# treating resistant varroa



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

mrobia . . .

Are you asking about treating just "resistant" V-mites or treating w/ antibotics or treating w/ two or more chemicals at the same time?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

If you want a treatment to kill resistant Varroa, Oxalic acid vapro will kill them and does not require any help.









I don't want EITHER of the other two common chemicals in my hives, let alone BOTH of them.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

This is headed back to the old topics of OA versus other chemical treatments. Before it goes too far, let me just point out that efforts are being made to register OA with the EPA for use in beehives in the US.

http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/PESP/regional_grants/2005/R7-2005.htm

The problem so far isn't that registering a common chemical costs too much, it's that no one so far has been willing to do the research without funding to get the registration through.

Of course, we will still have to deal with Varroa that develop resistance to OA. I know some beekeepers deny mites can ever develop resistance to OA, but I've yet to find any logical argument to support that claim.

Now, back to the idea of combining the two commercial treatments (coumaphos and fluvalinate): I'd hesitate to try it. It might be worth trying, but I'd be very much concerned about a few issues. 

See, when we (humans) come up with chemicals that kill organisms, those chemicals pose some threat to similar forms of life. The more closely related the forms of life, the greater threat those chemicals pose. For example, herbicides, in general, are less dangerous to humans than insecticides because humans are far more similar physiologically to insects than to plants. Mites and bees are really very, very similar. Chemicals -- of any sort -- that are dangerous enough to kill mites are also dangerous, and potentially lethal, to bees. Combining the two also could create compounds from the combination that are equally toxic or even more toxic.

First, though, how do you determine when you have "resistant" mites? Let's say, for instance, that you treat your hives with Apistan, and mites remain in the hives. Are the mites resistant, or was some other factor in play? Could you have treated at the wrong time? Could the treatment have been weak, or left in the hives for too short a period of time? Could more mites simply have moved in after the treatment? Could the treatment have failed because mites survived in capped brood (timing)? And, are they resistant to CheckMite+, too? (Same question apply.)

The problem that I encounter is that too many people see the most potent option as the "best" option. "Well, I don't know if the mites in my hives are resistant or not, but if I treat with the strong stuff, it'll kill 'em whether or not they're resistant." True, but it also drives the development of resistance far more rapidly AND increases the amounts of toxic chemicals used.

Of course, the combination of the two chemicals is already recommended, in a way. Rather than applying both simultaneously, most researchers recommend alternating between the two treatments.

[Sorry, this got really long-winded and a bit off-topic. In short, I think a better method of trying to deal with resistant mites is integrated pest management with resorting to chemical treatments as "rescue treatments" only.]


----------



## 2rubes (Apr 28, 2005)

Consider using powdered sugar to knock down resistant mites. Its easy, practical and very efficent. 
Continuing on the the mites developing resistance to OA and other pesticides, the subject has interested me because of our intense use of powdered sugar. With the way that varroa evolves so fast, do you think the mites would find a way to outwit powdered sugar? Ive been wondering about this for some time and I did have the chance to asked Eric Mussen from U.C. Davis. He said the mites would probably have to evolve physically, like grow longer claws to overcome the powdered sugar getting on the sticky pads, causing them to detach. And Dr. Mussen felt it wouldnt happen in my lifetime. Just curious, I would love another opionion, what do you think?
Thanks,
Janet


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Resistance to powdered sugar? I don't wish to contradict Eric Mussen, but I think it could (COULD, not will) happen very quickly. Dr. Mussen is probably right -- resistance to powdered sugar probably won't appear in your lifetime. But, like any other form of evolution, the intensity of the selective pressure influences the rate of evolution. If many beekeepers use powdered sugar frequently, the selective pressure increases, and the evolution could occur very quickly.

I've read the opinion (mainly here on BeeSource) that "physical" evolution progresses much more slowly than "physiological" evolution. From the evolutionary biologists I've talked to, that argument just doesn't hold up. Why would it take longer for longer claws to develop than for a novel neurological pathway to provide resistance to a neurotoxin?

The big advantage that I see to powdered sugar (or OA or formic acid or any of these other less common treatments) is that they are less common. The less common the treatments are, the lower the selective pressure. And, a resistant mite will likely only be resistant to a single form of treatment. The chances that a mite that's resistant to coumaphos is also resistant to fluvalinate are very small, the chances that that same mite is also resistant to OA (or any other chemical) are smaller still. That's why alternating among several forms of treatment are typically much more effective than repeatedly using a single form of treatment.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

The mites are not "evolving" resistance to anything. They are simply able to or not able to survive a given treatment. The ones that survive already have that trait and pass it on. The ones that don't survive did not have that trait and those numbers in the gene pool are reduced. It is a simple shift in the population. Talking about anything evolving to anything different in your lifetime is ignoring all of what even the evolutionary scientists believe about evolution.

It is foolish and counterproductive to solving our immediate problems to think and talk about evolution as if it will have any effect, for or against, on our current problems.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

mrobia . . .

Are you asking about treating just "resistant" V-mites or treating w/ antibotics or treating w/ two or more chemicals at the same time?


----------



## 2rubes (Apr 28, 2005)

Wow, 'foolish and counterproductive' for asking a question? That's pretty strong from someone who is supposed to promote our questions about pests. 
My question was sincere in the face of using so much of one product and not having a total understanding of how evolution works. Since these mites have or are becoming resistant to most products, why should I ask. 
Sorry to have wasted your time.
Janet


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"The mites are not "evolving" resistance to anything. They are simply able to or not able to survive a given treatment. The ones that survive already have that trait and pass it on. The ones that don't survive did not have that trait and those numbers in the gene pool are reduced. It is a simple shift in the population. . . ." -Michael Bush

What you just described is "evolution." A shift in the gene pool of a population is evolution. Ask an evolutionary biologist. Look it up. I know we've argued this one out on other threads, and I didn't mean to bring it up yet again. Still, learn the terms and the concepts before simply rejecting the idea.

Evolution is, simply, change over time. The general population of Varroa, previously, was susceptible to the fluvalinate and/or coumaphos. Now, at least in some hives, the general population of Varroa is resistant. That's change, and it happened over time. If you don't call that "evolution," what do you call it?

The confusion comes about with how these variations arise. Mutation gives rise to variations (or, I guess Creation, if you believe in a strict Creationist viewpoint). Mutation is not the same as evolution.

". . . Talking about anything evolving to anything different in your lifetime is ignoring all of what even the evolutionary scientists believe about evolution." -Michael Bush

I highly recommend reading "The Beak of the Finch" by Jonathan Weiner. It's easy reading and well written, yet presents many of these ideas very clearly. The belief that evolution could not be observed in a lifetime is obsolete. Most evolutionary biologist now recognize that evolution -- even at the level you're talking about (speciation, really, and not evolution) -- can and does occur very rapidly at times. If the selective pressure is great enough, speciation even can occur in a just a few generations.


"Are you asking about treating just "resistant" V-mites or treating w/ antibotics or treating w/ two or more chemicals at the same time?" -Dave W

I'm assuming the mrobia was asking about using two or more chemicals at the same time. It's an interesting idea, to my way of thinking, but potentially very dangerous to the bees. That brings up a philosophical question: "If you kill all the Varroa, but you kill all your bees at the same time, do you care that you've killed all the Varroa?"  

"It is foolish and counterproductive to solving our immediate problems to think and talk about evolution as if it will have any effect, for or against, on our current problems." -Michael Bush

Ummm. . . "evolution" is what created the problem in the first place (Varroa changed to be able to use Apis mellifera as a host), it's what beekeepers keep talking about when they talk about breeding Varroa-resistant bees, it's given as the explanation for any resistance that Russian bees seem to have (they've adapted to Varroa because they've been exposed to them for a much longer period of time), and, most importantly, it's responsible for spreading resistance through populations. I think it's very relevant. Counterproductive? I don't know. I don't think we can stop organisms from adapting, but I think understanding the process might give us insight into how best to manage the problem.


----------



## mrobia (Mar 21, 2005)

I was asking if research has been done on treating varroa using two different chemicals at the same time. (eg fluvinate plus coumaphos or one of these plus thymol or oxalic acid or some other combination). Since these different drugs probably work by different mechanisms, they might work together much better than they work separately. The points raised in the replies are valid. It is true that similar organisms will react similarly to treatments and that mites and bees are more similar than humans and tuberculosis. But tuberculosis is treated with several drugs at once to help prevent emergence of resistant tb and other infections are treated with combined drugs for synergy. Even cancer, where the "infection" is extremely similar to the host, is treated with combined drugs for both of the above reasons. So why not varroa? As I say, I am NOT advocating this but just wondered if it has been tried by some Ph.D. candidate or somebody who wants to do the research. I myself stopped using fluvinate and coumaphos three years ago.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>What you just described is "evolution." A shift in the gene pool of a population is evolution. 

No. It's not. All the genetic aspects present before and after are still there. If I have black and white horses and I breed out the white so I only get black, the horses have not evolved. There were black horses before and there are black horses now and every once in a while I'll still get a white horse. This is a simple shift in the proportion in the population of white horses to black horses. The horses have not changed in any way whatsoever.

>Evolution is, simply, change over time.

But nothing has changed except proportions.

>I highly recommend reading "The Beak of the Finch" by Jonathan Weiner. It's easy reading and well written, yet presents many of these ideas very clearly.

Ive been reading about evolution for the last 46 years. I have already wasted far too much time on it. I have more important things to do that have to do with reality instead of fantasy.

>"evolution" is what created the problem in the first place 

You are entitled to that opinion if you like.







It will not help solve your problem.

>Wow, 'foolish and counterproductive' for asking a question?

Trying to solve or prevent pest problems by expecting a "miracle" of evolution to occur, is, IMO, pretty counterproductive.

>That's pretty strong from someone who is supposed to promote our questions about pests. 

I am NOT the moderator of this forum. As far as I know I'm not "supposed" to do anything here. I'm all for questions about almost anything, including bees.









I'm done talking about evolution.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I apologize if I came across as harsh. I'm afraid the "evolutionary" aspects seems like a complete waste of time to me and I do not know how to hide that. I haven't had four hours of sleep any night this week due to horses, bees, family ect. so I may not do a good job of disarming what I say. I'm sorry if I seemed short. I do not wish to discuss evolution. I come here to talk about bees.


----------



## Gene Weitzel (Dec 6, 2005)

>A shift in the gene pool of a population is evolution. 

Unless the definition of evolution has changed since I was in grad school, a shift in the gene pool of a population of a single organism is selective breeding NOT evolution.

Classic evolution involves the proliferation of a random mutation. Most times the mutation is a dead end and is not proliferated. Given enough iterations over time (millions of years) mutations occur that give the organism a distinct survival advantage (like legs to crawl out of the water with) and result in the birth of a new organism that can take better advantage of an environmental change.

I have done enough work with pesticides to know that the way resistance is bred into an insect population is by exposure of the insect to less than lethal doses (leaving the strip in too long). This allows those insects with a natural resistance to the low dose to survive. The natural resistance is increased because it is not the result of just one gene, but a combination of genes and when you increase the occurance of these genes in the gene pool you get more combinations that increase the resistance and the offspring can tolerate a little stronger dose -- repeat this scenario a few times and you get mites that would require a dose that would also be lethal to the bees not mites that are absolutely resistant to the chemical being used. Unfortunately when chemical pesticides are used for any purpose, there are always limits to the dosage that can be used (too high a dose can be detrimental to all lifeforms not just the target) and we will almost always eventually run up against the resistance issue (a good example is the ****roach). This is why I never advocate their use. Physical controls like powdered sugar in the case of the mites or diamotaceous earth in the case of ****roaches and other insects, would truly require evolution (mutation) for an organism to develop resistance. Due to the random nature of genetic mutations the odds of this happening in any of our lifetimes are astronomical.

Resistant strains of bacteria develop exactly the same way. It is as a result of improper use of antibiotics (like the patient not taking the entire course prescribed). Using a combination is just going to delay the inevitable when the real problem is improper dosage (or the dosage we need to prevent resistance from developing in the target is greater than the limits allowed by the host).

Some people may consider selective breeding to be a form of evolution. I do not (techically, I suppose it may be a matter of semantics). The case of selectively breeding mites for resistance is no different than selectively breeding dogs or cats or bees for desirable traits that are already defined in the gene pool. To me evolution requires genetic change that completly redefines the organism into a new species.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Sorry to hear you're being run ragged, Michael. I don't take it personally if you (or anyone else) is harsh in what you say. I enjoy an open conversation about these topics.

I still think you're off base on the "evolution" topic. If I'm understanding you correctly, you believe every trait in every organism has been present since the beginning of time -- no traits have been gained or lost in any organism. Yet I question how that could be.

So, to address a few of these comments directly:

"All the genetic aspects present before and after are still there. If I have black and white horses and I breed out the white so I only get black, the horses have not evolved. There were black horses before and there are black horses now and every once in a while I'll still get a white horse. This is a simple shift in the proportion in the population of white horses to black horses. The horses have not changed in any way whatsoever." -Michael Bush

Ah, but see, the horses, taken as a whole, HAVE changed. If you've truly bred out all the white, so all the horses are black, then the group has changed. There's no chance of getting a white horse, unless a mutation occurs to put the genes back into the population. You can't have it both ways -- either you haven't really bred the white out of the population, or the genetic composition of the population has changed.

All that is beside the point, though. Think, "Change over time." Doesn't matter how great or how small the change, just that change has occurred. Doesn't have to be to any given individual, it's still change. And change during time is evolution.

You're still referring specifically to "speciation." That's a common confusion. People often assume that evolution has not occurred until a "new" species has formed. Really, evolution occurs more often within species than it separates organisms into distinct species.

But that brings up a completely different philosophical debate: what constitutes a species? How do you separate one species from another? How distantly related do organisms have to be before they become separate species? (If you can clearly define these terms without any room for confusion, you'll have cleared problems that generations of biologists have struggled with for their entire careers. I don't think it's that easy to do.







)

"But nothing has changed except proportions." -Michael Bush

Still change. You used the term yourself. And by the best definition of evolution (in biological terms), any change, even just in proportions of genes in populations, is evolution.

"Ive been reading about evolution for the last 46 years. I have already wasted far too much time on it. I have more important things to do that have to do with reality instead of fantasy." -Michael Bush

Oooooohhfff! Really, it's up to you whether or not you read it. No skin off my back. Ironic, though, don't you think, that denying a natural process is "reality," while accepting it is "fantasy?"

The reason I recommended it is that it documents the formation of a new species while the researchers were observing the finches. Not that they just "found" a new species, but rather that the selective pressures brought about by a drastic change in the climate created a new species.

I guess that's all a moot point anyway. Let's look at it from your perspective. Let's say that organisms can't change. I have some questions, then.

1) Since organisms can't change, how did Varroa manage to switch from Apis dorsata to Apis mellifera in the first place?

2) Have these mites always been "resistant" to fluvalinate and/or coumaphos? Why didn't it show up as a problem immediately?

3) Why couldn't some of the mites have traits that make them "resistant" to other chemical treatments, such as OA or thymol?

4) Why couldn't some of the mites have traits that make them "resistant" to mechanical treatments, such as powdered sugar? The suggestion was made that the mites might have to have longer claws or something similar to that to resist powdered sugar applications. Wouldn't you expect some variation in the lengths of claws of Varroa mites? Couldn't some variation like that provide the "resistance?"

Back to the point: I like the way mrobia is thinking. I'm still not sure it will work, but I think it's worth trying. I don't know of anyone who is trying it, but think about the prospects:
research suggests that coumaphos is 97% effective, and OA is about 90% effective. OA advocates claim little or no harm to bees, so maybe it would be safe to use at the same time as coumaphos? Just looking at the numbers, you could expect the two in combination to kill roughly 99.7% of the mites in a hive. That would really cut the numbers down! 

[ June 09, 2006, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Kieck ]


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

(Sorry, I was working on my last reply when Gene posted his. I need to address a few issues.)

"Unless the definition of evolution has changed since I was in grad school, a shift in the gene pool of a population of a single organism is selective breeding NOT evolution." -Gene Weitzel

A new species has a shift in the gene pool from existing species. How big a shift has to occur before you consider it "evolution?"

Maybe you should define "evolution," as you understand it. From what you wrote in your reply, I assume you believe speciation must occur for evolution to have occurred. If that's correct, what do you call all the changes within species that may eventually accumulate to form species?

"I have done enough work with pesticides to know that the way resistance is bred into an insect population is by exposure of the insect to less than lethal doses (leaving the strip in too long). This allows those insects with a natural resistance to the low dose to survive. . . ." -Gene Weitzel

To some extent this is correct, but not entirely. What about the freak organisms out there that can simply survive the full, "lethal" dose? Let's say, for instance, that a chemical interacts with a specific compound in the nervous system of insects. Now, let's say that a mutant insect has a slightly different compound (really just a variation of the first one) in its nervous system, but that compound is enough different that the chemical can no longer interact with that compound. This mutant is "resistant." Resistance works in many ways, not just a single way.

A couple items for thought:

1) Some aphids are "resistant" to lady beetles. When a lady beetle eats the first aphid it comes across, the pheromones released from that crushed aphid's body cause any other aphids close by to release their holds on the plant and drop. Sure, many of them dry out before they can move back onto the plant, but more of them survive the drop away from the plant and regain their feeding positions than would survive an attack by the lady beetle. This isn't a "sub-lethal" dose, really, and it demonstrates one way an organism can "develop resistance" to a mechanical means of control.

2) Bacteria may actually add genes to increase their chances of survival. Bacteria floating around often encounter little bits of DNA, and can incorporate them into their own genomes. If these strands of DNA happen to code for some resistant traits, the bacteria are now "resistant." Lab experiments forcing bacteria to pick up plasmids that give the bacteria resistance to antibiotics are frequently taught to introductory biology students in college now. This is definitely an example of an organism adding traits, and it demonstrates an alternative method for "developing resistance." Some research now indicates that infections by virii may add bits of DNA to other organisms, such as a bit of one type of organism into the DNA of a second type of organism.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Selective breeding is the same thing as artificial selection. Selective breeding is a process controled by humans rather than the environment. Natural selection is the mechanism of evolution but mutations must arise in order for a new species reproductively diverge from the parent population. Briefly stated, evolution is dependant on three separate processes:

1)natural selection
2)differential reproductive success (sometimes called "fitness")
3)descent with modification (mutations)

Taken together, these three phenomenon explain much of what scientists term evolution (the term literally means the unrolling or unfurling). Darwin was famous for his capable descritions of natural selection, and frequently used examples from artificial selection, embryology and geology to better illustrate his argument.


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

I was trying to stay away. Really, I was.









<Gene Weitzel>
(techically, I suppose it may be a matter of semantics)

That it is.

The word 'evolve' is a verb and needs a noun to make clear the thing acted on.

The word 'evolution' is a noun describing the process of something that is 'evolve'(d).

We can go with the generic word evolution and use it in a sentence, like, "evolution is change over time" and forget that we have to pass along the "what" we are talking about to make any sense.

Lots of things evolve. This discussion has evolved from a question about mixing treatments to a discussion of evolution. As a bee ages its wings evolve from crisp sharp forms to tattered ragged forms.

Kieck and I have gone round-n-round about this distinction. Somehow the evolution of expressed traits in an organism is 'evolution' and the evolution of the set of traits in an organism is not.

So, we can't have a meaningful discussion of evolution without defining the 'what' that we are evolving. Out there in the non-biology lab world evolution without a companion 'what' usually means evolution of species, not evolution of expressed traits in a species population or evolution of computing technology or evolution of ding-dong wrappers (remember when they were aluminum foil?). 

<Kieck>
(speciation, really, and not evolution)

This implies that speciation is not evolution. I don't think you want to be implying this? Wouldn't speciation be the change of species over time?

<Kieck>
what constitutes a species?

We had that debate. It appears to be subjective. I tried to give you an objective mathematical definition but that didn't work for some reason that I don't really remember. I think is was horses/donkeys/mules.

<Kieck>
you'll have cleared problems that generations of biologists have struggled with for their entire careers.

I think I saw that point. Don't want that job.









<Kieck>
That's a common confusion. People often assume that evolution has not occurred until a "new" species has formed.

Well, it's not a confusion at all. They are talking about evolution of species. Come on, you know this.

<Kieck>
...it documents the formation of a new species...

It does not. They are still finches.

<Kieck>
how did Varroa manage to switch from Apis dorsata to Apis mellifera in the first place?

You're the biologist, you tell us if you can tell. Who knows?

<Kieck>
Have these mites always been "resistant" to fluvalinate and/or coumaphos?

Apparently some were. That's how the population evolved to express this trait, right? What, you think that just suddenly and magically this ability showed up? I think you'll find this theory difficult to prove.

<Kieck>
Why couldn't some of the mites have traits that make them "resistant" to other chemical treatments, such as OA or thymol?

Why they could, of course. Seen any evidence of it?

<Kieck>
Why couldn't some of the mites have traits that make them "resistant" to mechanical treatments,...

Again, of course this can happen. Seen any evidence of it?

So, hoping to kill an evolutionary discussion of evolution once again, I'll post my interpretation of Michael's point in words that I hope meet with Kieck's criticality.

_Don't hold your breath waiting for speciation to solve this dilemma._

And here is my interpretation of 2rubes's question which I hope will direct it more in the direction she was hoping.

_Do you think that the mites have a trait that will be selected through powdered sugar treatment that will eventually render powdered sugar treatment ineffective?_

There, didn't use the words evolve or evolution.

I will clearly accept corrections of my interpretations from Michael and 2rubes.

<2rubes>
With the way that varroa evolves so fast, ... Just curious, I would love another opionion, what do you think?

Janet, given the above discussion concerning the word evolve, I think your use here is specific to natural selection. I'm keying on the term 'fast' actually. In other discussions there has been talk about the change in efficacy of treatments and that for OA and perhaps powdered sugar there does not seem to be evidence that a trait has risen that will defeat the treatment. I'm a newbie and have no answer for you.

<Aspera>
...what scientists term evolution.

Oh man, This'll get Kieck all riled


----------



## 2rubes (Apr 28, 2005)

Michael, I am sorry that I was snippy. I truly value your knowledge and opinions and look forward to your posts. I didnt realize this was such a touchy subject, which is sort of embarrassing as our son just received is PhD in Evolutionary Biology and he talks often of scientist studying the same subject that can not agree on items. Ive stopped asking him a long time ago because he gets so technical. He studies bacteria transmitted between ticks and humans.
And my bad for assuming you were the moderator, I didnt even look.
Thanks everyone for putting the subject in such layman terms, that was so helpful to me. One of my beekeeping friends thought it wise to alternate her powdered sugar treatments with OA (using a liquid form, not vapor) and that got me thinking about maybe alternating treatments. Are bees are doing so well with the powdered sugar treatments that I will continue on this course.
Thanks JohnF, you nailed what I was trying to figure out and very diplomatically. 
Thanks again,
Janet


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

mrobia . . . 

Now that the "dust" has settled,

I would like to say, welcome to BeeSource.


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 25, 2003)

There is a visual for you a tiny little mite with BIG hurking claws.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Keik,

If we take your definition of Evolution, "change over time", then, since all change, by definition, has to take place over time, we can simplify that definition down to just "change". And since that word is already quite simple and plain, and unambiguous we have no need for the word "evolution" because, in your interpretation, it can be in no way differentiated from the simple word "change".

I know of no one, other than you who uses that meaning for the word evolution. Other people use it to refer to a new trait that was not in that species before. You have simply muddied the definition so you can call anything evolution. The sun came up a bit further to the North today than yesterday. That's "change over time". I would have a hard time finding any scientist who would call that "evolution". You're playing a semantic game to try to prove things that are irrelevant.

>don't you think, that denying a natural process is "reality," while accepting it is "fantasy?"

Lets assume for a moment that the theory of evolution is true.

When you want to predict the path of a bullet, you don't study Quantum Physics. You don't even study Relativity. You use plain, simple Newtonian physics because that is the only useful paradigm we've found to solve that problem.

When you breed animals you use the paradigm of genetics. You breed out traits you don't want or you find some stock that has traits you want and breed them into your gene pool. Evolutionary biology is of no value to solving the problems of breeding or the problems of pests having resistance, anymore than quantum physics will help you predict the path of a bullet. Any breeder will tell you that if you don't have those traits you have to find some stock that does. It does no good to live with the fantasy that a new trait will suddenly appear. It won't. It doesn't. Not in mites. Not in bees. Not in horses. Not in cattle. Not at all.

Evolution is not a useful paradigm to for solving problems in the real world. So from my point of view it's irrelevant whether it is true or false.

Fantasy is having expectations that in your lifetime some creature will evolve in some way that is either useful or detrimental to you and that speculating on those changes is in some way useful.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"We can go with the generic word evolution and use it in a sentence, like, "evolution is change over time" and forget that we have to pass along the "what" we are talking about to make any sense." -JohnF

Ah, a very good point. We should define the "what." When I'm using the term, I'm referring to a group of organisms changing, since we're talking biology here. I suppose we could talk about an individual here, but what's the point of that? Now, if you want to talk about the genes themselves changing, or the expressions of those genes changing, doesn't make a difference to me. It all comes out the same in the end.

"Somehow the evolution of expressed traits in an organism is 'evolution' and the evolution of the set of traits in an organism is not." -JohnF

You lost me. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. If the traits in an organism are never expressed, are they really there? Do they matter? If they are expressed, even in some tiny, almost imperceptable way, aren't they still expressed?

I think where we're still getting hung up on the whole species/evolution/speciation debate is on the perspectives we take. "Species" are man-made entities. "Species," really, do not exist as completely separate, unique, biological constructs. Think of it like time: why do days have 24 hours in them? Why not 10 hours, or 100 hours, or 6 hours? And, why do hours have 60 minutes in them? Would "time" actually change if we switched to using 17-"hour" days with 100 "minutes" (not 60-second minutes, mind you) in each hour?

Same idea, really, with species. We (humans) categorize organisms to suit our needs of identification. The "species" is our common unit, but that doesn't mean that nature follows our standards. That's why we see "hybrids" and intermediate organisms, and run into huge problems defining species clearly.

"This implies that speciation is not evolution. I don't think you want to be implying this? Wouldn't speciation be the change of species over time?"

Yes, speciation is a level of evolution, and I'm sorry if I implied that speciation is not evolution. Speciation is a pronounced level of evolution. What I was trying to emphasize is that evolution occurs long before speciation, and evolution can occur without speciation ever occurring.

Let's just say, for instance, that someone says that evolution does not occur until new orders of organisms appear. How could such large changes take place without the accumulation of changes at smaller levels?

"Well, it's not a confusion at all. They are talking about evolution of species. Come on, you know this." -JohnF

Ah, "evolution of species," also known as "speciation." Hence the reason I used the term "speciation" before. And I did know this -- I didn't write it for my clarification, but hopefully for the clarification of others reading this thread who might not know it.  I also hope that you know it, JohnF, and maybe remembered it from our previous exchanges.

""...it documents the formation of a new species..." (-Kieck, quoted by JohnF)

It does not. They are still finches."
-JohnF

Um, no. A while back, you recommended that I read a book. (I'm still working on it when I find the time.) I recommend YOU read "The Beak of the Finch." I think you'd find it very informative.

Let's clear up the point that I had assumed was apparent before. "Finches" are not a single species. Finches are many, many species, and, even in the Galapagos Islands, several species of finches coexist. These are distinct species, so when a new species arose, it was not just a form of one of these other species, but a NEW species.

I think we all know that several species of honey bees exist in the world (Apis mellifera, A. cerana, A. dorsata, etc.). If I had written that a new species of honey bee had evolved (which I'm not suggesting), would you have argued that it's still a honey bee and, therefore, not a new species?


"You're the biologist, you tell us if you can tell. Who knows?" -JohnF

I'm not the expert on this one, but, IMHO, evolution did occur to let the mites switch hosts. The best explanation that I've heard is that Varroa lived on A. dorsata naturally, and A. dorsata is larger than A. mellifera. Even where Varroa encountered A. mellifera, A. mellifera were likely too small to serve as potential hosts.

However, humans began breeding "commercial-sized" honey bees. These A. mellifera -- particularly the drones -- are large enough to serve as hosts for Varroa. Once the mites encountered the "commercial-sized" bees, they were able to make the switch. That leads to one of the arguments for "regressing" bees to "natural-size."

(By the way, for those who haven't read C. Darwin's "On the Origins of Species," Darwin began his theory using artificial selection by human breeders in various sorts of animal husbandry to argue for variation, and the potential changes that can occur when a form of selection favors, or disfavors, certain forms.)

Some scientists are now suggesting that Varroa mites on our bees are probably multiple species, perhaps as many as six or more species. But that's beside the point.

"Do you think that the mites have a trait that will be selected through powdered sugar treatment that will eventually render powdered sugar treatment ineffective?" -JohnF

Yes. If enough beekeepers use powdered sugar treatments often enough, and the treatments pose a mortal threat to a large enough percentage of the mites, yes. Don't you think so?

As far as waiting for speciation to solve a problem, I don't think we need to go that far. People keep talking about breeding resistant bees; that's evolution without speciation. We should we give up all attempts to breed bees resistant to Varroa?

My comments, though, were more intended to view evolution (natural selection) as part of a "problem" in battling Varroa. Pick one type of treatment, use only it and use it often, and the selective pressure becomes great enough to force resistance to that treatment to spread through the population. Keeping that in mind, relying on IPM and then alternating among the various types of treatments reduces the selective pressure by any one form of treatment, thereby decreasing the rate of spread of resistance through the population. That's why evolution becomes important -- rely on any treatment for too long, and resistance will develop.

"In other discussions there has been talk about the change in efficacy of treatments and that for OA and perhaps powdered sugar there does not seem to be evidence that a trait has risen that will defeat the treatment." -JohnF

I keep reading that resistance does not seem to have developed to OA or powdered sugar, and that's good so far. What I'm trying to caution, though, is that "has not developed so far," and "will not develop," are not the same thing. I believe (just me, I haven't read anything to support this) that the biggest reason we don't see resistance to OA or powdered sugar spreading among Varroa is that the selective pressure is very low yet. How many beekeepers do you know that use powdered sugar as their only treatment options? How many that use only OA and no other form of managment? How many that simply treat with Apistan? How many that only treat with CheckMite+? Most of the beekeepers that I know wait until they see large numbers of Varroa, then attempt to treat with either Apistan or CheckMite+. That's a lot of selective pressure place on mites by those two chemicals.

"One of my beekeeping friends thought it wise to alternate her powdered sugar treatments with OA (using a liquid form, not vapor) and that got me thinking about maybe alternating treatments. Are bees are doing so well with the powdered sugar treatments that I will continue on this course." -2rubes

I think you hit the nail on the head. Probably relatively few other beekeepers are using powdered sugar in your area, so any mites coming in haven't had much exposure to the pressures of that treatment. I like the idea of alternating between the two forms of treatment -- that fits with everything I've heard and learned about trying to slow the development of resistance in pests.

"<Aspera>
...what scientists term evolution.

Oh man, This'll get Kieck all riled." -JohnF

Actually, no. What I've learned about evolution matches pretty perfectly with what Aspera said. Nice job laying out the basics, Aspera! 

"I know of no one, other than you who uses that meaning for the word evolution. Other people use it to refer to a new trait that was not in that species before." -Michael Bush

You told me a bit ago, Michael, that you won't waste any more time reading about evolution. Perhaps things have changed ("evolved," it you will  ) since you read up on evolution? Have you checked with any evolutionary biologists about the term "evolution," how they use it, and whether evolution refers only to the formation of new species or the inclusion or rise of new traits into a species? If not, why? If you prefer to accept laypersons' views, why not do it with more terms (try asking a non-beekeeper, for instance, what a "swarm" is)?

"When you breed animals you use the paradigm of genetics. . . ." -Michael Bush

Yes, I see your point. However, "evolution" includes the idea that selection can change the overall form of a group of organisms. Genetics just deals with the hereditary nature. If you, as a breeder of animals, didn't believe that you could effect a change in your population of animals through selection, why would you use "selective" mating? That belief, that you can make selective changes, is a belief in selection, and evolution is based on selection. Darwin simply used the term "natural selection" to distinguish it from "artificial selection" (selection by man), but included both in his theory of evolution.

"It does no good to live with the fantasy that a new trait will suddenly appear." -Michael Bush

I agree. Please see my comments above, though, about why evolution and the concepts of evolution are important to dealing with mites. Selection is part of evolution, and the greater the selective pressure, the more rapidly the organisms will change. Do you agree so far? If one selective pressure is great enough, it will push change (resistance, or selection, or evolution, or whatever term you wish to apply) rapidly. However, if multiple treatments are used in alternation, the selective pressure by any single form of treatment is reduced, decreasing the speed at which resistance spreads. So, is that fantasy? I don't think so, but I believe IPM works.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

You guys, geese!!


----------



## Finman (Nov 5, 2004)

Well, mrobia does not even know what is antibiot and he makes this kind of debate. Antibiot are against bacteria, not for walking animals.

And again, natural beekeepers do not understand that breeding is based on selection. Nature does not work for human and it do not produce good stock from the view of human.

On another hand, most beekeepers do not understand that varroa makes all the time it's evolution even if we get some draw back to it. 

Today for many beekeeping is more varroakeeping than beekeeping. All kind of system are generated for varroa. If you do so much work with bees your yield should be about 300 lbs per hive or 450 lbs.

Varroa is not a problem. We do not need evolution to keep it under economical level. And I do not believe that hundreds and thousands of hobbyies who run holy war against varroa and live for varroa, can do anything to solve problem. All that wisdom only gasify in the endless universe cemetery of bytes. 

.


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

<Kieck>


> "Somehow the evolution of expressed traits in an organism is 'evolution' and the evolution of the set of traits in an organism is not." -JohnF
> 
> You lost me. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.


You've told me time and again:


> (speciation, really, and not evolution)


That is, to convince me that speciation is not evolution.

Now you go and throw in:
<Kieck>


> I think where we're still getting hung up on the whole species/evolution/speciation debate is on the perspectives we take. "Species" are man-made entities. "Species," really, do not exist as completely separate, unique, biological constructs. Think of it like time: why do days have 24 hours in them? Why not 10 hours, or 100 hours, or 6 hours? And, why do hours have 60 minutes in them? Would "time" actually change if we switched to using 17-"hour" days with 100 "minutes" (not 60-second minutes, mind you) in each hour?


Cool, something we can talk about in a logical sense. You see, the reasons for time being expressed as it is does make sense, but really is unimportant here. What is important is that we have created the definitions and units in objective quantifiable terms so that we can communicate with each other.

Species is this as well. It is *not* a subjective unit that waxes and wanes with the Evolutionary Biologist de jour. The error that you keep bringing up highlights how poor we humans are at seeing the machines of nature. As we learn more we'll get better. But for theoretical conversation we can assume the ideal...

<Kieck>
Yes, speciation is a level of evolution, and I'm sorry if I implied that speciation is not evolution. ...

I told ya!















In fact, it's really the only kind of evolution most people argue about.  

<Kieck>
And I did know this ...

Then don't tell them that they are confused.

<Kieck>
Um, no. (reference to finches)

But in one of our last arguments I asked if we could take these 'new' finches and breed them with 'old' finches and still have finches and you said yes. Maybe I forgot. I think I agreed that we could call it speciation if a trait was completely removed and all of the 'old' finches disappeared from the earth.

Anyway, I'll see if the library has the book.

<Kieck>
Let's clear up the point ... not a single species. ... would you have argued that it's still a honey bee and, therefore, not a new species?

Hmm, I though this was our conversation of 'breed' or 'race'. I concede that this idea of species is rife with confusion and error and that I keep trying to make a math problem out of it. So, 'if you say so' is really all I have to go with. But it seems to me a tough sell when there doesn't seem to be a concise idea of what a species is.

<Kieck>
"Do you think that the mites have a trait that will be selected through powdered sugar treatment that will eventually render powdered sugar treatment ineffective?" -JohnF

That isn't me, it is a paraphrase of 2rubes question.

<Kieck>
Yes. If enough beekeepers use powdered sugar treatments often enough, and the treatments pose a mortal threat to a large enough percentage of the mites, yes. Don't you think so?

What if the percentage is 100? But really, I have no idea whatsoever. I rarely put powdered sugar on anything, maybe cookies at Christmas, and never have sugared a bee.

Of course I could qualify my answer just like you did. If it kills all of those that aren't resistant then it will. But isn't that really a non-answer? I think folks that ask questions like this are really looking for some form of evidence, even if it is anecdotal. You say "Yes" but offer no evidence. Others suggest years of usage without appearance of resistance and you will argue. The only real way to know is do the experiment.

<Kieck>
People keep talking about breeding resistant bees; that's evolution without speciation. We should we give up all attempts to breed bees resistant to Varroa?

These folks are talking about selecting traits. These people wouldn't call what they are doing evolution; only you do. You said above that you knew this. They are talking 'breed' or 'race' not species.

I can just see your conversation with the cattlemen I know:

You - So you want to evolve your cattle...

Them - I don't want to evolve anything. I just want to find an angus bull.

<Kieck>
My comments, though, were more intended to view evolution (natural selection) ...

But you see, natural selection isn't really evolution. Not the evolution that you told me that you knew most people mean when they use the term evolution.

Every time you call 'natural selection' 'evolution', you create these really cool long arguments.

<Kieck>
That's why evolution becomes important -- rely on any treatment for too long, and resistance will develop.

Then it's actually impossible for extinction? Ok, this is a silly direction for this to go. But what if the treatment is 100% effective? Or what if the treatment works on some mechanism after the organism has already bred? I think we should just agree that sometimes we don't know if resistance will develop.

<Kieck>
*I keep reading that resistance does not seem to have developed to OA or powdered sugar, and that's good so far. What I'm trying to caution, though, is that "has not developed so far," and "will not develop," are not the same thing. I believe (just me, I haven't read anything to support this) that the biggest reason we don't see resistance to OA or powdered sugar spreading among Varroa is that the selective pressure is very low yet.*

This has to be the cleanest answer I have seen you give yet. Bravo! I like it and it is helpful to me and I suspect others as well.

<Kieck>
Actually, no. What I've learned about evolution ...

But... But... Aspera's description says that natural selection is _not_ evolution and you keep arguing that it is.

By the way, I like Aspera's post too.

<Kieck>
...and evolution is based on selection.

Well, doggoneit. What is it? You were saying that selection *is* evolution and now you imply that it isn't?

<Kieck>
So, is that fantasy?

It's a fantasy to assume you could select for a trait that isn't there. For example, start throwing piglets off of the edge of the Grand Canyon to select for pigs that can fly.

You seem to think that no matter what the pressure on an organism, the organism will evolve to counter it. Something killed off the dinosaurs. They apparently couldn't develop resistance to whatever it was.


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 25, 2003)

"You seem to think that no matter what the pressure on an organism, the organism will evolve to counter it. Something killed off the dinosaurs. They apparently couldn't develop resistance to whatever it was."

Yeah a huge sudden cloud of volcanic ash and heat will tend to do that to you, not to mention flooding.
Things tend to evolve (change) to suit there environment, their is a mole cricket high in the Andie's that changes its body chemistry to produce a form of antifreeze in winter, it literally ceases all body functions (it freezes solid) until spring. It probably took centuries to occur. Change happens and everything evolves to fit the environment that surrounds it. Some we can see, others progress so slowly that we'll never notice it. some may call it a 'mutation' and others will see it as 'survival of the fittest'. All I know is that it happens for a reason.
What really scares me is 'genetically engineering' something to preform better.


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

<SilverFox>
their is a mole cricket ...

Some wasps do that too. The antifreeze part, not the freeze solid.

<SilverFox>
Some we can see, others progress so slowly that we'll never notice it.

And I was adding: and sometimes it doesn't happen at all.

<SilverFox>
some may call it a 'mutation' and others will see it as 'survival of the fittest'.

These are two completely different things.

<SilverFox>
What really scares me is 'genetically engineering' something to preform better.

And all of the unintended consequences... I agree. But you do bring up the only proven example of evolution.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"Species is this as well. It is not a subjective unit that waxes and wanes with the Evolutionary Biologist de jour. The error that you keep bringing up highlights how poor we humans are at seeing the machines of nature. As we learn more we'll get better. But for theoretical conversation we can assume the ideal..." -JohnF

No, "species" really are subjective units. Really, all individual organisms lie along a continuum. We (humans) arbitrarily divide that continuum at certain points to establish "species." How far apart on the continuum do organisms have to be to belong to different species? That depends on the person making the judgement. What I define as "species" may include larger or smaller sections of that continuum than what you define as "species."

"But in one of our last arguments I asked if we could take these 'new' finches and breed them with 'old' finches and still have finches and you said yes. Maybe I forgot. I think I agreed that we could call it speciation if a trait was completely removed and all of the 'old' finches disappeared from the earth." -JohnF

I think that was a different group of organisms, rather than these finches. But I think I'm still not being clear. These aren't all a huge group of interbreeding individuals. We start with a few species of finches (let's say 5 -- remember, we have multiple species of finches even in this country). Now, while we banding every bird and making measurements and keeping track of the parentage of every finch of each species on this island, we suddenly start seeing a few babies that, based on the measurements that we use to identify species, don't fit into any of the known species. Their parents do, but they do not. In a couple generations, these different individuals have become different enough from their ancestors and all the other finches on the island that they can no longer interbreed. They look different, they act different, and they can't interbreed. They didn't fly in -- "we" identified them as nestlings on the island. They weren't distinct previously -- their parents fit into known species well. So, are they really a "new" species, or not? Think it's all speculation or hypothetical? This was all documented by a pair of researchers, and is outlined in part of "The Beak of the Finch."

As far as your comments about the species of honey bees, JohnF, you need to look up some information about Apis dorsata and A. cerana. They have different species names for a reason -- they're not just breeds or varieties of A. mellifera.

"Then it's actually impossible for extinction? Ok, this is a silly direction for this to go. But what if the treatment is 100% effective? Or what if the treatment works on some mechanism after the organism has already bred? I think we should just agree that sometimes we don't know if resistance will develop." -JohnF

I'll concede that a treatment that's 100 percent effective and applied against 100 percent of the population will (by definition) cause extinction. Can species become extinct? Certainly. Will the treatments that we're talking about cause the extinction of Varroa. Nope. I'll stand by that.

See, all of the treatments that we've been talking about give "effective" percentages. For instance, Apistan is roughly 97% effective, CheckMite+ is roughly 97% effective, OA is about 90% effective, etc. That means that none of them are 100% effective, so some mites are surviving the treatment. Leaving the mechanisms aside for a moment, we have to take that at face value. However they're doing it, some mites are surviving each form of treatment that we've listed so far. 

Now, too, we're not treating every hive with any of these products, and I highly doubt we ever will. It's no easier to test than to test whether "resistance can or can not ever develop." In this case, we'd have to convince every beekeeper to treat every hive in just the right way with just the right product. Think you could accomplish that? Then who's going to treat all the "feral" hives? I think imagining the extinction of Varroa is fantasy.

". . .Aspera's description says that natural selection is not evolution and you keep arguing that it is." -JohnF

I am not, nor have I tried in the past, to argue that natural selection and evolution are the same thing. Selection, natural or otherwise (see some of my previous comments), is frequently tied to evolution. If no selective pressures exist, evolution can only occur through random chance. And, if selection is actually present in a population, we have to expect that evolution is occurring.

If we include random chance ("genetic drift"), that opens up a whole new Pandora's box. Then natural selection, or artificial selection, has nothing to do with evolution. In the interests of this thread, I'd rather leave that one alone for right now.

"Or what if the treatment works on some mechanism after the organism has already bred? I think we should just agree that sometimes we don't know if resistance will develop." -JohnF

I don't see what difference it makes when the treatment works on whether or not resistance can develop. I will agree that we often don't know whether or not resistance will become a problem in our managements.

I try to start with the assumption that resistance CAN develop to virtually any treatment, then try to figure out how to minimize the speed at which that resistance can spread through the population. If we assume that resistance can develop, and minimize the potential impacts of that resistance, aren't we better off than assuming that resistance can't or won't develop, and then learn that it can and has after the fact.

Figure that every species will eventually go extinct. That's a lesson of evolution -- change (into something new over a long enough period of time) or die. Again, not for individuals, but for groups of organisms. Of course, if you believe strictly in creationism, extinction should be a much larger problem. No new forms of life can take the places of extinct species, so each extinction leaves a void in the ecosystem and, obviously, we'll soon run out of species.

". . .Something killed off the dinosaurs. They apparently couldn't develop resistance to whatever it was." -JohnF

I don't know much about dinosaurs, I'll confess. In the grand scheme of things, dinosaurs were a rather insignificant group of organisms. But I believe I've heard that some are still around, in a sense. Birds may be descendents of dinosaurs, and crocodilians are likely descendents of dinosaurs, so did they all die out? Or were a few "resistant" to the impact?  

Seriously, though, I think we've hijacked another thread. So, does it make sense to try combinations of treatments? I think so, particularly if we try alternating among various treatments. (I don't think Mrobia was suggesting using antibiotics against Varroa, just pointing out that sometimes combinations of two or more antibiotics are far more effective against bacteria than either antibiotic alone. The same idea -- using two or more chemicals against Varroa -- might make sense.) What I really think makes the most sense is trying use what we already know about the life cycles and spread of Varroa to manage populations without relying on any form of chemical.


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

<Kieck>
What I define as "species" may include larger or smaller sections of that continuum than what you define as "species."

Well cool! Now I *know* I'm right and you are wrong.

<Kieck>
We (humans) arbitrarily divide ...

Gotta argue against this. Don't know of many scientists that arbitrarily do stuff. I would suspect that there is some reason for the choices made and perhaps evidence that some aren't correct.

<Kieck>
So, are they really a "new" species, or not?

Interesting, I'll have to read the book. But for now I have to ask a few questions: Are we assuming that these new characteristics were hidden traits that just suddenly appeared when some biologist started watching? Across multiple nests all in one generation? Is there forensic evidence that can lead us to the finch that first may have had a mutation? Do we think a mutation occurred at all? Did someone other than these two biologists do a study and verify that these new finches weren't there all along?

<Kieck>
As far as your comments about the species of honey bees, JohnF, you need to look up some information about Apis dorsata and A. cerana. They have different species names for a reason -- they're not just breeds or varieties of A. mellifera.

Ok, I looked up A. dorsata. I don't know why, because I didn't have any questions. Interesting though.

<Kieck>
See, all of the treatments that we've been talking about give "effective" percentages. ...

But we can't ignore the mechanism. It is the mechanism that are speaking most about. Yes, some survive the treatment. The question is whether the reason they survive is a trait that can be selected for or an accident. For example, let's say 10% of all varroa in any population are in their larval stage and that this is the reason 10% survive the powdered sugar treatment. I can't see a selection pressure if this were the case. (Please note, the above was completely fabricated by me for conversation purposes)

Jumping into the ocean is a highly effective treatment for lemming overpopulation. It hasn't yet produced lemmings that can breath water or converted the population of lemmings to stop jumping into the ocean.

<Kieck>
Now, too, we're not treating every hive with any of these products, and I highly doubt we ever will. It's no easier to test than to test whether "resistance can or can not ever develop." In this case, we'd have to convince every beekeeper to treat every hive in just the right way with just the right product. Think you could accomplish that? Then who's going to treat all the "feral" hives?

Huh? We don't have to convince every beekeeper to treat to find out if we can select for resistance. I don't think every beekeeper treated with whatever chemical and resistance was found. I don't get where you are going with this.

<Kieck>
I think imagining the extinction of Varroa is fantasy.

That's what Michael said; maybe not in the same context but it's all the same fantasy.

<Kieck>
I am not, nor have I tried in the past, to argue that natural selection and evolution are the same thing.

Well then I apologize for being confused. What did you mean when you said:


> "The mites are not "evolving" resistance to anything. They are simply able to or not able to survive a given treatment. The ones that survive already have that trait and pass it on. The ones that don't survive did not have that trait and those numbers in the gene pool are reduced. It is a simple shift in the population. . . ." -Michael Bush
> 
> What you just described is "evolution." A shift in the gene pool of a population is evolution.


<Kieck>
I don't see what difference it makes when the treatment works on whether or not resistance can develop.

If the treatment works on some property that can only exist after procreation has occurred then the treatment cannot change the outcome of procreation.

Type 2 diabetes kills folks but it does it after they've already passed it on. (usually)

Now, to stay on the subject of treatments, I have no idea what property this could be or if it even exists. That's what biologist look for. But assume our fictitious treatment takes advantage of some post-breeding antigen that the mites bodies create. We can kill the old one but the genetic makeup of the new ones will be the same, no resistance can develop.

<Kieck>
Of course, if you believe strictly in ...

Uh oh. Now you gone and done it...









<Kieck>
Or were a few "resistant" to the impact?

Ah. Maybe a few did, it stands to reason, but not all, and that was my point.

<Kieck>
Seriously, though, I think we've hijacked another thread.








It appears we have.

<Kieck>
What I really think makes the most sense is trying use what we already know about the life cycles and spread of Varroa to manage populations without relying on any form of chemical.

Me too. Except I would include the stuff we know about the bees too. And when you really think about it a bit we'll probably decide that what we should be trying is nothing at all, the bees and varroa will work it out on their own or become extinct.


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 25, 2003)

Can't we accept things as they are and try to do our best to modify the changes to our benefit??
Why is it that we have a hard time accepting nature in its role in life??
Arguing over 'mutation', 'evolution' or a species ability to adapt to its surroundings, IMHO, is kinda mute.
When we should be looking for a way to cease the changes from things harmful to increasing the changes in thing beneficial to our needs.
One last example of things 'mutating' is bacteria, If given an antibiotic, ie; penicillin, over a pro-longed period of time it loses its effectiveness in fighting infection as the Bactria 'mutates' and builds up an immunity to the antibiotic, meaning that some other anti-biotic needs to be used, it goes on and on till the infection has developed an immunity to all anti-biotic and runs rampart, an example is the 'super strain' of HIV or AIDS, drugs that had helped with the effects are losing their effectiveness to treat the problem.
Once again, IMHO, we need to keep switching our substances to fight the 'villains' that affect our hives and not use just one method, but a combination, ie; screened bottom boards and powered sugar. Mind you I do not advocate the use of chemicals and prefer a more 'natural' solution like powered sugar, essential oils. One needs to use what will solve the problem, if you use chemicals don't use the same one year after year, switch on a yearly basis keep the varmints off balance.

[ June 12, 2006, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: SilverFox ]


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"Gotta argue against this. Don't know of many scientists that arbitrarily do stuff. I would suspect that there is some reason for the choices made and perhaps evidence that some aren't correct." -JohnF

Maybe "arbitrary" wasn't the best choice of words. Remember from our previous exchanges the differences among some of the "species concepts?" If not, look up biological species concept and evolutionary species concept and others. Many biologists have attempted to create species concepts. Some are better than others. No matter how you look at it, taxonomists (much less biologists in general) rarely agree on which species concept to use. So, under one concept, a group of organisms is a "species," but under a different concept, that same group is just part of a larger group that constitutes a "species." Under a third concept that initial group might be split into several "species." It all depends on which concept you wish to use, and the ones that most taxonomists use are the ones they like best. Most can offer at least some arguments as to why the one they choose to use is the "best," but different taxonomists can argue that other concepts are "best." So far, taxonomists have not reached a concensus.

So is it "arbitrary?" Maybe not. But it's definitely a matter of personal preference. And, if you wish to try to drag mathematical differences in, you won't be the first. The idea that "species" can be differentiated mathematically has been tried, and so far has failed to resolve the issue. The problem still comes in, "How far apart do the differences have to be before 'species' become distinct?"

Take dogs and coyotes, for example: under the biological species concept, these two species are probably one and the same. In other words, not "two" species at all, but really only a single species. Using the evolutionary species concept, they're clearly two species.

Speaking as a "scientist," a lot of "scientific" decisions are made arbitrarily. You weigh what evidence you have, and make what you assume is the best decision. You can't test every decision, so you end up hoping it was the best choice.

"Are we assuming that these new characteristics were hidden traits that just suddenly appeared when some biologist started watching? Across multiple nests all in one generation? Is there forensic evidence that can lead us to the finch that first may have had a mutation? Do we think a mutation occurred at all? Did someone other than these two biologists do a study and verify that these new finches weren't there all along?" -JohnF

I'll try to answer these. I don't know if I'll be able to.

First, nothing bizarre about this "new species" appeared. No strange mutations, nothing like that. Again, remember that individuals lie along a continuum. In this case, in a couple consecutive years, only the offspring at one extreme end of that continuum survived (the climatic conditions eliminated the others). The adults survived to continue breeding in future years, but the offspring faced some strong selective pressures. These birds only had similar birds available as mates, so the continuum got pushed a little farther past the previous extreme end, and again, the most extreme offspring were more successful than the "less extreme" offspring. A couple more generations, and this offshoot of extreme birds were isolated enough from their ancestors to constitute a distinct species.

Yes, it occurred in multiple nest all in one generation. Only the offspring on one end of the continuum survived in that generation. After a couple years of freak climatic conditions, the survival of the other end of that continuum was just as great from the ancestral species, thereby perpetuating that species.

Again, no mutation that suddenly appeared; the traits were present when the researchers began their study, just kept in balance within that species by the other variants. No selective pressure increased the fitness of one form over another.

And, just to clarify, these researchers had been studying this particular system for years (10 or 12 or something like that) before this event occurred. Like most other people, they assumed that evolution is a very slow process, and speciation could never occur within a human lifetime. This discovery shocked them.

They weren't alone in doing this research, either. It's not just two people out on this tiny island. They take a staff of technicians and graduate students out with them. If they had falsified the data, someone would sooner or later reveal it. Think you could keep something that big quiet for long among a sizeable group of people?

As far as verifying that these "new" finches weren't there all along, keep in mind that this research team has banded and measured ALL (not just some) the finches on this particular island over a period of more than 25 years. They have better genealogical records of these birds than most people have of their ancestries.


"Ok, I looked up A. dorsata. I don't know why, because I didn't have any questions. Interesting though." -JohnF

Sorry, my fault. I interpreted your earlier comments as if you believed all honey bees belong to a single species, and, in particular, a belief that the original host of Varroa (Apis dorsata) is nothing but a breed or race of Apis mellifera. 

"But we can't ignore the mechanism. It is the mechanism that are speaking most about. Yes, some survive the treatment. The question is whether the reason they survive is a trait that can be selected for or an accident. For example, let's say 10% of all varroa in any population are in their larval stage and that this is the reason 10% survive the powdered sugar treatment. I can't see a selection pressure if this were the case. (Please note, the above was completely fabricated by me for conversation purposes)" -JohnF

How do you define "selective pressure?" I think of it as any influence that leads to differential fitness among individuals. The 90% in your hypothetical example, in my mind, are facing a really, really stiff selective pressure -- they die. Their fitness, assuming they didn't leave any offspring, goes to zero. That's far lower than the fitness of the 10% that did survive the treatment, for whatever reason that they survived.

Let's just take it a bit farther (I know, I know, this is going off the deep end). I would assume that the period of development varies somewhat among Varroa, like among most every other organism on the planet. Some take a little less time to mature, some take a little more time. So, assuming that the only reason that they survived was that they were in exactly the right developmental stage, any of them that would take just a little longer in that particular stage would have a slightly higher probability of surviving that ones that sped through their development. If the treatment is used enough, it could lead to mites that prolong this phase of development. Note that I said, "Could," not, "Will."

"Jumping into the ocean is a highly effective treatment for lemming overpopulation. It hasn't yet produced lemmings that can breath water or converted the population of lemmings to stop jumping into the ocean." -JohnF

I've read these myths, too, but I've never found any actual evidence of such events happening. Besides, why would evolution have to work in such a way? What about the lemmings that just simply didn't feel a need to join the crowd? Wouldn't they stand a better chance of surviving than the "mob-mentality" lemmings?  

"Well then I apologize for being confused. What did you mean when you said:. . . ."

I meant just what I said. A shift (or change) in the gene pool of a population is evolution. I didn't even mention "natural selection" (or any other form of selection) in my comment. Selection is a process that drives evolution. Evolution is change over time. Evolution can occur without selection.

"If the treatment works on some property that can only exist after procreation has occurred then the treatment cannot change the outcome of procreation." -JohnF

This is no longer a selective pressure, then. Remember that selection leads to differential fitness, and fitness is measured by the genes that get passed into future generations. If the genes are already passed on into future generations. . . well, I think you see where I'm going with this.

So, if a treatment only kills geriatric Varroa, is it even worth using?  

"Maybe a few did, it stands to reason. . . ." -JohnF

And that was MY point. If a few survive, are able to reproduce and pass on those traits that let them survive, the next generation will have a greater percentage of individuals that are "resistant." If they reproduce, then those genes get spread even further, and so on, and soon you have a population of resistant individuals.

"Me too. Except I would include the stuff we know about the bees too. And when you really think about it a bit we'll probably decide that what we should be trying is nothing at all, the bees and varroa will work it out on their own or become extinct." -JohnF

And that's "evolution."  

"Once again, IMHO, we need to keep switching our substances to fight the 'villains' that affect our hives and not use just one method, but a combination, ie; screened bottom boards and powered sugar. Mind you I do not advocate the use of chemicals and prefer a more 'natural' solution like powered sugar, essential oils. One needs to use what will solve the problem, if you use chemicals don't use the same one year after year, switch on a yearly basis keep the varmints off balance." -SilverFox

I think, too, the important thing in all this is to keep the pests off balance by alternating among treatments. More importantly, if we can figure out how to manage our bees so Varroa rarely reach levels that can cause damage, we won't have to use chemical treatments.


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

<Kieck>
Maybe "arbitrary" wasn't the best choice of words. ...

It was a very poor choice of words. It is exactly the wrong word. It's the kind of word that a gambler uses.

<Kieck>
Speaking as a "scientist," a lot of "scientific" decisions are made arbitrarily. You weigh what evidence you have, and make what you assume is the best decision. You can't test every decision, so you end up hoping it was the best choice.

Speaking as another "scientist": Nuh unh! A random choice amongst a set of choices with equal probability is still not an arbitrary choice. Choosing what you believe to be the best choice given what you know is not arbitrary. The school of arbitrary science doesn't get much funding.

<Kieck>
How do you define "selective pressure?" I think of it as any influence that leads to differential fitness among individuals.

Ooo, good question; and sort of my point too. First, I can agree with your definition. Makes sense. My point though is that we don't know what is a selective pressure until we understand the mechanism and the outcome. (let alone figuring out when something has actually evolved.)

<Kieck>
I meant just what I said.

Uhg. Michael pretty much exactly described natural selection. You said "that is evolution." Then you said that you never argued that natural selection and evolution are the same thing. IF you mean what you said then you are in a contridiction.

I'll assume you're not and that I am not grasping the subtly.

Ok, so you are calling it evolution because the percentage of some expressed trait changed? Is that it? Man, that happens all of the time. It is part of the machine and built in so that these organisms have a way to deal with a fluid environment. Lets say organism O has a trait A/a expressed as a percentage 75/25. Pressure P comes along and the percentages change to 33/66ish. This is evolution? Is it then evolution when pressure P goes away and the percentages return to 75/25?

If we look at this over time T and the 33/66ish percents happened at T/2 do we say evolution happened twice or not at all?

<Kieck>
So, if a treatment only kills geriatric Varroa, is it even worth using? 

Sure, if only the geriatric varroa are causing the problems with bees. That is a different discussion but my point is I could see a possibility where some sort of selective treatment of some organism in some situations might have benefits. [Hmm, this is meant as a bigger picture answer and not a specific quest for a discussion of varroa.]

<Kieck>
And that was MY point. ... and soon you have a population of resistant individuals.

I get the point of selection. I even agree to it. In fact, the fact that some species made it drives my point, that being that not all species made it. Evolution did not save them. I am speaking of species and not individuals. That is my context.

<Kieck>
And that's "evolution."

Actually, evidence is that it's not. From what Michael and others are saying that they are doing the traits necessary to manage varroa are already in the bees and if the varroa extinct the bees and themselves then that is extinction.

Extinction would be an evolution of the set of organisms on the planet but not an evolution of a species.

 

<Kieck>
I've read these myths, too, but I've never found any actual evidence of such events happening.

I saw pictures of it on TV. It has to be true.









<Kieck>
Wouldn't they stand a better chance of surviving than the "mob-mentality" lemmings?

Think about your question and then review what I wrote. I already asked you this.









<Kieck>
Evolution is change over time.

Of what and over what time? (consider the T/2 question above when you answer.)


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Hmmm. . . I used your methods, JohnF, and plugged "arbitrary" into dictionary.com. Definition 2: "Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference."

Seems to fit pretty well with what I was saying. I think I'll stick to my use of the word. Taxonomists make individual judgements about species based on their preferences for certain species concepts. Species designations are arbitrary.

The school of arbitrary science doesn't get much funding, eh? All of the grant-receiving scientists I know get their funding proposals based on their preferences for types of research. Seems pretty arbitrary to me!  

"I'll assume you're not and that I am not grasping the subtly." -JohnF

Could be, or it could be me. Here's the way I looked at Michael's remarks: the treatment is the selective pressure. So far, no changes have occurred in the mites, so no evolution. But, as soon as ratios of genes in the population of mites change (or shift), evolution HAS occurred. The idea of the paragraph, to my way of thinking, is "evolution." The driving cause behind the change in this case, the treatment, is the selective pressure. The process through which the selective pressure selects against mites (or for mites, however you wish to look at it) is "natural selection." But, again, the change in the mites is "evolution."

"Ok, so you are calling it evolution because the percentage of some expressed trait changed? Is that it? Man, that happens all of the time. It is part of the machine and built in so that these organisms have a way to deal with a fluid environment. Lets say organism O has a trait A/a expressed as a percentage 75/25. Pressure P comes along and the percentages change to 33/66ish. This is evolution? Is it then evolution when pressure P goes away and the percentages return to 75/25?

If we look at this over time T and the 33/66ish percents happened at T/2 do we say evolution happened twice or not at all?" -JohnF

Good questions! This series of questions is used in introductory biology courses at universities to demonstrate, 1) as you pointed out (". . . Man, that happens all of the time. . . ."), that evolution occurs all the time, and 2) that "experts" will even disagree on whether evolution has occurred twice or not at all. Some biologists refer to such systems as being in oscillating equilibrium. As soon as something changes ever so slightly, though, they're likely to shift rapidly in one direction or the other.

"Actually, evidence is that it's not. From what Michael and others are saying that they are doing the traits necessary to manage varroa are already in the bees and if the varroa extinct the bees and themselves then that is extinction.

Extinction would be an evolution of the set of organisms on the planet but not an evolution of a species." -JohnF

YES! I think you're on to it now.  Extinction is change, and is therefore part of evolution.

"Think about your question and then review what I wrote. I already asked you this." -JohnF

Yeah, I thought about. What you implied was that jumping off a cliff lacked any chance of survival for lemmings. But let's think about it a little differently. 

Supposedly, lemmings rush into oceans when populations exceed carrying capacities (i. e., there are too many lemmings to survive on the available resources). Yet not all the lemmings do survive. So, IF the lemmings that leap off cliffs have already reproduced, and IF those offspring do NOT commit suicide, and IF those offspring have a greater chance of survival because they're no longer competing with the parents for resources, then those offspring have better chances of leaving offspring of their own, and the parents that drowned themselves actually gain evolutionary fitness by killing themselves. Theoretically, the behavior could develop and spread through populations simply because, if it's hereditary, it could increase the fitness of genes by spreading them more successfully into future generations. 

"In fact, the fact that some species made it drives my point, that being that not all species made it. Evolution did not save them. I am speaking of species and not individuals. That is my context." -JohnF

Right. Evolution did NOT save them, but they either adapted or died. And adaptation is change. So, the way I see it, evolution didn't save them, but they evolved.


----------



## Robert Brenchley (Apr 23, 2000)

Actually lemmings migrate when overpopulated, and very occasionally end up running into the sea. They're a continental species with no adaptation for a littoral existence. 

The thing which always gets me about these endless arguments over evolution, apart from their total futility (since both sides have made up their minds in advance) is that the anti- school of thought have never to my knowledge attempted to describe any mechanism which would prevent evolution. What would stop it happening?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"They're a continental species with no adaptation for a littoral existence." -Robert Brenchley

Well put! I like the way you word it!


----------



## Donna Marie Honeybee by the Sea (Jun 29, 2005)

As I am in the beginning stages of converting my bees to all small cell foundation I have a question along the lines of resistance or co-evolving.

My understanding of the small cell advantage was the theory that small cell results in a shorter reproductive cycle for honey bee, reduced by a day or so. This shorter cycle gives the honey bee an edge over the varroa mite by interrupting the varroa reproductive cycle.

If I understand this correctly, then do you believe the varroa may develop a shorter reproductive cycle to survive?

Michael Bushs long years success with small cell would seem to point to no. 

What do you think?

Thank you, Cheers, Donna


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

From what I had read of the advantages of SC bees, the mites simply don't have room in the cells to develop. Do SC bees develop in a shorter period of time?

But, if they do develop more rapidly, I'd fully expect that Varroa may develop a shorter reproductive cycle, too. Again, the selective pressure could be pretty great -- only the Varroa that develop most quickly survive, so only those mites pass on their genes. IF the rate of development is hereditary to some extent, I'd expect Varroa to "resist" these changes. Again, that doesn't mean that it will happen, but that it could. I can't see any reason why it could not.

I would also venture that SC bees have some "resistance" to Varroa simply because of their size. The ranges of Apis mellifera and A. dorsata overlap or abut one another, yet only after Varroa came into contact with commercial-sized A. mellifera did they make the jump in great numbers from A. dorsata. The fitness of Varroa on small- or natural-size bees must be enough lower than their fitness on A. dorsata (or commercial-size bees) that they didn't move readily onto A. mellifera years ago.

As far as Michael's success, and the successes of many others, with SC, I admire what they've been able to do. It makes a lot of sense to me. At the same time, think of the numbers of beekeepers keeping SC bees compared to the numbers of beekeepers keeping commercial-sized bees. The selective pressures that COULD (again, not "will," but "could") drive the adaptations for Varroa to survive on SC bees are very, very small.

Think of it like the old adage about outrunning bears: you don't have to run faster than a bear to get away, you just have to run faster than the slowest person in your group. (I know it's not exactly parallel, but the general concept still works, I think.) In this case, you don't have to make it impossible for mites to survive on your bees, you just have to make survival on your bees more difficult than survival on your neighbors' bees.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

> ...yet only after Varroa came into contact with commercial-sized A. mellifera did they make the jump in great numbers from A. dorsata


Didn't Varroa jump from A. cerana to A. mellifera? Isn't Tropilaelaps clareae the mite infesting A. dorsata? Or am I mistaken? 

[ June 14, 2006, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Dick Allen ]


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

<Kieck>
I used your methods ...

Thanks for naming it after me but my Grandma (a school teacher) and Mother (influenced by prior mentioned Matriarch) forced this method on me.

To see where conversations can diverge, I offer: (also from dictionary.com)


> 1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: _stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice._


I accept your definiton and withdraw my complaint.

<Kieck>
Good questions!

That you avoided answering.

<Kieck>
This series of questions is used in introductory biology courses at universities ...

Better be careful. You don't know what my educational background is. This sort of talk can be viewed as patronization. (I don't think you are by the way.)

<Kieck>
"experts" will even disagree ...

Then as an expert you can see that there is room for your interpretation to be wrong?

I will answer my own question for you. There was no evolution at all.

If you can see that my answer makes sense, then I am ready to argue against your statement:


> "evolution" is what created the problem in the first place (Varroa changed to be able to use Apis mellifera as a host), ...


Because no evolution happened here.

<Kieck>
YES! I think you're on to it now.

LOL! I think the key part of your sentence is "I think..." meaning you are starting to understand me. I haven't changed my opinion one iota. But cool, this sort of discourse gets much easier when the participants start to understand each other.

<Kieck>
Some biologists refer to such systems as being in oscillating equilibrium. As soon as something changes ever so slightly, though, they're likely to shift rapidly in one direction or the other.

This is bigger than just biology, this is a systems perspective. The speed of the shift will depend on the stability of the equilibrium in question. Sometimes rapid, somtimes very slow. And a key point, this is a view that is not arbitrary and makes mathematical and logical sense.

<Kieck>
Yeah, I thought about. What you implied was that jumping off a cliff lacked any chance of survival for lemmings. But let's think about it a little differently.

Actually I implied that most but not all of the population of lemmings survives the strange urge to bath till death. It would stand to reason that the survivors don't seem to want to be that clean. Shouldn't we expect the bathing trait to disappear? It doesn't.

<Kieck>
Right. Evolution did NOT save them, but they either adapted or died. And adaptation is change. So, the way I see it, evolution didn't save them, but they evolved.

They died. They did not evolve. Extinction is not an evolution. You can try and stick the two words together but they don't fit. My point was that the environment provided some awesome opportunity for evolution to happen and a large set of organisms didn't have it in them to make it happen. Some species did, sure, but a large set of species did not. Key words: set, species, extinction.

<Robert Brenchley>
littoral

New word for me. Cool.

<Robert Brenchley>
The thing which always gets me about these endless arguments over evolution, apart from their total futility (since both sides have made up their minds in advance) is that the anti- school of thought have never to my knowledge attempted to describe any mechanism which would prevent evolution. What would stop it happening?

Interesting perspective, but I think you've sort of missed the debate Kieck and I have going. I believe that we both agree that evolution happens. We disagree on what evolution is. To me, the waxing and waning of trait expressions to meet enviromental pressures is *not* evolution. Evolution occurs when there is an introduction or removal of a trait from the set of traits for an organism.

For example:
I would never say that beekeepers _evolved_ the Apis Mellifera to be a larger bee but rather that beekeepers _selected_ Apis Mellefara to be a larger bee.

(Oh, and you can't prove a negative.)

<Kieck>
You're still referring specifically to "speciation." That's a common confusion. People often assume that evolution has not occurred until a "new" species has formed.

And this is the statement made that brought me into the fray. I do not believe there is a common confusion here. Not only is this my assumption, I will assert it.

And just as a note of clarification: I have and we do use the term 'trait' in this discussion. It makes the conversation a bit more visual. I am aware, and I believe Kieck is as well, that we are really talking about genes and even more precisely the bits in the genes that cause differential developments in organisms.

<Donna>
What do you think?

I think your intuition is serving you well.

My impression is that the varroa did not adapt at all. Their bumper sticker reads, "We eat bigger honeybees." The reason could be related to the comb/time requirements to making bigger bees or something special about just being a bigger bee. The folks that are actually doing experiments, like Michael, are finding some interesting things. The space in a smaller cell doesn't seem to be enough for a varroa. The shorter time to make smaller bees doesn't seem to be enouch for varroa. Maybe the smaller bees have smaller handles for the varroa to hold on to.

And, to feed this into the subject that began it all, perhaps it is the combination of all of these that the varroa cannot adapt to. That is, maybe nature uses a combination of treatments.

My gut is that whatever Michael is doing works because the varroa cannot adapt to it.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"Didn't Varroa jump from A. cerana to A. mellifera? Isn't Tropilaelaps clareae the mite infesting A. dorsata? Or am I mistaken?" -Dick Allen

Sorry. I was typing faster than I was thinking. You're correct; Varroa made the jump from Apis cerana, not A. dorsata, to A. mellifera. Nonetheless, it was still a jump, and, to the best of my knowledge, the other information is still correct.

"That you avoided answering." -JohnF

Yep. You catch on fast!







I avoided answering because I'm not sure that we have a good answer yet. So far, even the best "experts" disagree about this matters. So I leave it up to you, to decide in your mind. Think of it kind of like species: "How different do two groups of organisms have to be to compose two species?" That answer will vary, too, for the reasons we've already hashed over.

"Better be careful. You don't know what my educational background is. This sort of talk can be viewed as patronization. (I don't think you are by the way.)" -JohnF

True, I should be careful. I don't know your educational background, really. I'm not trying to patronize. I have deduced, however, from the way you use the terms that you have very little or no formal training in systematics, taxonomy, or evolutionary biology. You tend not to use the terms the same way as the people who created the terms use them. I'm not saying that's all bad, but I have to believe you didn't learn from systematists, taxonomists, or evolutionary biologists.

"Because no evolution happened here." -JohnF

Really? Why didn't we have Varroa on our bees right from the get-go then? Did the mites change? Did the bees change? If it's not a form of evolution, what is a shift like this called?

"Shouldn't we expect the bathing trait to disappear? It doesn't." -JohnF

Did you read through my hypothetical gain-in-fitness on this topic? What if deciding to plunge into large bodies of water actually made it more likely that their offspring would survive? Shouldn't we then actually expect the trait to spread through the population?

"They died. They did not evolve." -JohnF

Not the ones that survived. Besides, the extinction of dinosaurs left open niches for mammals and birds and other organisms that were around but were competing with the dinosaurs before that extinction event. All the organisms that survived (and most of the insect species on the planet at that time did survive that extinction event) must either have been "resistant" or lucky. But those species aren't around today -- they've changed.

"To me, the waxing and waning of trait expressions to meet enviromental pressures is not evolution. Evolution occurs when there is an introduction or removal of a trait from the set of traits for an organism." -JohnF

I see what you're saying. I've seen it for some time. But how big a "wax" or a "wane" would it take to convince you that a population of organisms have evolved. Let's just say, for instance, that in a particular equilibrium, the "waxes" are much larger than the "wanes," the center point of that equilibrium shift decided toward the "wax" side. Is that evolution? What if the "wane" almost disappears?

"I am aware, and I believe Kieck is as well, that we are really talking about genes and even more precisely the bits in the genes that cause differential developments in organisms." -JohnF

Yeah, to an extent. But, I'm really more interested in the expressions of those genes than in the genes themselves. Molecular biologists have a long, long way to go to perfect the systems that so many people assume are already perfect. And, some of those differences in developments are clearly environmental, not genetic. Environmental proteins and such can have profound impacts on organisms. But that's a whole other kettle of fish.

"I would never say that beekeepers evolved the Apis Mellifera to be a larger bee but rather that beekeepers selected Apis Mellefara to be a larger bee." -JohnF

I would agree with your statement, but I would add that Apis mellifera, then, has evolved.

"(Oh, and you can't prove a negative.)" -JohnF

Very, very true. You also can't prove a positive, at least not in science. Rather, you attempt to disprove positives.

"And, to feed this into the subject that began it all, perhaps it is the combination of all of these that the varroa cannot adapt to. That is, maybe nature uses a combination of treatments.

My gut is that whatever Michael is doing works because the varroa cannot adapt to it." -JohnF

And my gut is that Varroa have not adapted to it, and may never adapt to it, but I would never say never (or "cannot"). What if they do? Are you sure they never could adapt?

So far, so good, though. So keep using whatever's working.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

>Sorry. I was typing faster than I was thinking...

that happens a lot on here.


----------



## Apuuli (May 17, 2006)

Wow, this is a really good discussion of evolution. Props to Kieck for taking all the time and effort to explain everything so well. It's impossible to succinctly explain the Grand Unifying Theory of Biology.

I think one of the main problems is the use of multiple defintions of the term 'evolution', some of which are not used in scientific circles.

Evolution can mean simply 'change' (often with the connotation of 'development' or 'progress'), however this is common usage and has very little to do with the biological usage.

The most basic biological definition of evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population from one generation to the next. It does NOT require novel traits. Novel traits, however, whether gained through mutation or incorporation of foreign DNA, appear all the time.

That is the definition used by population geneticists and includes genetic changes that are not expressed.

Not being a population geneticist myself, I don't often think of evolution in these terms, I'm more interested in changes in observable traits. This doesn't mean I limit my definition, just my focus.

The problem with limiting one's definition of evolution to speciation events is that it producees a false division. The process of evolution within a species and the process of evolution during a speciation event are the same but at different scales (which is why the term 'macroevolution' is used to describe large changes like speciation). 

This is the same issue Darwin dealt with. Most biologists of his day thought that species were fixed but within a species there could be change, variation, and the development of varieties and races. Darwin showed that the distinction between species and varieties was not clear-cut and they were actually on the same continuum of population differentiation.

Many of the wonder pesticides of the past were thought to be resistance-proof as they mimicked insect juvenile hormone or otherwise interfered with the endocrine system. It was thought that insects would have to evolve completely different hormones to develop resistance and that could never happen in a million years. It did. In less than a decade. An understanding of evolutionary processes and dynamics helps us slow the development of resistance. It is not simply an academic mental exercise.

As for the lemmings, they are a poor example. The lemmings that leave an area are the subordinate ones and are unlikely to survive or reproduce if they stayed. The ones that stay are the dominant individuals. Contrary to popular belief, lemmings are not trying to commit mass suicide by jumping into the ocean. The 'losers' leave to find greener, less densely inhabited pastures. They are good swimmers and when they meet a stream, they swim across, when they meet a river, they swim across, when they meet a lake, they swim across, when they meet the ocean, they try to swim across. If they are lucky they cross a fjord or reach an island, if not they at least are remembered in myth. It's a case of "making the best of a bad job": if they stay they won't reproduce, if they leave they have a chance of finding an area with less competition. Hitting the ocean is rare.

But what's that about bees? Oh, yeah, they're pretty cool, huh?


----------

