# Oxalic Acid Downside??



## Sundance

As a newbie I have been looking at all forms of treatments.

I use small cell but looking at a back up, emergency treatment.

Oxalic Acid seems almost too good to be true.
*Low Cost
*Readily Available
*Easy to administer
*High knock down rate.

What is the down side to this???


----------



## Joseph Clemens

Here's a start:
http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/o6044.htm


----------



## Hillside

One downside may be that it isn't exactly legal to use, at least in the US. 

Now to be self incriminating, I'll have to admit that I used it last year as a vapor and had very good results wintering my bees. The "crack pipe" method took a fair amount of time per hive, but I expect with some experience I could speed things up. If you try this method, be really careful about breathing any of the fumes. I know it's been discussed here before, but even a slight wiff gives you that gotta-constantly-clear-my-throat feeling.

I would like to try the drizzle method. It sounds so much simpler and it has a great deal of positive history in parts of Europe.


----------



## Sundance

If I do use it I would only consider doing it with the JB200.

Altough the MSDS is nasty sounding, all acids are in pure form. Like tartaric acid (grapes), citric acid, etc.

Acetic acids' (pickles and such) MSDS is even nastier than oxalic and we eat, drink, and clean with it regularly.

http://www.bu.edu/es/labsafety/ESMSDSs/MSAcetic.html

Any headway on getting it approved for mite control??


----------



## drobbins

from what I've read, I wouldn't hold my breath (except when I'm sublimating it)
nobody's gonna make any $ off of it

Dave


----------



## Sundance

Dave.... Good point...... unfortunatly.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

Some thoughts from a guy who started learning about organic gardening when he was 8 years old:
* * * * * * * * *
Even though trace amounts of oxalic acid can by found in many natural systems, those systems don't happen to experience oxalic acid in the manner or quantities described as treatment of honeybees for mite infestations.

I don't even feed my bees with anything other than what they'd find in nature for themselves. I can't prevent them from scavenging what they would find around "civilization", but at least I don't need to provide it myself.

If I'm going to provide products from my hives to friends/family/customers I want to be able to say that I have done absolutely nothing intentional to cause adulturation of those products, rather everything reasonable to reduce the chance of any contamination.


----------



## MichaelW

The main drawback from my reading about it would be breathing vapors. The trickle method avoids some of that and has the most research, that I could find, that tells you how to use it and how well it works. Those research papers are very clear. Use scholar.google.com 

I'll probably try the trickle method at some point. I won't sublimate it, but thats me.


----------



## Michael Bush

Anything that kills the mites is going to stress the bees. I think that goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway. That said, yes, it has all those advantages over all the other treatments.

I think the "idiot" factor will have an effect. No one will want to market the vaporizer in the US because some bozo will fail to stand downwind, fail to heed the first wiff and getout of the fumes and deep inhale the fumes go into static asthmaticus, die and the family will sue the manufacturer. No one will bother to pay the fees to get it approved when you can buy it for $6 at the paint store and no one will want the liability issues.

It's not like it's hard to stay out of the fumes. Leave your smoker lit so you can make sure you know which way the wind is blowing and you always stand upwind.


----------



## drobbins

here's a good link to the method

http://www.algonet.se/~beeman/research/oxalic/oxalic-0-nf.htm

Joseph, make no mistake, I want very much to not use any treatment.
But the class I took and the books I've read scare the heck out of me about the mites.
They tell me to use apistan, I'm not gonna do that
they tell me to re-queen every year, I'm not gonna do that
they tell me to use foundation to make the bee's build comb like I want them to in there brood nest, I'm not gonna do that.
But they sufficiently scared me about the mites to make me think I'd better think about what I am gonna do if I have a problem or else I ain't gonna have no bee's.
I like my bee's, I ain't just gonna let em die without trying to help em. I'm trying to get em on SC and I hope that is sufficient to do the job, but from what I read here I may need to help a little to get em from here to there. I think my first line of defense would be powdered sugar. I'd follow that with either sucrocide or OA, probably depending on the time of year.
Fortunately, at this point, I've never seen a mite. Hopefully I'll get to a point where I don't need chems before I need em, but the time to develop a plan is not after you have a problem.
Right now I don't have a problem and I'm not gonna do anything.

You should be proud of the fact you manage to keep bee's without any kind of treatment. I wish you continuing success. In the last day or 2 you posted a longer description of how you run your bee's, I appreciate it, it's very helpful to those of use trying to figure out how to make this work

Dave


----------



## Sundance

I second Daves thoughtful response.

Using any other treatment other than small cell, FGMO w/thymol (more for tracheal mites), will be done as a last resort only. Oxalic acid seems to be that next step if needed.

Using the JB200 puts you well away from harms way. And as Micheal said, it is not hard to figure which way the wind is blowing. Especially here in ND and my guess is Kansas is much the same on the wind front.

My apple orchard is being run the same way. Soft treatments are the first line, always. But I will not lose my trees or my bees when it comes down to it.

Continued success Joeseph!


----------



## drobbins

Bruce,

I've got a jug of the crystals and I intend to experiment a little
I'm gonna see if I can find a 12 volt heating element cheap somewhere and build an evaporator.
If you don't "need" one yet, don't rush out and buy it, I suspect you could fabricate such a thing cheaply

Dave


----------



## MichaelW

The wind blows in all directions here. Sometimes the campfire smoke will chase you all night. If I sublimated here I would use a respirator for sure. I doubt if its any worse than the wood stain I used a couple of weeks ago. A CHEMICAL not dust respirator should do the trick if you don't want to brath the fumes and don't want to count on the wind.


----------



## Sundance

As a former auto body guy, I don't handle much of anything without a respirator. I have many, including an air supplied system.

Dave,,, Keep me posted on your Dr Wizard manuvers. I'll look for a flash and mushroom cloud to the southeast


----------



## Joseph Clemens

Dave,
Here is an additional item about how I have been managing my "feral survivor" bees:
--> For the past 8+ years I have left queen management almost entirely up to the bees. I still manage my feral survivor apiary this same way. They were initially "feral survivor's" living on exposed combs, sheltered only from above, being suspended beneath a mobile home nearby my 1st apiary location. All my colonies, until this season were walk-away splits derived from this initial colony (the queenless portions were each left alone to raise their own replacement queens). Each season approximately 1/3 of my colonies swarm, of those that do they usually throw more than one each. Over these past 8 years, 3 hives have wound up queenless after their swarming efforts and I have intervened to provide them with a frame of young brood to raise themselves an emergency replacement queen. Using this lackadaisical queen management style keeps me wondering about only one thing most of all, (how old are my queens). I'm somewhat certain my bees are fairly well adapted to my area and the conditions here, because without ever receiving any treatments at all, they have remained vigorous and healthy. Brood patterns have remained consistently excellent and I suspect that there is very little inbreeding adversely affecting brood viability.


----------



## Beemaninsa

I have not seen this posted yet but may have missed it...August ABF bulletin stated that the directors decided to pursue registration of oxalic acid for treatment of varroa mites. The Canadain Honey council has offered to sell the ABF the data they collected for Canadian registration at a reasonable price. Many futher steps will be required before the product will be available for use, but ABF is moving forward on this.
I don't know which method of application they will pursue.
This may be far fetched, but I was wondering if measured doses could be encapsulated in something that would dissipate with heat application. When useing the vapor method, could this help reduce some of the handleing hazards? Any thoughts?


----------



## drobbins

Joseph,

You're certainly not the only person reporting that "feral survivors" seem to be a big help.
Obviously, the problem is there is no "feral survivor" store  
Fortunately, I have found a feral colony in the top of a huge oak outside a friends house.
Collecting the colony is just not gonna happen, no way, no how.
To high, can't cut tree etc
But he say's he's seen em throw many swarms and they've been there a long time so you can bet I'll have some swarm traps around his place in the spring.

Thanks for the additional info
Dave


----------



## Sundance

Beesmania....... That is encouraging!! It is what is needed to get it done.

How does one join the ABF?? I would like to support them.

I am sure once "legalized" companies will formulate many application modes to cash in.


----------



## dcross

Diana Sammataro(sp?) is also working on a trickled oxalic treatment.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Obviously, the problem is there is no "feral survivor" store 

There are others raising feral survivors. I'm sure there are some in your area as well. I have some from here available.

>I'll have some swarm traps around his place in the spring.

That's a plan. Put them a ways away though. Bees swarming aren't looking right next door.


----------



## drobbins

Michael,

I've definately got you in mind as a possible source.
Gonna try locally first, long way from Nebraska to NC.
There is a guy's nearby with minnesota hygenic queens
He only want $12 and is close enough for no shipping.
Might try that.
I've got italians now, I also don't appear to have mites, perhaps I'll just leave well enough alone

Dave


----------



## Dan Williamson

Sundance.

If you don't already have the JB200, you won't be disappointed. It is definately a little flimsy but with proper care should last for sometime. Worked great for me! Piece of cake to use. I've got a garden cart. Put a cheap 12V battery in it and run wires over the the vaporizer. I take a bucket and wet sponge with me. Sometimes you get debris (I'm assuming burr comb) in the tray. Just wipe it out while hot and you are good to go.

Dan


----------



## Sundance

Dan..... 

How many treatments do you get on your battery?? I realize a deep cycle would be needed.

How long does it take per hive??


----------



## Michael Bush

>I realize a deep cycle would be needed.

If you're buying a new batter that's probably a good idea, but I bet any old car battery you have around will work. A motorcycle battery will be a lot lighter to haul around. Using the one on your truck or car, if you drive that close, will probably work fine as well.


----------



## Dan Williamson

>>How many treatments do you get on your battery?

No idea.... I've only used it one year so far. This fall will start my second year. I imagine it will last a long time. I bought the cheapest car battery I could find then the battery on my tractor died so I took the battery for my hives and put in on the tractor. Needless to say I won't be able to see how long it lasts. Just using it for the vaporizer.

I think you only turn it on for about 60sec a hive. (I think the time varies by the strength of the battery). I imagine even a motorcycle battery would last a very long time. Then you can just recharge it. That is what I planned to get to replace the one I had to use for the tractor. As MB said. It'll be alot lighter.

Dan


----------



## Sundance

Garden tractor batteries are cheap ($9.99) as well.


----------



## db_land

I bought a jump-start battery with a built-in charger. It's nicely packaged, has a carrying handle, easy to use. I treated 10 hives (using a JB200) in a row - could have done more without a recharge.


----------



## Michael Bush

>I bought a jump-start battery with a built-in charger

That would work very nicely.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL

I use a garden tractor battery. I think I got about thirty hives done before needing to recharge.


----------



## Sundance

That is good news Bill. I collect IH Cub Cadets and have loads of those.


----------



## bjerm2

Do you folks use the acid all year long or only in spring and fall before they have brood? Also how often do you do it?
Thanks
Dan


----------



## Michael Bush

When I've done it, I've only used it in the fall or spring when there was no brood.


----------



## db_land

The most effective time to treat with OA is on a warm day (bees flying) with no brood in the hive. On the other hand, you want to have a couple of cycles of healthy brood before winter, so if the varroa level is high treat immediately and frequently through at least one complete brood cycle.


----------



## George Fergusson

I don't expect my hives to be broodless until November. The bees are getting pretty well hunkered down by then.

How often can you use OA, I've heard once a year, I've heard twice a year, lest you kill bees. And are there any statistics on queen mortality? The workers aren't around long enough to get dosed twice, but the queen sure is.

George-


----------



## bjerm2

Good point about the queen. I was just wondering what everyone out there does with OA. I have read some do it once a month but are upset since they noticed some brood death. Others say do it only when cold and all bees are in, some when they fly, no brood -- makes no diffrence if you have brood or not. Just confused as how it is used by those that do use the acid and what their thoughts are about it.
Thanks
Dan


----------



## Axtmann

OA liquid = you should do it in fall only one time per bee generation. Its hard on bees and bees age very fast.

OA evaporation = as often as necessary the acid is sitting in the hair of the bees and not in there stomach. I treat my bees after harvesting the honey 4 times a week apart and the middle of December two times a week apart. 

The last 4 years I never lost a queen because of the OA evaporation. Treat your bees as often as necessary as long as there is no frost.

Always monitor the mite drop on a sticky board.


----------



## dickm

November is too late. It's important to get the hive clean so that a few generations of brood to make winter bees can emerge. By Nov the mite #s will be too high.

Dickm


----------



## JBJ

Hello all. I would like to inquire about the brood damage potential of OA use. It seems that I have heard lots of people have been unhappy with the liquid treatments because of brood damage. Damaging the brood in the fall when the winter cluster bees are developing sounds risky to me, as does waiting till there is no brood to treat. If the mite load is heavy it will be too late by then. I would like to know what is the risk for brood damage with the sublimation/vaporization tactics?
JBJ


----------



## Michael Bush

In my observation fogging does damage the open brood. It seems right after treating is when I'll see a little chalk brood. I don't know why. It has no noticable effect on the capped brood and no noticable effect on the bees. I've experienced no loss of queens and no noticable change in the health or population of the bees.

I have never done the trickling. I think the vapor is the way, to go IF you need to treat, and harm the bees less.

I'd prefer to wait until brood rearing stops unless there is a severe mite infestation that you don't think will last that long.


----------



## JBJ

Michael, I assume you prefer the OA vapor to thymol FGMO treatments? The guys I have spoken with about OA problems suggested that it was the open brood that was at risk, have you seen any problems there? Some of the guys in our local bee club that I run have questions on the subject. I am actually debating treating at all this year. Perhaps the French have it right with their Bond Test (Kefuss). The Live and let die approach could be expensive in the early years, but it would have the advantage in the long run for heavy selection for the resistant/tolerant bees. So far, for the last 5 years, I have been able to survive with only fall FGMO treatments and propagating from the survivors, but it is always nerve wracking when you see mites this time of year. Due to economics and demand every colony is precious with record setting Almond pollination fees and such. The more bees, the better, come next February. Thanks for your input.
JBJ


----------



## Michael Bush

>I assume you prefer the OA vapor to thymol FGMO treatments?

I've never liked the smell of thymol and I don't think I want it in my honey. I have used FGMO fog on a regular basis while regressing with good luck. But it takes a treatment every week or two all through the season. The OA is a one time treatment in the fall after brood rearing stops. For my outyard that seemed more practical. The OA will kill virtually all the mites in one shot. The FGMO kills a few all along the way. You can't get rid of all the mites with just one (or even 10) of the FGMO fog treatments.

>The guys I have spoken with about OA problems suggested that it was the open brood that was at risk, have you seen any problems there?

Yes. I see a lot of chaulkbrood right after treating with brood in the hive. I try not to do that.

>I am actually debating treating at all this year.

If you don't have a problem I wouldn't. If I treat at all it will probably just be the large cell hives I've recently aquired.

>So far, for the last 5 years, I have been able to survive with only fall FGMO treatments

That surprises me. I've found FGMO seems to require constant treatments from spring until fall.

> and propagating from the survivors, but it is always nerve wracking when you see mites this time of year.

You always see mites this time of year. The question is how many?


----------



## JBJ

Michael, Mites are indeed more abundant this time of year, however some families have much more than others, and other colonies have almost no detectable mite loads. It seems obvious which colonies have better resistance traits and will remain in the breeding program. Darwin would be proud, natural selection in action, as long as the weaker lines are eliminated (the mites will help here, if you let them). As to the small cell vs. large cell issue, are you actually suggesting that my resistant bees would be more resistant on small cell? Resistance is in the genetics, beyond that we get into the whole contentious nature vs. nurture debate. Suppressed mite reproduction (SMR) is best achieved at the genetic level, and will occur regardless of small cell or not. It is my understanding that the traits that most affect mite resistance/tolerance occur at the genomic level, so perhaps there may be some lines of bees who happen to prefer smaller cells with great resistance traits, and lines bees where the converse is true. I know you strongly advocate small cell, so is it the cell size or the genotype that is the essential ingredient here? I will go out on a limb and suggest that you can breed for resistance on any cell size that the bees are genetically hard wired to draw out. A wise bee guru once told me the way to success with bees is to help the bees to do what they want to do, not to force them to do what you want them to do. This approach seems to say that we should use the cell size your bees have a natural genetic inclination to build. I am new to this whole small cell debate so I am sure that there is much that I have to learn. 
The reason that I am able to get by with seasonal fogging is that fogging is not the first line of defense against mites; it is the good queens grafted from the survivor stock. I would consider no treatments at all if I had more control over breeding of these queens. As it is now, the degree of resistant/tolerance that any queen inherits is variable due to drone sources and the natural genetic variations that occur with any sexual reproduction. Did someone just say, Clone the great ones? My goal is to eventually develop productive workable bees that you do not have to treat for mites at all. I know that cultural practices can play a big role (SC, SBB etc.). However, I feel the most room for improvement in the genetics realm. Equilibrium will eventually be reached in the parasite/host relationship. 
JBJ


----------



## franc

JBJ.I believe during early experiments some people were way over treating their bees using several oz's of OA with each treatment and had some brood die off.Only use about a tablespoon or so ..just a small amount and it takes care of the V-mite and also from what I heard helps for T-mite too with just a couple simple treatments.The V-mite basicly breathes through its skin and one of its biggest fears is drying out.When the OA vapor or liquid comes in contact with the mite it is absorbed into the internals.Im guessing that the mite then tries to cough or spit the OA out and ends up messing up its very tiny feeding tube.It probably also affects it reproductive organs and other organs in its body as well.I feel small cell,limited treatments like with OA and grease patties or FGMO and breeding are the keys.


----------



## Beemaninsa

Franc wrote: "I heard helps for T-mite too with just a couple simple treatments." I have heard this also. Has this been confirmed? Has anyone seen any studies on this?


----------



## Michael Bush

>I heard helps for T-mite too with just a couple simple treatments.

I've also heard the vapor will and the trickling won't but I have not been able to find study to support that.


----------



## thekeeper

I found the best way to get rid of the mites is to use screens bottoms so they fall thru. and to put soft brissles on the entrances. Tested my thearoy on 4 hives. found alot less mites this way.Brissles tore wings and bees plugged screens with wax. The best way to solve the mite problem I found is to try and control them to a min. Now they are ressistant to all treated except acid. The way I see it is if you dont want mites dont send them to do almonds and keep them 20 miles from all kindes of bees.It is not possible to wipe them out totally and once u do.They come back 10 times fold.


----------



## 2rubes

Just saw this thread, what type of bristles are you using? and how are you applying them? That's an excellent idea, especially with powdered sugar. I was able to easily brush off mites with a light touch off a bee that I coated with powdered sugar. Janet


----------



## tecumseh

axtmann sezs:
The last 4 years I never lost a queen because of the OA evaporation. Treat your bees as often as necessary as long as there is no frost.

tecumseh inquires:
so exactly what is the temperature specification for using vaporized OA? some folks seem to suggest when the bees can fly and other when the bees are not? is there any specific information that would suggest the proper technique?


----------



## Ian

I am getting very interested in this method, the more I hear about it. And now, our CHC have done the work to provide us with ability to use in here in Canada, I am planning to use this next spring. Apistan is useless, and I have used checkmite this fall to clean up my high mite counts. And I hope not to use it again. I believe tolerant bees is the answer, and even with the amazing results, I cant afford to have my hives crash while I wait for "the bee".

A few questions on OA that always hangs in the back of my mind.

Later in the year, the bees tend to be generally found in the bottom of the hives. Now, would a vapour treatment on the bottom board, right benith the cluster kill many bees? As I understand, the acid is dispersed as a superheated vapour. Would that superheated vapour not scald many,many bees?

Also, if the OA treatments knock down 80% or so of the mites, whats stopping the other 20% from dropping?


----------



## Dave W

Ian . . .

>if the OA treatments knock down 80% or so of the mites, whats stopping the other 20% from dropping

Ask this SAME question except replace "OA" w/ "Apistan" and the answer is always, "that 20% is resistant".

I think the answer in both cases is the fact that some of the mites are NOT getting a lethal dose.
If the vapor does not come in contact w/ the mite, that mite get to live. Would adding enough vapor to kill 100% of mite present also kill a large portion of bees? Dont know.


----------



## Kieck

Some of the mites, especially with a contact method like OA, probably just avoid the treatment. Any mites out riding on workers, or mites in capped brood, in my opinion, would just miss out on the treatment. If the OA is strong enough to penetrate wax and reach mites in capped brood, wouldn't it have the same effects on capped brood that others have noticed on open brood?


----------



## Ian

>>Ask this SAME question except replace "OA" w/ "Apistan" and the answer is always, "that 20% is resistant".


Thanks for the response DaveW, I appreciate your response, and it has got me thinking. but resistance cant be the case, for they claim there is no reistance to this application. As with formic. Which is why I am asking. 
Apistan never had 80% knockdown, it was 99.5% effective, or so. That .5% took over, I guess. 20% resistance would leave the product uneffective after a matter of treatments.


Of all the studies I have read about this treatment, I never see how it effects the bees themselves. Does it shorten their lifespan, kill some during treatment?


----------



## Dave W

>they claim there is no reistance to this application . . .

I too have heard the claim. I have a problem understanding how bees can become resistant to a "bad" chemical but not resistant to a "good" chemical.

Isnt an "80% effective" treatment "almost worthless"?


----------



## drobbins

DaveW

my understanding is that it's the difference in how the chemicals work
the so called "hard" chemicals work by toxicity
some mites show less suseptibility to this toxicity and can pass this trait to offspring
the organic acids work by physically damaging the mite's 
The analogy I've heard is that developing resistance to an organic acid is like developing resistance to being hit by a hammer
if you hit enough mites with a hammer you might find one that lives
it might pass that trait on to offspring
but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen









I have no scientific research to back this up, it may just be an internet rumor

Dave

[ December 15, 2005, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: drobbins ]


----------



## Dave W

drobbins . . .

The hammer part I understand







.

Somehow I cant see OA "smashing" anything. Maybe it causes the mites to "dry up", stop breathing, or whatever. But, why doesn the mite "genes" stop the OA from killing too?


----------



## drobbins

well, here comes another internet rumor
my understanding is that the OA actually damages the mites mouth parts and prevents it from feeding
it's just not caustic enough to harm the bees
apparently it can harm open brood
I'm not sure where I read that
I'll try to find it

Dave


----------



## Dave W

The mite cannot protect its mouth parts but somehow it can stop a chemical from attacting its nervious system?


----------



## drobbins

umm,
exactly
does that sound hard to believe?
acid attacks everything it comes in contact with
organic, inorganic it doesn't matter
there's no possibility of genetic resistance to it
it's like a hammer, it does physical damage (if you don't believe it you should look at my thumbnail  )
the problem comes in getting the dose right so you damage the mite but keep damage to the bees to acceptable levels

Dave

[ December 15, 2005, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: drobbins ]


----------



## Axtmann

@Jon Kieckhefer

.If the OA is strong enough to penetrate wax and reach mites in capped brood, wouldn't it have the same effects on capped brood that others have noticed on open brood?.

Jon you probably mix something up, only formic acid penetrates wax and closed cells.

OA kill mites outside closed cells. If there is brood you have to treat several times. During summer is not much moisture in the hives and a treatment works approx 10 to 15 days. This time of the year is more moisture and OA (if evaporated) takes contact with the condensation. One treatment works up to 40 days. 

Formic acid works only with the right temperatures. This treatment is very danger to bees, queen and brood. 
To high temperatures formic kills everything, to low temperatures your mites smiling.

OA is the easiest treatment around the year as long as temperature above freezing. A good thing there is no harm to bees, queen or brood. Using the liquid OA is a different story.


----------



## Dick Allen

Not too long ago, oxalic acid was thought by some to work as a systemic and not as contact poison. Has it now been determined that is does not act as a systemic but rather acts as a contact poison? When bees are dosed with it in sugar syrup they do ingest it. When it's done through vaporization, they do breath the fumes. Either way it ends up inside the bees.

[ December 15, 2005, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: Dick Allen ]


----------



## drobbins

Dick

I tried to make it clear that I couldn't back up what I was saying with any research
It's just my understanding from what I've read
I'm trying to find where I got that information

Dave


----------



## George Fergusson

A recent study done at UC Davis indicates the mode of action of Oxalic Acid is through contact. In part:

"A final study to determine how the
acid appears to kill mites was conducted
using an elaborate system of modified hive
components that allowed only vapor, food
sharing or individual contact between
treated and non-treated mite infested bees.
It appears as though the mode of action of
the oxalic acid solution is by direct body
contact."

For the whole article see:

http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=004290;p=1#000003

George-


----------



## drobbins

ok
I guess I got that information here

www.mitegone.com/forms/Manual.pdf

obviously an ad not research
also for formic not oxalic
but that's where I got the impression for the method that organic acids use to harm the mites
can anybody find any more specific info??

Dave


----------



## Ian

>>hit by a hammer

I like it!!


Axtmann, please allow me to pick your brain,..

How many treatments do you normally apply after your honey flow? ie, fall application.
When is your honeyflow? 
When is your regular OA treatment schedule?
How long does a yard treatment, lets say 30 hives, take start to finish prep and all?

What is your thoughts on its effectiveness of mite drop? Do you see 80% as everyone is saying?

Why is the above freezing temp important? 
Or is it just a easy mark point for colony cluster? 
Or does the compactiveness of the cluster B/W 5 degrees and freezing significant for vapour penetration?

Sorry for all the questions, I am told you are most experienced with this method.


----------



## Dick Allen

Thanks Dave & George. I was just curious There is some "stuff" out there to be googled that mentions systemic action and there is some "stuff" out there to be googled that mentions contact as mode of action. More important, I guess, is that it works.


----------



## Kieck

I have a commercial pesticide applicator's license, so I have a pretty good understanding of how various chemicals work on arthropods. I'll admit that some chemicals seem to fit both categories, contact and systemic. Here are the differences as I interpret them:

Contact chemicals kill on contact. These compounds are only effective for a short period of time, usually "on contact." They break down or bind with other compounds in the environment fairly quickly and lose their intended effectiveness. (I do know that some of the by-products of chemical breaking down are toxic as well, and these can harm organisms as well.)

Systemic chemicals are absorbed into the host or remain on the host for an extended period of time and usually work on the target organisms feed on the host.

So, if the OA is absorbed into the honey, wax, or bees, it could be considered a systemic pesticide. If it remains more volatile, it's likely a contact pesticide. The way I would judge OA lies in how quickly mites are killed and the length of time the treatment continues to kill mites. I haven't used OA personally, so

1) Do mites begin dropping very quickly after the treatment? If they do, it's probably a contact toxin.

2) Does the OA take a period of time before it begins working, such as a day or more? If it does, it's likely a systemic poison.

3) Does OA residue continue to kill mites, preventing growth of the mite population, for an extended period after application? If mites continue to die for weeks after application, it's almost certainly systemic.

Like Dick Allen said, the important thing is that it works.


----------



## Axtmann

Ian

Axtmann, please allow me to pick your brain,..

...How many treatments do you normally apply after your honey flow? ie, fall application....

This year I started August 10th and made 3 treatments a week apart on my old (last year) colonies. My splits/swarm during summer without brood had already 1 treatment when they have the first eggs. They received one more in November.

My colonies had no treatment in spring thats why I start right after honey flow ends. A second reason is; each mite I kill in August cant make any damage on my winter bees.

I vaporized the hives one more in November and the drop was between approx 180 and 280 mites in 3 weeks. Last treatment was on December 6th and so far most colonies had less than 10 mites till now.
IMO maybe the last treatment was not necessary.

I have friends they have similar good results without treating them 3-4 times after honey flow. They treat in spring and two times (week or two apart) as soon as there are no brood in the hives. 


....When is your honeyflow?... 

This year honey flow ends end of July.

...When is your regular OA treatment schedule?... 

As soon as I take the honey supers off, I feed syrup (3kg ea hive) and 3 day later I start with OA. This works for me for the last 5 years. 

...How long does a yard treatment, lets say 30 hives, take start to finish prep and all?...

I have two - JB200 electric vaporizer and can treat 10 hives in about 15 minutes. With four I could treat 20 hives the same time and would be finish in 40 minutes. But time is not so important for me.
I let the vaporizers heat for 80 second before I switch off and wait 10 more second before I remove them and go to the next hives.

...What is your thoughts on its effectiveness of mite drop? Do you see 80% as everyone is saying?...

IMO if I treat a swarm on empty frames with starter strips there are no mite left. I would say I kill more than 90% of all mites in my colonies. There is an expression nothing is 100%.
If I treat and there is some brood left the mite problem slowly starts again. Bigger problems are careless neighbourhood beekeeper.

Perizin (chumafos liquid) from Bayer has a kill rate up to 85%. Some beekeeper here treating with Perizin (single winter treatment) and formic on a cleaning rag, or a Nassenheider, right after the honey supers are off. I gave up, I have better results with OA, its easier to handle and saver for both.. bees and myself.

...Why is the above freezing temp important?
Or is it just a easy mark point for colony cluster? 
Or does the compactiveness of the cluster B/W 5 degrees and freezing significant for vapour penetration?...

The vaporizer produce heat and bees starts fanning and moving. Above freezing the cluster are loose and bees can find there way back to the cluster. I treat only when I can see some bees moving.
During evaporation OA fog covers the cluster and as soon bees move inside to warm up they bring the acid to the other bees. After a treatment I can see lots of white bees. They are not wet; there hairs are covert with microscopic fine OA crystals. 


Jon Kieckhefer

After evaporation it takes a few day before mites start dropping. OA is not an instant killer.
http://www.mellifera.de/engl2.htm


----------



## dickm

In earlier posts Axtmann has said that when sublimated the crystals reform on the interior of the hive and keep killing mites as the bees/mites contact it. This could still be a contact poison. I use it 3X a week apart in the fall. The kill seems to taper off after a week. A friend used it this year and said it didn't start killing until several days had gone by. Then there were hundreds. Go figure.

Dickm


----------



## suttonbeeman

Sundance,
Membership to ABF for hobby beekeepers is $35.00/yr. Web site is www.abforg.net. Rick


----------



## Jim Fischer

My understanding of the way that oxalic works
is to destroy the "waxy" coating on the chitin
(exoskeleton). Without this thin waxy coating,
there is nothing to stop water loss through the chitin.

The mites die from dehydration, but only if
directly contacted by enough of the oxalic. 
This takes time, hence the lag between treatment
and "significant mite drop".

A basic problem is that bee brood areas are
high-humidity environments, kept at a constant
high humidity by the overt actions of the bees.

So, use of a queen cage will make your oxalic
more effective, as a trivial brood area means
a smaller area with high humidity, and a better
kill ratio. (I've said it before, and I'll say
it again - a (nearly) broodless period makes
ANY treatment more effective, and at $2.00 each,
a queen cage is your 3rd best IPM investment,
the 1st and 2nd being, of course, a pencil
and a notebook, as (of course) you cannot
control that which you do not measure.

Bees have more advanced respiration systems,
so they don't "dehydrate" in the same manner
as mites would.

I'd love to see the stuff legalized in the USofA,
but I see no reason to vaporize the stuff given
the encouraging results seen with "drizzle"
applications, as addressed at EAS 2005 at Kent State.

Vaporizers and foggers seem to be weapons systems
that satisfy the cravings of beekeepers to pick
up some sort of "BFG-9000" (The "Big Freakin Gun"
from the "Doom" video games) and use it to make
BIG IMPRESSIVE CLOUDS of stuff. While this
approach may be good for the ego and soul, the
cheaper, quieter, lower-tech approach seems to
work just as well, and is a lot safer and easier
to deploy when one has employees, family, and
friends on the payroll as apprentice beekeepers.

[ December 16, 2005, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: Jim Fischer ]


----------



## Dick Allen

> to destroy the "waxy" coating on the chitin (exoskeleton). Without this thin waxy coating, there is nothing to stop water loss through the chitin.
> 
> The mites die from dehydration


The mite's cuticle (skin) is heavily sclerotized (thickened), which helps reduce water loss. It has a chemical pattern similar to that of the bee's cuticle, which may help camouflage the mite within the bee hive.



> Bees have more advanced respiration systems, so they don't "dehydrate" in the same manner as mites would.


Can you be a bit more clear on what you are trying to say here?


----------



## Jim Fischer

> Can you be a bit more clear on what you 
> are trying to say here?

If you can look up and find terms like "sclerotized",
you can read a little more, and answer your own
questions. I explained the mechanism in clear
and simple terms. 

Your sole purpose in the post above appears to
be to "heckle" and argue, not to enhance your
or anyone else's understanding.

Find someone else to bicker at, or better yet,
go get a girlfriend or something.


----------



## Dick Allen

schlerite: a hard chitinous or calcareous plate.
schleroid: hard endurated

OK, I looked up those terms. 


But, this still confuses me, since the bees and mites have very similar chitin:

>Bees have more advanced respiration systems, so they don't "dehydrate" in the same manner as mites would.

What precisely do you mean by more advanced respriation systems. Do bees have lungs? How do they "dehydrate"? 

>Find someone else to bicker at, or better yet, go get a girlfriend or something. 

...and to think just the other day you wished Merry Christmas to everyone on the planet. Are you now rescinding my Merry Christmas?


----------



## Ian

>>the
cheaper, quieter, lower-tech approach seems to
work just as well, and is a lot safer and easier
to deploy

What about Axtmanns claim that the liquid application is much harder on the bees, than he found with the vapourizing method?


----------



## Dick Allen

>...claim that the liquid application is much harder on the bees...

During her presentation at the NW Corner Conference in Oregon, Diana Sammataro presented some of what she and another individual were doing in regards to OA. Dr Sammataro mentioned doing several trials with OA liquid. 

During the question and answer session, Marla Spivak commented to Dr. Sammataro, that she believed several trials using liquid were harmful to bees.


----------



## George Fergusson

>>...claim that the liquid application is much harder on the bees...

This may be as simple as suffocating some bees by clogging up their breathing holes with sugar syrup. It's pretty easy to kill bees by drowning them.

It may also have something to do with them ingesting a goodly portion of OA as they clean themselves. I don't know. I've been told you should only dribble OA once a year. This may be the reason.

In any case, I do know that after an OA dribble treatment, you end up with some dead bees- in my case, several dozen or so. Not an earthshaking, devastating loss, but loss far greater than when I've vaporized `em.

George-


----------



## Dick Allen

When sugar syrup with OA is drizzled between the frames with a syringe, it seems doubtful to me that all the bees will be wetted. It does seem to me that more bees will miss being wetted than will actually receive a dosage of OA. The bees that are wetted will be cleaned by other bees and the OA laced syrup will be exchanged with other bees. Hence, my earlier wondering about OA possibly being systemic as some have said. Bees are sometimes drenched with Fumidil by spraying, but they are not drenched by trickling OA between frames, are they?


----------



## George Fergusson

>but they are not drenched by trickling OA between frames, are they?

Drenched? I'd say not. But I imagine, as they clean themselves and each other, it gets pretty well distributed.

I do recall reading someplace recently about an OA treatment where the bees were lightly sprayed on a frame-by-frame basis.. which would presumably get more bees wetter. Where was that... Oh yeah









http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=004290;p=1

The say: "Spraying and trickling are done with acid dissolved in sugar syrup."

George-


----------



## Dick Allen

>as they clean themselves and each other, it gets pretty well distributed.

Yes, I'm sure it does, but how much of it actually contacts the mites when bees exchange syrup through trophallaxis, and how much ends up inside the bees? 

Just some "food for thought" (sorry George, I just couldn't help that.)


----------



## Dick Allen

> Bees have more advanced respiration systems,...


My understanding is that nearly all arthropods, including ticks and mites breath through a trachea system. In addition varroa has an aquatic breathing tube it uses while immersed in the brood food. 

So, Jim, wouldnt that make the mite breathing system more advanced than even the bees. Bees would drown if immersed in liquid. 

Help me out here Jim. As another individual sometimes says Enquiring minds want to know.


----------



## Jim Fischer

"My understanding is..."

"Help me out here Jim."

You are entitled to parrot (or misquote)
whatever you think you understand to your
heart's content.

No commentary or assistance is required from
me, nor will any be forthcoming as I have no
desire to do your research for you, or to
reconcile your "understandings" with mine.

At this point, your constant "baiting"
should be obvious to everyone. Why not
just try to add some value to the discussion,
and leave me out of it, rather than challenging
me to a "battle of wits"? I really would
rather not be challenged to "battle" by the defenseless.

(This would be much like defeating the feetless!)


----------



## Dick Allen

Aw....c'mon.


----------



## Ian

>>wouldnt that make the mite breathing system more advanced than even the bees. Bees would drown if immersed in liquid. 

How is that relevant to this conversation? 


>>The mite's cuticle (skin) is heavily sclerotized (thickened), which helps reduce water loss.

Dicks got a point. Why does the OA affect the mite, but not the bee in the same manner? Perhaps the mite is smaller and more vonrable to damage, while the bee can tolerate a bit little more.
But that leads to another question, with multiple applications of OA. If the bee can withstand the damage better than the mite, then you would think after getting treated 3 times, as Axtmann does, the bees would surcum to damage and die just as the mites are.


----------



## Dick Allen

Hopefully Jim will explain a bit about the more advanced breathing system of bees as compared to mites and how that keeps the bees from "dehydrating" (his quotation marks). Jim, question is being sincerely asked.


----------



## Michael Bush

>I see no reason to vaporize the stuff given
the encouraging results seen with "drizzle"
applications

>What about Axtmanns claim that the liquid application is much harder on the bees, than he found with the vapourizing method?

Axtman's only had experience with both for over a decade. Why listen to him?  What could he know? (Just for those who missed it. This is called sarcasm.)









My assumption is we should listen to those who used to trickle and have moved on to vaporizing. Why start ten years behind the learning curve?


----------



## George Fergusson

>My assumption is we should listen to those who used to trickle and have moved on to vaporizing.

I can only agree. My attitude toward dribbling is as a treatment of last resort; the sledge hammer approach.

Here's an interesting set of links to work done in Austria regarding the efficacy of vaporized OA treatments on 1509 colonies, with conventional treatments for comparison, and no treatments for controls. The other link is is a study of OA residues found in the hive after treatment, and working safety. Both very good reading.

The site is in German, but thankfully, they've provided these two documents (largely) in english:

http://www.mellifera.de/engl2.htm

http://www.mellifera.de/Engli2.pdf

They talk about using a "Varrox Vaporiser" which I googled for and found this:

http://www.biocontrol.ch/images/VarroxBedienungsanleitungenglish.pdf

Comments welcome. Or not









George-


----------



## Kieck

>>After evaporation it takes a few day before mites start dropping. OA is not an instant killer.

Very few contact chemicals act instantly. Based on everything I've read, I still regard OA as a contact pesticide. 

Whether OA is a contact or a systemic pesticide, I think mites could still develop resistance at some level. Resistance is a form of natural selection. Others have compared the action to getting hit by a hammer. To use the same analogy, wouldn't the mites that are fast enough to get out of the way of the hammer be "resistant?" What about the mites that survive getting hit by that hammer? The mites that have a thick enough cuticle to prevent dying from OA, or somehow manage to avoid exposure, or have slightly different mouthparts, or whatever, have a huge resource (bees) without competition (other mites). Enough OA to kill these mites -- call 'em "resistant" if you want, or don't -- might also be enough OA to kill the bees.


----------



## chemistbert

Whether or not a mite could develop a resistance to OA depends on how the acid kills. If it kills by interupting some manner of physiochemical system like fluvinate does then yes they could develop a resistance via evolutionary change. Selective breeding.
If the acid acts like I feel it does, in a purely physical manner than no resistance can be developed. It's like saying a person who happens to live after being stabbed or shot will breed bullet or knife resistant children. I hardly think so. My mites show no resistance to the only treatment I use, OA. It's been two years (not a long enough time I know) with no losses so give me a few more years and I can say more.


----------



## Kieck

The person who would have been stabbed or shot might have been lucky. What about those who avoided it in the first place?

Think of it like this: let's say that we have a huge deer population in the U.S. Some of these deer run faster than others. For some reason, we use greyhounds to run and kill deer. The deer that run slower than the greyhounds can be caught and killed, the ones that run faster than greyhounds obviously face less of a threat from the dogs. The action of the dogs is purely physical, yet a selective advantage (speed) allows some deer to survive. If the pressure is great enough, only the deer fast enough to outrun the dogs (or develop some other trait that allows them to outwit the dogs) will survive. Call it "selection," call it "resistance," it's really all the same thing. 

>>My mites show no resistance to the only treatment I use, OA. 

Most people are reporting that OA is about 80 to 85 percent effective. The survivors may not show any physiological resistance (although I doubt that anyone has actually tested that yet), but they are surviving. What if some of them really can withstand exposure to OA?


----------



## George Fergusson

Call it "selection," call it "resistance,"

Call it "Luck".

In your example of hunting deer with dogs, you're not going to breed faster deer, you're going to breed dead ones... er.. you're going to wipe out the population.

George-


----------



## Dave W

These are from my notes:

When consumed by V-mites, OA probably acts a protoplasmic poison by acidifying host bees hemolymph - ABJ, 6/04, p479

Because OA works through contact . . . mode of action appears to be low pH of OA solution - Nanetti, A (1999)

It is suggested that V-mites will not develop resistance to organic acids since they are a natural part of the metabolism of all organisms and can not be rendered harmless through enzymatic effects. - Fries, I; de Ruijter, A (2000)


----------



## Kieck

>>It is suggested that V-mites will not develop resistance to organic acids since they are a natural part of the metabolism of all organisms and can not be rendered harmless through enzymatic effects. - Fries, I; de Ruijter, A (2000) 

I still don't see how this changes the rules of evolution/selection/development of resistance. Consider salt -- all organisms need some salts for metabolic processes, but too much salt kills most plants. A few plants can toleration ("resist") much higher concentrations of salt. The same could happen with mites; those that can tolerate higher levels of OA survive, thus creating "resistant" populations. Yes, you could probably kill them by increasing the amounts of OA used in the hives, but you'd probably endanger the bees at the same time. After all, burning the hives would greatly reduce populations of mites, but it's hard on the bees, too!

>>In your example of hunting deer with dogs, you're not going to breed faster deer, you're going to breed dead ones... er.. you're going to wipe out the population.

Why wouldn't it lead to faster deer? Obviously, the deer survive now, and coyotes run roughly as fast as greyhounds. If only the fastest deer survive, doesn't that breed faster deer over time?


----------



## dickm

Dave,

Read this slowly.
>>When consumed by V-mites, OA probably acts a protoplasmic poison by acidifying host bees hemolymph<<

I'd be interested to learn how a meal that the V-mite has eaten can alter the PH of the bees' hemolymph. I assume you meant that "when eaten by the bees...etc"

"Developing resistance." what a great coupling of 2 words. Nothing "develops resistance." It is already there, as Jon says. Mother nature comes in and brooms out most individuals in the presence of an acid storm. The fact that a few have a harder shell, will leave them to breed. Nothing "developed." They can breed fast too. That's one of natures ways to handle an acid storm. The next round has more hard shells in it and the broom cleans out most of them leaving only the toughest shells. Nothing "developed" but we have a new mite. This, by the way is how we got the superior mites we have. We kept up the fluvalinate/cumaphos storm until the ones that "fit" the new environment, the poisonous one, were all that was left.

I don't see why this couldn't happen. 

Dickm
Thinking that the last thing a fish would discover is water!


----------



## Michael Bush

>Nothing "develops resistance." It is already there

Precisely.


----------



## Jim Fischer

> The fact that a few have a harder shell, will 
> leave them to breed.

It is not a "fact" that some varroa will have
"harder" shells. In fact, I think that a poll
of acarologists would refute the idea.

About the best metaphor I can offer here is
that your bones are made of, umm.. BONE, and
that bone is bone is bone, and no one will EVER
be born with bones that are somehow "harder",
"denser", or stronger.

Another good example would be powdered sugar,
which clogs the tarsal pads of varroa, and
cause them to lose their "grip". What possible
varroa would exist with non-clogging tarsal pads,
and how would those tarsal pads work?

In general, attacks on basic physiology result
in a noticeable lack of the "development of a
resistant population".

Neurological chemicals and "poisons" attack
much more complex systems, with known variations
among individuals that allow some percentage
to survive a pesticide. In this case, there IS
a reasonable expectation that "only the weird
will survive", and thereby result in resistance.


----------



## dickm

About the best metaphor I can offer here is
that your bones are made of, umm.. BONE, and
that bone is bone is bone, and no one will EVER
be born with bones that are somehow "harder",
"denser", or stronger.

I'll Be careful calling something a "fact" if you will Jim. With all that goes into creating bone and maintaining it wouldn't you be at least a little surprised if all bone was the same? It's not much of a step to saying all muscle is the same. I don't thik you want to defend that. 

Anyway,
From:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8739896&dopt=Citation
>>>More than 70% of the variability in human bone density has been attributed to genetic factors as a result of studies with twins, osteoporotic families, and individuals with rare heritable bone disorders.<<< 

If people can have genetically endowed differences in bone density, why do you want to deprive the mites?

On the powdered sugar item I think you have me. To stretch the point I could imagine a few varroa that have a propensity to scamper like the wind at the smell of sugar. Behaviors are heritable. Consider the attraction SHBs have for alarm pheromone.

>>In general, attacks on basic physiology result
in a noticeable lack of the "development of a
resistant population".<<<

In general I'd agree. I was, however, talking about whether it was possible. If humans have variable bone density, why not insects?

Do you think it's Possible at all? I think it may be a tough thing all around but too many people have jumped in to say it's impossible. Maybe too quickly.

Dickm
Thinking : Being positive, is being wrong at the top of your lungs.


----------



## George Fergusson

>Why wouldn't it lead to faster deer? Obviously, the deer survive now, and coyotes run roughly as fast as greyhounds. If only the fastest deer survive, doesn't that breed faster deer over time?

Why would it? Is whatever that makes a given deer faster than another deer a genetic trait that can be selected for through avoidance of predators? What if that deer evades the coyotes only to starve to death, or get hit by a car before successfully mating? Maybe that deer that evaded death by doggie did so through superior intelligence or maybe, as I suggested earlier, he was just lucky.

Deer born with deformed hooves or half a lung, or 2 heads will be naturally selected OUT of the gene pool. Nature is pretty ruthless at getting rid of unfit mutations, but I'm pretty sure there's a lot more involved in the evolution of species than mere natural selection for gentically heritable traits.

OK, so let's say you breed a faster deer. Does this then in turn cause the development of faster coyotes by selecting for reproduction those faster ones with longer legs maybe that better succeed at hunting? Do the slow coyotes die off? Do you then end up with faster coyotes to chase the faster deer? Where does this natural selection race end? Does it escalate forever?

Let's look at something we're all painfully familiar with- barbed bee stingers. If natural selection is all it's cracked up to be, explain what natural selection pressure could possibly have arrived at a defense mechanism that when used, kills the defender? That's like making a gun with a barrel pointing each direction- Shoot the intruder, and kill yourself at the same time! The last weapon you'll ever have to buy!

Honeybees have had millions of years to select OUT those barbs, and yet they're still there. Why? Wasps don't have them. What's up with that?

George-


----------



## Dick Allen

http://www.planetfusion.co.uk/~pignut/cheese.html


----------



## Michael Bush

Maybe a stinger with a venom sack that stays attached and continues to pump venom for some time, is actually more effective? Or maybe God was playing a joke on the bees? Or us?

I believe the faster deer will not be any faster. You'll just have less of the SLOWER deer.


----------



## Robert Hawkins

The barb on the beestinger is actually able to pull out of many animals. Human skin is just tougher than whatever enemies the bee is developed for.

Hawk


----------



## Jim Fischer

> More than 70% of the variability in human bone density has been attributed to genetic factors as a result of studies with twins, osteoporotic families, and individuals with rare heritable bone disorders.


Time to make hay from straw-man arguments...

Yes, sadly, there are diseases, and there are
people born with birth defects. But these are
IMPAIRMENTS not IMPROVEMENTS. 

There is a consistent lack of people or animals
born with "super powers" outside of comic books. 

There is a maximum "strength of materials" for
any specific material, and bone has a fairly
consistent breaking point for any one type of
bone in any one type of animal.

> It's not much of a step to saying all muscle 
> is the same.

Ummm, yes it is. Muscle is NOT a good metaphor
for the exoskeleton of a mite. The human
skeleton is a reasonable thing to compare to
the exoskeleton of a mite. Why? Because both
are skeletal systems. Muscles can be "improved"
by doing things like lifting heavy supers of
honey for several years. Bones can't.

> too many people have jumped in to say it's 
> impossible. Maybe too quickly.

Maybe it is because they've all done their
home work?









If you want to believe in either "X-Men mutants"
with superpowers like "stronger bones" or the
Great Pumpkin, with no bones at all, why not
read about "regression to the mean", a well-proven
fact about how inheritance tends to "smooth out"
exceptions even when they do crop up. Without
such inherent control mechanisms, tall parents
would have taller children, who would themselves
tend to marry other very tall people (who else
could they dance with?), resulting in a race of
8-foot 6-inch freaks, and an oversupply of
potential NBA players.

So, even if there might be some mite with a
magical "harder shell", and even if that mite
could overcome incredible odds to mate with
yet another mite also having a magical "harder
shell", their offspring would invariably have
SOFTER shells than their parents, closer to
the "mean". The grandchildren of the magical
mites would have still softer shell, even
closer to the "mean".

> I could imagine a few varroa that have a 
> propensity to scamper like the wind at the 
> smell of sugar

Speculation about the sudden development of a
completely new behavior is a non-productive
argument for such a simple creature. This is
yet another straw-man argument.

Read up on "regression to the mean".


----------



## George Fergusson

The stinger pulls out of insects but it's designed to stay put in most forms of skin bees will enconter and it is uniquely designed to not just stay stuck, but to further embed itself deeper and deeper all the while injecting more venon.

It's a beautifully designed piece of equipment. You have to marvel at it









That said, the last time I was stung twice by the same yellow jacket, I was forced to admit both the effectiveness of the venon and the utilitity of the delivery device, the use of which didn't harm the little nasty one bit. 

But we're getting off topic. The stinger is what it is and nature isn't going to change it just because it kills a bee to use it. And Michael's right, we end up with less slow deer, not faster deer and faster coyotes to chase them as the result of natural selection. 

Natural selection isn't at work in the development of resistance of varroa mites to the effects of pesticides either. What's natural about killing mites and breeding from the survivors? Natural selection is not going to result in the development of varroa mites with uncloggable foot pads as a result of us dusting them with powdered sugar. Those pads have a purpose and mites that happened to be born without them wouldn't be able to do what mites do. They wouldn't survive.. it would be another one of those mutations that nature IS ruthlessly efficient at eliminating.

Man has been messing with nature for thousands of years- breeding animals to enhance specific traits for their own ends. Bigger horses, more docile higher-milk production cows, special purpose dogs, etc. This isn't "natural". Nature doesn't adore cows that make so much milk they can barely walk, let alone run. Call it Unnatural selection if you want. It's really just intentional breeding. Remove this selection "pressure" and a lot of these traits we've been breeding for would slowly disappear- cows for example would stop being milk machines and would instead start to produce milk in amounts more suitable for the raising of a baby cow. Your border collie would stop herding sheep and start chasing cats intead.

In the same manner, resistance is just another case of selective breeding. For resistance to develop requires a genetic predisposition for it- it's a heritable, recessive trait, but it's there to begin with, we just unwittingly breed for it by killing off the critters without it, thereby concentrating it the offspring. Remove the selection pressure (stop using the pesticide) and that natural resistance reverts to it's original level of manifestation.

I won't take issue with Dickm's statement that "behaviors are heritable" except to say that I agree, natural inate behaviors are heritable and can be selected for, learned behaviors are just learned. If you can train an animal or insect to exhibit some behavior, you'll be able to train the offspring similarly but they'll still need training. The capacity for learning may be heritable. The learned behavior itself is not going to be passed on to future generations. This may not have been in question, I just thought I'd clarify it.

George-


----------



## dickm

>>>Human skin is just tougher<<<<

As a kid I used to run a trap line and, in addition, have skinned many of the bigger mammals, including the bees nemesis, the bear. I don't think human skin is tougher, although I haven't skinned as many of them.

On the deer point. Whitetails run and leap as far as 18 feet. Mule deer "stott" *sp?* that is: they leap with all four feet at the same time and land with them all at the same time. Apparently nauture is trying 2 styles of locomotion and the jury is still out. As white tails move westward they out compete mule deer. Don't know if it's the speed or something else. 
The climax method selected for is not ideal, just what works. 

Mule deer have a habit of turning back at the crest of a rise for a look at what alarmed them. Knowing hunters wait for this second to shoot. I think this trait is being bred out of them.

Dickm


----------



## chemistbert

We seem to be getting caught up in the dictionary.

Mites that live through a OA treatment are not likely to pass on the trait (whatever that is) and even if they do their offspring is equally unlikely because OA is used infrequently. If it were a constant condition then a survior traits would be selected for. 

We are "breeding" mites by changing the conditions they live in i.e. fluvinate we are breed them to resist the poison. There may be nothing natural about it but it nature and animals react accordingly.

Faster dogs don't make faster deer. It would if the only triat required for survival was speed but it isn't. It would also mandate that this trait was 100% heritable. It isn't.

Human skin has more collagen than most and is fairly think also. I think that's why stinger don't pull out. I have seen other critters stung that the stinger stayed in too. It's not just us.


----------



## Kieck

I guess I confused things with the deer/dogs analogy. What I was attempting to point out is that evolution works through selection. If you want to call resistance in mites to man-made chemicals "unnatural selection" or anything else, that's fine by me as long as you define your terms. It's still selection.

My point is that behaviors or other traits can be just as heritable as biochemical forms of "resistance." So far we have an argument on the theoretical point I made about the "hardness" of the mites' exoskeletons. Remembering that this is hypothetical, saying that it's not hardness but thickness of the exoskeleton that renders the Varroa impervious to OA, and the thickness of the exoskeleton is heritable, and mites with thick exoskeletons mate -- remember that this would be much, much more likely if all the mites with thinner exoskeletons died from an OA treatment -- why wouldn't their offspring have thick exoskeletons? Why wouldn't the thick exoskeletons of the offspring give those mites the same "resistance" or "imperviousness" or whatever to OA that their parents had? And, assuming that some physical mechanism like this really would confer some defense for the mites against OA, isn't this a non-chemical form of resistance?

As far as powdered sugar and the pads of the mites, why couldn't selection work to create a race of mites with some novel type of pad that resists powdered sugar? Sure, the trait has to appear first, but work slowly. Some mites with a slight variation (examine mites under a microscope if you think they show no variation) in their pads cling to bees a little better through the powdered sugar shake than bees that lack the variation. If they survive at a higher rate than the mites that fall off, they should also be more likely to leave offspring, which, if they also have the modified pads, can perpetuate the cycle. At this point I can't imagine exactly what pads that resist powdered sugar would look like. Maybe, like ticks, a few mites might evolve traits to cement their mouthparts to their hosts? If they're stuck by their mouthparts, what does it matter if their feet slip off?

In general, evolution or creation, however you want to view the process, has come up with perfect solutions to the problems that these organisms overcome every day. Varroa, among many others, has proven to be very adaptable (it wasn't a parasite of Apis mellifera until very recently, switching from a different host) and will likely continue to adapt to novel situations. The greater the selective pressure, the faster they will evolve; if they can't adapt to the changing conditions they die out. Anyone out there truly believe we can completely erradicate Varroa because they can't adapt fast enough?


----------



## Jim Fischer

> if all the mites with thinner exoskeletons died 
> from an OA treatment -- why wouldn't their 
> offspring have thick exoskeletons?

Because the principle of "regression to the mean"
assures that the offspring will be certain to
have exoskeletons that are "closer to the mean"
than their parents. I am short (5' 8"), my wife
is even shorter (5' 3"). We would both survive
any hail of bullets fired at the heads of 6-foot
tall people. But this does NOT imply that
our family will be midgets several generations
hence, or that our offspring will be assured
of being superior at playing "limbo".


----------



## Kieck

"Regression to the mean" implies a selective force (evolution) is reducing fitness at the extremes of the spectrum. If fitness at one end is greater, selection drives evolution toward that end. For example, if the mean height of male humans is 5'10", and all males over 6' tall face a significantly greater risk of dying before reproducing than males less than 6' tall, the mean height will decrease.


----------



## Michael Bush

>why couldn't selection work to create a race of mites with some novel type of pad that resists powdered sugar? 

Because selection doesn't "create" anything. I merely weeds out those with certain traits. It does not create new traits.


----------



## Kieck

Selection can create races. Here's how:

1)The traits arise on their own, not created by selection but by mutation and variation.

2)Selection provides a mechanism through which the organisms with the novel trait leave more offspring behind or survive to leave offspring in an environment.

3)Somehow, the members of the species with the novel trait are at least somewhat distinct in their reproduction or survival from other members of the species, "creating" a race. The trait wasn't created by selection, but selection "chose" the individuals with the novel trait and "created" the race.

This is a very simplified explanation of the process, but selection can create races. Races are the precursors to species. If evolution can separate (create) organisms into species, it can make races as well.


----------



## Michael Bush

>1)The traits arise on their own, not created by selection but by mutation and variation.

Can you show one example of this that has ever been observed? I have yet to hear of a useful mutation. Ever.

>2)Selection provides a mechanism through which the organisms with the novel trait leave more offspring behind or survive to leave offspring in an environment.

But this is not creating the trait. Some had that trait to begin with. Back to the deer. If the speed of deer running is a bell curve (and I would expect that it is) then there are those who are very slow and those who are very fast. And there are most that are average speed. If there is some hunting pressure on the deer by predators who rely on speed to catch the deer, then the slow deer die first. If there is more hunting pressure some of the faster ones die. If there is severe hunting pressure then the average ones die and there are very few deer, all of whom can run pretty fast. Now these fast deer breed and produce what? Deer that can run somewhere between as fast as their parents and average speed. How many run faster than their parents? None. Ask any horse breeder. You can't create a trait that isn't already there.

>This is a very simplified explanation of the process, but selection can create races. Races are the precursors to species. If evolution can separate (create) organisms into species, it can make races as well.

And what of these mechanisms have ever been observed? When it comes to breeding animals, any honest breeder knows you can't create new traits you can only filter it down to the traits you want that are already in the gene pool. You can talk all you want about evolution but that is something that has never been observed and the theory has never been useful to breeding animals.

IF evolution was true, and I see no evidence that it is, and IF you had billions of years to breed what you want, maybe evolution would be a useful paradigm for breeding animals. However, you don't have billions of years to breed animals, so it's irelevant if evolution is true.


----------



## dickm

Hi Jim,
I have a mental picture of you as I write. You may remember an old guy that introduced himself at EAS. You were rushing off with a cart. I was coming off an elevator. I always thought we could have fine arguments. Kim Flottum gave me high praise when he said that some of your style may have rubbed off on me. That said, I wonder if you are aware that you may come over as hostile when it may not be intended. Im going to expect some personal growth here.

When you were incorrect about the genetic components you dismissed the cite as :

>Yes, sadly, there are diseases,<<

Heres another cite:
Genetic differences influence calcium absorption. Genetic variations in a gene that helps regulate the body's response to vitamin D has given researchers new insight into why some children have higher bone densities.

Google Bone+density+genetics. Theres a lot of reading there.


>>>Muscles can be "improved"
by doing things like lifting heavy supers of
honey for several years. Bones can't.<<<

Google piezoelectric+bone. Read this and more:
Effect of exercise on dynamic bone growth Exercise is also an important factor in normal bone growth and development. It is believed that a piezo-electric effect due to exercise within the intercellular matrix of bones acts as a stimulus for bone reabsorption and creation. Exercise can accelerate knitting of broken bones, and extended heavy exertion can increase bone density and mass. 
Astronauts do special exercises to off set the loss of bone in space because of the lack of weight bearing activity. Your lady was probably routinely advised by her doctor to indulge in exercise to prevent osteoporosis. If we are going to argue, you better do some too.  

Heres the chance for growth. Repeat after me. You were right Dick and I was wrong. Thank you for the guidance.

>>>There is a consistent lack of people or animals born with "super powers" outside of comic books.<<<

Im not sure what this means but I intuit it as wrong. To evolve, a species doesnt go directly to super. Evolution has eternity; theres plenty of time for small steps. If you mean people are not evolving, check out the changes in the age of onset of menstruation in young girls. The height that keeps getting mentioned is another factor. When I was younger I was the tallest member in my family. Now Im the shortest. 

On hostility:
>>Maybe it is because they've all done their
home work? <<
Nice. Implies that I havent and that you, being a superior being, dont have to. 


>>why not read about "regression to the mean",<<<
Where did you get the idea that I needed to read about it? I see another implication that you know and I dont.

In my humility,







let me explain something about it. The regression occurs within the current population. Re: the mites, the mean or average mite of a tough 10% would still be tougher than that of the previous population.

>>I am short (5' 8"),<<
I think like my 58, yours is a memory. You could possibly get some of it back with a regimen of jumping jacks.

Dont forget: You were right etc. It will make you feel great! Thats personal growth.

Dick Marron 
Dickm

[ December 20, 2005, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: dickm ]


----------



## Kieck

>>Can you show one example of this that has ever been observed? I have yet to hear of a useful mutation. Ever.

Sure. Every variation you see in animals arose because a mutation occurred. When DNA replicates, changes in the sequence of the DNA are called "mutations." Without mutations, every organism would be identical to its parents. Therefore, any useful variation (although defining "useful" can be difficult) came from a useful mutation.

The problem with calling it "useful" lies in the "use" and in the environment. We tend to think of variations as "useful" if they suit our purposes, but they can also be useful if they benefit the organism that has the trait. Think of the Varroa mites; some of them, through mutations originially, had the ability to use a different host than their parents. This let them switch to our honey bees, Apis mellifera. The ability to use A. mellifera as a host may have existed for centuries or millenia, or who knows how long, before the mites came into contact with A. mellifera. Was the trait useful? Definitely not until they had the opportunity to feed on our honey bees. Is it useful now? Sure it is to the mites -- they've got many more potential hosts. Not so useful to those of us who wish they weren't on our bees.

>>How many run faster than their parents? None. Ask any horse breeder. 

I wish in some ways I had left out the deer/dogs example. I came up with it on the spur of the moment, trying to relate selection to a physical process or behavior rather than enzymatic actions. I think now that my example, being very simple, is confusing people.

You asked how many horses run faster than their parents (none). If that's true, then horses must be getting progressively slower. Using that method of genetics, each generation must be slower than its predecessors because no foals could ever be faster than their parents. How do race horse breeders stay in business?

No, as a breeder, you can't create new traits, but you can shape traits. Someone already mentioned dairy cattle -- human modifications through selective breeding have increased milk production in some breeds far beyond what nature had selected.

You question evolution. If you don't want to believe something, then don't. I have met people who deny gravity, too, and some who are convinced the earth is flat rather than spherical. I know people who think man has never been to the moon. If that's what you want to believe, good for you!

The principles that breeders use, though, have their foundations in heredity and evolution. Evolution means "change over time." People assume it means that the world started from a big bang, but that's the Big Bang Theory. No evolution? You can't see your bees, even, changing during the time you've had them? I can give instances of species forming since Europeans arrived in large numbers in the Americas, such as apple maggot flies. Apples are Eurasian, apple maggot flies are North American. I've read of examples of new species arising within a span of less than 20 years.

Evolution is a useful paradigm for breeding animals. If evolution wasn't important, why have variation? And without variation, why bother selecting traits in breeding programs (everything is the same without variation)? And then, if you can't distinguish among animals (no variation) why would you even care about trying to control breeding programs?


----------



## Michael Bush

>>Can you show one example of this that has ever been observed? I have yet to hear of a useful mutation. Ever.

>Sure. Every variation you see in animals arose because a mutation occurred.

That is your speculation. When has a mutation been observed and found to be useful. Not presumption that things CAME from mutations. A stable species with an observed offspring with a useful mutation. If they happen so often they should be easy to cite, but I don't know of any. At all. Apparently neither do you.

>When DNA replicates, changes in the sequence of the DNA are called "mutations." Without mutations, every organism would be identical to its parents. Therefore, any useful variation (although defining "useful" can be difficult) came from a useful mutation.

Exactly. So point to ONE that has been observed and has turned out to be useful.

>The problem with calling it "useful" lies in the "use" and in the environment. We tend to think of variations as "useful" if they suit our purposes, but they can also be useful if they benefit the organism that has the trait.

OK. ONE that has lead to better survival. Not a shift in population so that those who had a trait survive and those without that trait die, but a trait that is useful to the survival of a species.

> Think of the Varroa mites; some of them, through mutations originially, had the ability to use a different host than their parents.

And that was observed by whom?

>>How many run faster than their parents? None. Ask any horse breeder. 

>I wish in some ways I had left out the deer/dogs example. I came up with it on the spur of the moment, trying to relate selection to a physical process or behavior rather than enzymatic actions. I think now that my example, being very simple, is confusing people.

No. Your example was perfect. It accurately illustrates that there are only the traits that are there. You have simply shifted the population so there are no slow deer left to mate.

>You asked how many horses run faster than their parents (none). If that's true, then horses must be getting progressively slower.

Basically. They probably are. I don't see records being broken and super horses running faster than their parents. Id have to do more research to see what the records say. But training methods may improve and therefore you could get faster horses. The goal is to consistently get fast horses.

>Using that method of genetics, each generation must be slower than its predecessors because no foals could ever be faster than their parents. 

No foal can be faster than the genetics of horses have always had. Can a given foal outrun a given parent? Probably. Can it outrun either parent in its prime? Probably not.

>How do race horse breeders stay in business?

By being faster than the other horses.

>No, as a breeder, you can't create new traits, but you can shape traits.

Shape? Not really. You can only keep them or lose them.

>Someone already mentioned dairy cattle -- human modifications through selective breeding have increased milk production in some breeds far beyond what nature had selected.

Far beyond what the average cow could produce. But not beyond what the occasional cow could produce. The difference is simply that what used to be at the top of the bell curve is now the norm. No new trait has been created; the old possibilities of a mediocre milk producer have just been bred OUT.

>You question evolution. If you don't want to believe something, then don't.

I don't tend to believe something without some evidence.

> I have met people who deny gravity, too, and some who are convinced the earth is flat rather than spherical.

Those are rather easy to disprove since the current physical reality contradicts those theories. Why are you comparing refusing to believe in currently observable physical reality to believing in speculation about what happened millions of years ago with no direct observation to base it on? These two have nothing in common and is in no way related to this discussion. I find the inferences rather insulting.

I'm not even arguing if Evolution occured, which is a waste of your's and my time. I'm arguing that evolution is not a useful paradigm for breeding. Whether you or I believe in it is irelevant to the discussion. My point is that even if it did happen it's irelevant to any breeding program unless you have millions of years to spend.

>The principles that breeders use, though, have their foundations in heredity and evolution. 

No. They do not. They have their basis in breeding OUT the unwanted traits so that you consistently get the desired (but already available) traits. The two concepts have nothing in common except, perhaps, the "survival" concept, which is being manipulated by man by letting the ones with the desirable traits survive. It talk to horse breeders all the time. They are looking for horses with the traits they want so they can try to breed more horses with those traits. They believe you can't get those traits in offspring from a horse that does not have them already in it's genetics. If it's not in the gene pool of the breed you are working with, you have to find it in some other gene pool if you really want that trait.

>Evolution means "change over time." People assume it means that the world started from a big bang, but that's the Big Bang Theory.

I said nothing of the Big Bang Theory. That is not the subject of this discussion. Why do you keep changing the subject?

> No evolution? You can't see your bees, even, changing during the time you've had them?

Back into natural sized bees, yes. Into something that wasn't there before, no.

> I can give instances of species forming since Europeans arrived in large numbers in the Americas, such as apple maggot flies. Apples are Eurasian, apple maggot flies are North American. 

Then they must have been here living on something. Insects are myriad. We have yet to discover them all. Did someone observe one species evolving into this species?

>I've read of examples of new species arising within a span of less than 20 years.

Give me one with any significant amount of proof. There are lots of species we've simply not discovered yet. Finding a "new" species does not prove it didn't already exist.

>Evolution is a useful paradigm for breeding animals.

No it is not. It presumes that new traits, not currently in the gene pool, can arise from mutations. That paradigm will not help you breed a good milk cow, a fast horse or a chicken that lays lots of eggs or a bee that resists Varroa.

>If evolution wasn't important, why have variation?

Variation is what you're depending on with breeding. Recombining what IS there in such a way that you get what you want and breeding out the possibility of traits which you do not want.

>And without variation, why bother selecting traits in breeding programs (everything is the same without variation)?

When did I say everything is the same without variation? I said if the genetic potential is not there you can't create it. You can't get traits that are not genetically coded already. Sure you can breed to get them consistently where they only occurred occasionally before. But you are SELECTING, not creating. You can try to get a really good combination and then try to repeatedly get that combination.

You assume I'm saying a lot of things that I have neither said, nor can I see how you inferred them.

The wonderful thing about diploid sexual reproduction is that the number of possible combinations is huge. This gives a lot of possible outcomes. But those outcomes are still restricted to what is there. What is there is not always expressed. Many genes are recessive and only come out under certain circumstances. Quite often it's not the simple dominant/recessive, Mendelian Genetics we were all taught in high school but much more complex relationships that include other alleles in other places than the apparent gene in question. But no matter how much genetic potential may be hidden from our current view by not being expressed in the current animal, we still can't create something that isn't already there in the genes. We just play with the combinations to get it expressed and try to get all of the breeding stock homozygous such that there are no recessive traits hiding that will interfere with the consistency we want for the trait we are looking for.


----------



## George Fergusson

>why couldn't selection work to create a race of mites with some novel type of pad that resists powdered sugar? 

>Because selection doesn't "create" anything. I merely weeds out those with certain traits. It does not create new traits.

Exactly!

[ December 20, 2005, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: George Fergusson ]


----------



## chemistbert

Viri are the only organisms that show any manner of "true" evolution. They mutate and change their behavior compltetly. But then you have to decide if they are alive or not. I don't have an opinion personally. 

I suppose the crux of the issue is the definitions of words. I used evolution more to describe the selection the Mr. Bush postulates. I think many people do. Selection is a way to jack with the ratio of traits in a given population. i.e. A cows milk output. AI and such allow us to select routinly the best of the best and make more.

Mites that are able to live in an environment of low level fluvinate and camophos are selected to this. Given time this unusual trait would return to a small percentage of the population if the fluvinate were removed because the "normal" mites would interbreed with the "super" mites and produce all sort of regular and super children and then the next generation wuld further diltue this trait.

Something from nothing? Nope. A game of math? Yep


----------



## Jim Fischer

> "Regression to the mean" implies a selective force 
> (evolution) is reducing fitness

Nope, REGARDLESS of what outside forces will do, 
offspring will tend to vary from parents TOWARD the 
norm. The proof is humans, where technology and medicine
protect us from being "selected" right into an early
grave, even in the case of serious birth defects.

Yes, there WILL be exceptional individuals within any
population, but their offspring are not assured of any
similar exceptional "features", nor does the population
as a whole gain anything.

Dickm, while you sniped a few points, the central
issue you evaded was the lack of ability to "pass on"
any "advantages" you cited to progeny.

> The regression occurs within the current population. 

That's a highly creative idea, but it implies that
there would be more than one "mean", which I feel 
is a misunderstanding of the basic concept.

> Re: the mites, the mean or average mite of a tough 10% 
> would still be tougher than that of the previous population.

If this were true, there would be a subset of very tiny 
elfin people, adults shopping in the children's clothing 
department. Where are they? Until you can show me such
trends in people, who are protected from all harm by 
society and technology when some wouldn't last 10 minutes
"in the wild", how can you postulate some sort of "10%
tougher mites"?


----------



## Aspera

It is very important to view both artificial and natural selection in the context of interactions, both in the population and within the individual. Genes interact with one another, the environment and commonly permit many developmental effects to occur rather than causing them. This is what confused early attempts at understanding evolution (Lemarck, Aristotle) and genetics (Mendel, Galton) and populations (Malthus). Yes natural selection could theorectically produce any form of resistant mite that does not violate the laws of physics. Interesting, it could only do so in the context of some truly bizzare environments and it would require exactly the right sequence of alterations over many years. It would be the rough equivalent of creating flying cats by breeding eggplants (not impossible, just very unlikely). As a sidenote, I would add that natural selection has created some truly strange organisms, such as thermal vent bacteria, orchids, blue whales, and the fascinating Varroa mite.


----------



## George Fergusson

>rough equivalent of creating flying cats by breeding eggplants

Good example









I haven't seen any humans crawling out of the ooze lately either, now that I think about it, and no humans with gills despite many of them spending a lot of time in the water, nor frogs turning into alligators. It seems we really are limited by the existing variation already in the genetic code.

George-


----------



## Dick Allen

> ...creating flying cats by breeding eggplants...


Have you guys been out hitchhiking in the galaxy and toying with that probability machine again?


----------



## Jim Fischer

> ...toying with that probability machine again?

Nope, doing the exact opposite, as it is 
an IMprobability machine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_Improbability_Drive


----------



## Dick Allen

Yes, I stand corrected. The probability of the machine being an improbability machine does seem to point towards the improbability of it being a probability machine.


----------



## George Fergusson

>Yes, I stand corrected.

Welcome to Earth Dick


----------



## dickm

Mike said,

>>>The wonderful thing about diploid sexual reproduction is that the number of possible combinations is huge. This gives a lot of possible outcomes. But those outcomes are still restricted to what is there. What is there is not always expressed.<<< and>> You can't create a trait that isn't already there.<<

I see a contradiction in 2 sentences. If something remains unexpressed but is part of the gene pool to which outcomes are restricted.isnt that like a potential outcome waiting to happen. Wouldnt this lead to a phenotype never before seen?
A breeding population that was as restricted as Mikes horses, couldnt adapt to a changing environment, except to a limited degree. 

>>>When has a mutation been observed and found to be useful.<<<

Albino rabbits that cant be seen in the snow.
I'm going to look for a better answer, Mike.

Jim:
I said: Regression occurs within the current population.

Jim said: 
>>>That's a highly creative idea, but it implies that there would be more than one "mean", which I feel is a misunderstanding of the basic concept.<<<
BTW where else COULD regression occur except in the current population.

The average of a particular breeding population may be X. Lets say 58 in height. Along comes a pollution cloud. It kills 90% of the population. The surviving 10% are the taller people because being up there in better air, gave them an advantage. This is a new breeding population. Being young, they quickly forget their parents and the mean that they had. A new mean is computed for this population and it turns out to be 6. Of course there is more than one "mean." Its changing much of the time.

I said:
>>Re: the mites, the mean or average mite of a tough 10% 
> would still be tougher than that of the previous population.

Jim said:
>>>If this were true, there would be a subset of very tiny elfin people, adults shopping in the children's clothing department. Where are they?<<<<

Jim, you should get out more. Meet some Sherpas and some Filipinos, maybe some Ecuadorans from the mountains and possibly a few Kalhari Bushmen. The world is also full of beautiful colors if you want to average them, as well.
Lets remember this is an intellectual exercise. We are talking about CAN the mites evolve with O/A  not whether they actually will. I say, if you use mites for an example and submit a population to the poisonous fumes and 10% survivethat will make a new population. Apart from luck, something must be different about at least some of them. If we could measure that: tougher mouth parts, some kind of hooking apparatus as Jon suggested or a thicker or more resistant cuticle  we have a new breeding population. If we derive a mean from this generation it will be different from that of the parents.
When I convince you, Im going to want to hear it. I was wrongetc
Gosh, this is fun!

Dickm
Thinking there is a lot I never suspected about eggplant although I never really trusted one. I'm looking at my cat funny, too.


----------



## Michael Bush

>>>>The wonderful thing about diploid sexual reproduction is that the number of possible combinations is huge. This gives a lot of possible outcomes. But those outcomes are still restricted to what is there. What is there is not always expressed.<<< and>> You can't create a trait that isn't already there.<<

>I see a contradiction in 2 sentences. If something remains unexpressed but is part of the gene pool to which outcomes are restricted.isnt that like a potential outcome waiting to happen. 

But that outcome is still defined in the genes that are in that gene pool. The odds of some new combination of traits is good. The odds of a totally new trait are non existant.

>Wouldnt this lead to a phenotype never before seen?

No. Just traits that HAVE been seen in a particular combination that has not been seen.

>A breeding population that was as restricted as Mikes horses, couldnt adapt to a changing environment, except to a limited degree. 

Exactly. If you want to get white, pureblooded Friesins you're out of luck because they bred that out of the gene pool. In order to get a white one you'll have to bring in some outside genetics. Now if you want one that flies... good luck. Maybe you'll get that good mutation some day.

>>>When has a mutation been observed and found to be useful.<<<

>Albino rabbits that cant be seen in the snow.
I'm going to look for a better answer, Mike.

I hope you can find a better one. I'll bet there are plenty of white rabbits with the same advantage that don't have eyesight problems and don't die of skin cancer. But I suppose as long as you live long enough to reproduce it doesn't matter if you die of skin cancer.


----------



## Kieck

Wow. This is turning into one of those huge debates about evolution and the processes that influence change. I understand Europeans argue very little about such things. They seem to see no contradiction between religion and evolution. I guess it's an American thing.

So, to offer my two cents' worth again. I mentioned an example of a species arising (not being discovered) within a span of 20 years. First, I'd like to clarify what I mean by a "species." To me, species are biological entities defined by some limits that restrict or differentiate them from other groups of organisms, usually through a lack of interbreeding. "Species" are very much human contructions; if you look hard enough, you will find a continuum from one type of organism to another. For our purposes of classification, we distinguish among animals by establishing boundaries along this continuum.

To get, finally, to the species that arose under careful observation, I suggest reading "The Beak of the Finch" by Jonathan Weiner. Researchers have been studying the finches in the Galapagos for years because of the unique situation there (closed populations, similar organisms, etc.). Some of the research by Peter and Rosemary Grant involves making detailed measurements of various parts of the finches' anatomy on one of the islands. During this study, a severe drought hit the island, the relative occurance of plant species changed, and a distinct species arose to fill the niche. The species wasn't there before -- the Grants recognize every bird individually on the island -- and the species hasn't been found anywhere else. They watched this happen as they watched only the offspring with certain traits survive.

My comments from before about gravity, flat vs. spherical earth, etc., were related to the idea that humans can reject anything if they wish to dismiss evidence. I can see the same thing happening with the examples of evolution.

Another example of a "good" mutation, this time in humans is sickle-cell anemia. The logical idea is that sickle-cell anemia isn't "good" at all. It limits the amount of oxygen the blood can carry, and it can kill a person. For people who receive the gene for SCA from both parents, it means death. But, for people who have one allele for normal red blood cells and one for sickle cells, sickle cell anemia confers some resistance to malaria.

Regression back to the mean? What is the mean? For humans, 100 years ago, the average height of a male was considerably shorter than it is today. Sure, height is influenced by diet as well as genetics, but shouldn't we be going back to the average height of the previous mean, say 5'4" for the average male, pretty soon?

If mutations don't create new traits in animals, how did those traits get there? If you say "creation," how would those traits be created? According to most creationists, each population of each animal was reduced to two at the time of the flood. Not much room for variation there, so shouldn't their offspring all look and be virtually identical to their parents?

If evolution or selection or whatever you want to call it doesn't apply to breeding principles, how can we ever expect to come up with Varroa-resistant bees? Maybe we should all throw in the towel now and just give up on bees.


----------



## Michael Bush

>They seem to see no contradiction between religion and evolution. I guess it's an American thing.

I didn't see anyone bring up religion. I see no contradiction between religion and evolution. I see a contradiction between science and speculation.

>So, to offer my two cents' worth again. I mentioned an example of a species arising (not being discovered) within a span of 20 years. First, I'd like to clarify what I mean by a "species." To me, species are biological entities defined by some limits that restrict or differentiate them from other groups of organisms, usually through a lack of interbreeding. "Species" are very much human contructions; if you look hard enough, you will find a continuum from one type of organism to another. For our purposes of classification, we distinguish among animals by establishing boundaries along this continuum.

Most of those boundaries are defined by NOT being able to produce viable offspring who are capable of reproducing, with a member of the other group. 

>and a distinct species arose to fill the niche. 

A species of finch that came from a finch and can reproduce with other finches? This is not a species. This is variety of finch that is at the end of the bell curve of beak shape of the finches that were already there.

>My comments from before about gravity, flat vs. spherical earth, etc., were related to the idea that humans can reject anything if they wish to dismiss evidence. I can see the same thing happening with the examples of evolution.

I see no evidence to dismiss. Dismissing speculation about what happened a million years ago is quite different than dismissing measurable, observable, current physical reality.

>Regression back to the mean? What is the mean? 

See Jim Fischers discussion above.

>For humans, 100 years ago, the average height of a male was considerably shorter than it is today. Sure, height is influenced by diet as well as genetics, but shouldn't we be going back to the average height of the previous mean, say 5'4" for the average male, pretty soon?

Stop feeding us so well and we will. A study of monkeys that suddenly had a garbage dump in their habitat showed the exact same kind and degree of changes in height, onset of puberty etc. in one generation. This is obviously the same cause for us.

>If mutations don't create new traits in animals, how did those traits get there?

You're free to speculate as much as you like. But you weren't there and I wasn't there and we can't reproduce the effect. I don't believe NEW traits were ever there.

>If evolution or selection or whatever you want to call it

Selection is a process of elimination. Evolution is not defined as a process of elimination. It is a process that involves useful mutations followed by a process of elimination of those without those mutations because those with were now the fittest to survive.

>doesn't apply to breeding principles, how can we ever expect to come up with Varroa-resistant bees?

By finding the bees that are resistant and breeding out the genes that contribute to them not being resistant. The same principle that has always been used in all breeding of all animals for all of human history.

If you breed a new super bee with some new useful mutation, I'd love to see it. But until then, I'm quite happy with my bees. But if you would like some advice, which you obviously don't, you breed from things that have the qualities you want. You don't just hope for a sudden, useful mutation.

You don't breed racehorses by taking two ordinary horses and hoping one of their offspring will be a super horse. You breed racehorses by searching for horses that in their entire lineage, as far back as you can trace, has the traits you desire and does not have the traits you wish to avoid and you breed two of those kinds of horses and HOPE you get the traits you desire. It's the same with breeding anything. No breeder of anything that I know of is holding out any hope of some useful mutation or evolution.

The only modern invention that could be VERLY useful in breeding is genetic testing and Genome mapping and this is because you can TEST that a particular gene is homozygous where the only tests, until this was available, were to have enough offspring that it was LIKELY that they were homozygous. With large female mammals (horses, cows, sheep etc.) this has always been the difficult part, if it's a recessive trait, because you can only say, after each successive offspring that doesn't show the trait you're trying to remove, that it's more likely that she doesn't carry that gene. (The same is true for the males except that they usually have a lot more offspring and more proof) And, of course, ALL you can do is remove possible traits or keep them. Now, for genes we've mapped and made tests for, you can PROVE the parents are homozygous and that the recessive trait you wished to remove is not there. Breeding for dominant traits is always the hardest because of the recessive traits hiding. Breeding for recessive traits is always the easiest because any animal not showing the trait doesn't have the gene. Why? Because you can't actually breed FOR something (as you may think). You're actually breeding OUT something. If you want all black horses, you are breeding OUT the possibility of getting any other color. If the genes weren't there for the color of horse you want, then you won't get it. Breeding Friesian horses (which only come in black and an occasional Chestnut) to try to get any other color than those two, will never work. Because all the other color genes have been bred out. You can't make a gene that isn't there. You can only breed out the genes that are so that you consistently get ONLY the gene you wanted.

That's how breeding works. It's how it has always worked, and except for gene splicing, I believe thats how it will always work.


>Maybe we should all throw in the towel now and just give up on bees.

I'm having no problems with my bees. Im having no problems with Varroa anymore. I'm having no disease problems with my bees and I'm using nothing to treat them. Im a little confused. Please remind me, what am I giving up on them for?


----------



## Kieck

>>Most of those boundaries are defined by NOT being able to produce viable offspring who are capable of reproducing, with a member of the other group. 

This is the "biological species concept." Actually, this concept involves organisms freely interbreeding and leaving VIABLE offspring. Think about, you have a horse and a donkey capable of producing a hybrid. Horses and donkeys, at least to most of us, are distinct species, but they can mate and leave offspring. The problem is that those offspring have a hard time leaving their own offspring. 

Science also uses other concepts of species. Problems come up with the biological concept when you start talking about some organisms. For instance, dogs, wolves and coyotes all interbreed and leav viable offspring. Dogs and wolves may be the same species, depending on who you talk to, but most people agree that coyotes and wolves are distinct. Orchids seem to be able to cross freely with members of other genera, not just other species. Maybe, then, all orchids are really members of one species?

>>You're free to speculate as much as you like. But you weren't there and I wasn't there and we can't reproduce the effect. I don't believe NEW traits were ever there.

How did the traits still ever get there? Everything that is was always this way? Was there no beginning? How do you explain it?

>>Selection is a process of elimination. Evolution is not defined as a process of elimination. It is a process that involves useful mutations followed by a process of elimination of those without those mutations because those with were now the fittest to survive.

Evolution just means "change over time." If you haven't read Darwin's "On the Origins of Species," I highly recommend you do. He starts out with details of breeding programs. Even if you don't agree with it when you're done reading it, it's still worth it. How can anyone argue about a topic effectively if he isn't willing to try understanding the other position.

>>Breeding Friesian horses (which only come in black and an occasional Chestnut) to try to get any other color than those two, will never work. Because all the other color genes have been bred out. You can't make a gene that isn't there. 

So, if you would wind up with another color, it would have to have come through a mutation? What about albinos (lack of pigment)? What if one base pair got skipped (a mutation) when the DNA was replicating in a zygote? "You" or "I" didn't make it, but it could appear in a breeding program.

To get back to my original problem with the comments about a lack of "resistance" by mites to OA, even using your perspective, why couldn't the mites have traits that could help them avoid (through whatever mechanism you need to imagine) dying from OA applications?


----------



## Michael Bush

>This is the "biological species concept." Actually, this concept involves organisms freely interbreeding and leaving VIABLE offspring. Think about, you have a horse and a donkey capable of producing a hybrid. Horses and donkeys, at least to most of us, are distinct species, but they can mate and leave offspring. The problem is that those offspring have a hard time leaving their own offspring. 

Which is why they are a different species.

>How did the traits still ever get there? 

You want an discussion about religion or science or speculation?

>Everything that is was always this way? Was there no beginning? How do you explain it?

I don't need to explain what is. It is. But I happen to think it came from the Creator.

>Evolution just means "change over time."

You keep saying that as if it does not refer to the concepts of the origin of the species. Anytime you are describing biology and use evolution in that context the implication is that you are talking about that.

>If you haven't read Darwin's "On the Origins of Species," I highly recommend you do. He starts out with details of breeding programs. Even if you don't agree with it when you're done reading it, it's still worth it.

I agree it's worth reading.

>How can anyone argue about a topic effectively if he isn't willing to try understanding the other position.

I DO understand your position. I do not agree with it. I have been hearing your position for all my life. I am not trying to digest new material here.

>So, if you would wind up with another color, it would have to have come through a mutation?

LOL. No breeder would ever assume that! They would assume it came from a stallion from another breed that managed to get with the mare. But if you could get tight enough control to prove that or do genetic testing to prove that, then maybe you could apply that explanation.

> What about albinos (lack of pigment)? What if one base pair got skipped (a mutation) when the DNA was replicating in a zygote? "You" or "I" didn't make it, but it could appear in a breeding program.

Then you LOST a gene again. You didn't Gain one.

>To get back to my original problem with the comments about a lack of "resistance" by mites to OA, even using your perspective, why couldn't the mites have traits that could help them avoid (through whatever mechanism you need to imagine) dying from OA applications?

They might. I don't know. But, as Jim Fischer keeps pointing out, the likelyhood of "resistance" to a straightforward "attack" is low while the likelyhood of "resistance" to a complex chemical that reacts with their metabolism in some complex way is much more likely. In other words, how many people would you have to dip in a vat of acid before one them survive? Probably none every would because. There would have to be some mites that already can survive the acid in order to breed more that have that resistance. I guess the question is, are there? I don't know the answer to that. But so far the Europeans have been using it for a fairly long time without any observation that they are building "resistance". So it appears unlikely.


----------



## Robert Brenchley

Blimey, what a palaver! Coming from a culture where evolution is taken for granted everywhere except in churches which have been influenced by American fundamentalism, my mind is completely boggled!

One comment:

'So, to offer my two cents' worth again. I mentioned an example of a species arising (not being discovered) within a span of 20 years. First, I'd like to clarify what I mean by a "species." To me, species are biological entities defined by some limits that restrict or differentiate them from other groups of organisms, usually through a lack of interbreeding. "Species" are very much human contructions; if you look hard enough, you will find a continuum from one type of organism to another. For our purposes of classification, we distinguish among animals by establishing boundaries along this continuum.'


Human comnstructions is quite right; if we want to classify organisms, we need some sort of boundaries, and the old idea that species don't interbreed (much) works well 99% of the time. But there are exceptions. In the UK we have three species of marsh orchid, all very similar to each other and a single species found in continental Europe. They all interbreed like mad; if you get a field of mixed marsh orchids, every one will be a hybrid, and distinguishing the species becomes an exercise in statistics. I'd say it's a case of evolution being caught in the act; a single original species (the continental one) is in the process of becoming three, but either they haven't fully differentiated yet, or maybe the process has become frozen, and they never will.


----------



## Kieck

>>Then you LOST a gene again. You didn't Gain one.

Still a mutation. It still could be "useful" under the right circumstances. What if Varroa lost the gene that makes them prefer reproducing on drones and large workers? From the perspective of the mites, wouldn't they gain a huge advantage by losing the traits that make them reproduce on large bee larvae, allowing them to reproduce on small-cell bees, too?

>>But, as Jim Fischer keeps pointing out, the likelyhood of "resistance" to a straightforward "attack" is low while the likelyhood of "resistance" to a complex chemical that reacts with their metabolism in some complex way is much more likely. 

See, this is where I run into the problem. As someone in the scientific community, I haven't ever encountered this theory before now. WHY is resistance to a complex chemical attack more likely than to a behavioral attack? Do you or Jim have reliable, tested sources that can confirm that one method is any more likely to produce resistant strains than the other? I'd like to see them.

Also, from everything I've read, OA isn't 100% effective. Talking about implications, that implies that some of the mites do survive OA treatments. Why? Is it a physiological form of resistance? Is it a behavioral mechanism that allows them to avoid exposure to the treatments? Could such a behavioral mechanism, if it's heritable and instinctual, also be called "resistance?"

If Europeans have been using OA for a long time with great success, are they past their problems with Varroa?


----------



## dickm

Hi Guys, Welcome Robert, 
Were not scientists but theres a good set of brains here. Real geneticists might sneer at us a little, but we dont care, do we?
This is a stimulating thread. Ive had to do some homework.

On eggplant to cats.
One way to define a species is by the fact that it cannot breed with another species and produce offspring capable of mating. (There are a surprising number of others). Pierre Teilhard de Chardin a Jesuit monk that wrote long ago and had to be published after his death because he wrote about evolution. He examined closely why it is impossible to find the missing link in variation. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin#Teilhard_in_popular_culture 

If we assume that all deer have a common ancestor and varied from that beginning, depending on their environment, then certain things follow. I know about two common deer: the Whitetail of our east and the Mule deer of the west.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer. 
Mule Deer bound (all 4 hooves hit the ground at once, called "stotting") to escape predators. Stotting is so specialized that only 100% genetically pure Mule Deer seem able to do it. In captive hybrids, even a one-eighth White-tail/seven-eighths Mule Deer hybrid has an erratic escape behaviour and would be unlikely to survive to breeding age. Hybrids do survive on game ranches where both species are kept and where predators are controlled by man. 

What follows is that a homogenous species can differentiate into something else.
I have seen a film of one of these creatures and it is a sadly funny thing to see them try to run. Its a sort of a sideways gallop with frequent lurches. They wouldnt last long in the wild. Yet they are of the same species. It strikes me that they are on the edge of becoming different species. Soon they nmay not be capable of breeding at all. The missing link may be differentiating before our eyes. Usually such hybrids are infertile or otherwise non-viable genetic dead-ends. Does anyone want to go back and find the point at which they began to differentiate?

Mike and all,
On Mutations: from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_developmental_biology 
>Even within a species, the occurrence of novel forms within a population do not point to the preexistence of genetic variation sufficient to account for morphological diversity. For example, there is significant variation in limb morphologies amongst salamanders and the differences in segment number in centipedes, even when the genetic variation is low.

>Mutation rates also vary across species. Evolutionary biologists have theorized that higher mutation rates are beneficial in some situations, because they allow organisms to evolve and therefore adapt more quickly to their environments. For example, repeated exposure of bacteria to antibiotics, and selection of resistant mutants, can result in the selection of bacteria that have a much higher mutation rate than the origonal population (mutator strains).
And:
>Most biologists believe that adaptation occurs through the accumulation of small mutations. However, an alternative that has been suggested for this process is macromutation, essentially when a large-scale mutation produces a characteristic. This theory has generally been disregarded as the major explanation for adaptation, since a mutation on this scale is regarded as more likely to be detrimental than beneficial. However, macromutations seem to be the only explanation for differences such as the number of body segments among arthropods.
And:
>Even within a species, the occurrence of novel forms within a population do not point to the preexistence of genetic variation sufficient to account for morphological diversity. For example, there is significant variation in limb morphologies amongst salamanders and the differences in segment number in centipedes, even when the genetic variation is low.

Wikipedia is a good place for simple, boiled down, explanations. For me, reading the above and its associated material, explains where variation comes from, above and beyond the existing genetic pool, at one point in time. Yes Michael, there may be faster horses some day. I remember how beautiful I thought your horses were. Guys, they float over the ground like Lippanzaners! Who needs speed.

Dickm

[ December 21, 2005, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: dickm ]


----------



## Kieck

Dickm,

I don't know if you were leaving me out, or if I just haven't mentioned it yet, but I am a scientist. An honest-to-goodness, real live, scientist. Right now, I'm studying the rapid adaptations of insects to transgenic crops, especially Bt corn. These insects include the intended targets that have developed resistance, as well as insects that previously weren't of economic concern if they fed on the conventional crop at all.

That might explain my constant harping about data and replicated experiments and statistical analyses that hold up to scrutiny and the like. Even if something seems to work for one person, I want to see the evidence. Could similar practices work for everyone else, too?

If I can get funding, I hope to begin scientific research this year on basic, economic beekeeping practices. I would be very much interested in looking at things like small cell bees for Varroa resistance -- not why it works, but exactly how well it works and how it might work for commercial beekeeping -- methods of protecting hives against SHB, management techniques to optimize production, etc. If you have any ideas, please let me know.


----------



## Michael Bush

>>>Then you LOST a gene again. You didn't Gain one.

>Still a mutation. It still could be "useful" under the right circumstances.

Losing things is seldom useful and it is STILL not an additional genetic trait, but rather the loss of one.

>What if Varroa lost the gene that makes them prefer reproducing on drones and large workers?

Then they will probably die because that gene is probably important to help them pick the most useful place to reproduce. A mutation that SRUVIVES (which is doubtful) and reproduces at less rate would be advantageous to US, but it won't help the Varroa.

>From the perspective of the mites, wouldn't they gain a huge advantage by losing the traits that make them reproduce on large bee larvae, allowing them to reproduce on small-cell bees, too?

Genes have nothing to do with it. They don't reproduce well on small-cell bees because they get capped a day sooner and emerge a day sooner. Half as many get in the cells because they miss their opportunity. They produce half as many because they emerge too soon for that last mite to mature and mate. They can't gestate more quickly no matter how hard they try.

>See, this is where I run into the problem. As someone in the scientific community, I haven't ever encountered this theory before now. WHY is resistance to a complex chemical attack more likely than to a behavioral attack?

Behavioral attack? I don't follow you. To keep it on the simple level, a human can take about 230 degrees F in a sauna for a few minutes. But they can't take 600 F for more than a few seconds. No amount of breeding will change that because NONE of us can do it. Now if you take the borderline 250 for a short time, maybe by eliminated those who can't take it you can get a shift in population of those who can and get more who can. If none can, there's nothing you can breed for.

>Do you or Jim have reliable, tested sources that can confirm that one method is any more likely to produce resistant strains than the other?

I don't understand what you mean by the two methods unless we are talking about typical pesticides, which usually interfere in some way with the metabolism of the target in some way that is specific to that organism. Usually some of them are not effected enough to die and those reproduce and that's your "resistant" population. But you can't generate a resistant population unless some survive. If you have something that simply eats the shells off of the mites, how are they going to survive that? They could get lucky and not get as much, but there's no "metabolic loophole" where their system is enough different to save them.

>Also, from everything I've read, OA isn't 100% effective. Talking about implications, that implies that some of the mites do survive OA treatments. Why? Is it a physiological form of resistance?

Possibly. But so far, after having this pressure for a very long time in Europe there is no more of them surviving than there were before. That would seem to indicate "survival of the lucky". The surviving mites were probably in a corner that didn't get as much exposure or a bee that was out foraging. Maybe 10% of the mites are not even in the hive at the time, but on foragers.

>Is it a behavioral mechanism that allows them to avoid exposure to the treatments?

Like what? Use their spurs to send the bee into the corner? 

>Could such a behavioral mechanism, if it's heritable and instinctual, also be called "resistance?"

If, indeed, it is behavior, then it could change the number of Varroa with that behavior but then I would expect to see a drop in the effectiveness over time in Europe and we are not seeing that.

>If Europeans have been using OA for a long time with great success, are they past their problems with Varroa?

They still have to treat. That's still a problem.

>One way to define a species is by the fact that it cannot breed with another species and produce offspring capable of mating.

That would be mine and that would be the most common one I've heard.

> I remember how beautiful I thought your horses were. Guys, they float over the ground like Lipizzaner! Who needs speed.

They are just black Lipizzaner with "feathers", really.







Lipizzaners, Lusitanos, Andalusians and Friesians are the class of Baroque horses which all originated as Iberian horses.

http://www.bushfarms.com/images/EileensFoal9.jpg
http://www.bushfarms.com/images/MayaEileenNice1.jpg
http://www.bushfarms.com/friesians.htm

And, yes, I breed horses, and bees, and have bred chickens.


----------



## dickm

Great pix Mike. The neckline is unique as well guys.

Dickm


----------



## dickm

>>>I don't know if you were leaving me out, or if I just haven't mentioned it yet, but I am a scientist.<<<

THAT explains it. Sorry for any percieved slight. I think Jims a physicist. I know his resume would scare me, from what he has let drop. I come from psychology. Mike is an obvious genius. Have you ever read Asperas posts? OK I'm not going through everyone. Suffice it to say WE ROCK.

Dickm


----------



## Kieck

I love this, guys. This discussion is great!

I've come up with another example of behavioral "resistance" or "defense" or whatever you wish to call it. I think the theories might apply to mite "resistance" to OA as well.

Lady beetles (or ladybugs or ladybird beetles, or whatever you want to call them) eat aphids. Obviously pretty hard on the aphids, and like others have pointed out, no metabolic loopholes open to the aphids to avoid being chewed up by the lady beetles. We could hypothesize about evolving some sort of repugnant or toxic chemical defense, but I'll leave that alone and stick with facts for now. When a lady beetle eats an aphid, the aphid gets crushed. The crushing action releases any chemical compounds in the aphid into the atmosphere. Other aphids in the vicinity "smell" these chemicals and drop off the plant. (If you don't believe this, go try it: find a colony of aphids, crush one or more with your finger and watch the reactions of the others.) Some of the aphids that drop off the plants die of dessication before they can climb back up, but some are able to climb back up the plant and begin feeding again. The odds of survival must be better for the ones that drop than for the ones that stay on the plants and take their chances with the lady beetles, otherwise the behavior would disappear (be selected against) pretty quickly.

In this example, the method of killing is mechanical and the method of avoidance (call it "resistance" if want; call it escape if you want; it's still the same sort of thing) is mechanical. Detection occurs through a chemical process, but everything else is mechanical. Why couldn't a strategy develop in mites, then, to avoid death by OA?


----------



## Kieck

>>Losing things is seldom useful and it is STILL not an additional genetic trait, but rather the loss of one.

I agree that losing traits is not the addition of a genetic trait. Look up "mutation," though, if you have a chance. "Mutation" isn't synonymous with "addition." Mutations are changes. Additions are changes, but so are deletions; mutations can be either.

Mutations are not useful or harmful inherently.

>>Then they will probably die because that gene is probably important to help them pick the most useful place to reproduce. 

Now THAT'S speculation! If they can successfully reproduce on small worker brood, how can you suggest that they would necessarily die? I think from the way that you worded it that you realize you're speculating on that one.

>>If you have something that simply eats the shells off of the mites, how are they going to survive that? 

Is that truly the mode of action for OA? Some people have said that it destroys the mouthparts. . . But, assuming that it does "eat the shells off of the mites," if you put the same amount on a mite with a thicker shell -- or maybe a shell that for one reason or another is less reactive with the acid -- couldn't that mite survive? I still fail to understand why this mode of action couldn't result in a strain of resistant mites.


----------



## Michael Bush

>We could hypothesize about evolving some sort of repugnant or toxic chemical defense, but I'll leave that alone and stick with facts for now. 

That's always a good start. Facts are useful.









>The odds of survival must be better for the ones that drop than for the ones that stay on the plants and take their chances with the lady beetles, otherwise the behavior would disappear (be selected against) pretty quickly.

That's what I would expect.

>In this example, the method of killing is mechanical

Correct.

>and the method of avoidance (call it "resistance" if want; call it escape if you want; it's still the same sort of thing) is mechanical.

Correct.

>Detection occurs through a chemical process, but everything else is mechanical.

But your point is that the TRIGGER for the defense is behavioral.

>Why couldn't a strategy develop in mites, then, to avoid death by OA?

If you fill the hive with vapor, I don't see where they will go. If you don't fill the hive with vapor, they still have no control over where they go. They are attached to a bee. Do you think they could drop to the floor and then crawl back on sometime? Maybe. But so far you speculating on a mechanism to explain something that has not been observed in more than ten years of Oxalic acid use. Instead of trying to explain why what hasn't happened, but in you mind, COULD happen, why not try to explain why what HAS happened, which is that they HAVEN'T built up resistance.

In other words, it makes more sense to me to speculate on a mechanism to expain the currently observed events than to speculate on a mechanism to explain the opposite outcome than has been observed.

The evidence, so far, would seem to support that the mites will not get resistant, no matter what we think they will or will not do.


----------



## Kieck

>>The evidence, so far, would seem to support that the mites will not get resistant, no matter what we think they will or will not do.

I think that's assuming way too much. As far as I know, OA sees limited use (therefore, little selective pressure) in the U.S., anyway. Maybe the selective pressure isn't great enough yet to select resistant mites yet? After all, most people claim OA is about 80% effective (meaning 20% of the mites survive). In general, the stronger a selective pressure is, the faster resistance will develop.

The reason I brought up the issue of OA resistance in mites initially was the claim I keep seeing about "mites can't develop resistance to OA." I've tried to outline some possibilities as to how it might happen -- I'm nat saying it will happen in one of these ways -- because I think the statements that organisms can't adapt to overcome mechanical forms of selection are rash. OA might be a fine treatment; I just don't think one of its claimed advantages should be "strains of mites resistant to OA will never develop."


----------



## Michael Bush

>As far as I know, OA sees limited use (therefore, little selective pressure) in the U.S., anyway.

But ten years of use in Europe.

> Maybe the selective pressure isn't great enough yet to select resistant mites yet?

Here, maybe. There? I would expect to see some by now.

>After all, most people claim OA is about 80% effective (meaning 20% of the mites survive).

Probably pretty accurate. The first time I used it I made pretty careful counts of the drop after each treatment and that would be pretty close. I'd have to go back and find the numbers, but I'd guess slightly higher than that, but not much.

>I just don't think one of its claimed advantages should be "strains of mites resistant to OA will never develop."

OK. How about "after more than a decade of extensive use in Europe there are no signs of strains of mites resistant to OA." Is that better?


----------



## Michael Bush

Here's a new quote from me:

"An ounce of observed reality is worth a million tons of logical speculation." Michael Bush


----------



## Kieck

>>> Maybe the selective pressure isn't great enough yet to select resistant mites yet?

>>Here, maybe. There? I would expect to see some by now.

Actually, I was referring to the 80% effective rate of the treatment as being a relatively low selective pressure, unless the 20% that survive are already surviving simply because they're resistant. Compare the 80% to the, what, about 97%? effective rate of Apistan. The selective pressure produced by treating with Apistan is much higher (3% survival) than with OA (20% survival).

>>How about "after more than a decade of extensive use in Europe there are no signs of strains of mites resistant to OA." Is that better?

Better. I don't know if it's accurate or good, but better. How extensive is the use in Europe? Are there really NO signs of mites resistant to OA there? 

It is better, and maybe there aren't strains of resistant mites. If 20% survive maybe those are the "resistant" ones. Maybe they don't need resistance because so many do escape OA's effects. I'm not saying that's a bad thing; if it reduces the mite load to acceptable levels -- whatever "acceptable" means to you or anyone else -- OA might be a suitable treatment for mites.

Whenever we use a single treatment, though, I think we should recognize that the pests can develop resistance pretty quickly. I'm not saying we shouldn't use some of these treatments, I simply think we should try to avoid using any treatment like this by finding other methods to keep mite levels low, such as smaller cell sizes, maintaining minimum radii around bee yards, etc.


----------



## Kieck

>>"An ounce of observed reality is worth a million tons of logical speculation." Michael Bush

I like it! I think, though, that reality is subjective.

"I reject your reality, and substitute my own." -Adam Savage, Discovery Channel's "Mythbusters"


----------



## Michael Bush

>Better. I don't know if it's accurate or good, but better. How extensive is the use in Europe? Are there really NO signs of mites resistant to OA there? 

It is better, and maybe there aren't strains of resistant mites. If 20% survive maybe those are the "resistant" ones. Maybe they don't need resistance because so many do escape OA's effects. I'm not saying that's a bad thing; if it reduces the mite load to acceptable levels -- whatever "acceptable" means to you or anyone else -- OA might be a suitable treatment for mites.

Whenever we use a single treatment, though, I think we should recognize that the pests can develop resistance pretty quickly. I'm not saying we shouldn't use some of these treatments, I simply think we should try to avoid using any treatment like this by finding other methods to keep mite levels low, such as smaller cell sizes, maintaining minimum radii around bee yards, etc.

>I like it! I think, though, that reality is subjective.

Some of it is. Most people's reality is how what they observe fits into their world view. Some of us have rather unique world views. I certainly do.

But if you fall off of a 30 story building the reality is not very subjective and very hard to deny.


----------



## Kieck

>>But if you fall off of a 30 story building the reality is not very subjective and very hard to deny.

Not for a mite!







Terminal velocity, and all that sort of stuff.


----------



## Michael Bush

>>But if <you> fall off of a 30 story building...
>Not for a mite!

You're a mite?! Now I AM confused.


----------



## Kieck

Some days I sure feel like I'm nothing but a mite! I guess that's what I get, working for a state-run institution. I'd probably feel the same in any big company.

I'm still interested in this comment:

>>But, as Jim Fischer keeps pointing out, the likelyhood of "resistance" to a straightforward "attack" is low while the likelyhood of "resistance" to a complex chemical that reacts with their metabolism in some complex way is much more likely. 

I asked about it before, and I'll ask again: do you (or anyone else) have anything to back this up? To my way of thinking, developing resistance to a simple attack is just as likely or more likely than developing resistance to a complex disruption of a metabolic pathway. The scientific papers I've found suggest that resistance or avoidance mechanisms are about equal likely for mechanical methods of pest control or chemcial methods. If you have data or evidence that suggests otherwise, I'd be very much interested in it.


----------



## Michael Bush

The mice in my house have certainly found ways to avoid a mousetrap. But if they don't avoid it the mechanical trap squishes them. They might develop a system of avoidance (but of course this is just learned behavior) but they can't develop resistance to the impact of that metal bar.

How are the Varroa going to avoid the OA? They are not really independently mobile. They are just riding around on bees. Unless maybe they developed mind control and can manipulate the bees by telepathy!  Or maybe just the "spur" idea and they can run around and bite the bee on the side they want the bee to run away from.









Sorry, but it's hard to imagine how they would avoid it.


----------



## dickm

It's been suggested. Develop better tick-like mouth parts.

Dickm


----------



## Kieck

>>Sorry, but it's hard to imagine how they would avoid it.

True. Very true. But I also have a hard time imagining how organisms can get around chemicals that affect their metabolic processes or other aspects of their lives. Still, they do it.

What if some of the mice in your house, by genetic predisposition, hated the bait you use in your traps (I use peanut butter, you might use something completely different, it doesn't matter)? Wouldn't that be a form of avoidance ("resistance")? What if a few mice were large enough that the impact of that metal bar didn't break their necks? Could you call that "resistance?"

Again, Varroa might not have to avoid OA, just withstand it. Or be sealed in capped brood or away from the hive when the application occurs.


----------



## John F

Ohhh, Can I play too? [raising hand]

<Michael Bush>
But if you fall off of a 30 story building the reality is not very subjective and very hard to deny.

This presumes a metaphysical primacy of reality. Some folks differ here and will argue that until you've done the experiment, you cannot know. Like walking on water. I am not arguing that reality is subjective, only that an argument does exist that reality is subjective. I profess a belief in the metaphysical primacy of reality and no I will not perform said experiment, the outcome is clear to me.

<Michael Bush>
An ounce of observed reality is worth a million tons of logical speculation.

You mean like whether or not there is a Creator? [Please let this be rhetorical.]

<the thread as it has become in general>
In horse breeding, I can register a horse in two different breed registries. Say, American Saddlebred and Paint. Both groups will argue that what they are registering is a real breed. What does that tell us? That we all might have a different idea of what breed is? [Ok, really, asked and answered]

Certainly we can fall into some semantic traps here, I'll use breed, race, variety, sub-species to mean the same thing. Species will be the higher order. A species can be seen as a set of organisms that can proginate a set of traits.

Ok, does evolution happen? Sure does, by the very mechanism we have been talking about. If we can select out a trait from a species then we will have changed the species.

For example, lets say we get really agressive and selectively breed out chestnut from the horse. [Horse folks just went: Agressive! I would say!] Once we've managed this, we have effectively changed the species horse such that it can never be chestnut again. We've evolved it.

But then this is a subtractive process of evolution, like Michael pointed out, you cannot breed in a trait that isn't there. How does additive evolution happen? Like, wouldn't it be cool if frogs had wings?

Well, science does not answer this question. Contrary to what has been bantered about, science accepts speculation and theories all the time. We just label them as such and move on. Ask a scientist how those little supposed horses eventually became Arabians and you're gonna get an ear full of theory. Push and ask, "is that what really happened?" and expect, "well, we really don't know, it's a theory." We know those little horses did exist and then they didn't and there were bigger horses and their structure or genetic structure is the same and they were on this part of the planet and they had chestnut hair and...

So how do new traits show up? There are theories. Gamma rays, whatever, and one known cause. Genetic engineering. The disruptive splicing, moving, chemical changing kind of genetic manipulation. Hey, it counts. We might all agree that we are being stupid for playing around so but we are mutating species. Is it good or bad? Kinda like putting your whole life savings on 15 on the roulette wheel, I'll let you know when the marble drops.

From above: 1000 years from now people are going to go to their museum and touch chestnut fur and the curator will declare "Horse" to which a reply "No way, Horse cannot be chestnut". [Forget that we know how chestnut came to pass, and lose the records.] Do we know the mechanism of the change of species? Nope. Does it matter now? (ie, that nature selected or a breeder selected.) Nope. Has evolution occurred?

<Jon Kieckhefer>
[in effect] Can we selectively breed a mite that is OA resistant due to some behaviorial trait?

In summary: Yes it can happen if there is in fact a trait that allows for this. Current emperical and anacdotal evidence does not show a trait as such exists.

<musings>

Since I have brought in the philosophy to the argument, I assume I will be beat back with a stick.







(really, I am just kidding.)

Let's talk about frogs getting wings now.

<oops, wrong subject for this section, I'll remove it lest I sound like a dode...>

JohnF

[ December 21, 2005, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: John F ]


----------



## dickm

I hope you knew that it didn't kill mites in the brood and that's where 60% of them are.

Dickm


----------



## chemistbert

All of this does not change the fact that evolution postulates a permanant change in the population. Given a reasonable amount of time all "resistant" individuals will have that trait bred out of them without the enviromantal stimuli that allowed them to become the most fit. Example you ask?
Bacteria is no longer resistant to sulfa baseed drugs anymore. They were in the 60's though. Why? We don't use sulfa these days.


----------



## dickm

>>>All of this does not change the fact that evolution postulates a permanent change in the population.<<<

I think it's closer to the mark to think of evolution as an ongoing process. The concrete things die as dinosaurs did. Life goes on.

Dickm

[ December 22, 2005, 07:51 AM: Message edited by: dickm ]


----------



## Michael Bush

>Bacteria is no longer resistant to sulfa baseed drugs anymore. They were in the 60's though. Why? We don't use sulfa these days. 

First, we do use sulfa. Just not as much and not as often. Many urinary tract infection drugs are sulfa because it's excreted virtually unchanged in the urine so it works well for those kinds of infection. And many individuals are allergic to virtually every antibiotic out there except sufa drugs.

But, second, any trait could be temporary or permanant if it's a simple recessive trait with no complex allele issues that mask other versions and virtually all of the poulation world wide was effected in the same way to breed out whatever genetic possibilty it was that was causing (or not preventing) it's demise.

In other words, it's simple (not from a political or practical, but from a genetic point of view) to breed people for blonde hair and blue eyes, and, if you kept that population pure, you'd never get brown eyes or black hair. But it's much more complicated to breed for black hair and brown eyes, because the blue eye genes can be hiding in hetrozygous individuals.

Recessive traits are easily isolated. Dominant traits are not easily isolated. And traits that are also affected by certain other combinations of alleles in addition to a dominant gene can be even harder to isolate.


----------



## Kieck

I've studied evolution pretty thoroughly (not as much as some, I'll admit), and I don't recall any point in evolution about changes being permanent. Evolution is just "change over time." Nothing is said in all that about the ability of organisms to change back. That's still change.

I'll nitpick just a little more: in science, "theories" are the same as "laws." I think what was intended in the comments above was "hypotheses." Theories are backed by an extensive amount of supporting data. Some of the big theories are the theory of relativity, the theory of gravity, and (although I know this will make people's faces turn red and they'll sputter and fume and maybe even yell nasty things about me at their computers) the theory of evolution. The evidence is pretty great.

John F: 

I'll let you play. The more the merrier!

>>[in effect] Can we selectively breed a mite that is OA resistant due to some behaviorial trait?

>>In summary: Yes it can happen if there is in fact a trait that allows for this. Current emperical and anacdotal evidence does not show a trait as such exists.

Right, as far as I know, although I have read that OA is only 80% effective. Is there emperical or anacdotal evidence out there to completely reject some form of resistance that allows the other 20% to live? Also, selection can modify traits. With as fast as Varroa reproduces, generations upon generations pass each season, allowing rapid adaptation. Get a few mites with thicker exoskeletons, like we discussed above (anyone bothered yet to measure the thicknesses of Varroa's exoskeletons yet to see how much variation exists?), and the traits might already be in the population.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Right, as far as I know, although I have read that OA is only 80% effective. Is there emperical or anacdotal evidence out there to completely reject some form of resistance that allows the other 20% to live? 

Yes there is. The fact that the number of survivors has stayed constant despite widespread use of Oxalic Acid in Europe. That would seem to point to something that is not passed on from the mites that survived, to their offspring.

There is no need to speculate about what will happen as far as resistance, after more than ten years of using Oxalic acid. It's already been done on a very large scale and I see no reason to expect different results.


----------



## Kieck

>>There is no need to speculate about what will happen as far as resistance, after more than ten years of using Oxalic acid. It's already been done on a very large scale and I see no reason to expect different results.

Your argument about seeing no reason to expect different results is also speculation. The fact that the number of survivors has stayed constant despite widespread use of OA (how widespread, anyway? 100% of hives? 50% of hives? how often?) is a statistic. What it shows is that the rate of survival isn't increasing, so if resistance is present, it isn't spreading through the population. I know, I know, more speculation.

Maybe OA really is the perfect solution to Varroa problems. But if it is, why isn't it labelled for use on bee hives in the U.S.? Could there be implications, other than the resistance issue (which doesn't prevent other pesticides form being labelled for use, obviously), that have kept it from being accepted as a treatment?


----------



## John F

<Jon Kieckhefer>
I'll let you play.

Cool!

<Jon Kieckhefer>
I think what was intended in the comments above was "hypotheses."

Right you are; oh, and not exactly. I should have included it but speculation was a term bantered about and I wanted to include its synonym, theory. As to whether theory and law mean the same thing, uh, well, I get into that semantic squabble all the time. You mentioned gravity. Sometimes a theory and sometimes a law. But we never say things like "rocks are bound by the theory of physics." So at some point we agree that there are these things that are absolute truths, we'll say laws, but we don't always know what they are and we'll approximate by the best observations skills we have and agree that we aren't perfectly sure so we'll call it a theory. (How's that for a run-on!) Anyway, laws are not theories. (But from our perspective as scientists, we can't tell the difference.)

<Michael Bush>
any trait could be temporary or permanant

AND

<Jon Kieckhefer>
I don't recall any point in evolution about changes being permanent.

First, you are both talking about the expression of a trait. Remember, a trait exists in a species or it doesn't, whether we see it expressed or not. And second, if a change is not permanent then evolution has not occurred. Part of the definition of evolution is that it results in the development of new species. I think that implies permanent change.

Oh, so I will agree that the expression of a trait can be temporally temporary or permanent. I know, semantic nitpicking.

<Jon Kieckhefer>
and the traits might already be in the population.

I think we have to assume that they are. In fact, Michael has defended this position very well. As a breeder it is the only practical position to take.

But you do imply something with the word "might" in this statement. Michael has indicated that he is skeptical of the theory of evolution because he has not observed nor can he recall having heard anyone declaring that they have observed the addition of a trait to a species. [Of course this argument ignores that science has done this with gene splicing] I can argue the subtractive process of evolution. That's easy. But I cannot argue the additive process of evolution because we are in the uneasy [and impossible] position of trying to prove a negative, that being, how do I know this trait wasn't there all along.

<back to the subject a bit>
Here's my take: Some Europeans have done this for 10 years now. It has managed to hold the population of mites to some flat level [a scientifically statistically significant thing] indicating that the mites do not seem to become resistant to the treatment.

It doesn't seem to hurt the bees when done properly. Point: it does seem to hurt the bees to dribble it on them more than once.

It doesn't seem to hurt the beekeeper when done properly.

So, I read that when fogged, people see crystals on the stuff in the hive. What's up with that? Is it good for the hive equipment? Is this stuff in my wax? My honey? Am I eating it too? I know that I have been told that it naturally occurs in many food products, but if I decide to fog my hive everyday for a month will I ruin my honey? Should I let my baby eat it?

Generally, in human history, our biggest goofs come from some angle we weren't look'n.

JohnF


----------



## Kieck

>> And second, if a change is not permanent then evolution has not occurred. Part of the definition of evolution is that it results in the development of new species. I think that implies permanent change.

Ooooooooohhhhhh, I don't think so. Look up "evolution." Evolution says that things change, not that new species form. New species CAN form through evolution, but evolution can occur without speciation. And, why does it have to be permanent? What's "permanent," anyway? If it lasts for 100 years, then reverts, did evolution occur twice, or not at all?

I agree that, as a breeder, we can't generally try to add traits, but don't tell that to plant breeders. I know people who add mutagens (such as extracts from crocusses) to seeds, or microwave pollen or seeds, or other odd things, deliberately to produce mutations and see what they get. Is it irresponsible? That one's up to you -- I'm not going there. But the point is, they are ADDING traits. It's a mixed bag; they get as many or more traits that they don't desire as traits that they do desire, and they can't control what traits actually show up, but they do get new traits.

I suppose you could argue that those traits were already in the organisms because the same four bases make up the DNA of all living things, just in different orders. If that's the case, aren't we all the same, humans and apes and plants and fungi and bacteria and all other organisms? 

The argument about selecting for or selecting against traits in a breeding program is a philosophical one. If I want a bee with really long wings and only breed from bees that already have longer wings than normal, am I picking bees with long wings (selecting for the trait) and preserving them, or am I picking bees with shorter wings (selecting against the trait) and killing them? Depends on how you look at it. I agree that it's easier to come up with examples of natural selection selecting against traits, but consider mate choice (a form of selection): if a female prairie chicken mates with a male that performs the best dance, is she choosing the one with the best dance or rejecting the ones with poorer dances? How do you decide when you select an item?


----------



## John F

<Michael Bush>
Yes there is. The fact that the number of survivors has stayed constant

Cool! This is that scientifically statistically significant thing. Jon, what you want are the actual numbers. I'm with you man, what we need is someone in the field to get funded to research it.







Until we get the actual numbers derived from scientific study, we'll have to decide whether we think the anacdotal evidence is real and holds water. Michael thinks so. He heard it from a guy that does it and says it is so. Speaking from an economic position, folks don't keep doing something unless they believe it is producing the result they want.

<Jon Kieckhefer>
Maybe OA really is the perfect solution to Varroa problems. But if it is, why isn't it labelled for use on bee hives in the U.S.? Could there be implications, other than the resistance issue (which doesn't prevent other pesticides form being labelled for use, obviously), that have kept it from being accepted as a treatment?

Certainly a prudent question. In this case though, the argument is that a group of folks who have thrown caution to the wind have done it for quite some time and see positive results and no negative results. Of course, like I pointed out above and you reiterate, [hmm, in my view I said it first, but in the tread you say it first, so maybe I am reiterating] maybe they haven't asked the right question.

Seems an interesting discussion to me. I'm going to go out on a limb and argue that it isn't the perfect solution to varroa problems. I'm on the side that thinks this is a problem for the bees. I think Michael's anacdotal evidence surrounding natural comb has convinced me that if we leave well enough alone, the host and parasite will strike a balance that we can all live with. So, my position, and I'm a newbee, is that the best treatment is no treatment at all. Just stop doing that other thing that is throwing the system out of wack.

JohnF


----------



## John F

<Jon Kieckhefer>
Look up "evolution."

Fair enough. Dictionary.com:

3. Biology. 
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

<Jon Kieckhefer>
If it lasts for 100 years, then reverts, did evolution occur twice, or not at all?

Depends on what you mean by it. Are we talking about the expression of a trait changing or the actual trait being removed (or added) to the genetics?

<Jon Kieckhefer>
I agree that, as a breeder, we can't generally try to add traits

Wow, now this whole paragraph has teeth. When you were asked to show cases where traits have been added to species, why didn't you bring these up? This seems like a decent discussion of how evolution works, whether natural or not.

<Jon Kieckhefer>
I suppose you could argue that those traits were already in the organisms

I am a programmer by trade and would never argue that every program exists in every computer because it all 1s and 0s. The pattern in the genetic code that is the manifestation of a trait in a species got there somehow. That is the million dollar question.

<Jon Kieckhefer>
The argument about selecting for or selecting against traits in a breeding program is a philosophical one.

You know what, I almost made a statement similar to this one. Although it isn't philosophical. It's a tomato/tomatoe thing.

JohnF


----------



## Kieck

<John F.>

You looked up "evolution" in a dictionary (but it might vary, depending on the dictionary you use -- maybe something like the "reality" discussion above?  )! That's more than most people I know. Unfortunately, I didn't I rely on the definitions I've learned over and over and over again in the coursework I completed on evolution and biology. See, the problem I read in the dictionary definition is that biologists define "evolution" differently. To population biologists and most ecologists, "evolution" occurs when the frequencies of alleles in populations change. Not only, in that instance, does no new species arise, the existing species still generally looks the same. Yet, according to the strictest biological definitions, "evolution" has occurred. Some sort of selection or just random chance cause the frequencies to change.

Overall, though, from your posts and the way I read them, I believe we're in agreement on how this stuff works.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Maybe OA really is the perfect solution to Varroa problems.

I'm sure some people think so. But I'm certainly not saying that. I think natural cell size is the solution. I'm just discussing resistance to OA by the mites, which is a different subject than what is the solution to the Varroa.

>But if it is, why isn't it labelled for use on bee hives in the U.S.?

Because:

There is no money to made on it. You can go to the corner hardware store and buy it for $7 for a small tub and treat hundreds of hives. In order to be approved and in order to KEEP an approval, some entity has to pay the fees to do the intial approval and to keep the certification up to date. Who will do this for a product that is so readily and cheaply available already? Where is there market? How will you get beekeepers, who are a smart and frugal lot, to buy YOUR version of OA for enough that you can recoup the costs of intial and ongoing certifications, when they can go down to the hardware store and buy it cheaper and it's more readily available?

> Could there be implications, other than the resistance issue (which doesn't prevent other pesticides form being labelled for use, obviously), that have kept it from being accepted as a treatment?

The implication is that there is a major flaw in the way we approve and continue to approve treatments or pesticides in this country. If there is no profit in it, there is no incentive or mechanism for it to be approved and stay approved. The assumption of our current system, is that pesticides are complex things that are only available as pesticides so the entity paying the money to get it approved has a market for that product after they invest in the approval. In the case of commonly available household chemicals, such as OA, that's not true. Then there is just the cost of certification in proportion to the size of the market. The fungus that was used on termites (and has been experimented with for Varroa) is no longer on the market because there wasn't a large enough market to be worth paying the fees to keep the certification current. The same thing has happened to Certan for wax moths. Bt is still approved for treating cabbage worms and mosquitoes, but not for wax moths. Why? Because there were safety concerns? No. Beekeepers just didn't buy enough to be worth reupping the certification. So the certification is NOT tied just to it's saftey or it's efficacy, it's tied to someone being willing to pay the costs of the initial certification (with the discovery involved) and the continued certification (with just the fees invovled). We constanly lose access to safe, effective, and sometimes commonly available, pesticides simply because it doesn't make someone enough money to pay the fees. For instance Certan is still available in other places, so it is worth them manufacturing it, but it is no long officially available here in the US, because it cost them too much for the size of the market.

>my position, and I'm a newbee, is that the best treatment is no treatment at all. Just stop doing that other thing that is throwing the system out of wack.

Exactly.


----------



## dickm

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. In the womb. One way that evolution can go backwards is to gather a tool from an immature fetus. It is called neotony. The carrying forward of an immature trait to adulthood. It is thought that the curved spine of the human primate is a gift of an immature ape; An adaptaion to a life on the ground allowing us to walk upright. 

Dickm


----------



## John F

<Jon Kieckhefer>
Overall, though, from your posts and the way I read them, I believe we're in agreement on how this stuff works.

Me too. I had a feeling that we were using two different definition of evolution, but I would argue that mine is the stricter, strictier, uh more strict.

So, just to be a bit more pendantic:

When you measure the change in frequency of alleles in a species you will be witness to the process of evolution at work. When a frequency for some allele goes to 0 or comes from 0 then evolution will have occurred.

Evolution is not a process, it is an event. Selection is the process of evolution. Showing cases of the outcomes of selection does not show that evolution has occurred.

JohnF


----------



## Kieck

>>Evolution is not a process, it is an event. Selection is the process of evolution. Showing cases of the outcomes of selection does not show that evolution has occurred.

Huh? You lost me on this one. Evolution is not an event, it's a process. The connotations of the word suggest a slow, on-going change. That's a process, not an event. Regardless, how can it be that the end result of the process of evolution doesn't show that evolution occurred?

I'm not saying, Michael, that OA is a bad chemical and shouldn't be used on hives. I hope I'm not implying that, either. The original post listed some advantages to OA and asked about a possible downside:

>>Oxalic Acid seems almost too good to be true.
*Low Cost
*Readily Available
*Easy to administer
*High knock down rate.

>>What is the down side to this???

Some of the replies listed things like possible damage to bees as well as mites, some threat from vapors to humans, etc., all of which I agree are downsides to OA treatments. The comment then was made (like in many other discussions about treatments like this) that "[paraphrasing here] Varroa can't develop resistance to a treatment like this because it kills through a mechanical method rather than a disruption of metabolic processes. Only chemicals that disrupt metabolic processes produce resistant strains of organisms."

I still disagree with that idea. I think it's short-sighted, and possibly dangerous in that it ignores the abilities of organisms to adapt to changing conditions, mechanical or chemical. For those who wish to try OA or continue their treatments, great! I wish you all the best with it! I think you should remember, though, that it may not always work as well as it does now. Other methods of control may be much more effective, especially in the long run.

I see some other possible problems with OA. According to what I've read, OA occurs naturally in honey, but applications of OA increase the amounts that remain in the honey. Assuming that the honey will be consumed by humans, do higher concentrations of OA or higher rates of consumption of OA pose any risks to humans? How about to the bees? If it kills the mites, it can't be very good for the bees, either (bees and mites are relatively similar in composition and physiology, after all). What about OA as a pollutant in the rest of the environment?

I prefer your other method, small cells, to control mites. Nothing foreign gets introduced into the hives. I think more methods along those lines need to be explored. One of the most effective ways for me to keep mites away from hives is to isolate my bee yards. Bees from mite-free, isolated yards rarely come into contact with bees from other yards, so the chances that they will pick up mites go way down.


----------



## Michael Bush

>I see some other possible problems with OA. According to what I've read, OA occurs naturally in honey, but applications of OA increase the amounts that remain in the honey. Assuming that the honey will be consumed by humans, do higher concentrations of OA or higher rates of consumption of OA pose any risks to humans?

It's still at FAR lower amounts in a typical serving of honey than a typical serving of many vegatables and MUCH MUCH lower than a typical serving of rubharb.

>How about to the bees? If it kills the mites, it can't be very good for the bees, either (bees and mites are relatively similar in composition and physiology, after all).

I agree in theory. But I also have to say I have not seen any noticable impact on the bees.

>What about OA as a pollutant in the rest of the environment?

Most plants are creating it all the time.

>I prefer your other method, small cells, to control mites.

So do I. 

>Nothing foreign gets introduced into the hives. 

Exactly.

>I think more methods along those lines need to be explored.

If you like. But what could be more simple than natural sized cells?

>One of the most effective ways for me to keep mites away from hives is to isolate my bee yards. Bees from mite-free, isolated yards rarely come into contact with bees from other yards, so the chances that they will pick up mites go way down.

Theory is a wonderful place where everything works.







You must live there.


----------



## George Fergusson

>One of the most effective ways for me to keep mites away from hives is to isolate my bee yards. Bees from mite-free, isolated yards rarely come into contact with bees from other yards, so the chances that they will pick up mites go way down.

Keeping hives mite-free by maintaining them in isolated yards is a pipe dream. How long has this approach been working for you?

George-


----------



## Kieck

>>Theory is a wonderful place where everything works. You must live there.

I live in SD. Regulations and restrictions help me maintain my isolated bee yards. Is that all that's keeping the levels of Varroa down? I don't know, but my bees aren't small-cell, and I haven't picked up significant numbers of mites in any of my hives since I've moved back to SD after leaving Kansas (no regulations). My highest counts in SD for this full season are 4 and 6 mites on sticky sheets per week per hive (2 or 3 deeps of brood, plus supers). Something's working right.

[ December 22, 2005, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: Jon Kieckhefer ]


----------



## Kieck

>>Keeping hives mite-free by maintaining them in isolated yards is a pipe dream. How long has this approach been working for you?

A pipe dream? I wonder what sort of dreams you might have following a bad experience with an OA "crack pipe."  

Seriously? You really wonder about how this could work? Do you understand how quarantines work? Why do you think schools recommend keeping kids with chicken pox home instead of sending them to school? 

You'll notice that I didn't say it eliminated mites that were already there, just kept hives (probably) from getting mites. Mites don't spontaneously form in bee hives, even if it seems like it sometimes. I lost my fair share of hives to mites in Kansas; we'll see about SD. I've only been through one season so far here, but I seen many, many fewer mites on my bees here than in Kansas (I started new hives here, by the way, so I didn't transfer in my previous mite problems).

Really, George, you seem very, very bitter towards mites specifically. Can I ask how many hives you've lost to mites?


----------



## John F

<Jon Kieckhefer>
Huh? You lost me on this one. Evolution is not an event, it's a process. The connotations of the word suggest a slow, on-going change. That's a process, not an event. Regardless, how can it be that the end result of the process of evolution doesn't show that evolution occurred?

I was trying to highlight the difference in the definitions we were using so I was making a statement that I felt identified them. You see evolution as a process, I say it is an event that has the result of a new species.

Then I pointed out the implication of the difference with a poorly worded point. I should have said ... the outcome of A selection ... 

Anyway, to explain: It has been shown that applying XXX has resulted in a higher expression of XXX resistant mites. So, applying XXX is our selection pressure. We can see a higher frequency of the resistance to XXX trait in the population of mites. Have we evolved the mite? I say no, unless we have completely removed the possibility of a non-resistant mite. So, you can show me that the population of mites is expressing a higher frequency of XXX-resistance but you have to show me that XXX-non-resistance has been removed to show me that the mites have evolved.

We are selecting XXX-resistance. You can show me that selection, the process of evolution, is selecting XXX-resistance. This, of course, means that we can evolve the mite, but it does not show that we have.

JohnF


----------



## Kieck

Why do you have to remove the others to demonstrate evolution? Say, for example, that the Cape honey bee race becomes so different from the rest of the honey bee races that Cape honey bees can no longer successfully breed with other honey bees, thereby creating a new species. The other honey bees are still around. Has evolution taken place? Do the honey bees other than Cape honey bees now constitute a new species, or are they still the original species?


----------



## Michael Bush

>Do you understand how quarantines work? 

Yes, but confining a person to a house is not that same as bees who regularlly fly 2 miles and occasionally fly 7 or 8 and live in the wild in large enough numbers that it's difficult to get out of flying range of ferals.

>Say, for example, that the Cape honey bee race becomes so different from the rest of the honey bee races that Cape honey bees can no longer successfully breed with other honey bees, thereby creating a new species. 

Another wonderful dream.


----------



## George Fergusson

>Seriously? You really wonder about how this could work? Do you understand how quarantines work?

Sure I do. I also know you can't effectively quarantine bees. New Zealand tried it. Didn't work, and they're an island! They tried to stop AHB in Panama back in the 80's by setting up a 120 mile DMZ. Didn't work. Controlling the spread of varroa by quarantine is futile. That said, I wish you well! Maintaining isolated yards can't hurt and might buy you time.

>Really, George, you seem very, very bitter towards mites specifically. Can I ask how many hives you've lost to mites?

Nah, I'm not bitter, I just hate the little buggers







I have a deep and broad respect for them and the more I learn about them, the more that respect grows.

I mentioned in another post I've lost 5 hives to varroa so far this season and expect to lose another 5-10 or so before winter's over. I'll bring some through to spring, and I'll make increase. It ain't the end of the world.

George-


----------



## Kieck

I'm not trying to quaratine my bees, just trying to limit their contacts with mite-infested bees. Mathematically, reducing the number of contacts with infested bees reduces the odds that my bees will pick up mites. I know they still come into contact with some bees, but I think it helps to have them isolated, for other diseases as well as Varroa.

I think I was reading your other post while you were posting your last reply here. I wish you the best of luck bringing your bees through the winter! Do you, by any chance, keep records of mite drops per hive and try to associate the numbers of mites with winter survival rates? I asked about a couple other things on the other thread -- I think I'll just leave those topics for that other discussion.


----------



## chemistbert

I suppose I should have qualified my statements better. We generally don't use sulfa these days. It used to be wide spread. I had forgotten they use it for UTIs and such still.

Permanant should have read long standing instead. A change that only lasts a few generations is hardly evolution. One that were to last hundreds or thousands is a different story. Then I might discuss it being evolution.

Anyways


----------



## Kieck

I still don't understand why it has to "last" for a certain length of time to qualify as evolution. Isn't change simply that: change? If it changes, then changes back a few generations later, is that the same as having never changed or is it changing twice? What if something changes, those changes don't last more than a couple generations, but it changes to become something completely different again? Is that a change? When does it become evolution?


----------



## Robert Brenchley

It wwouldn't be expected to change back because evolution is essentially an interaction between genes and the environment. Let's say a species has a gene which gives to the potential to exploit a slightly different ecological niche. Then some circumstance arises which gives it the opportunity to do so. The gene, which is already present in the population at a low level, becomes universal in that section of the population living within the new niche, while alternative genes are selected out. Evolution has occurred, and we now have a new species, subspecies or whatever; these are artificial categories. Why would that process reverse itself, and the new form (I'm using a general term here)evolve back to fill the old niche, which is presumably still fully occupied by the old form?


----------



## Kieck

The example of white and dark moths of a single species resting on birch trees in Great Britain comes to mind. . . . White moths resting on light bark had an edge in the survival rate over dark moths on birch trunks. As the industrial revolution caused soot to accumulate, dark moths gained the advantage (from many more white moths than dark moths in the population to many more dark moths than white moths in the population). After less coal was burned in industrial plants, the soot on the tree trunks disappeared, and the ratio of white moths to dark moths returned to the ratio from before the Industrial Revolution.


----------



## John F

<Jon Kieckhefer>
...so different from the rest of the honey bee races that Cape honey bees can no longer successfully breed with other honey bees, thereby creating a new species. ... Has evolution taken place?

Uhm, by definition, yeah. Please check that "new species" part out again.

<Jon Kieckhefer>
Do the honey bees other than Cape honey bees now constitute a new species, or are they still the original species?

They are still the original. See, they haven't changed at all.

JohnF


----------



## Kieck

<JohnF>

Right. My point was that you suggested all of the organisms without a selected trait in a population had to be eliminated for evolution to occur. I tried to take it one step farther with my hypothetical Cape bee case. The rest of the honey bees are still there, just a part of the population changed.


----------



## John F

<Jon Kieckhefer>
I still don't understand why it has to "last" for a certain length of time to qualify as evolution.

It doesn't. It's just easier for us to believe that a trait has been created/erased if we do/don't see it in many many generations. What we see still doesn't prove evolution has occurred though, could be a different selective pressure masking what we think we are looking for. Need something big, like your bee that can't reproduce with the other bees anymore to feel real comfortable declaring evolution.

<Jon Kieckhefer>
Moths...

This is an example of selection. The fact that a change of selective pressure back to the original results shows us that evolution has not occurred. Apparently, the birch bark selective pressure was not enough pressure to cause an evolutionary event. The trait for dark moths remained.

JohnF


----------



## Kieck

>>could be a different selective pressure masking what we think we are looking for. Need something big, like your bee that can't reproduce with the other bees anymore to feel real comfortable declaring evolution.

Isn't it still evolution, technically? I agree that people feel more comfortable seeing a big change before they declare, "It's evolution!" 

Darwin talked much, much more about "selection" than "evolution." As I understand it, evolution can occur through selection as well as through other processes, possibly. If selection is occurring, evolution is occurring. 

Again, with the traits remaining, it's all a matter of degrees. Why would it be evolution if a new species arose from an existing species and the original species remained intact, but it would NOT be evolution if a part of a species changed without changing the rest of the species?


----------



## John F

<Jon Kieckhefer>
Right. My point was that you suggested all of the organisms without a selected trait in a population had to be eliminated for evolution to occur. I tried to take it one step farther with my hypothetical Cape bee case. The rest of the honey bees are still there, just a part of the population changed.

Oh, I answered the wrong way. The trait that was completely erased, thus forming a new species, was the ability to mate with the other bees. We can show this. Had this not happened, they would just be original bees.

This brings up an interesting point. I have blue eyes. Humans have traits for blue and brown eyes. [ignore how other combinations happen] I do not have the possibility of the trait for brown eyes. Does this mean I am not human?

I take a box of honeybees and split it into two boxes. The first is the control, the second the experiment. I manage to remove from the bees in the box the gene/trait for banding. I can prove it with my handy dandy gene mapping thingamajiggy. Have I created a new species? No, honeybees be honeybees. I may have created a race/variety/breed but not a new species.

We have to talk about a species as a whole or the term evolution doesn't make sense.

JohnF


----------



## Kieck

Like I've tried to point out before, defining a "species" gets a little tricky. Even the best minds in the world on systematics (classification and organization of organisms) disagree on the best ways to define "species."

In many instances of incompatibility in insects, the cause may be as much from the addition of a structure or gene as from the loss of one. Even among honey bees, the loss of genetic variability (inbreeding) can reduce the ability of queens to produce viable offspring. Among some organisms, even members of different genera -- not just different species -- can hybridize and produce viable offspring (check out orchids as a great example). 

On the other hand, systematists don't define species by single characteristics. For example, a western honey bee, Apis mellifera, has a number of differences from an eastern honey bee, Apis cerana. They're closely related, but they can be distinguished by a suite of traits that are common to all members of their respective species.

All it takes for a race to become a species is a little more isolation.


----------



## John F

<Jon Kieckhefer>
If selection is occurring, evolution is occurring.

Ah, and this is true! Selection IS a process of evolution. But, when selection has occurred it is not true that evolution has occurred. THat is why we want to see a selective response over many many generations. I'll skip ahead and maybe this becomes clearer.

<Jon Kieckhefer>
Why would it be evolution if a new species arose from an existing species and the original species remained intact, but it would NOT be evolution if a part of a species changed without changing the rest of the species?

It is evolution when a species changes. A species changes when its set of possible traits changes.

Now the question: Why yes if remaining intact and no if the rest do not change? Hmm, that sounds like a paradox and if this is how you perceive what I've said then I don't blame you for asking this.

The bees of the first part that came from the bees of the second part became a species when they lost their ability to breed with the bees of the second part. We have two populations of bees that do not and cannot share a set of traits.

Now, another part of your question may be asking about specialization -vs- generalization. My comment to that is that when we look at the two sets of bees and know that they are two species it doesn't matter which route they took to get here. Here they are.

JohnF


----------



## Kieck

>>But, when selection has occurred it is not true that evolution has occurred. 

Why not?

>>It is evolution when a species changes. A species changes when its set of possible traits changes.

What if an entire or genus, or, higher yet, an entire family, changes? Is that evolution?

Just out of curiosity, how do you define a "species?"


----------



## John F

<Jon Kieckhefer>
Like I've tried to point out before, defining a "species" gets a little tricky.

I agree, not a job I want.

<Jon Kieckhefer>
They're closely related, but they can be distinguished by a suite of traits that are common to all members of their respective species.

And that's just it. Evolution does not produce races/breeds/varieties. Selection does. It's easy to show selection. Hard to show evolution.

<Jon Kieckhefer>
All it takes for a race to become a species is a little more isolation.

I don't know if I agree with this. Actually, it really depends on what you mean by isolation. For example, if I move a box of bees that cannot have bands to the moon, did that make them a species? They can't get to the other bees from there.

JohnF


----------



## Kieck

>>All it takes for a race to become a species is a little more isolation.

>>I don't know if I agree with this. Actually, it really depends on what you mean by isolation. For example, if I move a box of bees that cannot have bands to the moon, did that make them a species? They can't get to the other bees from there.

Given some time, and some changes, sure. Isolation usually implies some reproductive isolation because that's fairly easily testable, but it doesn't always work out so well.

What's the difference between evolution and selection? To me evolution is change, not necessarily in a directed pattern. For example, a few insects wind up on an island. Just through chance, they change into a different form -- not through any selection, but just because these individuals were on one edge of the ancestral species to begin with and their isolation just made that difference even more extreme. No selection, but, even on your terms, if they are a different species, evolution has occurred.

How do you define a "race?" Most biologists recognize that races are distinct forms within species, and species are constructed by establishing boundaries along a continuum to group similar organisms together. To me, the difference is a matter of degrees. Species are somewhat more different from one another than races are. Again, most biologists agree that species arise from races that become very distinct from the other forms of their ancestral species. All a matter of degrees.


----------



## John F

<Jon Kieckhefer>
Why not?

Because the expression of a trait to meet some current enviromental state is not a change of the organism. It is doing what it is built to do.

Hmm.

Okay, natural selection tells shows us that under some sorts of selective pressures, sub-populations of an organism may gain an advantage over the rest of the population of that organism. This expressed trait will tend to rise in the total population. That is selection. That does not mean that the organism has changed. What you see may have changed. When the organism is stuck in it's new configuration, like, say, by completely removing the possibility of a trait, then it has changed, or, evolved.

You do not evolve honeybees to have yellow bands. You just select for it. If you wanted your honeybees to have flashing neon red bands then you would have to evolve your honeybees. 

<Jon Kieckhefer>
What if an entire or genus, or, higher yet, an entire family, changes? Is that evolution?

Yes it would be, on a grand scale, because it would mean that every species in a <higher order> changed. It's still species change though.

<Jon Kieckhefer>
Just out of curiosity, how do you define a "species?"

Hey, I said I didn't want that job!







I could just hit up the dictionary again but I think you want me to elaborate on the "set of traits" bit. A species is : what dictionary.com says : and includes the set of possible traits expressible by that species.

I know that by my definition I have said that the now chestnut-impossible horse is an evolutionary event. Yes, the species has changed. No we will not call it anything other than horse.

JohnF


----------



## Kieck

>>This expressed trait will tend to rise in the total population. That is selection. That does not mean that the organism has changed.

But the organisms, the species if you will, collectively HAVE changed. The percentages of the alleles in the population have been altered.

>>I could just hit up the dictionary again but I think you want me to elaborate on the "set of traits" bit. A species is : what dictionary.com says : and includes the set of possible traits expressible by that species.

So (see my comments above, please) the set of possible traits expressed within that species has changed, at least as a ratio or as the probability of those traits appearing in any one individual.

The real reason I wanted you to define a "species" is because what you call a "species" someone else might call a race. Wolves and coyotes interbreed freely, after all. I call them species, but since they interbreed and produce viable offspring, should we call them "races?" The examples like that overwhelm us, especially those of us who have and do try to work at classifying and identifying organisms. We have to make distinctions based upon. . . well, we all have our own criteria. The problem is, if you wait until changes cause speciation before calling it evolution, you limit the usefulness of the theory of evolution and the ability of selection to drive evolution.

[ December 22, 2005, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Jon Kieckhefer ]


----------



## John F

<Jon Kieckhefer>
Given some time, and some changes, sure.

Time and changes are part of our definition of evolution. But just moving them to the mood didn't make them a new species.

<Jon Kieckhefer>
What's the difference between evolution and selection?

I think I've explained this. And, I think the paragraph this came from shows that you are at least understanding my view. (?)

<Jon Kieckhefer>
How do you define a "race?"

This is the sticky wicket. Sometimes it is easy because some really visible trait makes it obvious. Sometimes it isn't easy because whomever decided to create a new race/variety/breed used some criteria that seems not quite so obvious. I have saddlebreds for real. I wish I could get lucky and get a paint out of them. Those sell for more. I did get a palamino once! WHOHOOO!

To answer your question honestly, we group a bunch of some species together that shows some trait we like and get enough people to agree that we have created a new race. Generally, a race in the wild exists in some micro-environment that is supported by and supports whatever trait is giving it the advantage.

JohnF


----------



## John F

<Jon Kieckhefer>
But the organisms, the species if you will, collectively HAVE changed. The percentages of the alleles in the population have been altered.

The organism has not changed. What is expressed has changed. Hmm, a different approach...

Okay, craps table time. A species is the organism including its possible outcomes. Like dice. The regular craps table dice have 36 possible outcomes. Just because I keep seeing snake eyes does not mean I have changed the dice. If I change to 10 sides dice THEN I have evolved the dice. [Whew, that one is a stretch, but please try and apply it]

<Jon Kieckhefer>
So (see my comments above, please) the set of possible traits expressed within that species has changed, at least as a ratio or as the probability of those traits appearing in any one individual.

The ratios and probabilities changing is only a function of the organism moving around its tools to succeed in the current environment. It is not an indication that the organism has changed. [until the probability we are talking about becomes or moves from 0]

<Jon Kieckhefer>
The real reason I wanted you to define a "species" is because what you call a "species" someone else might call a race. Wolves and coyotes interbreed freely, after all. I call them species, but since they interbreed and produce viable offspring, should we call them "races?" 

I think so, but then, I don't want that job!







In fact, I think interbreeding is part of the definition, Hold on... Dictionary.com time again.

Species:
1.Biology. 
a. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.

Ah, so yeah...

<Jon Kieckhefer>
We have to make distinctions based upon. . . well, we all have our own criteria.

I think that's how we make up races.

<Jon Kieckhefer>
The problem is, if you wait until changes cause speciation before calling it evolution, you limit the usefulness of the theory of evolution and the ability of selection to drive evolution.

Nuh unh! All I have done is by definition. There is no usefulness to limit. It is what it is.

JohnF


----------



## Kieck

>>Okay, craps table time. A species is the organism including its possible outcomes. Like dice. The regular craps table dice have 36 possible outcomes. Just because I keep seeing snake eyes does not mean I have changed the dice. If I change to 10 sides dice THEN I have evolved the dice. [Whew, that one is a stretch, but please try and apply it]

What if you change all the sides of each die to "1." Then, all you can throw is ones. Have the possible outcomes changed? Nothing else is different, so has the game evolved?

Starting over, with regular dice, take one of them, change the 1 to a 7. Have the possible outcomes changed? Is it evolution? Take it a step farther -- add 6 to each number, so each die can now only give the possibilies of 7 through 12. Has the game evolved now? Want to bet on your ability to throw snake-eyes now?

See, again, that's the problem. Defining these terms gets difficult.

>>a. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.

Based on the way I feel about "species," this definition isn't terrible, but it leaves a lot to be desired. Try searching for "species concepts" sometime; I think you'll be amazed at what you find.

Yes, a species ranks below a genus or a subgenus as a category of taxonomic rank, and species are composed of related organisms capable of interbreeding, but is that it? Again, wolves and coyotes interbreed, so by this definition, they belong to the same species. In fact, using this definition, horses and donkeys are capable of interbreeding, so they belong to the same species. To correct some of this, the "biological species concept" requires that the offspring resulting from interbreeding are viable (survive and are capable of interbreeding without a loss of reproductive capability). That sterile mule, then, that results from the interbreeding of a horse and a donkey isn't viable, so the horse and the donkey belong to separate species.

The problem, again, is that the offspring of the coyote and the wolf IS viable, so even under the "biological species concept," wolves and coyotes are in the same species. Do you believe that?

So, is a single mutation in a single organism "evolution?" To some people, yes. Is an identical mutation in several organisms that results in a new species "evolution?" To more people, yes. It's still all a matter of degrees.

More importantly, to the question of this thread, if applications of OA somehow result in Varroa that avoid the acid or withstand its effects, is that evolution?


----------



## John F

<Jon Kieckhefer>
What if you change all the sides of each die to "1."

Uhgh. The example was a stretch. The numbers on the sides do not matter. The sides represent the possible outcomes, the number only make it so that I can share with you the identity of some outcome. If you remove a side, you evolve the die. If you add a side you evolve the die. To exchange a side you will have to either remove a side and then add the new one back (two evolutions) or add the new side and remove the other (again, two evolutions). Yes, these can happen in a moment of time such that we see what appears as a single evolution.

<Jon Kieckhefer>
this definition isn't terrible, but it leaves a lot to be desired.

It seems a perfectly good definition to me. If it is wrong, then it seems that those that know it as wrong should get it changed.

<Jon Kieckhefer>
To correct some of this, the "biological species concept" requires that the offspring resulting from interbreeding are viable.

But this seems to be an imperfect solution. And since we know we need to correct some of this it appears to me that the definition above is wrong.

Oh, and not all mules are sterile.

Okay, so to add my twist on the definition:
... interbreeding such that the resultant set of organisms is capable of continuing the set of traits of the parent set of organisms.

There, so, horses are horses of cou... ahem, and donkeys are a species and mules ARE A NEW SPECIES. Who cares that it isn't self replicating. (oh, so I guess I just waxed the interbreeding from the definition. Not really, if they could they would pass on their set of traits and unfortunately sterility is one of their predominant traits.)

In wolves and coyotes can the progeny carry every single trait of the wolf and of the coyote? If yes, then they are the same species, if no, then they are not.

There, that seems like a better definition to me.

JohnF


----------



## Kieck

Huh???

I'll make one more comment about the dice example.

>>To exchange a side you will have to either remove a side and then add the new one back (two evolutions) or add the new side and remove the other (again, two evolutions). Yes, these can happen in a moment of time such that we see what appears as a single evolution.

Picking out a single trait, let's use color in honey bees. A single mutant bee appears in a hive and she's blue. Is that one mutation, or two? Did she change from black/orange/yellow into an unknown color in a first mutation and then into the blue color in a second mutation? Or was it just one?

>>a. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.

I still think this definition leaves a lot to be desired. How "capable of interbreeding" do these related organisms have to be? If a tortoise in Arica and a tortoise in South America share all possible traits except sex, and could mate successfully and produce viable offspring IF they were in the same area, are they one species or two? Without some sort of intervention, they are incapable of interbreeding because of their geographic isolation, so, by dictionary.com's definition, these constitute two species. I don't agree.

As you pointed out before, not every individual within a species expresses every possible trait within the species. Do the progeny of a wolf-coyote cross carry every single trait of both wolves and coyotes? No. But they would carry the traits that they inherit from their parents.

I think you understand why it's such a muddy mess even trying to define "species." I think you understood before, and this discussion is just further demonstrating the problems.

So, evolution in the form of speciation still comes down to how you want to draw lines. Complete sexual isolation? Then a lot of the "species" we currently recognize become forms within much broader "species."

Did the Varroa that have become resistant to Apistan evolve? I think we all agree that selection drove the development of resistance among some mites, but have they evolved or have the changed? Is there a difference between changing and evolving?


----------



## John F

Oh and I forgot to answer the question:

<Jon Kieckhefer>
More importantly, to the question of this thread, if applications of OA somehow result in Varroa that avoid the acid or withstand its effects, is that evolution?

You don't mention how the result somehow happens. If applying OA somehow mutates the genes of the varroa that somehow gives it a trait that varroa did not have prior to this treatment that lets the varroa avoid or withstand the effects of OA, yes. If applying OA kills varroa that do not have a trait that allows the varroa to avoid or withstand and does not kill the varroa that do have a trait that allows them to avoid or withstand the OA AND some varroa remain on this earth that do not have the trait to avoid or withstand OA treatment, then no.

The real question is: Is there a downside?
The specific question that we have been contemplating is: Does OA application select for an OA resistant mite such as the other chemicals do?

The answers that I am hearing are:
Doesn't seem to be when done right.
Doesn't seem to be the case with more than 10 years of experience.

Michael is skeptical of evolution and made a great argument. From a breeders perspective, the only practical argument as well.

You and I have been arguing about what evolution even is. I think I've been clear that your initial use of the term does not match my understanding. I think I've done a good job of defending my position. I don't think I've wavered in my argument but perceptions do vary and I expect to have to clarify. If you want to change my idea of what evolution is, you will have to provide a logical argument. Quit asking me the same question unless you just don't understand my argument. Then say so. I don't care what all of the other biologists say or do or think, I will need a real logical argument to change.

By the way, don't take my little tirade here as an indication that I don't like you. I am an incurable skeptic and learner and enjoy exchanges like this because I learn quite a bit. I tirade like this to my closest friends and family too.

JohnF


----------



## John F

<Jon Kieckhefer>
Picking out a single trait, let's use color in honey bees. A single mutant bee appears in a hive and she's blue.

The trait is the color blue. The set of organism we call honeybees now has the new trait color blue. Evolution has occurred.

<Jon Kieckhefer>
As you pointed out before, not every individual within a species expresses every possible trait within the species. Do the progeny of a wolf-coyote cross carry every single trait of both wolves and coyotes? No. But they would carry the traits that they inherit from their parents.

Species is a set, not an individual. Evolution is a change in species. We are interested in the set of traits contained in a species. So, the question isn't does an individual pup from the crossing of an individual wolf and an individual coyote carry every trait of its parents, but rather, can the offspring set from the crossing of the wolf set and the coyote set carry every trait of their parent sets.

We are looking for a change in the set, something we call species.

<Jon Kieckhefer>
So, evolution in the form of speciation still comes down to how you want to draw lines.

It doesn't to me. Races, yeah, species, no. 

<Jon Kieckhefer>
Complete sexual isolation? Then a lot of the "species" we currently recognize become forms within much broader "species."

Yeah, it looks to me like someone has made a mistake.

JohnF


----------



## Kieck

JohnF

Don't worry, I like you, too!  

I'm puzzled, though, why you won't accept the definitions of terms from people in the field that created the terms. For instance, if all beekeepers refer to a "colony" of bees, would you use a different definition of a "colony" to reject the term used by beekeepers?

See, the way I see you arguments, you're confusing the concept of "speciation" with "evolution." Evolutionary biologists (a group I belong to, not by my own claim but through the scholastic degrees I've earned) refer to the development or creation (depends on how you want to look at it) of species as speciation. The definition fits the process much more narrowly.

Selection is a force shaping changes for some particular reason. If OA kills mites with thin exoskeletons, OA is a selective pressure against thin exoskeletons or for thick exoskeletons (again, depends on how you want to look at it).

Evolution is change. Among biologists -- the people who came up with the term (not just Darwin, by the way) -- evolution is change over time. That's it. Nothing more. You want to argue about public perceptions and use perceptions of theories to define terms? You've got a hard row to hoe ahead of you. What's a "swarm" of bees? To a beekeeper, it means something much more specific than it does to the average Joe on the street. A lot of people refer to any large aggregation of stinging insects as a "swarm."

I ask questions about these issues because they tend to make people think. In my experience, arguing by simply telling another person something rarely works -- his mind is made up, and he will reject or deny a simple statement. But if I can get him to think about the issue and his mind runs into the same obstacles about his point of view that my mind does, he's much more likely to understand my reasoning for believing what I do. (I know that's a long and convoluted sentence. I hope it makes sense to you.)

The arguments for OA -- "doesn't seem to create resistant strains when used correctly" and "hasn't created any resistance in more than 10 years of use" -- are problematic. RoundUp was around a lot longer than 10 years before resistant weeds became a large enough issue to concern farmers. And, in my understanding, resistance developing in Varroa to Apistan and Checkmite+ was a consequence of improper applications of these chemicals. Would Varroa have become resistant if they had been applied properly? I think so. But it might have taken a much longer time. Is everyone who uses OA going to apply it properly? I doubt it. What makes it any different from that perspective than any other chemical?

I don't doubt OA can be an effective treatment for Varroa, particularly if used properly and, more importantly, in conjunction with other methods of mite control (think IPM). Is it our saviour? Maybe for the short run, but it's still just a single treatment for mites.


----------



## Kieck

By the way, from your last post, I think you're coming around to my way of thinking about evolution. Maybe my questions are working. . . hehehehehe!


----------



## John F

<Jon Kieckhefer>
Don't worry, I like you, too!

Good thing, you're the one that let me play...

<Jon Kieckhefer>
I'm puzzled, though, why you won't accept the definitions of terms from people in the field that created the terms.

See my references to the dictionary. Why won't they accept the definitions from the people that created them? Support your change of definition.

<Jon Kieckhefer>
For instance, if all beekeepers refer to a "colony" of bees, would you use a different definition of a "colony" to reject the term used by beekeepers?

No, I accept new definitions. We have to first discover if one of us is misstaken a word for something else. If you have a new definition, drop to the bottom, put a new number and a clear and concise description.

<Jon Kieckhefer>
See, the way I see you arguments, you're confusing the concept of "speciation" with "evolution."

We are talking about evolution as it related to life. Speciation, yes, that is the only evolution we care about in our discussion. We can talk about how a political system evolves over time, or how the human population evolved from an agriarian society to an urban society but those would be different uses of the word. Yes, evolution is speciation. Hence the "results in a new species" in the definition.

<Jon Kieckhefer>
Evolution is change. Among biologists -- the people who came up with the term (not just Darwin, by the way) -- evolution is change over time. That's it. Nothing more.

So far we are on the right track here. Or I should say same track. But remember we are talking about the change of a species over time. We don't care about the change of transit systems over time or the change of herd breeding grounds over time. So, in the evolution we are talking about, we can say evolution occurred when we see a change in a species. We see a change in a species when its set of traits change. (Over time if you like). You have to remove a trait from a species or add a trait to a species for evolution to have occurred.

<Jon Kieckhefer>
You want to argue about public perceptions and use perceptions of theories to define terms? You've got a hard row to hoe ahead of you. What's a "swarm" of bees? To a beekeeper, it means something much more specific than it does to the average Joe on the street. A lot of people refer to any large aggregation of stinging insects as a "swarm."

I have no problem with the evolution of semantics in natural languages.

<Jon Kieckhefer>
I ask questions about these issues because they tend to make people think...

It did make sense to me and I understand the tactic. Just be aware that sometimes we get so caught up trying to get a response we want that we ignore the response we get.

<Jon Kieckhefer>
-- are problematic.

I can see how you would think this. And you are right. You are in the business of making these sorts of studies. We don't send rockets to the moon [Geesh, did I say that...] without proper data. 

<Jon Kieckhefer>
I don't doubt OA can be an effective treatment for Varroa...

Turns out that I don't care so much right now. I'm not going to do it. I am under the impression I have 2 years until I may see the wickedness of my ways.

JohnF


----------



## John F

<Jon Kieckhefer>
By the way, from your last post, I think you're coming around to my way of thinking about evolution.

 

That could be what's happening, but I don't think so.


----------



## Kieck

>>Speciation, yes, that is the only evolution we care about in our discussion. 

No. That's the only form of evolution YOU care about in this discussion. I'm arguing that ANY change is evolution. Evolution, by definition, does NOT have to result in new species.

>>We see a change in a species when its set of traits change. (Over time if you like). You have to remove a trait from a species or add a trait to a species for evolution to have occurred.

See!?! What you just said is that adding or removing a trait from a species is evolution. You didn't say anything about creating a new species by doing this. If all horses lost the trait that produces chesnuts (like you suggested earlier) a trait has been lost but NO new species has been formed. Therefore, evolution without speciation.

>>See my references to the dictionary. Why won't they accept the definitions from the people that created them? Support your change of definition.

The people who write dictionaries aren't experts in every field. Sometimes, they even add parts about connotations of words to help clarify the uses of those words. I understand they do the best they can. Since biologists defined "evolution" with respect to biological processes, though, I think it's the writers of the dictionary that have changed the definition. Biologists came up with the idea, and biologists have stuck with their original definition. The rest of the world has twisted it around. Any changes that have occurred haven't been on the part of biologists.


----------



## John F

<Jon Kieckhefer>
No. That's the only form of evolution YOU care about in this discussion. I'm arguing that ANY change is evolution. Evolution, by definition, does NOT have to result in new species.

I see. You, as an evolutionary biologist are going to be a big hit at the Where Did We Come From get-together. You'll argue that change happens over time, like trees get taller, and river channels move, and certain traits express themselves at different percentages depending on whatever selective pressure we apply (which by the way, is not a function of time!). You can't go wrong. Everybody there will see it with their own eyes. I hope for your sake that the Creationist that you argue with decides to use the "To cause to exist" definition of creation. He/She will only have to show that we exist to prove that we were created. Everybody wins.

Why would we be interested in a discussion of evolution in a biological sense and not be discussing only speciation? (to borrow a tactic)

<Jon Kieckhefer>
... a trait has been lost but NO new species has been formed.

And when you catch on to this one, you'll be there.









Yes, a new species was created. We may continue to call it horse, but the attribute set for this new horse is different from the previous. New species.

<Jon Kieckhefer>
The people who write dictionaries aren't experts...

Then when an expert sees a mistake it behooves them the get it fixed or else the rest of the world is going to be using the word wrong.

JohnF

[ December 24, 2005, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: John F ]


----------



## Kieck

>>I see. You, as an evolutionary biologist are going to be a big hit. . .

Um, huh? I'm not arguing about Creationism vs. the Big Bang, here. I'm arguing whether or not evolution is real. Some people infer from evolution that all species came from a single organism, which may or may not be true, but "evolution" per se states nothing about the beginnings of life. That's a different set of theories. Those fall under "meta-physics." I'm a biologist (I study life), not a meta-physicist.

The old argument about Creationism focused on the movement of the sun around the earth or the earth around the sun. The idea was that the sun HAD to orbit the earth, otherwise the theory rejected the possibility of divine creation. Explain that one! Why does the earth have to be the center of the universe for a divine Creator?

>>He/She will only have to show that we exist to prove that we were created. 

I don't have a problem with that one. I believe I'm here, so I believe I was created. HOW that creation -- for humankind, in general -- took place is a different story, but I still believe we do exist.

>>Yes, a new species was created. We may continue to call it horse, but the attribute set for this new horse is different from the previous. New species.

Then all you've done is alter your definition of what constitutes a species. Now you're using a very, very strict version of the "evolutionary species concept." (Again, look it up. Look up species concepts in general, it'll be a good learning experience for you.) Under your new definition, since no creature can travel back in time to test the mating compatibility with its ancestors and minor traits have changed -- however small those changes may be -- you're calling the current generation a "new species." Are you a different species than your great grandparent? The current generation is measurably taller on average than the generation of your great grandparents.

BTW, you're still arguing with the same person; I just changed my screen name. Of course, using the principles that we've been debating, you might define me as a whole new person now!


----------



## Robert Brenchley

If we believe that we exist, and we believe in a universal creator, then we believe that we were created. That's a philosophical statement that says nothing about the mechanics of the process.


----------



## John F

Been ice fishing for a week.

<Kieck>
I'm not arguing ...

I wasn't suggesting that you (or we) are trying to find the origin of life. Only stating that your argument doesn't get anywhere. That is, evolution just means change over time. When folks sit around talking about evolution and life they are interested in how something becomes something else. One species to another. My point is that your argument has not shown this. You point out expressions of traits that already exist in a species and how the generations of this species will express them different when different selection pressure is applied. This is not evolution.

<Kieck>
Explain that one!

No.









<Kieck>
I believe I'm here...

Metaphysics is a subject of which I am familiar. But for the record, I believe you are here as well.

<Kieck>
Then all you've done is alter your definition of what constitutes a species.

I don't believe that I have.

<Kieck>
... minor traits have changed ...

I don't believe that you have shown this to be true. Remember, we are talking about the set of traits contained in a species and not some expression of a trait in an individual.

<Kieck>
Are you a different species than your great grandparent?

No, I am a different individual. My great grandparents and I share the fact that we are human. A human is a species that carries the possibility of many traits such as blue or brown eyes. (ignore hazel/green) I happen to have blue eyes as an individual but this does not mean that humans no longer have the trait for brown eyes.

<Kieck>
The current generation is measurably taller on average than the generation of your great grandparents.

This is a terrible example because it appears to not even be a genetic issue. For your case you will need to show how taller banana trees has selected taller humans.

We work less and live longer too. I just saw a John Stossel show in which he talks about this sort of stuff.

JohnF


----------



## Kieck

>>I wasn't suggesting that you (or we) are trying to find the origin of life. Only stating that your argument doesn't get anywhere. That is, evolution just means change over time. When folks sit around talking about evolution and life they are interested in how something becomes something else. One species to another. My point is that your argument has not shown this. You point out expressions of traits that already exist in a species and how the generations of this species will express them different when different selection pressure is applied. This is not evolution.

But, see, this IS evolution. The general public wants to discuss evolution from the perspective that evolution is nothing but speciation, but evolution must occur before speciation. When different selective pressures produce different expressions of traits, organisms evolve. They don't necessarily become novel species yet, but they change. 

You're right when you state, "When folks sit around talking about evolution and life they are interested in how something becomes something else." But, this is an application of evolution, not a definition of evolution.

The way I read your arguments, you still have conflicts in your way of thinking. Evolution, to you, only occurs when new species have been formed, but you can't define a species well enough to identify when a new species has been formed. You try to limit evolution to a certain amount of change ("If it changes a little, it's not evolution, but in a different case a smaller change can be evolution...").

I agree that the example of height in humans is a poor example in some ways. Human height is not entirely a genetic issue. However, many traits that we use to recognize organisms aren't truly genetic, if by genetic you mean coded in DNA. However, saying, "For your case you will need to show how taller banana trees has selected taller humans," is silly. Evolution can occur -- even using "evolution" only to refer to speciation events -- without a selective pressure. Selection can drive evolution, but random chance can as well.

Just to play devil's advocate again with your example: some tribes of pygmies are considerably shorter than average humans. In the rain forests of Africe, their small statures allow them to move more easily through the dense vegetation than larger people can. In other words, the dense vegetation places a selective pressure on the stature of humans. Tall and large people can't hunt as effectively or evade enemies as readily as short and small people in these rain forests.

I asked if you are a different species than your great-grandparents. I was referring to your modification of your definition of a species, "Okay, so to add my twist on the definition:
... interbreeding such that the resultant set of organisms is capable of continuing the set of traits of the parent set of organisms."
My great-grandparents are all dead, along with all of their generation. Unless you had a time machine, there's no way for humans now to travel back in time to permit interbreeding. How could you determine whether the different generations belong to the same species? Maybe more importantly, what if one trait disappeared from the most recent generation, making the set of traits available in the offspring slightly different from the parents'?


----------



## John F

<Kieck>
But, see, this IS evolution.

Well, ok, it is the evolution of expressed traits in some population of some species. It is not evolution of species, you know, what we've been talking about.

<Kieck>
When different selective pressures produce different expressions of traits, organisms evolve.

Well, ok, the mix of expressed traits in generations of some population of organism evolve to meet some selective pressure. This is not evolution of species. The organism did not change.

<Kieck>
But, this is an application of evolution, not a definition of evolution.

I thought it was. I could again grab the definition from the dictionary. The last part of the definition is "... and resulting in the development of new species."

So, how do you know when evolution has occurred? When you can identify its result, speciation.

<Kieck>
The general public wants to discuss evolution from the perspective that evolution is nothing but speciation, but evolution must occur before speciation.

Hmm. This one is a sort of tripwire. I have to agree I guess. But it isn't clearing anything up as it too depends on our definitions. "... but evolution must occur before speciation"; I want to argue with this comment but will wait a bit.

<Kieck>
The way I read your arguments, you still have conflicts in your way of thinking. Evolution, to you, only occurs when new species have been formed, but you can't define a species well enough to identify when a new species has been formed. You try to limit evolution to a certain amount of change ("If it changes a little, it's not evolution, but in a different case a smaller change can be evolution...").

I don't believe I have a conflict in my way of thinking. Let me try again with the definition of species:

Gene pool.

Probably not good enough. Let me see, if I were to step on Mars and come across a chicken (Let's assume I have the tecknology to map the entire sequence of DNA and the pattern matches chicken) I would just call it a chicken. I wouldn't give it a new name just because it is isolated. Especially since I would loose it if I dropped it into a chicken yard.

Remember, my background is computer programming. I quite naturally see things as sets.

Ok, I also took your advice: http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/2900_Species.htm

I put "evolutionary species concept" into google and this is the first hit.

So, using this page as a reference, I am using species as the unit of evolution. This is just a way to say evolution is speciation.

So far I don't see any conflict in my thinking.

Next, I have not tried to limit evolution [of species] to some amount. Any change counts. Remove a trait from the gene-pool or add a trait to the gene-pool and evolution has occurred.

The conflict is between our perspectives. I want to concentrate on evolution of species. This all began when you were told that there does not appear to be an OA resistant mite. You asked if it were possible for one to develop despite the observations. This leads us to a discussion of evolution of species.

You want to use the least restrictive definition of evolution. This doesn't serve us any in this discussion.

If we ask: 

1. Does the vmite possess a genetic trait that gives it an advantage such that this trait will be selected and reduce the effectiveness of the treatment?

This has been answered by observation. You get to decide if the evidence is enough or to the statistical degree you need. Anyhow, applying your definition of evolution to this question doesn't mean anything.

2. Can the vmite evolve to have a trait such that it will be selected and reduce the effectivness of treatments.

This is really the only question you could be asking. Observation says it appears that there is no specific selective trait yet. Can one evolve? Yes! Through speciation. That is, my specific definition of evolution is the only one that makes sense to me in the context of this discussion.

<Kieck>
I was referring to your modification of your definition of a species...

I haven't modified my definition. The one you pulled was my attempt to interject the idea of a set. The specific individual, such as grandparent, is not important.

<Kieck>
How could you determine whether the different generations belong to the same species?

A gigantic database in which all DNA patterns are mapped to species. (You didn't ask if the technology exists)

A better response is that I can't. Interbreeding isn't the full of the definition here. Temporal isolation is part of the definition. Remember, change over time.

Yes, if at some time a trait in humans showed up that wasn't there before then a new species was formed. To be a little more specific: My grandfathers generation had a genetic trait for A. Due to selection, the genetic encoding for A dissappeared from all humans. At that moment in time the species changed. Sure, if we could bring back a person from some previous generation we could assume interbreeding was possible. But this would be to forget the temporal part of the definition.

<Kieck>
What if one trait disappeared from the most recent generation, making the set of traits available in the offspring slightly different from the parents'?

If we are talking about a species, then evolution has occurred. If we are talking about individuals in one pedegree then it hasn't. (Now trying to see if this hits the limit-o-meter as you have described) I am using generation in the complete set sense, the entire set of organisms that are of a species.

JohnF


----------



## Kieck

JohnF

>>It is not evolution of species, you know, what we've been talking about.

Actually, this is what you've been talking about. That's what I keep trying to point out. I brought up "evolution." You added the words, "of species." Evolution is a change over time; you limit it so it only occurs when speciation takes place.

My point throughout is that defining evolution only through "species" is arbitrary and shaky at best. The problems comes through defining "species." You've made some good attempts to come up with a definition of a species, and I think you've found how difficult it can be to determine what constitutes a "species." 

In biological terms, a "gene pool" is a different concept than a species. If a species is separated into two distinct populations (still within a single species), the two populations constitute two gene pools.

>>Temporal isolation is part of the definition.

This gets back at what I was suggesting earlier. Current generations are temporally isolated from previous generations. Does that make them different species?

>>A gigantic database in which all DNA patterns are mapped to species. (You didn't ask if the technology exists)

I didn't need to ask. I have degrees in this field, I know what's available and what isn't. As systematists and taxonomists, we've only described and named a percentage of the species on the planet. We have named, roughly, 500,000 species of beetles, 125,000 species of butterflies and moths, 125,000 species of ants and bees and wasps, 125,000 species of flies, and about 90,000 true bugs. That's not even all of the orders of insects, much less anything else. We've named more than one million species of animals. I mentioned ants and bees and wasps (Hymenoptera) -- right now, about 80,000 additional species have been collected, but the specimens are waiting for taxonomists to describe and name these "new" species.

So, that brings up the first problem: we've only begun to name all the species, much less collect DNA from representatives and sequence that DNA and enter it into a database. As a society, we better plan to devote a LOT mor money to systematics and taxonomy if we want that accomplished.

But the bigger problem comes about in defining species. See, "species" aren't discrete sets of organisms. Individual organisms express traits along continuums with no clear divisions. Sure, an organism some distance from another along a continuum may be incapable of reproducing with that other individual, but two organisms close to each other along the continuum almost certainly can interbreed freely. As systematists and taxonomists, we set up boundaries along the continuum to define "species." What that means is that an individual belonging to one species but at the extreme edge of that continuum may have greater reproductive potential with a member of another species at an extreme edge of that species's range than with a member of its own species. The same problems apply to DNA identification of organisms -- we still have to set boundaries to delimit "species." In other words, we have to sample DNA from enough representatives and still make a judgement on what constitutes that "species."

So we still come back to the problem of defining "evolution" by recognizing when new species have formed. Like I said before, speciation occurs after evolution -- the changes have to accumulate enough to separate the groups of organisms before we assign them to separate species. Evolution can further be split into "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution." Speciation falls under macro-evolution. Changes within a species are examples of micro-evolution. Both are still evolution.


----------



## John F

<Kieck>
Actually, this is what you've been talking about. ... Evolution is a change over time...

Okay.

<Kieck>
why couldn't selection work to create a race of mites with some novel type of pad that resists powdered sugar?

This could happen if the mite [species] had the trait for the novel pad to begin with. Selection would evolve the percentage of novel pads we would observe in indivudual mites. This would in turn evolve our interpretation of the form of the mite that we observe. It may evolve our interpretation enough that we decide to identify a new race of mite and in doing so, evolve the taxonomy of the mite [species]. This is not a precursor to speciation [evolution of the species] of the mite [species].

<Kieck>
1)The traits arise on their own, not created by selection but by mutation and variation.

In a description of how races arise you mention the above. This is a mix of two different evolutions. In the former, a trait is created through mutation, that is, speciation. In the later, variation, or the idea that the traits already exist in the species but that variation in the population of percentages of these traits have held the expression at bay and that some selective force will cause it to express. This would be evolution of expressed traits in individuals, not speciation.

<Kieck>
>Sure. Every variation you see in animals arose because a mutation occurred.

This seems to be addressing speciation. Now you manage to join the above two different evolutions, that is, speciation and differentiation, into one, speciation. [specifically through mutation]

This is all in a discussion you were having with Michael Bush. Then I got involved.

I don't think it is too hard to see where I got the idea you were arguing for speciation. I felt your argument was poor. Every time someone asks you to identify it [evolution of species] you bring up the "change over time" definition.

<Kieck>
Look up "evolution."

I did and brought forward the definition that is speciation. From that time forward, what else could be be talking about? For like 2 1/2 pages in this forum? Do you want to again tell me that I'm stuck on an arbitrarily limited definition?

<Kieck>
you limit it so it only occurs when speciation takes place.

Which would be saying that I limit it to the context of the discussion. Not an arbitrary thing to do at all.

So, to be clear, I was under the impression that we were discussing the change over time of species. [not races or ratios/percentages of expressed traits]

<Kieck>
My point throughout is that defining evolution only through "species" is arbitrary and shaky at best.

Only if the idea of species is arbitrary and shaky.

<Kieck>
and I think you've found how difficult it can be to determine what constitutes a "species."

But I haven't. I am not trying to define species from a defensive position. My definition is actually perfect, but abstract. I have discussed this in terms of logic and math. My definition does not have to solve the issue of whether a certain fish belongs in some family or such. It assumes that we know and can classify all sets of genetic traits. This abstract definition is neither arbitrary or shaky.

<Kieck>
>>Temporal isolation is part of the definition. [references a comment from me]

Temporal isolation is the "over time" part of the "change over time" definition of evolution. It is not a part of the definition of species. My point is that you need change as well.

<Kieck>
This gets back at what I was suggesting earlier. Current generations are temporally isolated from previous generations. Does that make them different species?

You are starting to ask the same question over and over again.

species = set of genetic traits

Is generation A a different species because it is temporally isolated from it's ancestor generation X? No, isolation is not part of the definition of species.

<Kieck>
I didn't need to ask. I have degrees in this field, ...

Wow. I have a degree in computer science and wouldn't even pretend that I know what is available and what isn't in my field. In fact, since I walked off with that degree things have bee quite dynamic. Heck, this guy named Bill Gates was just starting to make some noise; who woulda thunk he would end up the richest dude on the planet?

Every time I do a project, I have to open my mind to new ideas and see what's out there today.

<Kieck>
So, that brings up the first problem: we've only begun to name all the species,...

And for my purposes, I don't even care. Remember, that's not a job I want.

<Kieck>
... See, "species" aren't discrete sets of organisms.

Actually, they are if you let them be. Just because we can't identify these boundaries today doesn't mean they don't exist. Forget what you see in that taxonomy book on your desk, come to the dark side, abstraction.

Every year organisms are reclassified because we find out some new tidbit that tells us that we saw a boundary that wasn't there.

<Kieck>
As systematists and taxonomists, ...

You do the best job you can with the information you have. This does not invalidate the abstract argument. I would imagine the goal would be to develop a system of classification that is perfect, non-arbitrary, and non-shaky. That is, it tends towards the abstract definition I have made. I just cheat and start there. [but have to call it abstract 'cause we aren't there yet.]

Perhaps I assumed that you caught the abstraction in the definition I gave and you didn't. When I make generalization about cars [cars are machines] I don't mean any specific brand, make, model, configuration, or use of car. I mean cars in the abstract, the set of all cars.

<Kieck>
Evolution can further be split into "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution." Speciation falls under macro-evolution. Changes within a species are examples of micro-evolution. Both are still evolution.

species = set of genetic traits

Now you are changing the definition. Evolution is change over time. It's a verb. You seem to be trying to separate evolution of different subjects, like species, and leg color, by applying some value judgment. Speciation is a change in species. There is no macro/micro judgment involved. Either a species has changed or it hasn't.

<Kieck>
So we still come back to the problem of defining "evolution" by recognizing when new species have formed. ... speciation occurs after evolution ... the changes have to accumulate ... before we assign them to separate species.

Someone mentioned that a trait had to express itself for some period and that made it speciation. [you balked] You state that there is some accumulation of change before speciation. [I balk at both]

I argue that speciation is when a trait is removed or added to a species. This argument specifically states that speciation is evolution and that they occur simultaneously, not one before the other. My guess is that you are arguing that we recognize a species after evolution [specifically, evolution of species. Any other evolution is not important.] has occurred. That's fine, but that's not when speciation occurred.

My argument seems objective, non-arbitrary, and less shaky to me.

I'm not really sure I know what your goal in this discussion is anymore. If it is to defend that evolution is "change over time" then you could have quit long ago, I agree. My goal is to better define evolution with respect to the subject species. More precisely, speciation, or the evolution of species to create some trait that does not yet exist, like a trait in vmite to resist somehow OA treatments. You have made some statements to argue that it is possible. I simply wish that your arguments be better argued. You are the one that called yourself a scientist. Michael asked you to identify some real observation of speciation. You counter with observations of selection. You are using context shifting [and you continue to with me] to argue a point I'm not sure even you know.

We are not trying to define the word evolution in the general sense but rather evolution in the specific use with the subject species.

I can answer Michael.

When Bt was added to corn [the species] through human enabled genetic mutation, then Corn [the species] was evolved [speciation occurred]. This is a real example of evolution [of species, specifically] that is observable. The species Corn is now a different species from Corn [prior to the addition of the Bt trait]. The name is the same because it is a complete exchange and simplier for us to deal with in the abstract.

I have no examples of naturally occurring speciation. If it has occurred it occurred prior to our ability to make the observation. I believe it has occurred, but this is speculation on my part based on historical evidence that I believe corroborate this speculation.

This discussion has now become a conversation between the two of us. We create larger and larger responses to each other in hopes of, what?

So, before you reply to the whole of my response, make a reply to only this question: What do you want of me?

After replying to just this question you can then create a reply to the rest. This way I can better get in the context you are trying for.

In the interest if "turn about is fair play," I would like to see you compose an argument to support evolution as speciation that is objective and non-arbitrary [and not shaky either







] and support it. This sort of thing is what scientists do.

JohnF


----------



## Kieck

OK, I see I've badly confused you. I'll start by defining some terms.

Evolution: change over time.

Speciation: creation of a species.

Mutation: a change in the DNA of an organism.

Variation: differences in a group.

Temporal isolation: separation because of time or era.

Species: (actually, I won't attempt this one. Many people have tried this one, and no universal definition exists. What constitutes a species to me may not constitute a species to someone else.)

The way I use the terms, mutations create variation. The differences have to originate somewhere, unless you believe that all the different traits that we see have existed since the beginning of time and no new traits could ever come about. Any change in a gene is a mutation. Mutations aren't inherently good or bad; they're just changes in genes.

As these mutations accumulate, they can (but don't always) lead to speciation, or the formation of new species. Most mutations disappear rapidly; many don't lead to positive or even heritable traits. Take cancer, for example. A mutation causes cells to replicate as fast as they can (uncontrolled growth). A person can develop cancer from environmental influences that are not passed on to his or her children, and that mutation doesn't persist in the species.

>>Actually, they are if you let them be. Just because we can't identify these boundaries today doesn't mean they don't exist.

That's just wrong. As humans, we establish the boundaries for our own purposes. We feel a need to classify organisms. Not just taxonomists and systematists, everyone. For example, you call them "honey bees." Scientifically, they might by called "Apis mellifera," but it amounts to the same thing. Humans put names on things. We call them by those names to distinguish them from other things.

But species aren't fixed, and they aren't discrete. It is really a continuum. You told me to get out of the books -- I'm telling you to get out into nature and look around. How do you recognize one species from another? What about individuals that have some traits of the first species, but as many traits from the second species? How do you decide which species can claim them? 

That's part of the reason that names change. We change the criteria we use to establish those boundaries, and the species change. Think about Baltimore and Bullock's orioles. At times, they've appeared in bird guides as two species. At other times, ornithologists lump them as two forms into a single species known as the northern oriole. What's the difference? The criteria used to determine whether the groups are species or races within a species.

As far as presuming to know that a database of DNA doesn't exist (and, in my opinion, is unlikely to ever exist) to classify organisms, I'm not claiming it's a terrible idea or denying that it should happen. What I said was that the problems with that system are the same as for any other system of classification. As humans, we still have to set the parameters we use to define species, we have to sample enough organisms to establish DNA records at the limits of those parameters, but first, we have to provide names and descriptions of all the species that we want to add to the database. I'm not saying that we should just give up on the idea -- if it suits your fancy, figure out ways to overcome those obstacles. I just said that nothing like that can exist in a practical state at this time with the sorts of technology we have available. Computer programs only output what we input in the first place (I know that's oversimplified). They won't magically clear up all the systematics problems we've had defining species.

Now I'll get to that last question, the one you wanted answered first: what do I want from you? The thread began with a question about downsides to OA. Several responses claimed that no resistance could develop or evolve or whatever you want to call it in Varroa because it hadn't developed so far. The argument was made that, since no structures or anatomy existed to resist mechanical attacks, resistance could never develop in Varroa against OA applications. My problem was that I disagreed with that statement. The way I understand evolution, resistance to OA could develop in Varroa mites. Resistance to acid baths (stomach acid) evolved in some intestinal worms that parasitize humans. Why couldn't similar mechanisms evolve in Varroa?

Then, my problem was the misconceptions about evolution that float around in the general public. I know a lot of Americans assume that a belief in evolution contradicts a belief in a creation. I know a lot of Americans think that evolution only refers to formation of new species. Neither of those assumptions is correct under the theory of evolution, so I have a hard time reading about perpetuations of those myths.

As far as this comment, "I would like to see you compose an argument to support evolution as speciation that is objective and non-arbitrary," I've been arguing all along that evolution is different than speciation. Speciation occurs through evolution, but evolution can occur within a species more often than it forms novel species.

[ January 05, 2006, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Kieck ]


----------



## John F

<Kieck>
I see I've badly confused you.

Only in your intent and logic.

<Kieck>
That's just wrong.

You are squabbling about actual -vs- potential. I argued that there exists an abstract ideal. But thanks for the judgment.

<Kieck>
what do I want from you?

...

<Kieck>
Why couldn't similar mechanisms evolve in Varroa?

They can, but since "... no structures or anatomy existed ..." it would require a mutation.

<Kieck>
... so I have a hard time reading about perpetuations of those myths.

Myth # 1: "[... a lot of Americans assume that] a belief in evolution contradicts a belief in a creation."

A lot of non-Americans do too. But that isn't the point, is it. Who said this in this discussion? I will concur, these are not exclusive or contradictory ideas.

Myth # 2: "[... a lot of Americans think that] evolution only refers to formation of new species."

A lot of non-Americans do too. But that isn't the point, is it. Who said this in this discussion? I think we went to great lengths to identify just which context of evolution we were talking about. If your assertion is true, then I wonder how they all perceive such comments as "The evolution of the automobile" or "The evolution of farming."

<Kieck>

As far as this comment, "I would like to see you compose an argument to support evolution as speciation that is objective and non-arbitrary," I've been arguing all along that evolution is different than speciation. Speciation occurs through evolution, but evolution can occur within a species more often than it forms novel species. 

Caught me, my mistake.
I would like to see you compose an argument to support evolution of species that is objective and non-arbitrary.

Now, I've been arguing all along that speciation is evolution of species.

Evolution within species isn't evolution of species. I don't even know what evolution within species is except to assume you mean the change in ratio of expressed traits. Like evolution of foot color in ducks [assuming the foot color traits where always in the duck].

If you want we can just use the terms speciation and selection. Your task, should you choose to accept it, is to show how selection can result in speciation. This would be the distinctive wedge I've been trying to drive between you and your fixation on the "change over time" definition of evolution.

<Kieck>
But species aren't fixed, and they aren't discrete. It is really a continuum.

Yes they are and yes they are. We might not have them all grouped right yet but that is the puzzle that keeps those taxonimists busy. By bringing in continuum you imply time and connection through time. That is, you are implying speciation. [but not supporting it.]

[Now, to be precise, my argument that species are discrete is based on only the finite universe that I can know. Let's limit this to this planet. Since species are actual sets of actual organisms and organisms are matter and there is a finite amount of matter on this planet I can make the argument that species must be discrete [countable]. You may be using the distinct definition of discrete. To argue this one I need only show you two species that are distinct to disprove your hypothesis. If in fact the universe is infinite, then it is possible that species are not discrete. [countable]]

A chicken is a chicken,
a horse is a horse,
a bat is a bat,
and that is that.

JohnF


----------



## Kieck

JohnF

You're confusing "discrete" with "distinct." 

Discrete:
1)Constituting a separate thing. 2)Consisting of unconnected distinct parts. 
3)Mathematics. Defined for a finite or countable set of values; not continuous.

To me, then, "discrete" refers to a series broken into clear, separate intervals. Whole numbers are discrete. Organisms are not discrete. Individuals lie on a continuum. Sure, ac chicken isn't a horse  , but how do you separate an individual chicken most similar to a closely-related species from an individual of that closely-related species similar to a chicken? Points on the continuum are less similar as the distance between those points increases. We still have the problem of where we draw the boundaries. The fact that you can point to an average chicken and an average pheasant doesn't demonstrate that nothing lies between the two.

Of course, I don't include time in every continuum. Time is a continuum, but colors (see next paragraph) also create a continuum without involving time.

Sure, species are countable, but the distinctions among species are made by humans. As the parameters or criteria used to separate species change, the groups of organisms that make up those species change also. Think of it like colors -- are colors discrete? Are all blues "blue" and all reds "red?" Is the color in between, purple, also a discrete color? When does a reddish-purple color change from being purple to being red, or from being red to being purple?

As far as species being "fixed" entities, you really believe species can't change without becoming new species? The Varroa mites that devoloped resistance to Apistan, then, are a different species to you than their ancestors?

Biology isn't as clear-cut as mathematics. That's the problem. Even with biology by definition. Biology is "the study of life." What constitutes a "living" organism? Some people define "life" by metabolism. Under that definition, viruses aren't alive (no metabolism). Some people talk about DNA as a characteristic of all living organisms. Then retroviruses aren't alive (RNA, not DNA). Some people use reproduction or replication as a characteristic of life. Under that one, certain complex compounds are alive without any DNA.

Of course, some people insist that death is the only characteristic that defines life. I'll confess that I don't do so well with circular logic.

As far as my comments about Americans, I restricted them to American perceptions because the Europeans I've known, in general, hold different perceptions. Most Europeans that I've talked to see no contradiction between evolution and creationism, while most Americans I've talked to believe evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. Same sort of idea with my comments about evolution applying only as change as opposed to formation of new species.

>>Evolution within species isn't evolution of species. 

Right. Exactly. But evolution does occur within species as well. You already mentioned the changes of ratios of expressed traits (which does indeed qualify as "evolution"), but think about other traits as well. In humans, hemophilia is a well-known example of a mutation that occurred to add a trait to the species (humans). Did the addition of that trait change the species? In my mind, absolutely. Did it form a new species? To my understanding, no. Humans are still the same species as we were previous to the mutation that added hemophilia, but the species has changed -- therefore, "evolved."

As far as this challenge, "Your task, should you choose to accept it, is to show how selection can result in speciation;" I think I've already given some examples. I mentioned the example of climate change on the finches in the Galapagos ('The Beak of the Finch' by Jonathan Weiner), as well as apple maggot flies and corn borers.

But, I'll show how again (not a real example, but the "HOW" it works): Start with a population of Microdon (Diptera: Syrphidae). These flies lay eggs in the entrances of ant nests, and the crustacean-like maggots eat ant larvae and pupae within the colony. The ants, given an opportunity, recognize the adult flies as a threat to the colony (but fail to recognize most of the larvae as threats) and kill the adults whenever possible. Occasionally, one of these flies produces a different form of pigmentation that results in an orange-colored adult rather than the typical brownish-gray colored flies. One species of ant, for whatever reason, will kill brownish-gray flies but not orange flies. The flies that live with that species of ant, then, face a selective pressure for the orange color (or against the brownish-gray color, depending on your perspective). Over time, this selective pressure on the color yields two species of flies -- a brownish-gray species that parasitizes several species of ants, and an orange species that specializes on that one species of ant.


----------



## John F

<Kieck>
You're confusing "discrete" with "distinct."

 You left out "See Synonyms at distinct." in definition #1. I'm not confusing anything, I just covered my bases just in case you wanted to shift definition on me. I covered it both ways hoping you would not redirect the discussion in just the way you have.

[If there are any readers left, the definitions he posted are from dictionary.com]

<Kieck>
To me, then, "discrete" refers to a series broken into clear, separate intervals.

And how is this not a use of distinct?

<Kieck>
but how do you separate an individual chicken most similar to a closely-related species from an individual of that closely-related species similar to a chicken?

In the perfect abstract world it is easy, one has A and the other does not. If they both had A, then they would just both be chickens.

<Kieck>
Organisms are not discrete.

Species are. And actually organisms are too, if you consider each organism contains and expresses a subset of the possible set of traits for its species.

<Kieck>
Of course, I don't include time in every continuum.

My mistake. I am assuming a continuum of species from the last organism forward. I guess I don't really know what continuum you could be specifying.

<Kieck>
As far as species being "fixed" entities, you really believe species can't change without becoming new species? 

Yep.

<Kieck>
The Varroa mites that devoloped resistance to Apistan, then, are a different species to you than their ancestors?

Nope. The populations observed evolved to express a trait the species had all along. Not a new species, just an example of selection.

<Kieck>
Biology isn't as clear-cut as mathematics.

Hmm. Mathematics:

The study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols.

It is sort of the primary tool of science. If we are going to throw out mathematics, I'm not sure we could make any qualitative or quantitative discoveries. We just as well all write our own ideas of biology and stop discussing anything.

But, yes it is. The metaphysical exists and behaves by distinct [and maybe not yet known] rules. These can be discussed as numbers and symbols.

<Kieck>
Right. Exactly.

Whew.

<Kieck>
... hemophilia is a well-known example of a mutation that occurred ...

When did this mutation occur? Better yet, how do you know that it is a mutation at all?

<Kieck>
Did the addition of that trait change the species? In my mind, absolutely. Did it form a new species? To my understanding, no. Humans are still the same species as we were previous to the mutation that added hemophilia, but the species has changed -- therefore, "evolved."

[assuming mutation is true]

Yes, new species. The set of traits has changed. Your understanding is based on a name and a place on a chart in a book. If the species has changed, which you concur, then it is a different species. No?

<Kieck>
As far as this challenge,...

All very good examples of selection. Not one iota of support for speciation.

Using the flies, If I took the brownish flies and stuck them on the ant that selects orange flies will I again get orange flies? If I take a couple of brownish flies and a couple of orange flies and hold them captive in a horse tank [with necessary survival material] will I lose the distinction? Show me that what we are seeing isn't just some selective mechanism expressed so that a population of the species can survive in some specific environment. So far, doesn't sound like two species to me.


JohnF

[I left out a not in my first paragraph, added in edit.]

[ January 05, 2006, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: John F ]


----------



## Kieck

JohnF

I'm going to reply to this, then I plan to leave this topic alone on this thread. We've gotten way off the initial topic here.

Call them "distinct" if you'd rather, it still amounts to the same thing. For both you, and anyone else still reading, I pulled my definition of "discrete" from an old version of a Webster's collegiate dictionary. It said nothing about "synonyms under distinct." Doesn't matter; synonyms still have different connotations and implications. I'll say the same thing about distinct species -- NATURE DOESN'T PROVIDE CLEAR DISTINCTIONS AMONG SPECIES.

Species are not defined by the presence or absence of single characters, but rather by suites of characters. For the purposes of identification, dichotomous keys may make use of single characters, but the traits that distinguish one species from another are multiple.

I said that organisms are not discrete. What I intended, and should have said clearly, is that the expressions of traits that we use to distinguish species are not discrete. Species, as human constructs, are discrete. Organisms, on an individual basis, are discrete.

However, from the simplest form of life on the planet to the most derived, from viruses to bacteria to fungi to plants to animals, across the entire range of life, the variations expressed by the individual organisms form a continuum. (Leave time out of it. I'm talking about at ANY point in time, whatever is "alive" on the planet.) I still get back to the same point: how do we decide what distance on the continuum separates groups into species, or into races, or into genera, etcetera?

>>If we are going to throw out mathematics, I'm not sure we could make any qualitative or quantitative discoveries. 

I NEVER recommended throwing out mathematics. What I said was that biology isn't as clear-cut as mathematics. I never said we should throw out biology, either.

>>When did this mutation occur? Better yet, how do you know that it is a mutation at all?

I'll play it both ways, just to cover arguments by either point of view.

First, the theory that all life evolved from a single organism. Show me any organism that --even among all the members of whatever organism you choose -- contains the genes for every trait in all organisms. Since none of them do, and the most primitive organisms contain even less genetic information, additional traits had to be added during the evolution of novel organisms. Other than mutations, how could those traits come about?

Second, creationism. Under strict, literal interpretation of the Bible, humankind began from only two individuals, and later went through a severe genetic bottleneck (Noah and the flood, remember?). Assuming that all the traits were present from the beginning of creation, Adam or Eve must have had sickle-cell anemia. If neither one of them did suffer from sickle-cell anemia, then the trait had to be added later on. Call it "divine insertion" if you wish. It still amounts to the same thing -- genes change.

As far as hemophilia specifically, one form (at least by popular belief, even in the medical community) arose in Russian nobility, probably as a consequence of the limited gene pool and some latent recessive traits. Like my argument about sickle-cell anemia, Adam or Eve must have been a carrier. Surprizing that this particular form of hemophilia never showed up in any of their descendents until it was documented in Russian nobility.

As far as the arguments about speciation, you've made an argument against yourself. According to you, adding or deleting a gene from an entire species results in a different species. That's speciation. Speciation is the formation of a new or novel species. You said, "Yes, new species. The set of traits has changed. Your understanding is based on a name and a place on a chart in a book. If the species has changed, which you concur, then it is a different species." That's speciation. You've demonstrated it to yourself better (under your definitions) than I ever could.

BTW, I don't use "charts" in books to recognize species. I don't think most biologists do. Species concepts tend to be vague, I'll admit, but it's partially because we define "species" without having distinct groups of organisms living on this planet. Remember the continuum? Well, in identifying an organism, a taxonomist matches an individual as closely as he can against the known ranges of species created by other taxonomists or systematists. You can always run into problems.

Let me give you an example: gray squirrels and fox squirrels are recognized as different species, and the two rarely if ever hybridize. Fox squirrels are typically somewhat larger than gray squirrels, gray squirrels have "frosted" or grizzled guard hairs on their tails normally, and gray squirrels have two more teeth than fox squirrels. In both species, sizes vary from individual to individual. In both species, colors vary widely, from albino to silvery to rusty brown to black, including the guard hairs on the tails. And, like in all mammals, the dentition can vary from animal to animal (for example, I only had one wisdom tooth; I wasn't that I had three removed and was left with one. For whatever reason, genetically, I only developed one wisdom tooth). So, two gray squirrels of typical form mate, but one of their offspring is rust-colored like a fox squirrel, lacking even the "frosted" guard hairs on the tail, is missing the two extra teeth, and is exceptionally large for a gray squirrel. Is it still a gray squirrel, or, because it more closely matches the description of a fox squirrel, is it a fox squirrel?

To get back to the original post, if anyone has bothered to read this far, I don't see that any additional mutations are even necessary for resistance to OA to develop in Varroa. All it would take would be a thick enough cuticle to withstand the acid. As I've already pointed out, the thickness of the cuticle varies from individual to individual already, so the selective pressure of the OA would only allow the ones with the thickest cuticles to survive.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL

I was going to suggest that you two get a room, then I noticed a relative post:

>To get back to the original post, if anyone has bothered to read this far, I don't see that any additional mutations are even necessary for resistance to OA to develop in Varroa. All it would take would be a thick enough cuticle to withstand the acid. As I've already pointed out, the thickness of the cuticle varies from individual to individual already, so the selective pressure of the OA would only allow the ones with the thickest cuticles to survive. 

Knowing that a thread is limited to fifteen pages, I ask why you think the cuticle is of any importance when the pictures of dead varroa clearly show the damage is done to the mouth and leg parts? The caustic nature of acid is erroding away the smallest parts of the varroa body, eleminating it's ability to attach itself, feed, or motivate.

I still believe that resistance (to acid) is futile.


----------



## Kieck

The cuticle is the outermost, hard covering of an arthropod. Even the mouthparts and the legs are covered with cuticle. If the cuticle on those parts is thick enough to withstand the acid bath, the mite could survive. In other words, if the caustic nature of the acid errodes away some of the covering of the mouthparts and legs, but enough remains that the mite can survive and even function, the mite is "resistant."

In my opinion, the mites could also get around it through other mechanisms, such as timing to avoid exposure, etc. For example, if OA is applied in the fall, any mites in capped brood will likely still survive. Any heritable trait that makes them more likely to be in the capped brood during the application of OA makes them more likely to survive, and, therefore, more likely to leave offspring.

Like I mentioned before (probably when you and others weren't reading, and I don't blame you for that), some worms that are intestinal parasites of humans withstand the acid bath of the stomach. Obviously, they have "resistance" to acid, so why couldn't another arthropod develop resistance to an acid?

My initial point, before all the evolution stuff, was that any treatment by itself is likely to create resistant strains if the selective pressure is great enough. That's where IPM comes in. Of course, if the OA is only about 80% effective, the selective pressure on the mites could be small enough that resistance takes a long, long time to develop, but then we might also have to question the effectiveness of treating with such a weak option.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL

>Even the mouthparts and the legs are covered with cuticle.

I did see small platlets (cuticles) on the legs in the pictures I have seen. I will have to go back to the pictures to assertain wether or not there are truly cuticle on the actual mouth and tiny feet that do the gripping. On the mouth does not seem likely as it is flexable and has a feeding tube.

Seeing the errosion that takes place on the larger parts, I still doubt that the smaller parts will withstand the distructive nature of the acid.

Still, I would think that any treatment should not be overused as it could bring about genitic varriations in the long run as you have suggested.

I haven't used OA this last year, but the treating I did the previous two years has shown to have helped the bees to survive long enough to tolerate the small loads they now have.


----------



## Kieck

Bullseye Bill,

The "platelets" you refer to are chitinous sclerites, different than cuticle. The chitin is covered by the waxy cuticle. The cuticle prevents dehydration.

Even the "flexible" parts tend to be covered with chitin. Only the joints between the sclerites are not hardened, but they are covered with cuticle usually. In fact, when insects molt, the sclerotized tracheae (breathing tubes) and the scleriotized foregut and hindgut are shed along with the rest of the exoskeleton. In other words, even the first part of the digestive system inside the arthropods are covered with chitin.

The "stuff" that protects mites is the same stuff that protects honey bees. The trick in applying a chemical is to apply enough to kill the mites without harming the bees; the mites develop some resistance, and the amount of OA that might have to be applied to kill Varroa might also be enough to kill or severely injure bees.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL

Ah, more to think about. Thanks for the greater understanding of bug anatamy, er make up.









I guess in the meantime we should just be happy that there is something that works, even if it is a stop gap measure.


----------



## John F

<Kieck>
Species are not defined by the presence or absence of single characters...

The difference between any two things, like a lug nut on a benz in Italy and an ameoba in a pond in Nebraska is but a single character.

<Kieck>
... I think you're coming around to my way of thinking about evolution.

Jon, [I hope you don't mind the jump to familiar] our views on the subject we discussed here always was very very similar. Enough to declare we are on the same side buddy.

<tip of the hat>

JohnF


----------



## drobbins

Bill,

to what do you attribute the fact that you haven't had to treat this year?
that's obviously the ultimate goal

Dave

[ January 07, 2006, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: drobbins ]


----------



## Knoefler

What about OA mixed with Vegtable shortening?

has anyone out there tried this grease method?

Knoefler


----------



## BWrangler

Hi Guys,

Just image, if the downside of OA precipitates such a discussion as this, what would happen if you were to add grease to it!!! :>)))

Does all this off topic posting indicate that there isn't much downside to OA?

Regards
Dennis

[ January 20, 2006, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: B Wrangler ]


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL

>Bill,

to what do you attribute the fact that you haven't had to treat this year?
that's obviously the ultimate goal

Just saw this post  

I have only been doing a couple of things, well, actully NOT doing a few things. 

Not treating is the primary thing. Dedicating my efforts on bees that will survive with mites and making my splits from those are my future plans. It's a hard row to hoe.

What has helped them survive? I can't say for sure. Year before last I helped them knock down mite loads with OA, but the thing that has been really noticeable is the lack of mites in the hives that are 100% PermaComb. Perhaps it is the smaller comb that is helping.

I had 20 to 25 percent losses last winter. I may have less losses this year, but time will tell, it's too early to know for sure yet.

There are others here on this board that have gone this way (non-treatment), and have what are virtually mite free, (or should I say mite tolerant?) yards, I hope to be one of them soon.









[ January 20, 2006, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: BULLSEYE BILL ]


----------

