Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 31 Oct 2005 12:21:16 EST |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
In a message dated 31/10/05 14:22:10 GMT Standard Time, [log in to unmask]
writes:
<<If I wanted to raise small bees, I would either: 1) use regular sized comb
and measure the bees to find which ones are genetically smaller. If you use
smaller cells, you will create an environmental effect that would mask any
real genetic variation. Or 2) use bees that are already small: African Bees.
I suspect this is what they have down there in Arizona.
I am sorry to bring this up again, but people should think about the
implications of a statement like "Environment changes breeding". It is not
only unscientific, -- it's anti-scientific. Which is fine, be anti-science.
But then you cannot turn around refer to changes in the "DNA" .
Isis Glass>>
I'm not sure this oft-repeated idea is entirely correct. If you want to
select for a particular characteristic, say small size, create conditions which
favour it over large size; that's the basis of natural selection. Isn't it
likely that small cells favour small bees, and thus select for a smaller,
genetically somewhat different, strain? This isn't a matter of introducing a new
gene, rather one of changing the ratio of the alleles which are already present.
Regards,
Robert Brenchley
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---
|
|
|