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 reading passage and the lecture are both related to whether bees existed on Earth 200 million years ago. According to the discovery of very old fossil structure that resembles bee nest, this might indicate the presence of bees in the ancient time. While some skeptics cast doubt on this evidence, the lecturer holds the opposite ideas.
Firstly, one of the reason the skeptics provide is that there are no fossils of actual bees, which directly prove bees' nonexistence. Whereas the lecturer admits the absence of bee's fossil, he believes that this may be derived from having no suitable residence for bees to fossilize. For example, there was a kind of tree that can produce sticky glues which would help the fossilization of bees, only it is too rare. Thus, whether there were bees 200 million years ago cannot be concluded from the absence of bees' fossil.
Next, while the speaker agrees the point proposed by the author that there was no flower to feed the bees, this cannot prove bees' absence either. Since the bees may feed on non-flower species, like pine trees, they could have survived without flowers. Though people may always pair up bees with flowers, this pattern may only happen after the evolution.
Finally, the skeptics argues that there's some important details missing in the evidence, for example, caps with a spiral pattern. On the other hand, the lecturer refutes it because some significant chemicals, the water-proofing substance belonging to bees, have been found on the structure. That is to say, although it may fail to resemble the pattern owned by the modern bees' nests, the structure may still prove the existence of bee at that period.
In conclusion, the lecturer defeats each of the idea proposed by the skeptics and considers them as not convincing.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 35, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: there's
...n. Finally, the skeptics argues that theres some important details missing in the e...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, firstly, if, may, so, still, thus, whereas, while, for example, in conclusion, kind of, on the other hand, that is to say
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.01324503311 239% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1498.0 1373.03311258 109% => OK
No of words: 300.0 270.72406181 111% => OK
Chars per words: 4.99333333333 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16179145029 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.42 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 171.0 145.348785872 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.57 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 450.9 419.366225166 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.25165562914 399% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 22.3396782539 49.2860985944 45% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 107.0 110.228320801 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4285714286 21.698381199 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.78571428571 7.06452816374 139% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.315756947555 0.272083759551 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.109201167363 0.0996497079465 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.112645027788 0.0662205650399 170% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.159980693806 0.162205337803 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.132297126125 0.0443174109184 299% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 13.3589403974 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.66 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.57 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 63.6247240618 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.