Why evolution should not be a religious issue

[Subduction Zone]

Hello Zone.

They cannot breed?

Do you mean the offspring are sterile?

The two different species cannot hybridize.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello Zone.

I just read the article, will need to fetch it.

Was it this one?

The Beguiling History of Bees [Excerpt]

It says that the first bees existed 160 million years ago. Not 160 million years before the first angiosperms.

 

[klutedavid]

Where do you get that claim from? You need a valid link.

Hello Zone.

Which Came First: Bees or Flowers? Find Points to Bees

The problem is that flowers date from only half as long ago. Could bees have lived before flowers? The very idea, once unthinkable, is upsetting traditional theory about the early history of bees and their supposed co-evolution with flowering plants, or angiosperms.

If confirmed by further research, the new findings at the Petrified Forest mean that bees were buzzing around some 140 million years earlier than previously thought. The oldest known fossil of a bee is an 80-million-year-old specimen trapped in amber from present-day New Jersey. Scientists now must be on the lookout for fossil bees to fill that huge time gap.

And then they must figure out what those bees were doing before the emergence of angiosperms, the earliest evidence for which is dated at 110 million to 120 million years ago. Either flowers actually appeared much earlier than anyone can conceive, or the first bees did without flowers for a long time, feeding on and pollinating cone-bearing, woody plants known as gymnosperms, a group that includes conifers, cycads and ferns.

In the latter and more likely case, scientists said, the discovery casts serious doubt on the standard theory that flowering plants and social insects like bees more or less evolved together, with the spread of flowers presumably influencing the development and proliferation of the bees.

"This new evidence suggests it was probably the other way around, and that insects like bees and wasps may have facilitated the evolution and diversification of angiosperms," said Stephen T. Hasiotis, a paleobiologist at the United States Geological Survey in Denver and a doctoral student in geology at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

New York Times
Science
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
Published: May 23, 1995

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I'm losing track how many times the goal posts have been moved in this thread.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello Zone.

Which Came First: Bees or Flowers? Find Points to Bees

The problem is that flowers date from only half as long ago. Could bees have lived before flowers? The very idea, once unthinkable, is upsetting traditional theory about the early history of bees and their supposed co-evolution with flowering plants, or angiosperms.

If confirmed by further research, the new findings at the Petrified Forest mean that bees were buzzing around some 140 million years earlier than previously thought. The oldest known fossil of a bee is an 80-million-year-old specimen trapped in amber from present-day New Jersey. Scientists now must be on the lookout for fossil bees to fill that huge time gap.

And then they must figure out what those bees were doing before the emergence of angiosperms, the earliest evidence for which is dated at 110 million to 120 million years ago. Either flowers actually appeared much earlier than anyone can conceive, or the first bees did without flowers for a long time, feeding on and pollinating cone-bearing, woody plants known as gymnosperms, a group that includes conifers, cycads and ferns.

In the latter and more likely case, scientists said, the discovery casts serious doubt on the standard theory that flowering plants and social insects like bees more or less evolved together, with the spread of flowers presumably influencing the development and proliferation of the bees.

"This new evidence suggests it was probably the other way around, and that insects like bees and wasps may have facilitated the evolution and diversification of angiosperms," said Stephen T. Hasiotis, a paleobiologist at the United States Geological Survey in Denver and a doctoral student in geology at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

New York Times
Science
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
Published: May 23, 1995

The New York Times?? You're kidding me!

Though not a peer reviewed journal Scientific American is at least a science based publication. And it was more recent than your article. But bees could have preceded flowering plants. The symbiosis could easily have come later.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm losing track how many times the goal posts have been moved in this thread.

Perhaps it is time to start enforcing the rule that moving the goalposts is an admission that one was wrong.

 

[Gene2memE]

In the 20 years since that NYT article was published, there have (unsurprisingly) been a few more fossil discoveries.

The oldest known fossils that we have of ancestors of what we identify as bees are between 120 million and 135 million years, and we have multiple hypotheses about their ancestors - the two primary ones are that they diversified from somewhat more recent wasp-like ancestors, or somewhat more ancient ant-like ancestors. Bee evolution, like most evolutionary histories, is really complex and our original hypotheses are probably way too simplistic.

The oldest known flowering plant fossils are somewhere between 124 million and 160 million years old, with most current estimates at least 140 million years. There's a little bit of controversy here, as at least one early plant fossil was mis-dated by about 20 million years, resulting in a few very public mea culpas from paleobotanists.

This is all by-the-by though, as in 2013 researcher discovered six different types of pollen grains that were at least 240 million years old. This means that flowering plants probably in originated in the Early Triassic (between 252 to 247 million years ago) or even earlier.

Sifting through this stuff is fun, but never easy. I'm no expert, but I do read a lot of open access and 'popular' level magazines.

 

[klutedavid]

Was it this one?

The Beguiling History of Bees [Excerpt]

It says that the first bees existed 160 million years ago. Not 160 million years before the first angiosperms.

The New York Times?? You're kidding me!

Though not a peer reviewed journal Scientific American is at least a science based publication. And it was more recent than your article. But bees could have preceded flowering plants. The symbiosis could easily have come later.

Hello Zone.

Have a look at who dictated the article.

Stephen T. Hasiotis, a paleobiologist at the United States Geological Survey in Denver and a doctoral student in geology at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Who wrote the article in S.A?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello Zone.

Have a look at who dictated the article.

Stephen T. Hasiotis, a paleobiologist at the United States Geological Survey in Denver and a doctoral student in geology at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Who wrote the article in S.A?

The problem is that newspapers tend to get the most basic of points wrong.

Find a better source.

 

[Strathos]

Nothing right now. But thanks for refuting the earlier claim of Strathos.

You have a weird definition of 'refuting'.

This topic isn't even pertinent to the thread though.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That depends on whether their criteria is more valid than the criteria I am using and not on their numerical preponderance which is totally irrelevant to the issue.

It's a faith based belief system. There are no valid criteria.

 

[Radrook]

It's a faith based belief system. There are no valid criteria.

My belief isn't based on faith.
That is a misrepresentation of what ID is all about.
Please become familiarized thoroughly with a concept before attempting to describe it.

 

[Jimmy D]

My belief isn't based on faith.
That is a misrepresentation of what ID is all about.
Please become familiarized thoroughly with a concept before attempting to describe it.

As you once said....
"It is patently silly to tout something as veritable fact when it hasn't ever been observed in nature nor has it been forced to happen in a lab."

 

[Radrook]

As you once said....
"It is patently silly to tout something as veritable fact when it hasn't ever been observed in nature nor has it been forced to happen in a lab."

That is true. However, it isn't applicable to ID since ID is firmly founded on what is observable in nature.

 

[SteveB28]

That is true. However, it isn't applicable to ID since ID is firmly founded on what is observable in nature.

No, it isn't. Unless you have evidence for the 'intelligence' and the 'designer', of course.

Which you don't, of course.


.

 

[Jimmy D]

That is true. However, it isn't applicable to ID since ID is firmly founded on what is observable in nature.

Where?

 

[Radrook]

No, it isn't. Unless you have evidence for the 'intelligence' and the 'designer', of course.

Which you don't, of course.


.

Your criteria of evidence for an ID doesn't allow ANY evidence for any ID. In short, you are deploying the fallacious reasoning known as invincible ignorance.

Invincible ignorance fallacy - Wikipedia

 

[Radrook]

Where?

Well, the question itself clearly indicates a vehement refusal to see or a typical selective blindness that isn't amenable to explanations and makes any attempt at any explanation an exercise in futility..

 

[SteveB28]

Your criteria of evidence for an ID doesn't allow ANY evidence for any ID. In short, you are deploying the fallacious reasoning known as invincible ignorance.

No. I am employing the excellent reasoning of 'where is your evidence to support your claim?'.

Amazing how well that reasoning has worked in the realm of genuine scientific enquiry, don't you think?


.

 

[Radrook]

No. I am employing the excellent reasoning of 'where is your evidence to support your claim?'.

Amazing how well that reasoning has worked in the realm of genuine scientific enquiry, don't you think?


.

Science has absolutely nothing to do with the rejection of logical reasoning when such a rejection is deemed convenient.