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 states that a very old fossil structures that resemble bee nests which are 200 million years old is discovered in Arizona inside fossilized trees. But many skeptics doubt the structure was created by bees and they provide three reasons to support their view. However, the professor explains that the existence of bees in 200 years ago is possible. She states the argument that is brought by this skeptics is not convincing and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading claims that there are no fossil remains of actual bees in that time. The professor opposes this point by saying that it is true that no fossil remains of bees found in that time. But it would be because that the fossil of the bee found in trees that had Rezin. She states that maybe at that time there was no tree to produce right kind of Rezin and so the remains of the bees could not be preserved.
Second, the author declares that at that time there were no flowering plants which are the main source of food for bees. Nevertheless, the professor contends that it is quite possible that bees exist before and the fees on non-flowering trees such as Pin tree. According to the professor, it is possible that the bees were adopted to feed the flowering trees later.
Third, the article avers that the fossilized structures that found in Arizona lack some details of bee's nest such as chambers of modern bee nests closed by caps but the fossilized ones lack these kinds of caps.
The professor refutes this point by stating that although the chambers that are found lack this structure but there exist some kinds of distinct chemicals that are produced by modern bees in order to make their nest water proof. Based on the lecture the fossilized nest contained that kind of chemical.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 404, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
... states the argument that is brought by this skeptics is not convincing and refutes ...
^^^^
Line 6, column 289, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...as Pin tree. According to the professor, it is possible that the bees were adopte...
^^
Line 9, column 217, Rule ID: EN_COMPOUNDS
Message: This word is normally spelled as one.
Suggestion: waterproof
...modern bees in order to make their nest water proof. Based on the lecture the fossilized ne...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, may, nevertheless, second, so, third, kind of, such as, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.4613686534 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 26.0 12.0772626932 215% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 38.0 22.412803532 170% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1478.0 1373.03311258 108% => OK
No of words: 313.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 4.72204472843 5.08290768461 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20616286096 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.28699995412 2.5805825403 89% => OK
Unique words: 146.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.466453674121 0.540411800872 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 434.7 419.366225166 104% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.4873290835 49.2860985944 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.571428571 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3571428571 21.698381199 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.21428571429 7.06452816374 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.359098831518 0.272083759551 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.131634024847 0.0996497079465 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.118252064459 0.0662205650399 179% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.193624469356 0.162205337803 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.118459250614 0.0443174109184 267% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 13.3589403974 90% => 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: 10.39 12.2367328918 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.6 8.42419426049 90% => OK
difficult_words: 57.0 63.6247240618 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.