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

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

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

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

We need a smilies code that looks like that.

 

Natural Selection

Evolution is usually framed within the theory of Natural Selection.

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

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

Adam Finkelstein
adamf7@gmail.com

 

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

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

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

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

Am I looking at this right?

 

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

-Nathanael

 

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

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

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

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

 

random

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

 

Evolution vs. Breeding

Mike,

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

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



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

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

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

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



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


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



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

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

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



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



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



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



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


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

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

Mike

 

First off, Bjorn, nice thread!

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

-Nathanael

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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


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

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

 

Bjorn,

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

Dave

 

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

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

 

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

Dave

 

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

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

 

Bjorn,

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

Dave

 

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

Dave

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Bjorn,

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

Dave

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

Random revisited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adam Finkelstein
adamf7@gmail.com

 

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

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

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

How's that sound?

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fun stuff!


Adam Finkelstein
adamf7@gmail.com

 

My 2 cents

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

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

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

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

ndvan

 

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

 

Yuletider,

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

ndvan

 

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

deknow