Several comments on evolution of mite-  or chemical-resistant bees
or pathogens have touched on the roles of mutation v. selection.
        Neo-Darwinian theory resulted from merging 4 types of theory:
mutation, selecting-out of the less fit, genetics, and population dynamics.
It is touted by aggressive atheists e.g R Dawkins, S Weinberg, L Wolpert,
who claim it is a thorough explanation of how species evolved.
        NeoDarwinism is at last going thru some sceptical examination  -
and is faring badly as in my opinion it deserves to because it can't
explain much.
        Too few realise that natural selection is envisaged only as
decreasing the reproduction, and therefore after some generations the
abundance, of mutants that are somehow less fit for their environment.  No
creativity is hinted at in this 'rogueing' role.  Natural selection is
actually claimed only to *narrow* the variance.
        All the creativity in evolution is thus, in this theory, left to
mutation.  This process is normally stated to be random  -  not at all to
any plan but merely changing nucleic acids  -  DNA or RNA  -  randomly
(owing to damage by radiation or chemical mutagens, etc).
        If you can believe that such randomness can lead to coordinated
ecosystems, or even a coordinated single cell, I suggest you read N Broom
'How Blind is The Watchmaker' (IVP 2001).

        The reason I summarise this controversy is that many posts on Bee-L
have assumed neoDarwinism is well established and a sufficient basis for
predicting how bees or their pathogens will evolve in this or that changed
environment.  More & more scientists are coming to the view that this is
another example of the emperor's new clothes.
        I would be glad to send direct to any who ask RTF papers going into
details and giving refs.

R