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.
Based on seemingly reasonable evidence, the reading insists that there might be three arguments that conflict the fossil found in Arizona 200 million years ago to be the fossil of bees. However, the professor strongly disapproves of the above and then provides several pieces of evidence to support her statement.
First, the reading contends that the oldest preserved body of a bee is from only 100 million years ago, so the fossil remains in Arizona have no chance to be bees. Yet, the professor refutes this conclusion, demonstrating that maybe there are no trees that produce resin exist on Earth at that time, so the bees certainly cannot be preserved as fossils.
Moreover, the reading attempts to inform that due to the absence of flowering plants 200 million years ago, the bees cannot have appeared on Earth since there are mutually dependent biological relationships between them. The professor, however, suggests that bees may rely on other non-flowering plants that preceded flowering plants such as the pine trees to survive.
At last, the reading assumes that though the fossil looks like bee nests, it still lack finer details. For instance, it does not have a spiral cap on the chambers like the modern bee nests. By contrast, pointed out by the professor, there is chemical evidence that both of the nests have a water-proof substance that has a similar composition.
In conclusion, although the reading and the lecture are both about the fossil found in Arizona, the main points made in the article are debated by the professor.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 84, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'lacks'?
Suggestion: lacks
...e fossil looks like bee nests, it still lack finer details. For instance, it does no...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, look, may, moreover, so, still, then, for instance, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1302.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 257.0 270.72406181 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.06614785992 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00390054096 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59826049933 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 143.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.556420233463 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 392.4 419.366225166 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => 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: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.4370914612 49.2860985944 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.2 110.228320801 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.7 21.698381199 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.0 7.06452816374 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.283200621792 0.272083759551 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.104073171585 0.0996497079465 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0668594262098 0.0662205650399 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.143156282207 0.162205337803 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0502099814132 0.0443174109184 113% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 13.3589403974 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.99 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.