Did bees (a type of insect) exist on Earth as early as 200 million years ago? Such a theory is supported by the discovery of very old fossil structures that resemble bee nests. The structures have been found inside 200- million-year-old fossilized trees in the state of Arizona in the southwestern United States. However, many skeptics doubt that the structures were created by bees. The skeptics support their view with several arguments.
No Fossils of Actual Bees
First, no fossil remains of actual bees have ever been found that date to 200 million years ago. The earliest preserved body of a bee is 100 million years old—only half as old as the fossilized structures discovered in Arizona.
Absence of Flowering Plants
A second reason to doubt that bees existed 200 million years ago is the absence of flowering plants in that period. Today's bees feed almost exclusively on the flowers of flowering plants; in fact, bees and flowering plants have evolved a close, mutually dependent biological relationship. Flowering plants, however, first appeared on Earth 125 million years ago. Given the bees’ close association with flowering plants, it is unlikely bees could have existed before that time.
Structures Lack Some Details
Third, while the fossilized structures found in Arizona are somewhat similar to nest chambers made by modern bees, they lack some of the finer details of bees’ nests. For example, chambers of modern bee nests are closed by caps that have a spiral pattern, but the fossilized chambers lack such caps. That suggests the fossilized structures were made by other insects, such as wood-boring beetles.
Both of the article and the lecture are about the existence of bees roughly 200 million years ago by the discovery of old fossil look likes bee nests. While the author of the article argues that the uncoverd fossil is not created by bees, the lecturer disputes the claim presented in the article.
According to the article, the earliest bee fossils had been discovered about 100 milion years ago and it can be infered that they migh not exist date to 200 milion years ago. This argument is challenged by the lecturer. He claims that maybe there are not proper condition for preserving bee fossils, such as the lack of right kind of tree resin.
Secondly the author stated that the flowering plants which has a strong relationship with the existence of bee, is occured 125 million years ago. As a result, it is not possible that bees inhabit before the appearance of flowering plants. in contrast, the lecturer considered the bees as a proceed of flowering plant and points out that the bees maybe fed on the non flowering plants such as ferns.
Finally, by observing the lack of some finer details in the fossilized structure compared to the bee nests, the author concludes that the uncover fossils can be made up by the other insects. The lecturer however asserts that the fossilized structure contains some of the waterproofing substance similar to the nests which is build by modern bees.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-07 | YasamanEsml | 88 | view |
| 2023-08-04 | sahel | 76 | view |
| 2023-06-29 | Vivian Chang | 73 | view |
| 2023-02-18 | reza_fattahi | 80 | view |
| 2023-02-13 | zaid | 73 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 240, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: In
...ore the appearance of flowering plants. in contrast, the lecturer considered the b...
^^
Line 5, column 289, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...st, the lecturer considered the bees as a proceed of flowering plant and points out that ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 135, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...he bee nests, the author concludes that the uncover fossils can be made up by the other ins...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 260, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
... that the fossilized structure contains some of the waterproofing substance similar to the ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 310, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e waterproofing substance similar to the nests which is build by modern bees.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, however, look, may, second, secondly, so, while, in contrast, kind of, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 13.0 22.412803532 58% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1160.0 1373.03311258 84% => OK
No of words: 241.0 270.72406181 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.8132780083 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.94007293032 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.47100922836 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 131.0 145.348785872 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.54356846473 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 349.2 419.366225166 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.23620309051 61% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.1596812736 49.2860985944 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.0 110.228320801 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1 21.698381199 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.0 7.06452816374 142% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.371065067823 0.272083759551 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.13183412976 0.0996497079465 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.109165495434 0.0662205650399 165% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.212051805414 0.162205337803 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0561586066383 0.0443174109184 127% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 64.04 53.8541721854 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.91 12.2367328918 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 63.6247240618 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.