Question for Evolutionist's

reply to post by undo


You keep asking "how". Do you want the simple answer? Favorable mutations that hepled them survive better. It's not that complicated. What probably happened with the flowers is they too, evolved to better adapt to the environments, which were full of bees that began pollinating. The honey bees evolved from wasps who did not consume pollen, although their ancient ancestors did. The flowers adapted to the bees, who evolved to consume pollen. Lets also not forget that pollinating insects were around in the Cretaceous period.

From wiki:

Bees, like ants, are a specialized form of wasp. The ancestors of bees were wasps in the family Crabronidae, and therefore predators of other insects. The switch from insect prey to pollen may have resulted from the consumption of prey insects which were flower visitors and were partially covered with pollen when they were fed to the wasp larvae. This same evolutionary scenario has also occurred within the vespoid wasps, where the group known as "pollen wasps" also evolved from predatory ancestors. Up until recently, the oldest non-compression bee fossil had been Cretotrigona prisca in New Jersey amber and of Cretaceous age, a meliponine. A recently reported bee fossil, of the genus Melittosphex, is considered "an extinct lineage of pollen-collecting Apoidea sister to the modern bees", and dates from the early Cretaceous (~100 mya).[14] Derived features of its morphology ("apomorphies") place it clearly within the bees, but it retains two unmodified ancestral traits ("plesiomorphies") of the legs (two mid-tibial spurs, and a slender hind basitarsus), indicative of its transitional status.

The earliest animal-pollinated flowers were pollinated by insects such as beetles, so the syndrome of insect pollination was well established before bees first appeared. The novelty is that bees are specialized as pollination agents, with behavioral and physical modifications that specifically enhance pollination, and are generally more efficient at the task than any other pollinating insect such as beetles, flies, butterflies and pollen wasps. The appearance of such floral specialists is believed to have driven the adaptive radiation of the angiosperms, and, in turn, the bees themselves.

Among living bee groups, the "short-tongued" bee family Colletidae has traditionally been considered the most "primitive", and sister taxon to the remainder of the bees. In the 21st century, however, some researchers have claimed that the Dasypodaidae is the basal group, the short, wasp-like mouthparts of colletids being the result of convergent evolution, rather than indicative of a plesiomorphic condition.[1] This subject is still under debate, and the phylogenetic relationships among bee families are poorly understood.

Bees don't use trigonometry. Bees don't count their wing flaps. The ones that flapped them that way survived better. It's what you call, instincts.

reply to post by Barcs


watch this.


another question, what do they need to know about the quality? do they have special orders for different quality honey ? it's odd.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Youji69

 

So there's nothing actually observable?

Precisely. From either side. It's just that there's more of that "scientific method" science that supports evolution than there is a magical being that can make things pop into existence at a whim.

Where's the observable acts of God? I'd like to see those - and I'm not talking about jesus on the back of a piece of toast, either.

reply to post by mf_luder


There is absolutely no observable evidence for creationism. That is not a speculation, either. haha No one ever produces evidence for Creationism. They spend most of their time trying to "disprove" Evolution rather than actually building up their beliefs. That is why it is a belief and not a scientific theory.

Google Video Link

Here is an example of evolution in action. A tiger hunting and catching an ostrich. Nothing strange or evolutionary about that you might say. Except, that tiger don't hunt Ostriches, and there are no tigers in Africa. Well there are now. these tigers are on a reserve in south africa.

Tigers in the wild in asia hunt by ambush, not chasing it's prey down. In fact this is the fasting tiger clocked. the only previous big cat to do this is the cheetah.

So in time, given the maxim of suvival of the fittest, should these two tigers breed and multiply those that cannot hunt in this environment, will die, leaving only those that can. i.e. a need for speed favors those that can do this more easily. These are the ones that will breed, as the slower heavier ones will be dead. eventually you will see something that looks like a cheetah, but has stripes.

Just as recently I saw a polar bear in a zoo in the tropics, chilling in 36C sunshine, with a tan. but polar bears are white I here you say. No this one had a tan. Why? because it had to adapt to survive in its new non "normal" environment. any subsequent polar bears that could not get a tan, would no survive and therefore not breed.

Just to cap it all all off. Just as it is possible to breed out certain traits. in humans. i.e. from black to white and white to black, through dilution and breeding options / instinct / desirable traits. it is possible to completely change the breed of one type to another. there are many white people whose great grandparents were black and vice versa.

This my freind is evolution in action. right before our eyes. and it is. undeniable..

Originally posted by undo
i don't ask much, i just want to know:

1. how did the honey bee know where to find honey before it evolved a method to find honey? and what made them want honey in the first place?
2. if the method to find honey had to evolve, what did they eat and how did they build their hives before this?

What? Mods please forgive me, but Undo you are a dumb ass. Why would you bother debating with anyone about anything? Seriously? How did the honey bee know where to find honey? Really? It knew how to find it because it finds it where it puts it in the first place. Do me a favor, go find some honey NOT made by bees. Dumb ass. I'm sorry for being rude and I know that this post will get taken down for being combative, but please!!!! Start your arguments with a brain.

They evolved into finding pollen. God! I don't know what else to say. I'm at a complete loss over this thread and especially this guy's post.

reply to post by undo


Many of your points are similiar to the old question about the human eye. "It is so complex and important, how can you have a gradual eye?"- the answer is quite simple. First they can sense light, then more complex sense of light, then able to see simple outlines etc.

I think another question you ask (which is more important) is how can an animal possess instincts, which is fascinating. Some talk about the idea of chemical memory which is again phenomenal.

Obviously, we can only see this in retrospect which I think is the biggest problem for people to really understand it. It is a little like a skyscraper- there are simple mechanisms which can be performed on their own and seem relatively simple, yet these small actions like joining girders happen lots of times over a long time and eventually can turn into an almighty building.

(However, the analogy isn't perfect- a species as it is now is obviously not 'complete').

Originally posted by TheSepticSceptic

Originally posted by undo
i don't ask much, i just want to know:

1. how did the honey bee know where to find honey before it evolved a method to find honey? and what made them want honey in the first place?
2. if the method to find honey had to evolve, what did they eat and how did they build their hives before this?

What? Mods please forgive me, but Undo you are a dumb ass. Why would you bother debating with anyone about anything? Seriously? How did the honey bee know where to find honey? Really? It knew how to find it because it finds it where it puts it in the first place. Do me a favor, go find some honey NOT made by bees. Dumb ass. I'm sorry for being rude and I know that this post will get taken down for being combative, but please!!!! Start your arguments with a brain.

They evolved into finding pollen. God! I don't know what else to say. I'm at a complete loss over this thread and especially this guy's post.

edit on 2-10-2011 by TheSepticSceptic because: (no reason given)

shame on people for starring your post.
all science begins with inquiry. if you don't want people asking questions don't pretend science is based on inquiry. i apologize for not using the correct word in the process. i know honey is the finished product. my question was more related to how they knew to collect the ingredients for honey. i just skipped ahead to the finished product

p.s. did you watch the video i linked above? i'd like to know how they evolved the ability to correct for the movement of the sun during the waggle dance. vector calculus with a brain the size of a grain of sand.

^Science is based on research, facts and experiments. Not just inquiry. I could inquire about the moon being made of swiss cheese, but that doesn't make it scientific at all. Its a question based on poor understanding of the subject. When making an inquiry about a scientific theory, it's probably best that you read about and understand the theory first or consult with an expert.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Barcs

 

watch this.

another question, what do they need to know about the quality? do they have special orders for different quality honey ? it's odd.

I'm trying to figure out exactly what this has to do with evolution. Just because scientists might not be able to explain something completely about honey bees, doesn't bear any indication on whether evolution is true or false. Obviously we don't know everything, but claiming bees use trigonometry is a bit misleading. Their brains are tiny and can't compute things. I have doubts that those wing symbols actually have anything do to with finding the flower or the suns position in the sky, but I'm not exactly a bee expert.

reply to post by Barcs


that's why i am asking about it. i am asking for a theory that will explain how bees evolved the way they did. how they knew how to create hives, how the process started, and how it developed to the point where the waggle dance has been refined to such a high degree. if it were shared brain, they'd have no need to communicate the location via the waggle dance, as the other members of the hive would know already.. it's a chicken or the egg question.

I could inquire about the moon being made of swiss cheese, but that doesn't make it scientific at all.Text

i'm inquiring about bees. as far as i know, they are real.

The bottom line is, even if scientists can't explain exactly how they do it, or how the change began to evolve, it doesn't prove or disprove anything about evolution. The common belief is that bees began digesting and processing honey because their larva was fed insects that had pollen on them from flowers. The only logical answer to your question, is that the bees who developed these traits had a better time surviving and reproducing then the ones who didn't. Asking how a bee "knows" to build a hive, is like asking how a cat knows to put the back paw in the same print as the front paw to be stealthy, or asking how a beaver knows to build a damn. They need a home to survive, if they didn't, they'd be extinct.

i'm inquiring about bees. as far as i know, they are real.

Last I checked, the moon is real too.

Originally posted by Barcs
The common belief is that bees began digesting and processing honey because their larva was fed insects that had pollen on them from flowers. The only logical answer to your question, is that the bees who developed these traits had a better time surviving and reproducing then the ones who didn't.

that's a better answer than calling me a dumb ass.

Last I checked, the moon is real too.

so where's the problem with my question? bees are real, i'm asking about how bees evolved to understand something was beneficial for their survival. you claim they didn't understand it. the one who did it first as a result of just happenstance, had a better chance of surviving and thus it was hard coded into its genetic line somehow.

if there was no pressure to answer these questions, nothing would be answered cause people would go around, like they have for thousands of years, and claim they already knew it all and if they didn't know it all, that's okay because even their lack of answers is better than your questions. that's not the attitude to have. quit squaring off on me and just answer the questions. it's not hard. if you dont know, just say you don't know, no need to resort to calling me names or insinuating i'm saying things i'm not.

p.s. i have already said i believe in micro evolution. i'm afraid you and the other gentleman over-reacted. but i still want to know how honey bees know to use vector calculus to correct for the sun's movement during waggle dance. did you watch the video? watch the video if you haven't, cause it's pretty amazing. it suggests more than a happenstance being hard coded for a single purpose, repeated, as the sun's position is always changing in the sky. that's alot of accidental coding for one function. there must be a logical answer, thus why i ask the question.

Originally posted by undo

so where's the problem with my question? bees are real, i'm asking about how bees evolved to understand something was beneficial for their survival. you claim they didn't understand it. the one who did it first as a result of just happenstance, had a better chance of surviving and thus it was hard coded into its genetic line somehow.

if there was no pressure to answer these questions, nothing would be answered cause people would go around, like they have for thousands of years, and claim they already knew it all and if they didn't know it all, that's okay because even their lack of answers is better than your questions. that's not the attitude to have. quit squaring off on me and just answer the questions. it's not hard. if you dont know, just say you don't know, no need to resort to calling me names or insinuating i'm saying things i'm not.

p.s. i have already said i believe in micro evolution. i'm afraid you and the other gentleman over-reacted. but i still want to know how honey bees know to use vector calculus to correct for the sun's movement during waggle dance. did you watch the video? watch the video if you haven't, cause it's pretty amazing. it suggests more than a happenstance being hard coded for a single purpose, repeated, as the sun's position is always changing in the sky. that's alot of accidental coding for one function. there must be a logical answer, thus why i ask the question.

I agree, the last person who called you names and insulted your intelligence definitely took the low road. I'm definitely all about learning as much as I can, but insulting someone because of their beliefs is not conducive to learning at all. The OP had a condescending demeanor as well, so I can kind of see why people are getting up in arms about it, especially when evolution is a field that's been studied and expanded upon for decades with a huge wealth of knowledge available. I prefer to explore the reasoning, which is what I was trying to do. I apologize if it came off as arrogant or insulting, it wasn't my intention in the least.

I'll go ahead and admit that I don't know all the answers to your questions, but I'll also say with confidence that they don't bear any significance on whether evolution is true or not. I watched the video the first time, and it was interesting. See, you can have knowledge about things or certain instincts, but it's much different from actually understanding it. Humans, as well as other creatures can see and experience their body and its daily function, but what separates the intelligence is actually knowing why & how the body works the way it does. So the bees might know their role, but they don't actually understand the math and science behind it, they just do it. They are smart for their size, they are social, they communicate, and they will stop at nothing to protect their home and family. Perhaps they are connected to the magnetosphere, the same way birds and plenty of other animals are. I don't think birds understand what north, south, east, and west are in relation to the earth and it's climate, but they know one thing for damn sure and that's to head south in the winter.

I don't agree at all with calling evolution "happenstance". Adaptation is a much more accurate description. It's not really a random process at all. The creatures essentially become their respective environments and it is evident all throughout nature. If you think about it, bees have been evolving since the dinosaur days. There have been trillions upon trillions upon trillions of bees have been born, and that's probably a gross understatement. Even if the rate of genetic mutation is one in a million, and the trait is beneficial to procreation then given the millions of years timescale, the change is inevitable. Look at the various races of humans that came from adapting to the various climates on earth for 200,000 years or so. Imagine a million years. What about 100 million?

That's the best explantion I can give, but I'm going to do a little bit of reading on bees now, it sounds interesting.

Originally posted by Barcs


. Perhaps they are connected to the magnetosphere, the same way birds and plenty of other animals are. I don't think birds understand what north, south, east, and west are in relation to the earth and it's climate, but they know one thing for damn sure and that's to head south in the winter.

that's what i was thinking. there must also be a mechanism they can turn off and on, that basically is instinctual during waggle and not instinctual outside waggle, otherwise, the other scout bees wouldn't be able to find the flowers as they would always be facing the sun.

reply to post by undo


Hide behind a sheen of scientific enquiry now, but reading between the lines of all your bee related questions shows me the hidden subtext and the preconceived concepts that you have. You chose the bees on purpose. And NOT so that you could get legitimate answers. I'm calling you out. I was right in my first response to you and no matter how many may come to your rescue I am still calling a spade a spade. You asserted a question in a such a manner as to disprove the theory of evolution from the get go. "i don't ask much. i just want to know" No. You INDEED ask much. You ask more than can be answered and you do so with a condescending tone that can be perceived across all these miles and fibre optic connections. Don't try to turn this on me. I am merely calling you out. You say you “skipped ahead”. Well, I didn't. I stuck with your two opening questions (and now your very first sentence) to show that you are guilty of lowering any legitimate “scientific process”. Shame on all those who have subsequently patronized you with a forthright effort to answer your sarcastic questioning.

I'm not here to make friends and I don't rightly care who on here thinks I'm calloused or ignorant. I have substantial reasons to know that I am indeed, not an ignoramus. And with that, I close my participation in this thread. I will see all of my new "enemies" in another one some time soon, I am sure.

reply to post by TheSepticSceptic


i believe in micro evolution. if i want to prove anything, it's that we need to know a whole lot more about how bees adapted cause they do some fancy tricks for being such tiny things. i don't believe in macro evolution. i don't believe one species becomes another.

it's quite possible bees were intelligently designed, but you need to understand the context of my statement.
if our current world were to undergo a cataclysm, things we do now, would be considered impossible by new generations starting from scratch. fossilized remains of cross breed dogs would eventually be said to have evolved that way rather than having been designer dogs. that doesn't mean that i think they didn't have examples of micro evolution because cross breeding would fail if micro evolution weren't possible.

Originally posted by Tony4211
reply to post by mf_luder

 

There is absolutely no observable evidence for creationism. That is not a speculation, either. haha No one ever produces evidence for Creationism. They spend most of their time trying to "disprove" Evolution rather than actually building up their beliefs. That is why it is a belief and not a scientific theory.

edit on 2-10-2011 by Tony4211 because: (no reason given)

You think?

When the human race is discussed in the language of evolution, the differences of eye and mouth shape are not seen as evidence for the existence of multiple species/races, human beings are all one race/specie.
But when a bird is found to have a slightly different beak it is used as evidence to support the existence of another species...how can this be so.?

reply to post by ironbutterflyrusted

1. Morphological differences in the absence of corresponding genetic differences don't qualify as speciation.

2. Look at pictures of bird skulls - beaks are part of the bone structure. A slight difference in eye mouth shape isn't really analogous to the magnitude of the changes in beak size.

reply to post by iterationzero


So would a person of say Japanese origin `Not` possess a genetic marker/s for facial difference when compared with European.? ...strong facial features are hereditary.

A beak is simply a prominence of bone, is this a worthy measure of species break.? could the 6 or 7 types of finch breed with each other when the gap between beak type was at its greatest.? ...it appears that they could.

Was Darwin really seeing hybrids form from a restricted gene pool.? ...not a pathway to a new species as he thought

I found this article, the conclusion of the study seems to point to an uncertain result.

rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org...

Granted, there are many varieties appearing in the gene pool of a species, some of these adaptations when viewed together could lead one to conclude that the gradual development of a new species was taking place, as reached by Darwin himself...an easy mistake to make when your mind is focused on finding a process to drive the machine.

thanks.