Jason maybe that washboarding inside the hive should be renamed "Groppelling". Whaddya think?
Also one correction the mutation can usually mate with a non-mutant. Doesn't necessarily have to have an identical mutation to mate with.
And bigger and better doesn't have to be a mutation. You're looking for a mate for your maiden cousin. Would you rather introduce her to me or Arnold? okay bad example. Arnold Swartzenager or rwjedi? Which would she choose? That's how the "more attractive" traits get passed down into the population. It doesn't need a mutation.
Do I understand that you believe that a life form cannot morph into a slightly different species ... and on and on. For instance like dinosaurs into birds? What would you say to a feathered dinosaur? How, do you suppose, did air breathin mammals get into the oceans? Seems like an intelligent designer could see the flaws in that design.
I didn't come to this board to attempt to convince people of scientific ideas they believe to be impossible, when these same person believe life forms appearing from nothing is more realistic. But, I will leave this conversation with one last post. Perhaps someone else will want to pick it up.
First of all no, there is no evidence large corn cobs existed during the time period indians were farming early maize. Large grain heads only appear much later in the archeological record.
Breeding out undersireable traits is the best way to improve breeds DURING A HUMAN'S LIFETIME. There is no time to observe major population evolution within the lifetime of a human being when you are talking about complicated liforms like insects, plants, and mamals. So proceding by selecting out undersirable traits, as MBush described above, is the way selective breeding is done, but you can still observer long term evolution in domesticated species just as you can in native populations.
Looking at the archeological record, there are sites were archeologist dig, where deposits were laid down long ago and preserved in remarkable detail. You can get a good picture of what plants and animals lived during certain time periods. It is shown that certain species simply did not exist before others. They show up in newer deposits but not older. Is is more realistic these species just appeard out of thin air, or they evoloved over millions of years. To say there was small populations of people or other mamals during the time of the Dinosours is very unrealistic looking at the amount of evidence we have against this.
One last thought, you don't have to be a well studied scientist to see the connection between species. Take this one example. There is much evidence that birds evoved from reptiles that existed during the time of the dinosours. So do this observation at home, if you have the materials. Go to your yard and pick up a chicken. Look at its eyes, comb and face. Look at its legs and claws. Now think about the structure of reptiles, they have their similarities. Through skeletal studies and archeology you see a much greater connection between these creatures. The world is much grander and older than most can imagine, myself included. Looking at the world with closed eyes is very limiting.
Yes, mutants can interbreed with non mutants, but 90+ % of the time, the mutation is not a dominant trait and is bred out fortunately.
Thanks for your thoughtfulness Robert, but there is actually already something called groppeling.
I don't know how, but those enormous conglomerations of snowflakes (fat snowflakes) coming down is called groppeling.
I believe that science...true science cannot hypothetically or theoretically show that any animal can change into a completely different animal.
For example, Evolutionists would say and DO say that birds evolved from small predatory/carnivorous lizards. There are many problems with this specific example such as scales and feathers are not even close to each other in their design or make-up as many would prefer the masses not to take notice of.
So far, not one single inter-mediary fossil specimen has been discovered.
"What about Archaeopteryx?", you might ask. Most scientists believe this to be a true bird as it is all bird and no reptile. It gets a check for each of the characteristics of a bird. It is a bird and not an inter-mediary species. Some "scientists" (aka evolutionists) in China "dug up" some intermediary bird-like fossils, but later they were debunked as frauds that had been carefully fabricated to show both reptilian and avian features. Why would they do this horrible and unprofessional unscientific thing?? Becuase of fame/money. How would this bring fame/money? Because no one has yet discovered ANY intermediary species. This happened in the last 3-4 years, but it doesn't get much publicity.
Another example is archeohippus (sp?).
Recently scientists have decided that these animals along with the others in the "evolutionary pictoral line-up" that is always presented to show the evolution of horses is incorrect based on several things. One great problems is that some of the larger more advanced species shown in this "line-up" were found to be co-existing with the supposedly "earlier" less evolved horses in a time period that would not allow for more evolved horse species since the thought was that this horse evolved from the other and could not exist until the other was extinct.
Okay, plain and simple: No, I agree with science that a house cat cannot evolve into a monkey or vice-versa. I do believe that a moth can adapt into another variety of moth, but nevertheless it is still a moth in the same family of moths.
Sorry for the long explanation.
I hope you are not upset by our discussion.
Certainly this is not the objective.
I believe that scientists (amateur/professional) should be capable of non-inflamatory discussions on any topic.
I do appreciate your honest opinions on the matter at hand.
I was confused by your opening comment about ex-nihlo genesis. Perhaps you could explain further?
Actually the evidence in the layers should be failry contradictory to an evolutionist's point of view. Yes, things are laid down quite well, however saying that only certain species are found in certain layers is a great fallacy.
On two or three occasions I have actually seen an entire tree trunk extending through several "millions of years" of layers of sediment.
In the carboniferous layer one often can find whole stands of trees perfectly preserved...not on their side, but standing or leaning at a slight angle. If these fossilized trees which can be found in such a state all over the world were fossilized slowly over thousands or even hundreds of years, how did the tops not rot off / get eaten by termites as the bottom layers were being slowly covered by sediment over "millions" of years?
In texas there is a solid rock river bed with human, not hominid-like foot prints fossilized into the strata. The foot prints are exactly like modern man footprints. At first they were thought to be a hoax or carved, but more rock was removed from over the strata at a point where the strata extended out from under the layers of rock strata above. More of the footprints were discovered under layers of rock. What was more confounding was that two or three species of dinosaur footprints were found alongside in the same exact strata...some of the human prints were actually in the tracks of the dinosaurs. This received no publicity whatsoever from the mainline media as one can imagine as it completely flies in the face of what thousands of "open-minded" scientists have claimed for years. The fallacy of creatures being found only in certain layers in completely false.
For example, for many years, the coelocanth (a living fossil) was thought to exist in only one strata of rock, then miraculously a live specimen was brought up in a fishing net off the coast of Madagascar a couple of decades ago.
In the 1980's a Japanese fishing vessle hauled in the remains of what could only be a pleiseosaur. In fact, the Japanes officials were so excited at the discovery that they commemorated the event with a postage stamp. I have seen the pictures of the remains and even looking at the picture, it is obviously a pleisiosaur.
Lastly, in the deserts of Peru are thousands of burial stones in the ancient cities of the aymara tribe. These burial stones are called Ica (not "inca") stones. Each one depicts an event (memorable or famous) from the person's life. On many of them, there are very very clear depictions of the person and the activity they are performing for which they are famous or well-known. On dozens of these stones there were found depictions of dinosaurs with men. One, in fact, shows a man riding a dinosaur.
These stones are ancient, but not as ancient as what evolutionists would claim dinosaurs to be.
Here is a link to the pictures which even children can see are dinosaurs. How did the aymara know what dinsaurs were? How were they able to depict them? Why would they show themselves living with them? Becuase they co-existed with them. Why is this not publicized? Obviously it does not fit in with the "Evolutionary thought" and thus is DISCARDED as irrelevant or false.
If they are false, then "prove it" is what I say to those who would show their disdain by ignoring them or by trying to discount/attack them as false. Some have cast doubt on the Ica stones, but they cannot disprove their authenticity nor can they disprove that they are still being uncovered from the burial sites. Here are some pictures in this website of some Ica stones with dinosaure depictions:
Maybe you can take this evolution/religous discussion to the Tailgater section. Please? I'm here to discuss bees, not this.
Regardless of the views you hold it is important to remember that tens of thousands of scientists all over the world operate under a basic premise of evolution. Not because they believe it explains the world's origins but, rather, because it explains the world's origins in the context of science. This is extremely confusing and troublesome for a large number of christians because they believe that their view of the world and God is under attack when the theory of evolution is taught. This doesn't have to be the case and as with all things is more the responsibility of the parents to address and less the state's. Medicine and what we know about genetics and chemical reactions within the body are much further along in understanding because of the theory that so many of fear. I believe in God. But because of my training I utilize the theory of evolution everyday, as a tool, in learning more about a great number of different species. Like many scientists, at the end of the day, I go home to my family and leave it at work. This causes no problem for me. It is like many other theories. It provides a chance to understand why pigs are so similar to man with regards to blood and why monkeys are similar to man with regard to muscle metabolism. It doesn't make me a pig or a monkey. And it certainly doesn't make them human. Scientists aren't out to prove evolution happens. (Ok, there are a few bad apples, but they are in the minute minority and exist on both sides of the argument). They are only out to discover where we go from here (despite the field). Whether they believe in macro evolution is irrelevant to research other than how it affects bias.
All that said, a trait must be carried (in the dna) and expressed (measureable) to be selected for. But you can create additional mutations to then select for or against by providing radiation (most effective), chemical mutagens or time (least effective). You can also design and then introduce the genes you want but this is expensive and requires extensive knowledge of the genome.
Most mutations are indeed deleterious. Most are fatal. Those that are not usually will be selected against by nature. Of the rest many are neither deleterious or advantageous. The small number that actually result in an advantage must provide significant advantage to become established in a population. Structural mutations are generally dominant. Enzymatic mutations are generally recessive. Obviously, there are exceptions to both of these. But this tells you that the likelihood of getting bees to fly outside and retrieve pollen on days when it is 40 degrees F outside will probably involve a recessive characteristic. Enzymes that work at lower temperatures and therefore provide adequate glucose to the wing muscles will be necessary. Bees that are able to live longer because their wings are stronger and don't give out after 3-4 weeks will likely be controlled by a dominant gene.
I don't know if my thoughts helped or hindered the conversation here. Hopefully, the former. One of the best things I ever learned was this- if tomorrow a man combined all the necessary ingredients in a jar and shook it and then out came an amoebae then all that would be proven is that it took intelligence to create life.
By the way, I have had over 60 observation hives and all of them showed internal washboarding. Usually after the first brood cycle an mostly at night with sometimes thousands of bees participating. During the day, I still could find some bees doing it but not many. Early in the morning (before nine or so) all my hives have this activity going on around the entrance up to 4-5 inches away. I have always assumed that they were spreading propolis, which has been shown to have antibacterial properties and supposedly deters ants (this may have been proven but I don't know).
Enjoy your indoor hive. They are one of the best ways to enjoy and learn about bees.
Atleast the conversation has been civil this time. Mutations happen all the time. Most are not seen. It has been to long since I studied genetic and I forgot how many genes humans have(not chromasomes but the actual DNA strands given by the 4 letters which I forgot as well) but know it is in the millions. A common mutation happen during cell division that the gene will flip in sequence. Like abcd becomes acbd. This is why bacteria can show evolution quickly but in a multicelled human these mutations are never seen as they only happen in a few cells. So with higher life forms the mutation has to take place in a sex alle and that alle has to be used to make offspring. Then like mentioned alot of mutations are fatile. So they never grow up to reproduce. Of those that do grow up what changed and is it good or bad. I used fruit flies because they only have 4 chromosomes and are well studied for genetics ranging from eye color to wingless/flightless and a few other things. They are insects like bees yet have a very quick generation which is needed when doing sceintific studies. 14 days from laying of egg to sexual maturity give 2 generations a month. The wingless are true mutation where eye color is like eye colors in people the colors are in the populations in the wild to begin with. So selecting an eye color of fruit flies that you want is selective breeding. Finding a wingless fruit fly was a mutation. If this mutation happened out in the wild it would have died out if not been bred out because it is recessive and the lack of mobility needed by such a fly to get from one depleting food source to the next. The wingless type though is what we want to keep in our homes so when we open the jars to feed our fish they do not fly away and become pest. Once this mutation was spotted the sceintist used selective breeding to get a breeding population of wingless fruit flies.
Now to the honey bees. The Varroa mites natural host evolved to live with the mite. They had to or they would have died. All parasites in nature have a natural balance with their host. Most of the time dogs live with parasitic worms with out treatment. The dogs are not very healthy and their lives are shortened but they can grow up and reproduce to keep the cycle going. So varroa mites that killed all the host bees died as well. Our problem is that EHB do not have the natural defence that the original host had. One of the things we have learned is the life cycle of Varroa needs a longer time period in the cell after it is capped to reproduce in high numbers enough to kill off hives. Small cell shortens this time frame and is why it is such a great help in fighting the mites. A behavior of cleanliness from the EHBs that has been found and bred for in the NWC line of bees. These bees remove the infected larva before they hatch and there for shorten the capped time further and to the point many mites can not reproduce. This was found and is being selectively bred for. Grooming behavior is another trait that has been found and is being bred for as it removes the mites that were able to reproduce. The foulbrood resistance to medicines is another form of selective breeding. By giving your bees antibiotics to keep them from getting foulbrood you have killed off the foulbrood that would be killed by the medicine leaving just the few strains that can survive and the few strains that missed medication by being sealed in a cell during that time frame. In time the only foulbrood spores are those coming from strains of the foulbrood which the medicine will not work on any more. But for the foulbrood to be resistant in the first place mutations happened widening the gene pool in diversity. Some of the foulbrood had the right combonation of mutations to live through the treatments and others(which used to be the majority) could not. Over time the foulbrood has become more and more resistant.
I am sorry to say that you are right, but it should be remembered that it takes just as much faith to believe in Evolution as it does Creation.
By the way, I had not mentioned anything about religion so technically speaking this is not a religious discussion.
It looks as if some people are becoming a little uncomfortable at our SCIENTIFIC discussion.
When others get off the topic of the thread in other discussions nobody seems to have a great problem with it. I have been in numerous threads where someone has started a rabbit trail and it has become a totally different topic.
While it may be frustrating at times, most do not go so far as to tell them to find another room to discuss the topic. If one is not interested in reading our discussion all one must do is not read it.
Nevertheless, I hope you will notice that I have tried on one occasion above in this thread to get us back to bees.
Just because thousands of people do/believe something doesn't mean that I should do it/believe it too. Just because most of the population has swallowed it or parts of it, does not make it respectable or true.
I wasn't going to bring it up, but since Pugs and
JDI brought in religion...
Yes, you are absolutely right! Christians have a good reason to be upset about what Evolution teaches...especially when others try to teach it to their children. It is tantamount to someone trying to convert my children to atheism.
Evoution is a religion.
There may be principles of thought that may be useful, but I would ask that you point out what areas of medicine, genetics and chemical properties are better understood as a direct result of the actual hypothesis of Evolution.
Perhaps, in the search for answers in the area of Evolution some other discoveries NOT BASED ON EVOLUTION have been made, but credit cannot be given to Evolution simply because of this.
"Scientists aren't out to prove evolution happens."
They would be crazy not to since their jobs depend upon it...but they do try to prove it...even though many open-minded scientists are coming to the realization that Evolution simply does not make sense scientifically. Come on, you can disprove Evolution simply following the Scientific Method! [img]smile.gif[/img]
Doesn't it seem obvious that other animals are similar to each other and operate on similar bio-principles because they were created by the same Creator?
Just the way that I can tell a song is by the band Chicago or Bruce Springsting or The Cure simply by hearing a segment of the song...even without lyrics...the same principle applies here. The animals around us are very much alike in many ways because they have one Intelligent Creator...God.
"you can create additional mutations to then select for or against by providing radiation (most effective), chemical mutagens or time (least effective)."
See, that is what I have been trying to say. Evolution depends upon time and chemical mutations to such a degree as it is detrimental and undermining to their belief. Even if a bee were to naturally mutate in a benficial way as to be able to withstand the cold so she could go out to collect pollen, there are other variables that would also need to change as to allow for this bee to do so. To get all of the variables lined up to fit is the trick...otherwise the tendencey disappears.
"Most mutations are indeed deleterious. Most are fatal. Those that are not usually will be selected against by nature. Of the rest many are neither deleterious or advantageous. The small number that actually result in an advantage must provide significant advantage to become established in a population."
EXACTLY! This is what I have been saying. Thank you. For Evolution to have taken place as most scientists would believe, it would have taken trillions of trillions of years to even get from the Blue Green algae to an Amoeba...but then again, Emile Borel won an international award for showing that any such number above 1 x 10 to the 50th power was absolutely IMPOSSIBLE. In other words, it hasn't happened, it isn't happening and it will never happen.
I doubt anyone can give me an example of a NATURALLY occurring mutation (not a man-made one) that is beneficial to the creature that has not been bred out within a few generations. Yes, that's a challenge! [img]smile.gif[/img]
All I can say is that Scientists better get on the life raft, because the "Evolution boat" is quickly sinking.
By the way, if anyone is truly following these threads with interest, please read the threads carefully before posting a reply. In times past, people have skimmed or assumed they knew what was being said and skipped parts to threads and then made comments on what they thought was posted when nothing to the like had even been stated. This usually happens when people get emotionally charged in such discussions as this...not that this is an emotionally charged discussion at this point...I hope it doesn't, but I suspect someone will make it so eventually.
James, thank you for giving me an answer to my original question. I was pretty sure that I was not the only one to observe WB in an OH before, but just thought I would ask.
I too appreciate the civility shown in this thread thus far. Thanks to all.
I guess what you have brought out is how even a simple creature like a fruit fly would take an infinite number of years to change into something besides a fruit fly. You can change its eys, wings, colors, etc, but it is still a fruit fly and evolution says that it can become something completely different...a completely different oranisim.
I am very grateful for the adaptations that we have been able to make useful in apiculture to fend off the nasties! Good points on adaptation you have given there as examples. Thanks
> would take an infinite number of years...
Well, not exactly infinite, but a very long
time from the point of view of a human time-scale.
When compared to star formation time-scales,
it would be a mere "blink of an eye".
Jason, I sent you a message.
Probably even in stellar life span it would be...according to mathematicians and true-science, NEVER...it is impossible. I am not going by feelings here. Just the possibility of one aspect of a lizard growing wings from its front legs, to take up part of an earlier thread, would be ridiculous. Just think of the intermediate forms!
It is laughable that such an intermediate creature would be accepted or be successful...or even survive.
OK I'll play ball, but not here.
I've started a new thread in the Tailgater section. its found here:
Hopefully everyone will move the debate to this area. I don't think this debate is benifical to people looking for information on beekeeping and I believe it will turn people off from this site. This is a great board, but if people think it is being used as a platform for specific, especially religious ideas, it will hurt the board greatly. And yes religion has become a part of the debate. Please be courteous to everyone looking for beekeeping information (myself included) and move this to the thread I have started. One person has already requested that to be done, so lets respect the space.
You may continue there if you wish.
I will continue here since this is simply a rabbit trail from the original discussion about bee traits and behaviour. I see no reason to move the discussion as the original topic is on target.
While the discussion has changed, I do not feel it is necessary to move it, unless the moderator asks me to. In such case, I will gladly do so.
I do not believe that this topic will turn people off to BeeSource. Perhaps one might wish this topic in another arena as this one is sure to be seen by far more readers. I would not wish to hinder the truth.
If people are interested they will read it, if not, they will go to another thread.
I have seen some discussions that went completely and utterly into other realms and rarely did anyone tell them to go to another forum such as Tailgater. In fact, I do not doubt that it would have come to blows in some cases if the conversations had been in person.
We are free to express our opinions about bees, beekeeping and any other related topics on this site as long as we keep it civil and use no profanity nor off-color remarks.
With all due respect, if someone feels uncomfortable about the topic, they should not feel obligated to read it any longer.
If I get a chance I will go read what you have written in the other thread, but will probably continue to post here in response.
Sorry if you disagree, but perhaps we must agree to disagree.
It appears that other thread has become a bash 'n' attack thread and many of the comments found there are unfounded, unproveable and made in fear and/or anger.
There have certainly been some unscientific claims made there. I only wish to comment on factual information.
In the new thread, it was assumed that only religious folk can deny the "factuality" of Evolution when, in fact, an open-mind of any person of any background with or without God can easily determine which seems more plausable.
Both Evolution and Intelligent Design require faith to believe since neither can be proven by Scientific Method, but I will leave the decision up to you.
I am not here to prove anything, but to show proof for or against the topic at hand.
Going back to your original post, I agree with Michael. It seems that the bee being "attacked" may have been a robber. I have seen this a lot in the observation hives, most of the time it was an isolated incident on any particular day. I have never had an observation hive that succumbed to large numbers of robbers (that I know of). I think that bees probably are constantly on the look out for a free meal that meets their criteria. It makes sense that occasionally one slips into a hive and gets caught (chased). I may be wrong, certainly, but something is bothering the bees about that particular one. Any strange odor might do it but every bee returning to the hive carries an odor of where it has been. The shorter abdomen, especially if dark and shiny would suggest robber. I can't think of a good way, other than genetic testing (which isn't a cheap way) to identify the bee as part of the hive or not. I guess it is also possible that it is a bee from your hive that went robbing another hive and came back with a new odor that the other bees do not like. This seems unlikely because bees that are carrying a load (pollen, nectar or honey) tend to move purposefully and get ignored, even when entering the wrong hive. Bees that are without supplies act timid (submissive) if challenged, even at their own hive.
How big is your observation hive?
JDI, and James,
I do not have an Observation Hive, but recently I shook out a weak hive in front of a stronger one. For the most part many of the bees just crawled up the front of the hive, and in. I thought that it was strange as they were from a different hive, different smell, etc... I expected more fighting. I came back about an hour later to find the bees hauling many (like 5 or so while I was standing there) carcasses out of the hive. So I am assuming it was a similar situation as what you have discussed with a robber bee. Except these weren't robbers, more like invaders.... anyways...
I would agree with JDI and many others out there who suggest that what you originally saw was a robber trying to gain entrance, and failing.
But if I may pose a further question. Why was there not more fighting occuring when the weak hive of bees were entering this "New" hive? It seems as though they would have only gotten as far as the door and the guard bees would have been up to their necks (Thoraxes?) in the new bees? Why was it such a "Peaceful" entrance?