BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Gene Ash <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 9 Jan 2019 05:50:10 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (19 lines)
a couple of Richard Cryberg snips followed by > my comments...

And thus the 100% misleading implication that these are not Africanized bees.  In fact this study tells you only that they are not Africanized by maternal descent which tells you about less than 0.1% of the total genes of this population.

In fact, in this population a total of about 10% of the nuclear gene variants are derived from Neanderthals.  Yet, if you look at mitochondrial DNA you would conclude Neanderthals and Humans never mated.  You would also conclude Denisovans and Humans never mated.  And you would be 100% wrong in both cases.

>Well first off... at the first opportunity I will discuss this with Dr Rangel and the lab person (also a phd) has to say about nuclear DNA of those sample.  As I have suggested before my understanding of the detail of genetics is way beyond it expiration date and therefore very limited.  I do know how samples are preserved and stored can alter what information you can extract.

>Using terms like africanized means little since at least to my understanding there are a host of species that come out of Africa. I am guessing we are talking about scuts here?  

>Perhaps more philosophic than some might wish to go???? >Man has the tendency to understand points or dots of information and then a need/desire for certainty almost always creates the behavior to connect the dots. Quite often people thinking blurs the dots from the lines connecting the dots and falls victim to misunderstanding of what they really know.  In the very worse case this lead to idealogical blindness... Such is the case of your analogy to human reproduction (not certain how relevant this all is to insect reproduction???) in that you have made the assumption that just because neanderthals and humans <likely the wrong term) share dna (at any level) this means with 100% certainty that they mated (interbred). Certainly that route is one possibility but I would GUESS not the only possibility.  Which really means you 100% is somewhat arbitrary...

Gene in Central Texas....

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2