Man made v natural breeding and selection

[Sanntos]

We have a responsibility to new beekeepers (and there's a lot of them), because they are always confused. Even without threads like this. And the writing of Beesnaturally can't affect experienced beekeepers. But beginners can very well believe that you can treat, or not treat, monitor or not monitor.

 

[elainemary]

The 'hundreds or thousands of years' notion is garbage. It's not your fault, but you have been fed rubbish.

As the scientific extract I posted yesterday makes clear, adapting takes just a few years. If, and only if, you allow the sick genes to be terminated.

Think breeding population. That's the route to understanding.

None of that makes your decision wrong. Wrong bees, wrong place, and you have no choice.

Completely understand your hypothesis, however most of us live close to other beekeepers and not in splendid isolation on Danish mating islands or 15km from other beekeepers. So will take many years of natural selection, whether hundreds or thousands is semantics, most beekeepers are not prepared to lose their bees in the meantime

 

[Mint Bee]

Read what I've written. It's no good trying to explain anything to you when you ignore everything except what you think you can use as a stick to beat me.

Wasn't it you who said you weren't going to talk to me any more? If so, perhaps we can go back to that and everyone will breathe a sigh of relief.

I've made no further comments regarding the science behind your program. I simply wanted to understand if you were using the bees as a single source of income or were a hobbiest?

I don't recall you stating this in this thread, so if you have I apologies and would ask for a post number.
I think the is important to know as to whether this is a potential system for sustainable commercial bee keeping.

I pinky promise not to use anything in the answer to the question to use as a stick to beat you with, and then maybe I'll put you on ignore

 

[Wilco]

@Beesnaturally In case I haven't been clear:

• Natural selection is not a pet idea. It is a concept Darwin (contentious) developed following years of study and was presented along with evidence collected over those years of study as part of a broader theory.
• You are trying to use a basic idea of it as part of your pet theory, without evidence. Part of which I have reasoned with.
• If you personally want a short description of natural selection, a secondary school level biology textbook may be a good place to start. However I don't think it will help you in this thread - the issue people have here is not in misunderstanding natural selection.

 

[mbc]

I've enjoyed reading his books over the years but times and knowledge have moved on.

I've always been envious of the smoker boy and the follower to put hives back together when he's done.

 

[Wilco]

I've made no further comments regarding the science behind your program. I simply wanted to understand if you were using the bees as a single source of income or were a hobbiest?

I don't recall you stating this in this thread, so if you have I apologies and would ask for a post number.
I think the is important to know as to whether this is a potential system for sustainable commercial bee keeping.

I pinky promise not to use anything in the answer to the question to use as a stick to beat you with, and then maybe I'll put you on ignore

#315 I believe. #203 may also be relevant.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Completely understand your hypothesis, however most of us live close to other beekeepers and not in splendid isolation on Danish mating islands or 15km from other beekeepers. So will take many years of natural selection, whether hundreds or thousands is semantics, most beekeepers are not prepared to lose their bees in the meantime

It won't happen, ever, where beekeepers treat....

 

[Beesnaturally]

I've made no further comments regarding the science behind your program. I simply wanted to understand if you were using the bees as a single source of income or were a hobbiest?

I don't recall you stating this in this thread, so if you have I apologies and would ask for a post number.
I think the is important to know as to whether this is a potential system for sustainable commercial bee keeping.

I pinky promise not to use anything in the answer to the question to use as a stick to beat you with, and then maybe I'll put you on ignore

Deal. Yes, it is my sole source of income, and has been for about 4 years now. Note however, I live alone and am seriously good at living cheaply. That way I have been able to generate investment funds, put in lots of labour - I've had to build in to my barn a kitchen, bathroom and office, with all associated costs.

Is that commercial beekeeping? Only sort of. Could I build it up now? You bet.

 

[Erichalfbee]

Deal. Yes, it is my sole source of income, and has been for about 4 years now. Note however, I live alone and am seriously good at living cheaply. That way I have been able to generate investment funds, put in lots of labour - I've had to build in to my barn a kitchen, bathroom and office, with all associated costs.

Is that commercial beekeeping? Only sort of. Could I build it up now? You bet.

Ah. I wondered whether you had partner children mortgage.

 

[Beesnaturally]

@Beesnaturally In case I haven't been clear:

• Natural selection is not a pet idea. It is a concept Darwin (contentious) developed following years of study and was presented along with evidence collected over those years of study as part of a broader theory.
• You are trying to use a basic idea of it as part of your pet theory, without evidence. Part of which I have reasoned with.
• If you personally want a short description of natural selection, a secondary school level biology textbook may be a good place to start. However I don't think it will help you in this thread - the issue people have here is not in misunderstanding natural selection.

You can't do it can you. Or, you are not confident that I won't show you what you are missing.

If I had a penny for every internet beekeeper who has said 'of course I know what natural selection is...' and in the next line demonstrates that what he should have said was, 'yeah, kind of', or, 'I've heard of it, that's knowing it isn't it.'

I'm trying to wheedle out a very specific point here. I don't think you are going to be the person who'll help me do that.

Btw: in my last post to you, the one you most recently quote, I QUOTED a scientific paper stating, as its key premise, EXACTLY what my 'pet theory' as you describe it is.

Did you miss that?

Are you in the habit of pretending nothing significant has been said? Or just into cherry-picking your science?

I assume your 'contentious' refers to Darwin drawing on others' ideas, and merely being the first to assemble and publish the theory. At least I hope that's what you mean.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Ah. I wondered whether you had partner children mortgage.

I'm a four time soon-to-be five grandfather. With a longstanding clinical back condition.

Yeah, solo life and a willingness to invest in your beliefs makes an awful lot possible.

 

[Erichalfbee]

a willingness to invest in your beliefs makes an awful lot possible.

It certainly does for lots of us.

 

[madasafish]

ALl this stuff about "Natural Selection is best" is garbage.
Why?
Because if you select naturally to be the best to survive in your local habitat.. whatever it may be - and it changes rapidly - you are selected for a habitat no longer suitable. Just think of natural disasters . The dinosaurs were supremely well adapted: and flourished for millions of years. Then bang ! they were all extinct within a very short timescale and the next to be king was a tiny mammal which evolved over the next 60 million years to be the most adaptable and ruthless of all mammals : us. We have evolved so we can live as Eskimos in the cold of the Arctic and hunter gatherers in South American jungles.

Look at the wolf: a brilliant hunter: but it met a better one. Now more domesticated wolves bred to live with humans (BRED: not Evolved) live in the world than wolves. (eg approx 250,000 grey wolves,47 million dogs.)

Whether you like it or not, we change populations of animals and insects and have done so for at least 20,0000 years. We are changing the climate.. We will adapt to it: many species are incapable of doing so.

Pushing natural selection is best when man is busy changing the environment and the climate is like saying : the world will stay still. It will not when man is alive.

See also wheat, sweet corn, sugar,. cows, sheep. potatoes, brussel sprouts, cabbage, rice and all the products of selection by Man. We change the environment far faster than natural selection can work.

 

[Wilco]

You can't do it can you. Or, you are not confident that I won't show you what you are missing.

If I had a penny for every internet beekeeper who has said 'of course I know what natural selection is...' and in the next line demonstrates that what he should have said was, 'yeah, kind of', or, 'I've heard of it, that's knowing it isn't it.'

I'm trying to wheedle out a very specific point here. I don't think you are going to be the person who'll help me do that.

Btw: in my last post to you, the one you most recently quote, I QUOTED a scientific paper stating, as its key premise, EXACTLY what my 'pet theory' as you describe it is.

Did you miss that?

Are you in the habit of pretending nothing significant has been said? Or just into cherry-picking your science?

I assume your 'contentious' refers to Darwin drawing on others' ideas, and merely being the first to assemble and publish the theory. At least I hope that's what you mean.

I'm confident enough in who and what I am to be able to engage in scientific discourse based on facts and logic rather that resorting to personal attacks when someone challenges my opinion. Good luck with your project, I hope you manage to get some data to back up your ideas. Out.

 

[Finman]

Get to know natural selection first, then pose questions like that. (The easy answer is we moderns have pretty much learned how to evade natural selection. And that may well come back and bite us on the bum someday)

Well. You had a comment to Finland's national vaccination program. But you have no address.

 

[Ian123]

It won't happen, ever, where beekeepers treat....

What you mean like Kent

 

[Beesnaturally]

What you mean like Kent

It depends where in Kent you/they are. You don't need a whole county to yourself.

I thought we might have figured that out by now.

 

[JamezF]

Look at the wolf: a brilliant hunter: but it met a better one. Now more domesticated wolves bred to live with humans (BRED: not Evolved) live in the world than wolves. (eg approx 250,000 grey wolves,47 million dogs.)

Unrelated to the topic, but a random fact which surprised me when I read it... Dogs were not bred from grey wolves, but in fact the two appear to share a common ancestor, and the reason that grey wolves are thought to be similar to dogs is because of gene transfer from dogs into the wolf gene pool possibly after dogs were domesticated. It's a weird thing.

James

 

[Ian123]

It depends where in Kent you/they are. You don't need a whole county to yourself.

I thought we might have figured that out by now.

I asked before if you’d give us a rough location so we can check out beebase.

 

[Beesnaturally]

ALl this stuff about "Natural Selection is best" is garbage.
Why?
Because if you select naturally to be the best to survive in your local habitat.. whatever it may be - and it changes rapidly - you are selected for a habitat no longer suitable. Just think of natural disasters . The dinosaurs were supremely well adapted: and flourished for millions of years. Then bang ! they were all extinct within a very short timescale and the next to be king was a tiny mammal which evolved over the next 60 million years to be the most adaptable and ruthless of all mammals : us. We have evolved so we can live as Eskimos in the cold of the Arctic and hunter gatherers in South American jungles.

Look at the wolf: a brilliant hunter: but it met a better one. Now more domesticated wolves bred to live with humans (BRED: not Evolved) live in the world than wolves. (eg approx 250,000 grey wolves,47 million dogs.)

Whether you like it or not, we change populations of animals and insects and have done so for at least 20,0000 years. We are changing the climate.. We will adapt to it: many species are incapable of doing so.

Pushing natural selection is best when man is busy changing the environment and the climate is like saying : the world will stay still. It will not when man is alive.

See also wheat, sweet corn, sugar,. cows, sheep. potatoes, brussel sprouts, cabbage, rice and all the products of selection by Man. We change the environment far faster than natural selection can work.

Well that's a nice rich contentious soup. But it doesn't address the discussion at all as far as I can see.