothesis of Evolution cannot stand up to Scientific Method. I challenge any scientist in the world to prove Evolution based on SM.

    It just cannot be done.

    The thing that drives me nuts is that many scientists stick to the SM when they can, but then when it won't work with something that they truly want to prove or believe they feel like they have the liscense to discard part or all of the SM.

    For future reference I think that ADAPTATION is the more appropriate word in our discussion concerning beneficial changes and MUTATION is more appropriate for detrimental changes. I realize that the word "adapt" means to change to fit the needs...which tends toward survival and proliferation and that mutation is not an adaptation at all, but a malfunction of the system which rarely, if ever provides a benefit.
    Lastly, the word Evolution has become a completely different animal from its original meaning. Perhaps it would be better to use the term adaptation OR micro-evolution to denote simple beneficial changes in a species (not a change from one creature into another). Evolution, conotationally speaking, has come to mean changing from one animal to a completely different form of animal over an immeasureable amount of time.
    Going back to what was discussed prior to this (above), it is not simply improbable (according to mathematic's and science's own measure), but it is utterly impossible.
    Jason

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    45,403

    Post

    Any selective breeding program for any plant or animal is based on the fact that you can't create something that isn't there. You can only shift the population so that you consistently get or do not get that quality. In other words ALL you do is breed OUT possiblities. For instance, you want a chicken that lays a lot of eggs and doesn't set and doesn't get too big. How do you do that? You breed from chickens that don't set and don't get to big and you don't lay only a few eggs in an effort to breed out all of those variable factors to consitently get something that was there all along, but you want to get it consistently.

    Selective breeding has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. There are no mutations involved and no rational breeder I know of is hoping for God, er I mean Evolution to provide a miracle, er, I mean a USEFUL mutation.

    Back to the corn. By breeding for larger kernels or smaller kernels they didn't get larger kernels than already existed, they just got them consistently where they used to be rare. Corn had always been different colors and they bred for a consistent color. Occasional ears (in addition to kernels) where larger and they bred to get them consistently large. It's not rocket science. You can't make something out of nothing.
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 40y 200h 37yTF

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Clarksville, TN USA EEUU
    Posts
    131

    Post

    Exactly. [img]smile.gif[/img]
    Now, has anyone ever seen "washboarding" on the inside of a hive before? No one has ever mentioned this happening on the inside before and I was glad to notice it first hand without any prior reference. I would think that I would not have been the first to notice it, but you never know.
    Jason

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    45,403

    Post

    I see the observation hive get excited on many occasions. Some of them are because they are being robbed, or the queen is going on a mating flight etc. I guess I never paid a lot of attention to bees when they were washboarding on the landing board, I've seen it but never examined it closely, but I think I have seen them do it IN the observation hive. Since they don't HAVE a landing board (and neither do any of my hives anymore) I couldn't tell you if it would have done it on the landing board. [img]smile.gif[/img]
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 40y 200h 37yTF

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    1,933

    Post

    Michael, the corn you are talking about is still fairly new. It was developed from a plant with much, much smaller heads of grain, it is called Teosinte.

    http://www.nativetech.org/cornhusk/cornhusk.html
    go to this link and scroll down to see the picture. Todays corn and this ancestral corn is very different, they didn't just select out the small heads. They constantly selected larger and larger heads as they developed until we have what today is nearly unrecognizeable as Teosinte. Corn IS a different plant than its ancestor. This is all based on archeology and science. People have devoted their lives studing and tracing evolotionary paths. But of course you can choose what you want to believe.

    "Concious selection for the 'best' plants. Farmers know that 'like begets like'. If you use the seeds from the best fruits, or from the biggest ears of corn, in the seed planting next year, you'll get a better crop. We can see this process in the archaeological record of corn (maize). Early maize cobs 7,000 years ago were tiny. Over the millennia they got bigger and bigger, and this series can be seen over time in progressively more recent agricultural sites."
    quote from above link, this can be found in numerous sources and studies, its not just something dreamed up and put on the web.

    I think beekeepers can benifit from fully understanding natural selection. It is important in queen breeding, understanding how antibiotic resistant foulbrood developed, and many other things. Natural selection multiplied out over millions of years is evolution. If you understand the science behind natural selection and genetic mutation you will understand evolution. Study the archeological record and new insites into DNA.
    Evolution of bacteria is being studied in the lab. Since generations multiply so rapidly they can observe changes from mutations that develop traits that were simply not there before. Here they have the time to use the scientific method. To be able to determine if a reptile can develop into a bird through mutation is impossible with the scientific method. You can't absolutely prove everything, but you can make extremelly well educated and deeply studied theory. This dosen't dissolve the existance of the G word, so there is no need to be defensive.
    I wish I knew more about specific studies to reference to you, particulary with the studies in bacteria. I'm no expert, but this is really a basic part of modern biology. Something being rejected in some school boards of TN. But yes Hillbillynursery, lets stick to beekeeping.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Clarksville, TN USA EEUU
    Posts
    131

    Post

    I suppose it may seem that I am being defensive because if no one stands up for truth in science then we get what we have today (in many cases) assumptions and falsified theorums = sloppy science.

    Maize: Even though it was much smaller, it was still a grain-bearing PLANT. It was not blue-green algae. The E word is scientifically AND mathematically impossible...no matter how many millenia one adds to the equation.

    I certainly appreciate the non-inflamatory responses in such a discussion as this. THANKS.
    JG.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    45,403

    Post

    Selective breeding is all about changing what was an exception into the rule and what was the rule into the exception. Just because MOST of the corn at that time were small ears and MOST of the corn at that time had small kernels, does not preclude that on occasion there was a larger kernel or a larger ear.

    If a quality never even occurs in that genetic pool as an exception, then you aren't going to get it by selective breeding. You simply breed to turn the exception into the rule. To look at it another way, there was much genetic diversity and selective breeding (note the word "selective) is selecting only the qualities from that great diversity that you want. Your goal is NO diversity. Your goal is consistency. If the gene pool you are breeding from does not have that quality, you have to go outside that pool to FIND that quality.
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 40y 200h 37yTF

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Ads