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.
The article and the lecture talk about the correctness of an idea about a fossile of bee's nest which it discovered in a tree's fossile. While the auhtor states that there are some skeptics that they reason to repudiate this claim, the professor avers that none of the argments is cogent.
First, the professor points out that it is true that we don't see bee's fossil from 200 milion years ago, but it does not necessary means that bees did not exist. He elaborate on his reasoning by explaining that bees had a soft tissue which they only fossilized in trees' resin. It might that resin producing trees evolved aftre bees. Therefore, the less chance of resin in that environment, the less chance to preserve the bees' fossil. With this reason, the critics reasons that we have not seen the bees fossil is equal that they were not at that time does not hold water.
Second, the lecturer clearly explains that the evolution of flowering trees might happen after bees. It is completely possible that bees had existed befor flowering trees, and they had survived by nourishing from other trees like ferns and pines, the teacher says. And this feature that they eat nectar of flowers may had adopted later. This idea rebuts the second reason of the critics about the co-evolution of bees with flowering trees to reject the age of bees.
Third, the speaker posits that chemical analysis of the bee's chamber revealed that there is a chemical by which modern bees use to close their nest's opening. This similarity between those fossil of bees nest and modern bees strongly evidence the relation between that nest fossil and bees, even that structure did not has the spiral closing cap which contemporary bees have.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 119, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a tree' or simply 'trees'?
Suggestion: a tree; trees
...ile of bees nest which it discovered in a trees fossile. While the auhtor states that t...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... that none of the argments is cogent. First, the professor points out that it ...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 64, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ssor points out that it is true that we dont see bees fossil from 200 milion years a...
^^^^
Line 2, column 429, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'bees'' or 'bee's'?
Suggestion: bees'; bee's
...onment, the less chance to preserve the bees fossil. With this reason, the critics r...
^^^^
Line 2, column 506, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'bees'' or 'bee's'?
Suggestion: bees'; bee's
...itics reasons that we have not seen the bees fossil is equal that they were not at t...
^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...not at that time does not hold water. Second, the lecturer clearly explains th...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ering trees to reject the age of bees. Third, the speaker posits that chemical ...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 131, Rule ID: USE_TO_VERB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'used'?
Suggestion: used
...here is a chemical by which modern bees use to close their nests opening. This simi...
^^^
Line 4, column 188, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this fossil' or 'those fossils'?
Suggestion: this fossil; those fossils
... nests opening. This similarity between those fossil of bees nest and modern bees strongly e...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 324, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'did' requires the base form of the verb: 'have'
Suggestion: have
...l and bees, even that structure did not has the spiral closing cap which contempora...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, may, second, so, therefore, third, while, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 23.0 12.0772626932 190% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 22.412803532 178% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1411.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 295.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 4.78305084746 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14434120667 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.23636344527 2.5805825403 87% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.535593220339 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 423.9 419.366225166 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.880978925 49.2860985944 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.538461538 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6923076923 21.698381199 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.92307692308 7.06452816374 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 10.0 4.19205298013 239% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.253925497161 0.272083759551 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0895002164084 0.0996497079465 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0768790221923 0.0662205650399 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.150026654095 0.162205337803 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0749245303659 0.0443174109184 169% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 13.3589403974 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 66.07 53.8541721854 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.74 12.2367328918 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.53 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 63.6247240618 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.