Yes, to some extent ... but science is yet to provide an asnwer as to what the original spark was that created intelligent life on earth was. Yet there are billions of scientists who have a deeply religous belief .... I'm never going to argue about religion - more zealots than in beekeeping and its caused more wars than virtually anything else. My position ... if there is a higher being or a life force than continues beyond death ... then I'll be happy when I'm gone, if there isn't .. well - my genes live on in my children and grandchildren.
I try my best with the constant needling
My point was that there are things in the world that people believe in with absolutely no proof of their existence.
There is no forum law that says someone cannot post in each and every thread ... as long as they play nicely we mods will not be moderating ...they can be boring, contentious, informative, ill-informed, or as many shades in between as they like. As long as they meet the two forum rules .. keep it clean and kick the ball not the man ... their posts are welcome. Sometimes they are on piste and sometimes pisted off .... it's a light touch forum ....
Maybe... 'not likely' probably isn't the phrase I'd choose with something which has happened as much as speciation. Still..."Incorrect. It can be lost,".....I think that the statement, "not likely to be lost" covers that. eventuality.
Your observation "Intensive selection for production traits generally does lead to a decrease in general 'fitness'." is quite interesting in this context, if it can be applied to bees.
Sounds very precise. Which one?
No need: stick to straightforward examples we're most likely to come across; BN's advice covers it: be polite and friendly and reasonable, and aware that the worst that can happen is that you'll fall off a ladder.
Not complicated: this firm of bailiffs have a straightforward list of recommendations which the farmer would be wise to follow before claiming ownership. failing which, I reckon the beekeeper would have a good case.
No my logic is based on paragraphs 54 and 55 of the case I linked which you obviously haven't bothered to read.
I have one of these tripod ladders ... fantastic bit of kit ... only mistake I made ... I bought the next size down from the tallest as that's what I needed to get to the top of the conifer hedge .... I should have bought the tallest one because that would have got me up to the eves of the house - the one I have leaves me just a couple of rungs short. Great for pruning the trees and swarm collecting ...
It an interesting observation. The key must be in 'intensive', the more intensive, the greater the loss. I guess sacrifices of general fitness for production traits is always sought. You don't need to run cow, stop putting on muscle and bone and just make milk sort of thing.
You don't really believe that do you.
If I may, I think the context is what happens in evolutionary terms on an each-generational basis, and what happens in evolutionary terms once in a blue moon, is something rather different. Carrying observations from the one to the other probably doesn't work in this case.
I'd be much more comfortable messing about up there with a reliable human steadying at the bottom
The millions of species on this planet that arose via speciation? Speciation is the product of what happens on a generational basis, they are interlinked.
well it has already been proven that the Blenheim 'survivor' bees were no such thing it's a probability the other 'survivors' are just fantasies dreamt up by the usual cuckoos. So yes, I do not believe in all this 'survivor' rubbish spouted
Hang on: have I missed the big reveal?
So another liar then who is voluble until suddenly DNA testing results become "confidential"
