Hi Joe, Robert, Allen, Peter and all:
What I do say is that adaptations acquired thru
enviornment influences will have an affect on future
genetics thru selective matings.  The fit that have
adapted will have the advantage in matings and the un
fit will not.  Then also there is size related mating
prefrences which will have affect on selective
matings.


Reply:
Interesting following the conversations of late and it
makes me wonder about todays DNA readings of what is
proported to be. What is positive and what is recessive
here genetically and how does it apply to what is being
looked at?

Joe's paragraph above which I copied, which could be then
put with what Peter saw on TV makes me think, how does this
relate to the artificial enlargement of our bees for the
past 100 years or so, since breeding got going for "bigger
is better" from the time of Prof Baudoux in Belgium and
spread throughout our world? Seems to me like the term
Lamarckianism would be excellent for describing this
movement towards bigger also.

Was that time period sufficient to make changes in our bees
today for the fit to go on and the unfit to fail?

We now reverse the situation and go back down in size,
which is what regression is..... what will show in say 10
or even 100 years as to what is positive and what is
recessive traits genetically? How will DNA testing compare
to what is shown today?

And again, will the time period be sufficient to make
changes in our bees for the fit to go on and the unfit to
fail?

Just what is fit and what is unfit? The politics of the
day?

Where would we compare these two bases to? Samples of bees
from millions of years old? Thousands? Hundreds? What would
you expect to see?



Respectfully submitted,

Dee A. Lusby
Small Cell Commercial Beekeeper
Moyza, Arizona
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/organicbeekeepers/







__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---