Jim,
This is a digression from my main point which was that education is important
for its own sake rather than just as a means to an end.  Possibly I chose a
bad example in comparing bees with mankind.  My only motive in doing so was to
introduce the subject of bees into the mail, having dealt with the Otto cycle
and education, as I could feel the threat of Aaron's editorial pencil hovering
over the conversation like the sword of Damocles.
However, I enjoy digresssions.  I am not a biologist or any other kind of
scientist so I am liable to be shot down in flames by somebody with edu in his
e.mail address.  My understanding of Lamarck's idea is that he thought
acquired characteristics can be inherited.  For example you could inherit your
grandfather's wooden leg as well as his red hair and his temper.  Of course
you can't (unless he leaves it to you in his will).
I suggest M. Lamarck would have modified his theories if he had the foresight
to read the works of Darwin and of Mendel. Having given the matter more
thought than I did before I still stand by my previous statement.  Fossil
evidence shows that, at the time that bees were pretty much as they are now,
they co-existed with a primitive ancestor of mankind and countless other
species of mammals.
Beekind (Apis) now has only 5 species (that we know of) whereas many more
species have evolved from the mammalian common ancestor occupying a far
greater range than Apis.  I do not say that they evolved the way they did
because of what they did, rather that their exploratory habit (in their genes
already?) put them into places where Messrs Darwin and Mendel could go to work
on them.
 If left to themselves bees may be in a very long evolutionary cul de sac.
Genetic engineers may be plotting a new apis species with a long tongue, the
ability to work at all temperatures, pest and disease resistance, regular and
predictable reproductive habits and no sting.
Chris Slade