Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

Do Bees Change Color

12K views 53 replies 17 participants last post by  JWPalmer 
#1 ·
We were changing out our feeder jars today. As we were placing the new jars in, we both noticed several bees that were the same size as our others but had almost jet-black bodies, shiny and smooth. Very different from our normally golden colored Carnolians.
They didn't seem to be a bother to the others but were certainly very differently colored.

Is this something that we have failed to notice before, or is there another answer?

Thanks
Jeff
 
#39 ·
Mike
Animals grow thicker fur/hair in colder climates, etc.. Not a new species, a built in (predetermined) ability to adjust.
The only problim I have with your view is that the position you put forward as I read it seems to be so sure that there seems to be no predetermined built in chance for accident. I do not have such a narrow view. I believe that leaving room for accidental change that could go good or bad based on the pressure facing the change that happend to it could decide if it was a bennificial mutation or a bad one and could be a predetermined thing. predetermined to allow for the chance of accident. I know where you are comming from but think that the chance for accident could be on purpose and you seem to speak as one who knows that that could not be part of predetermination. I don't speak that I know all the possibilities of the determiner that did the predetermaning.
I never trust any position that is on too solid of a footing cause I try not to think I am as smart as something that could predetermen things that are so far above my head. All I can do is try but knowing would put me on the some level that I know I am not on and don't deserve to be on. I try and do my best not to be a belief police where other peoples belief are concerned but I also never trust anyone who "knows" anything but look up to those that are trying to know stuff.
I do not believe any human has figured out the possibilities and so learning as much as you can and theorys is what is left. Study and learning what you can is not bad.

I read about some bird that is the same type of bird that is in other placed and that was on an island with no preditors that lost the ability to fly and of fish in caves that have no site. Perhaps they were made that way or perhaps they adjusted to thier living conditions.

Cheers
gww
 
#40 ·
gww:
You spoke about what appears to be my attitude/view - so let me first say,
I am not telling anyone what they can or can't believe - I do not have that authority or power.
I put out what I know to be true. I can not give any physical evidence other than everything nature around you has been and continues to be as it was. No one has ever seen a species actually change. I could point to human nature (attitudes, actions, etc.) and say that it is proof because God said it was that way and could not change. But it requires faith to accept that.

Science test things and decides what is "true" - never able to escape that humans know and understand very little actual facts. Theories are simply ideas that appear to be true (and I know many dislike it, but many theories do not even get tested before they take their place as a basis for further studies). It is all as far as a human can see (which is so greatly limited). They can not present any physical evidence for much of their theories. The physical things they can point to must be accompanied with their interpretation to be viewed as they see it. They just found human teeth they date to a few billion years old (older than they claimed humans were around). That means (at the *very least*) they were wrong - either about how long humans were on earth, or their dating methods are faulty (I would suggest both - not blindly, I have reasoning for it... and there are many such things). They claimed for decades that the flint and stone chips they dug up were made by primitive man - and that *only* man could make such "tools"... Then they recently discovered some monkeys chipping stones, creating the same type of chips -they did it to lick up the minerals. A belief in this system requires faith to accept it.


That is my biggest point. Both are faith, and both are religion ("gods" come in many more forms than an idol). I also know it will never make any headway - the implications that science be considered a faith/religion.


I believe there is room for mistakes (i.e. mutations), and it was allowed for.
Problem is - the mistakes do not change things. The mistakes cause problems. What species enhancement have we seen (not a theory or a study - but was seen take place)? The tits' beaks doesn't mean anything since there are tits with large beaks and ones will smaller. The article saying they studied "historic data" doesn't mean anything by itself. We have taller and shorter people, fat and thin, nearsighted and farsighted - - those are differences but not enhancements to a species because of mutations.


As to what appears to be a taller population in places like Japan... is it a mutation (I do not know of anyone claiming that). Almost everything I have heard is that it is attributed to diet.
We grow a lot of stuff - so if I grow corn and do not provide all the nutrients it needs it will grow shorter. But that is neither a mutation or a change of species.
 
#41 ·
Mike
The tits' beaks doesn't mean anything since there are tits with large beaks and ones will smaller.
Where I dissagree is, I am willing to leave it open that in a thousand years from now there may be no small beaks.

We have taller and shorter people, fat and thin, nearsighted and farsighted - - those are differences but not enhancements to a species because of mutations
We also see albino bees and deer and.... Maby being taller is nutrition or maby it is breeding (unwittingly). Or maby it is both. To say it is nutrition relies on studies changes in food source and would be the same type study as all the others but one that would fit in your belief system and so therefor more palitable to you. Does that make sence. You relie on studies based on reconizng creation but have firm views that you understand What is being told to you by your religion and studying the things of your religion. I can look at the same religion and doing my best can see that there are many that are doing thier best to understand the very thing you think to understand in the religion but come up in differrent places then you do doing your best.

I look at that very same thing that you look at and come to the conclusion that it is so big that my brain can not fathom it and so approch with the ideal that belief and understanding are two differrent things and so in the end all it is is trying. Since it is so big and above my head, I say why could not this thing that there is contention on be being done in a way that is right and it is just something that I don't know that makes it so.

Everybody can only think on there best with what is known at the time. Some things seemed to be proved and some are disproved or improved upon with added data. Even if everything is a guess, it is a guess on what is being seen at the time with the knowlage up to that point. We know that antibiotics has saved poeple and we know that diseise has mutated to survive antibodies. We don't know what the end will be. We study and adjust.

However when it comes to a religion wether sience or the bible, the process is the same, it is looked at, a theory is formed and then the trying to test it is born. Because of the fact that too many people can study the same religion and have differrent outcomes of that study even when doing thier best. I mentioned the seven deadly sins in a differrent thread and you said (me paraphrasing) not in my bible. Now I could take it that your bible is better then the catholic bible. You implication was that catholics were wrong. (by the way, I know it is not in all in one place in the bible that says the seven deadly sins I am refering to) It is teachings to explain things in the bible though.

So I say you don't know squat even if you believe it hard but in defence of that, I also say I don't know squat. I am not just picking on you. I am less willing to dismiss that a person that spent years collecting bugs who says there are less bugs and this is why. I will retain the right to think about what reasons he comes up with the why and see if they make sence to me and maby even buy into them untill I know more. While I do that I will also keep in mind that there is only so much time in a day and so many bases that can be covered and so I will add bases coverd by others also to the picture. I will take my own experiances and add them. Experiance like I can set out mouse traps and catch good in the beginning and fewer later and then I can decide I am catching fewer because the mice are smarter, there are fewer of them or there is something I am missing. I won't discount how many mice I did catch or how few I catch now.

That is how I look at sience. I am not going to discount the work they put in and will do my best to put that into my perspective which will be lacking because I am not god.

I argue with my brother on these things and all I can say is he is sure he is right and I know he is wrong on some things he is sure he is right on. This is not the place for this and so I am going to quit while I am behind but before I go I am going to say that I am not willing to say that we understand the time line of human development if we base it only on the bible cause doing out very best, no one can really understand the bible. That is why jesus talked in parables, so that simple people who did not understand it all could at least understand that one little thing.

If we knew it all then why would we need faith.

I don't know if the birds with long beaks is an adaptaion of a mutation that is benificial and will become more the rule or not but if they are fatter and heathier now, I don't discount that as time goes by and fighting for resources happen, the strong might be the dominate in the end and the story is just being writen. It could go the other way where the skinny bird doesn't need as much and does better. Both are changes that could take over in my mind.

I am just glad some one noticed it cause now we can study it.
Cheers
gww
 
#42 ·
Let me try to quickly comment on a few things, then maybe - if we continue - we can bring it back to being about bees.

...
Where I dissagree is, I am willing to leave it open that in a thousand years from now there may be no small beaks.
(kind of more off topic for a minute)
There was an article on the pepper moths which are common in England. It is seen either as a light grey or a dark color (two variations basically). The study showed that during the time when pollution in the UK was worse the darker moths were more plentiful in urban areas than the usually more plentiful lighter moths. The idea was that the sooty pollution caused a darker environment in which the darker moths were better hidden from birds that feed on them.
So during this time the darker moths prevailed (what they say is "out-compete") in urban areas while the lighter moths "out-competed" in rural areas.
When pollution was reduced the darker moth again became more noticeable and so the lighter moths once again "out-competed" them.
The article (encyclopedia article) claimed that this was "One of the clearest examples of natural selection". It said that had the pollution continued the lighter moths would have eventually become extinct in the urban areas, and the darker moths extinct in the rural areas. That eventually the two may have split into two separate species.

As you see this is very much like the article Rader posted. It could sound possible - but...

Let us consider - Before the industrial revolution, both moths existed (neither went extinct in the urban or rural areas). They continued to interbreed (i.e. they were the same species).
When the industrial pollution began - the lighter moth did not become extinct in the urban areas, and the darker did not become extinct in the rural areas (which would obviously not happen since they never were extinct before the pollution began). Since the industrial revolution began in the late 1700s you must admit there had been ample time for the darker moth to have gone extinct.
When the pollution cleared, the situation returned to normal (i.e. both variations - with the darker not as plentiful because [assumed] it was easier prey).

Yet the study and article came up with an entire theory that they could have eventually even split into two species. Yet the obvious evidence is that since they had never done so before the pollution began - there is absolutely no reason to think this had the pollution continued.

"Natural Selection" is a term that was created to mean much more than simply one organism currently reproducing at better rates than anther. Which is obviously what the pepper moth went through. Yet the article used that as "One of the best examples".

We also see albino bees and deer and.... Maby being taller is nutrition or maby it is breeding (unwittingly). Or maby it is both. To say it is nutrition relies on studies changes in food source and would be the same type study as all the others but one that would fit in your belief system and so therefor more palitable to you. Does that make sence.
Actually I think I mentioned that it was believed to be nutrition. I do not know if they know.
I do not (or at least try not) to accept something simply because it agrees with me or my thinking. It is something that needs guarding against.
My point was that it is not a mutation, and not a change in species.

You relie on studies based on reconizng creation but have firm views that you understand What is being told to you by your religion and studying the things of your religion.
I would be the last to deny that my Faith/religion does not influence my methods of thinking. Just as the scientific method influences those who rely on it.
Yet I would also suggest that I do not simply accept any study based on whether it agrees or not. If I put my faith in the knowledge man comes up with - my faith can be broken by the knowledge man comes up with.
If I accept a study it is because it makes sense - both in what they say and in agreement with what I know is True.

I have seen and heard of many "studies" that could basically agreed with my faith/religion, which I have rejected because they were obviously flawed.

When I choose to argue a point against a study or method of science - it is because I see flaws. I pass up on ones I do not understand and so could not argue (for or against).

I can look at the same religion and doing my best can see that there are many that are doing thier best to understand the very thing you think to understand in the religion but come up in differrent places then you do doing your best.
I realize that is how it is viewed. But I see flaws in that - just as in some of science.
If I study a subject in science - I will never understand it in piece meal (by taking one part deciding what it means, then another part and deciding what it means, and the next, and so on). I have to take the whole thing and use it to interpret it by itself.
The reason so many denominations do not agree on God's Word is because they define it in piece meal. I use all of God's Word to define any part of it. That is how I guard against personal interpretations.
A simple example is "You will not kill". Many denominations now have decided to define that as "murder". Yet if taken as a whole it can only mean "kill" because of Jesus words which prove it.

I agree that germs become resistant to drugs (but they do not become a new "species" [not the right term I know]). A flu germ is still a flu germ even if it becomes resistant to a drug.
We become resistant or sensitive (like bee stings) - but we are not mutating to something better. It is a naturally created ability to make limited changes.
Obviously if we could mutate would we not have already through "natural selection" beaten cancer and the flu - if we have had "billions of years" - why hasn't it happened? Why haven't we seen *one* instance of a species change into a new one?

...
I mentioned the seven deadly sins in a differrent thread and you said (me paraphrasing) not in my bible. Now I could take it that your bible is better then the catholic bible. You implication was that catholics were wrong. (by the way, I know it is not in all in one place in the bible that says the seven deadly sins I am refering to) It is teachings to explain things in the bible though.
I do not recall my exact comment - something to the fact that many denominations have come up with odd ideas.
The "seven deadly sins" was a list created by a pope (I had to look it up because I had heard it before but didn't pay much attention). God's Word says *any* unrepentant sin is deadly.
Again, it is the same as handling science right or wrong. I can handle God's Word right or wrong.

So I say you don't know squat even if you believe it hard....
I think I know a bit more than that.... but I would agree I have a lot to learn.

...cause doing out very best, no one can really understand the bible. That is why jesus talked in parables, so that simple people who did not understand it all could at least understand that one little thing.
It sounds arrogant (I am not, and I try not to sound like it) - I do understand God's Word. Or at least all the important parts. I do not need to understand the day Christ will return - all I need to know is, if I am obeying God in true faith - it doesn't matter, so when isn't an important part.... though so many people labor over that particular point.
But my understanding comes from taking it for what it says (rather than what I would *really* prefer it to mean). It isn't that hard to do, you simply use it to define itself. We as humans do it for so many other things, but somehow lose that ability with that one book (because we want it not to mean what it says).


That is a long post after all - sorry.... and I agree, we have wandered very far from the original topic (we could blame Rader ;) he brought the birds into this [joking]... but I think we lost him somewhere along the way)

I agree also - that will be my last off topic post on the thread.
 
#43 ·
Yup and study we will. I did another hive inspection today hoping to find the
wild type purple eyes drone. He turn out to be a more than wild type changing his
eyes to a deeper purple now as wild as he can make himself. Still his body cannot be
change because it is a color set in stone already. Cannot ask an orange color bee to change back to
the yellow color.

Now this drone has the deepest purple eyes (almost a dark color) and a lightest yellow abdomen and thorax that I like to keep this
genetics around. His abdomen doesn't has the yellow bands at all almost a solid pattern to it. A normal Cordovan drone has the
brownish thorax and the darker eyes but this purple eyes drone has the most yellow thorax of them all. Hope you can spot him in the pics. As I've said before, there is an almost glass like transparent workers that I've never seen before that I spotted over this summer in the hives. So maybe this drone is the one that carry this transparent yellow genes with him. Would be interesting to do a one drone II if there is any virgin around with compatible genetics. What if I can II this Cordovan drone to a carnis daughter? Would the result be 50/50 mutt, pure carnis and pure Cordovan bees too? If it is pure then can we still say that there is no such thing as a pure form of bees anymore? Too bad we're too late into the season now. :(

After 2 generation of back crossing, I've already achieved this to pick out the color of my liking along with the drones associated with this gene. I will study more to see what else will show up in the future generation. Maybe the albinos white eyes drones will show up one day too, who knows. Recessive gene is fun to do little bee experiment on.


Deep purple & bright yellow drone:
 

Attachments

#48 ·
OK, by popular request, an article on how mutations among the bee population allow bees to adapt ...

"Population genomics of the honey bee reveals strong signatures of positive selection on worker traits"
Here is the scientific version, published by the National Academy of Sciences:
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/7/2614.full

If the language and datasets in the full version get a bit challenging, here is less technical summary:
https://io9.gizmodo.com/why-honeybees-are-a-strange-example-of-darwinian-evolut-1538074226

Here is a teaser ...
For decades, kin selection was just a theory. Recently, however, we've accumulated enough genetic information about honeybees that we're able to analyze how they're evolving at a DNA level. And a few years ago, Zayed and his colleagues wondered whether they could use genetic evidence to back up Hamilton's fifty-year-old idea. First, they gathered 40 honeybee genomes from subspecies regions all over Africa, Asia, the Middle East and the Americas. "One researcher even risked great danger to get a honeybee in Syria," Zayed said.

After an intensive analysis, the team discovered that there are certain regions of the honeybee genome that are undergoing rapid positive selection. That means they found several relatively new mutations that have spread quickly throughout honeybee subspecies because they are so useful. [HIGHLIGHT]And nearly all of those mutations were associated with honeybee workers' ability to adapt their behavior to new environments and manage the worker division of labor. [/HIGHLIGHT]Essentially, all the most rapidly-changing parts of the honeybee genomes were selecting for traits that gave advantages to those sterile workers.

Read the rest here:
https://io9.gizmodo.com/why-honeybees-are-a-strange-example-of-darwinian-evolut-1538074226

Please don't anyone tell us that the topic of mutations among bees is not pertinent to a thread titled "Do Bees Change Color?" :)
 
#50 ·
I would suggest reading the actual study, at least then your not getting an interpretation of an interpretation.

I think some people think all science is 1+1=2. Hardly. Results and what is seen require interpretations to decide what they mean. Then when media gets hold of studies it is now universal facts.

What would be the point in further comment. If people want to take a theory and treat it as fact - that's their right.
 
#52 ·
So, this bee changing color thing. The other day I was inspecting my out yard nucs and saw a totally orange bee. Only the eyes were black. Legs, abdomen, thorax, all orange. However the wings were completely undeveloped, mere sticks. I assume this is a failed genetic mutation and like many mutations simply did not survive.

I haven't seen much in this discussion about recessive traits which may have at one time been mutations but are now firmly entrenched in the gene pool.
 
#53 ·
wings like mere sticks, this is a sign of the mites infection brought on by the
various DWVs disease. One nuc hive is already mite free the other nuc is not.
 
#54 ·
All the other bees look very healthy in these nucs. Very large compared to my summer time bees. And very active. Still, I think I'll drop an Apivar strip in each tomorrow morning.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top