It's perfectly possible that the nests found inside the fossilized trees were made by bees 200 million years ago. The arguments used by the skeptics are not convincing.
First, it's true we have no fossil remains of actual bees that date to 200 million years ago, but maybe the reason for that is that bees could not be preserved as fossils at that time. Fossil bees have typically been preserved in fossilized tree resin, a sticky liquid produced by trees. However, trees with this type of resin were very rare 200 million years ago. Such trees became common much later. So the fact that we have no bee remains that are 200 million years old doesn't mean that bees did not exist at that time. Maybe bees existed, but since there were almost no trees producing the right kind of resin, the bees could not be preserved.
Second, while it's true that bees ha ve a close mutual relationship with flowering plants today, it's quite possible that bees existed before flowering plants appeared on Earth. Those very early bees might have been feeding on non flowering plants that preceded flowering plants during evoluti onary history. The early bees could have fed on non - flowering plants such as ferns or pine trees. Later when flowering plants evolved, bees may have adapted to feeding on them! And this new relationship between bees and flowering plants may have remained stable ever since.
Third, even though the fossilized chambers lack spiral caps, there's chemical evidence that supports the theory that bees built the chambers.
Modern bees protect their nest chambers against water by using a special waterproofing substance that has a distinctive chemical composition. When the fossilized chambers were chemically analyzed, it turned out that they contain the same kind of waterproofing material that's used by modern be
The reading states that the old fossils that have been found in Arizona's trees are not resembled bee nests and provides three reasons to support it. However, the professor explains that it is possible that bees' fossils were found inside old trees and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, that there are no actual fossils of bees related to 200 million years ago, as reading claims, is rejected in the lecture. The lecturer says that bees needed a specific kind of liquid produced by trees called resin for the preservation of their fossils in the trees. Likely, 200 million years ago, the resin was rare and did not produced by trees as much as todays' trees do and became common later. In other words, bees would not have access to the right kind of resin 200 million years ago.
Second, based on the reading, 200 million years ago, there were no flowering plants for bees to associate with them. In contrast, the professor says that bees existed long before flowering plants. According to the professor, bees had a biological relationship with other kinds of plants such as ferns and pine trees. After flowering plants evolved, bees adopted with them.
Third, the author points out that bees' nests lacked finer details related to modern chambers made by moderns bees. The professor casts doubt on this point by explaining that these chambers are made by specific chemical materials produced by bees. There is strong evidence that supports bees in the past produced this kind of chemical substance. Also, this material has been like modern bees material and was waterproof.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 336, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'did' requires the base form of the verb: 'produce'
Suggestion: produce
...ars ago, the resin was rare and did not produced by trees as much as todays trees do and...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, second, so, third, as to, in contrast, kind of, such as, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1325.0 1373.03311258 97% => OK
No of words: 268.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 4.94402985075 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.04607285448 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.24926351155 2.5805825403 87% => OK
Unique words: 138.0 145.348785872 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.514925373134 0.540411800872 95% => OK
syllable_count: 382.5 419.366225166 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 27.2375228878 49.2860985944 55% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 94.6428571429 110.228320801 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.1428571429 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.92857142857 7.06452816374 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.413510156901 0.272083759551 152% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.147544940643 0.0996497079465 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.116365467432 0.0662205650399 176% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.234950056205 0.162205337803 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.11929124487 0.0443174109184 269% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 13.3589403974 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 69.11 53.8541721854 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.3 11.0289183223 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.37 12.2367328918 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.17 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => 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.