Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 294
  1. #201
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    jackson county, alabama, usa
    Posts
    4,903

    Default Re: Our understanding of genetics is changing

    perhaps mike. to me just different pieces of the puzzle all of which are required to get the overall picture.

    squarepegs are notorious for questioning authority, (as did the little boy who exclaimed 'the emperor has no clothes!' ), and experiencing great harm is most helpful in advancing one up the learning curve.

    no need to lose any sleep over any of this, it's just bees.
    journaling the growth of a treatment free apiary started in 2010. 20+/- hives

  2. #202
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland,Auckland,New Zealand
    Posts
    6,127

    Default Re: Our understanding of genetics is changing

    Quote Originally Posted by mike bispham View Post
    You got this Dick? Peter? Daniel? Phoebe? John Chesnut?
    Ha Ha I didn't make the list LOL.

    Must be 1. I'm a hopeless case. 2. I'm in the Mike Bispham club of approved people now. 3. Mike is getting forgetful. 4. None of those.

    Re 2, my chances are slim there are very few in that club.
    44 years, been commercial, outfits up to 4000 hives, now 120 hives and 200 nucs as a hobby, selling bees. T (mostly).

  3. #203
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    West Bath, Maine, United States
    Posts
    1,143

    Default Re: Our understanding of genetics is changing

    Shhh, OT, I think the password is ANTi-
    4 yrs, Peak 14, back to zip, T lite; godfather to brother's 3.

  4. #204
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Ithaca, NY USA
    Posts
    1,563

    Default Re: Our understanding of genetics is changing

    Posted by mike bispham.
    You got this Dick? Peter? Daniel? Phoebe? John Chesnut?
    No, sorry. I stopped reading your posts weeks ago.

  5. #205
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    DuPage County, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,647

    Default Re: Our understanding of genetics is changing

    Quote Originally Posted by mike bispham View Post
    husbandry,
    Thy charm and wit doth betray me when 'husbandry' so fashionably is championed about. I'm going to settle back in my staddle.
    Regards, Barry

  6. #206
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Rader, Greene County, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    6,702

    Default Re: Our understanding of genetics is changing

    I admit that I wondered if Barry was referring to a saddle, but then I found that this is a staddle ...

    photo credit

    In times of yore, staddles were used thusly ...
    photo credit


    ... sorry Barry, I can't quite manage the quaint Victorian prose ...
    Graham
    USDA Zone 7A Elevation 1400 ft

  7. #207
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    DuPage County, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,647

    Default Re: Our understanding of genetics is changing

    Sure you can. Add this to your signature: Ultracrepidarian
    Seems we have some in these threads!
    Regards, Barry

  8. #208
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Rader, Greene County, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    6,702

    Default Re: Our understanding of genetics is changing

    I did the best I could - given the maximum 120 characters allowed for a signature. Since I wouldn't want to slight anyone, here is a more complete definition:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ultracrepidarian


    photo credit



    Graham
    USDA Zone 7A Elevation 1400 ft

  9. #209
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canterbry, UK
    Posts
    1,794

    Default Re: Our understanding of genetics is changing

    Quote Originally Posted by peterloringborst View Post
    No, sorry. I stopped reading your posts weeks ago.
    Another scientific tool eh - a good pair of blinkers? Do they have special masking plates inside the microscopes in your lab to blind the viewer to things that don't suit their purposes?

    You can learn as much as you please about genetics Peter, it looks fascinating. But unless you catch up on the basic population husbandry that is as relevant as ever you won't understand the causes of the present problem or the solutions on offer.

    Mike (UK)
    Last edited by mike bispham; 08-17-2014 at 03:10 AM.
    Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness
    http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/

  10. #210
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland,Auckland,New Zealand
    Posts
    6,127

    Default Re: Our understanding of genetics is changing

    Mike. Please be aware this is the genetics thread.

    Husbandry, which you seem to think is a different thing and something that only you truly understand, should not blind you to the advances in understanding that have been made since you left school.

    When you make remarks such as "unless you catch up on the basic population husbandry", to professionals who work in this field, one wonders if the gap between you and them is so wide that perhaps it is you who needs to catch up.

    An old proverb comes to mind, "the fool is wise in his own understanding".

    Incase you forgot, the thread is titled "Our understanding of genetics is changing". You would appear a lot smarter if you were here to learn not lecture.

    Me, I will never understand this stuff at the level of a lot of these guys but none the less find it fascinating. It would be great to be able to follow a thread like this without the advanced members being constantly lambasted by one guy abusively interjecting dogma he formulated in the 1970's that he also says in every other thread, regardless of topic. Let's keep it real.
    Last edited by Oldtimer; 08-17-2014 at 03:44 AM.
    44 years, been commercial, outfits up to 4000 hives, now 120 hives and 200 nucs as a hobby, selling bees. T (mostly).

  11. #211
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Ithaca, NY USA
    Posts
    1,563

    Default Re: Our understanding of genetics is changing

    Husbandry is a decidedly old timey word, hardly appropriate in the discussion of modern genetics. A brief sojourn to Oxford reveals:

    1767 A. Young Farmer's Lett. 128 There is not a more dubious point in agriculture than the difference between the Old and the New husbandry.

    1803 Gazetteer Scotl. at Yarrow, The chief branch of husbandry is the rearing of sheep.
    Interestingly, I have a friend that raises sheep and has a few hives of bees. I sincerely doubt that she would suggest that one resembled the other in any way, shape or form. But back to the definition: note that 250 years ago, the debate was on about the old and the new. No doubt there will be those that always cling to the old and decry the new.

    By the way, I never meant to imply that the changes in our understanding of genetics will lead to significant changes in the manner of breeding bees. In many quarters, bee breeding is going on successfully with almost no understanding of genetics. This has a lot to do with the evolutionary mechanisms in the honey bee that lead away from inbreeding, lead toward genetic diversity, and tend to ensure that the genetic advances -- if any -- are caused by natural selection instead of human selection. A shining example of this is the replacement of the European bee by the African bee throughout most of the Americas. The natural traits of the African bee make them vastly more resilient than the European bee, at least in tropical and semitropical habitats.

    Many researchers have already pointed to the African bee as an example of a potential source of healthy, vigorous, genetically diverse bees. Just as many have pointed out that they may be completely unsuitable for beekeeping as it is practiced in the US and Canada, due to their unmanageable nature.

  12. #212
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canterbry, UK
    Posts
    1,794

    Default Re: Our understanding of genetics is changing

    Quote Originally Posted by peterloringborst View Post
    Husbandry is a decidedly old timey word, hardly appropriate in the discussion of modern genetics.
    Husbandry barely enters the discussion of modern genetics. Its a different topic. That doesn't mean that its unimportant to beekeeping!

    This is precisely the problem. Beekeepers generally have no clue as to the importance of husbandry (in its full, yes, old fashioned sense). In every other sphere of agriculture, hortculture, any organic culture, the critical importance of selective reproduction is understood. Not beekeeping.

    The danger I'm identifying here is that researchers working on understanding bee genetics (in the full modern sense) may supply the means to provide treatments (this was your answer to my question of what application remember), without being cognizant of the fact that treating bees at all is deeply problematic. They're not like other livestock.

    Quote Originally Posted by peterloringborst View Post
    A brief sojourn to Oxford reveals:
    Your quotes are a) bereft of any context, and b) as they stand, i) an opinion that lacks any information that would able us to judge it, b) a mere opinion by heaven knows who; ii) as a general position, then as now, patent rubbish.

    Quote Originally Posted by peterloringborst View Post
    Interestingly, I have a friend that raises sheep and has a few hives of bees. I sincerely doubt that....
    I suggest you ask her before putting words in her mouth. She might surprise you.

    Quote Originally Posted by peterloringborst View Post
    ... she would suggest that one resembled the other in any way, shape or form.
    It doesn't surprise me that you say that. It reveals pefrectly the continuing depth of your ignorance on matters of livestock reproduction and health.

    Quote Originally Posted by peterloringborst View Post
    But back to the definition: note that 250 years ago, the debate was on about the old and the new. No doubt there will be those that always cling to the old and decry the new.
    I'm not decrying the new. As I've said it looks like fascinating stuff. But you can't replace selective husbandry with something else. Sure you can augment it. But you can also do great damage with new stuff.

    Quote Originally Posted by peterloringborst View Post
    By the way, I never meant to imply that the changes in our understanding of genetics will lead to significant changes in the manner of breeding bees. In many quarters, bee breeding is going on successfully with almost no understanding of genetics.
    We agree on that much.

    Quote Originally Posted by peterloringborst View Post
    This has a lot to do with the evolutionary mechanisms in the honey bee that lead away from inbreeding, lead toward genetic diversity, and tend to ensure that the genetic advances -- if any -- are caused by natural selection instead of human selection.
    There's an awful lot more breeding of a much more prosaic kind going on. Wherever it isn't happening there's plenty of sickness. There is a whole bunch of reasons why it matters - not just the two you've identified. The most important is: the predatory environment continually evolves. Bees have to evolve to just maintain their defences. Stop that evolution - by failing in husbandry - and nature will do it for you.

    There's also much too much poor 'breeding' going on. I'm thinking of the failure to identify and work toward resistance to varroa - the school of thought that says: 'screw it, we've got treatments for that...'

    Quote Originally Posted by peterloringborst View Post
    A shining example of this is the replacement of the European bee by the African bee throughout most of the Americas. The natural traits of the African bee make them vastly more resilient than the European bee, at least in tropical and semitropical habitats.
    Are you talking about natural selection here, or breeding, or both?

    Quote Originally Posted by peterloringborst View Post
    Many researchers have already pointed to the African bee as an example of a potential source of healthy, vigorous, genetically diverse bees. Just as many have pointed out that they may be completely unsuitable for beekeeping as it is practiced in the US and Canada, due to their unmanageable nature.
    A number of researchers, and many more (tf) beeekeepers have pointed out similar advantages in other feral populations. Its the feral 'natural breeding' that's supplying health, not African genes.

    Mike (UK)
    Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness
    http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/

  13. #213
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Rader, Greene County, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    6,702

    Default Re: Our understanding of genetics is changing

    OK, no sheep in this post, but how about a nice bunny ....


    photo credit


    The Energizer folks obviously have met their match!
    Graham
    USDA Zone 7A Elevation 1400 ft

  14. #214
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland,Auckland,New Zealand
    Posts
    6,127

    Default Re: Our understanding of genetics is changing

    I'm wondering if ignoring Bispham would work, in terms of enabling a sensible discussion on various topics. Instead of having every thread, regardless of topic, turned into to the same old "best to best" turned into 2000 word lectures we've been getting over and over.

    Plus it offends me to see experts in their fields having their freely offered knowledge disparaged with such disrespect.
    44 years, been commercial, outfits up to 4000 hives, now 120 hives and 200 nucs as a hobby, selling bees. T (mostly).

  15. #215
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Chardon, Ohio
    Posts
    91

    Default Re: Our understanding of genetics is changing

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldtimer View Post

    Plus it offends me to see experts in their fields having their freely offered knowledge disparaged with such disrespect.
    Well, I do not know if I am much of an expert. Probably not really. I talk to people all the time that know far more than I know. Yet, Bisfam gave me high praise. He labeled my ideas a theory. Anyone who knows even the rudiments of science knows that a theory is an idea that is accepted by the vast majority of experts in the field as proven beyond reasonable doubt at least until someone finds some contradictory evidence. About the only people who would reject the idea would be far right conservatives and/or far left liberals or people who have little expertise. The extremes turn everything into political arguments instead of sticking to math. Those with no expertise are simply filling space and making noise but are generally harmless and also know no math. In all cases they often are happy to dictate to God how he had to do his job. If you can not measure it and turn it into math it is not science.

    Like Peter, I quit reading him. Total waste of my time to feed the troll. It is a shame Barry values trolls so highly. I guess they make him money by swelling the post count. Barry is ok but I have no desire to make him rich with my efforts.

    Dick

  16. #216
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    3,178

    Default Re: Our understanding of genetics is changing

    full Definition of THEORY

    1
    : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
    2
    : abstract thought : speculation
    3
    : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
    4
    a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>
    b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
    5
    : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
    6
    a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
    b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
    c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

    synonyms:
    hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition;

    I personally do not agree with the list of synonyms as I see it crosses a line. Just as there is a line between assume and assert. An assertion is an assumption with evidence to support it while an assumption does not. An assumption is very likely to be incorrect as it is only one out of thousands that could be made.

    I do not agree that hypothesis, conjecture, speculation, or assumption should be included in that list. An hypothesis specifically follows a theory in the chain of reliability. It is a step further from support of acts than a theory.

    Fact a fire is burning. Theory a fire was started, A fire is evidence that it in fact started. Hypothesis would then be that various ways a fire was started.

    Fact: there is a painting. Theory: there is a painter that painted the painting.

    Fact: there is an earth. Theory: there is a creator of the earth.

    Just goes to show that not even theory is widely accepted.
    Stand for what you believe, even if you stand alone.

  17. #217
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Rader, Greene County, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    6,702

    Default Re: Our understanding of genetics is changing

    On the other hand, Einstein's Theory of Relativity is widely accepted!

    The theory of relativity transformed theoretical physics and astronomy during the 20th century. When first published, relativity superseded a 200-year-old theory of mechanics created primarily by Isaac Newton.

    In the field of physics, relativity improved the science of elementary particles and their fundamental interactions, along with ushering in the nuclear age. With relativity, cosmology and astrophysics predicted extraordinary astronomical phenomena such as neutron stars, black holes, and gravitational waves.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

    As Richard pointed out, scientific theory can be somewhat different than a casual theory or speculation, as DY's definition suggested.
    Graham
    USDA Zone 7A Elevation 1400 ft

  18. #218
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland,Auckland,New Zealand
    Posts
    6,127

    Default Re: Our understanding of genetics is changing

    Quote Originally Posted by Rader Sidetrack View Post
    On the other hand, Einstein's Theory of Relativity is widely accepted!
    Well, let's see for how long.

    Week or two ago I discovered this interesting video, outlining in language laymen can understand, how some of the old beliefs are changing.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRzPM3FgF9I

    Not directly related to this discussion I know, but is excellent in terms of showing how we must remain open to advances in knowledge, and not even consider the physical laws we thought to be true, inviolable.
    44 years, been commercial, outfits up to 4000 hives, now 120 hives and 200 nucs as a hobby, selling bees. T (mostly).

  19. #219
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland,Auckland,New Zealand
    Posts
    6,127

    Default Re: Our understanding of genetics is changing

    Quote Originally Posted by mike bispham View Post
    Husbandry barely enters the discussion of modern genetics. Its a different topic. Mike (UK)
    That being your personal belief, no need to keep arguing about it in the genetics thread.
    44 years, been commercial, outfits up to 4000 hives, now 120 hives and 200 nucs as a hobby, selling bees. T (mostly).

  20. #220
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ojai, California
    Posts
    1,084

    Default Re: Our understanding of genetics is changing

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Cryberg View Post
    ... Anyone who knows even the rudiments of science knows that a theory is an idea that is accepted by the vast majority of experts in the field as proven beyond reasonable doubt at least until someone finds some contradictory evidence. About the only people who would reject the idea would be far right conservatives and/or far left liberals or people who have little expertise. The extremes turn everything into political arguments instead of sticking to math. Those with no expertise are simply filling space and making noise but are generally harmless and also know no math... If you can not measure it and turn it into math it is not science....

    Dick
    I was going to avoid commenting in this thread, specifically due to the risk of being ultracrepidarian, but I really like your whole quote. I've edited it some, but so much enjoy the part I've left in - may I have your permission to plagiarize this from time to time? Well stated. Bravo!

    Yes or no, thank you either way!
    -kilo
    Last edited by kilocharlie; 08-17-2014 at 06:07 PM.

Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... 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