• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Production of Honey

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Which evolved first? The bees or the flowers?
Flowering plants first appear around 125 million years ago. [SOURCE: https://www.boundless.com/biology/textbooks/boundless-biology-textbook/seed-plants-26/evolution-of-seed-plants-158/evolution-of-angiosperms-620-11841/ ]

The oldest fossilized bee dates from between 74 to 96 million years ago. [SOURCE: http://bibba.com/honeybee-origins/ ]

It's worth noting that plants that pollinated via insects long before bees evolved, and since then the two have coevolved. [SOURCE: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aordrL_D-30C&pg=PA78&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false ]
 

First Baseman

Retired athlete
Flowering plants first appear around 125 million years ago. [SOURCE: https://www.boundless.com/biology/textbooks/boundless-biology-textbook/seed-plants-26/evolution-of-seed-plants-158/evolution-of-angiosperms-620-11841/ ]

The oldest fossilized bee dates from between 74 to 96 million years ago. [SOURCE: http://bibba.com/honeybee-origins/ ]

It's worth noting that plants that pollinated via insects long before bees evolved, and since then the two have coevolved. [SOURCE: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aordrL_D-30C&pg=PA78&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false ]

Coevolved, huh? That's a rather difficult concept for me to buy into.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Coevolved, huh? That's a rather difficult concept for me to buy into.
Well, if you understand that one of the driving forces of evolution is environmental attrition, it makes perfect sense that flowers would evolve to attract more beeds to aid pollination and bees would evolve to take more advantage of flowers for the purposes of honey production. I don't see why it's any more difficult concept to buy into than "two populations evolved in response to each other", which is basically all it means.
 

First Baseman

Retired athlete
Sorry if you are offended, but there are many concepts involved in the idea of macro-evolution that just don't make sense. There is no way I could believe in macro-evolution.

Single celled organisms slowly developing over millions of years into the billions of life forms on Earth we see today is just too far to stretch my imagination and just makes no sense to me. I can see and understand and believe in changes among like kinds but that is all we see and can prove happened.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Sorry if you are offended, but there are many concepts involved in the idea of macro-evolution that just don't make sense. There is no way I could believe in macro-evolution.
What are these concepts that don't make sense to you? Maybe we can explain them for you.

Single celled organisms slowly developing over millions of years into the billions of life forms on Earth we see today is just too far to stretch my imagination and just makes no sense to me. I can see and understand and believe in changes among like kinds but that is all we see and can prove happened.
This is called an argument from incredulity. What's more, what's so hard to believe about single celled organisms developing over millions of years (actually, over billions, but that's largely just nit-picking) into the life forms we see today? After-all, we observe single-celled organisms growing into human beings over a period of a mere 9 months every single time a woman gets pregnant and gives birth. Isn't that much more difficult to believe, when you think about it?
 
Last edited:

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
So, certain plants could not exist without bees and bees could not exist without certain plants. And the best answer science can come up with is that they both slowly evolved over millions of years. Sounds more like science fiction.
 

McBell

Unbound
So, certain plants could not exist without bees and bees could not exist without certain plants. And the best answer science can come up with is that they both slowly evolved over millions of years. Sounds more like science fiction.

Then why not look into it on your own?
I understand it is not nearly as simple as "goddidit", but the information is available for those willing to look into it.
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
All the science I see indicates there was a sudden eruption of many life forms not some slow process where only a few life forms existed for millions of years and more were slowly added.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Seems the problem is that some people are seemingly unable to accept the concept of something happening with out a god in the mix somewhere.
What's even stranger is that these people, who are flummoxed by clear, observable, step by step processes, find magical intervention by an invisible being perfectly reasonable.
So, certain plants could not exist without bees and bees could not exist without certain plants. And the best answer science can come up with is that they both slowly evolved over millions of years. Sounds more like science fiction.
Why is this any more remarkable than flying machines, moving pictures, lightbulbs or telephones?

This is very basic, well established biology, LWS, There are thousands of examples of this all over Nature. Google mutualism or symbiosis. It's not just form that evolves.

It gets much more specialized than just generalized pollinators like bees. Lots of plants can't survive without a single specific pollinator, nor the pollinator without its plant. Some have parts so coevolved that they fit together like a lock and key. Some figs are virtual colonies of nematodes (little worms) and whole generations of tiny wasps who hatch, live, breed, and die inside the fig (which then digests them). None could survive on its own. On the island of Mauritius the calvaria tree is facing extinction. It's seeds didn't sprout till they'd passed through the digestive system of the Dodo -- you can see the problem.

No organism is an island, unto itself (apologies to Donne). Nature is a complicated web of interdependent relationships, with everything depending on everything else. In your own body, most of the cells -- yes, >50% -- are not you. You're colonized by bacteria, protozoa, fungi, mites, archaea, &c. They need you, and you need many of them.
 

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
Honey looks nice.

But consider this: parasitic wasps trap a caterpillar and keep it warm and alive so that its larvae can slowly eat it inside out.

Was that intelligent design? Maybe for the wasps. Not sure what the caterpillar might think about this design.

I believe that if leaving beings did not need to eat other living beings in order to survive, you would have a point. I don't know, something like solar cells on their back, would work.

Ciao

- viole
EDITED

What the caterpillar thinks is not an issue unless the caterpillar thinks -or, until someone thinks about the caterpillar.

Whether the present design of things is "intelligent" might depend on what the intelligence is trying to achieve.
It seems -now that we are able to think about it -that we find the life and death cycle distasteful -at least at a certain level.
We may not mind mowing a lawn -pulling weeds -or replacing plants every year -but we believe certain life forms should be treated differently -based on their attributes.
We have empathy for animals which are obviously suffering -but may not hesitate to take one out that is of a nature to cause us suffering.
We now have a sort of vacuum within us for what we see would be better -a more intelligent design -and even for immortality.
We are gaining a reverence and respect for life -for certain attributes of life forms -and a desire to order things ourselves based on such.
We have become conscientious, intelligent designers.
Perhaps that was the intent of the intelligent designer.

(Even if one does not believe what is written in the bible, it does answer every issue with a viable solution -and explains the present state -though some would disagree because they do not believe the solutions are possible, as they require that which we deem "miraculous" and unnatural)
In Eden, people were told to eat only plants. After the flood, God also allowed any animal flesh to be eaten.
Later, only certain animal flesh was to be eaten -and later when the kingdoms of the world have become the kingdoms of the Lord, no flesh will be eaten -not even by animals.
(..which will also be the end of war on Earth. Only one more attempt will be made at war before the judgment of all of the dead [and opportunity for all to gain eternal life] -but it will not be successful)

Similarly, the present nature of the animal kingdom has served a purpose in relation to the spiritual state of man and the overall plan.
It has had a psychological effect on man -making man cautious and wary of dangers, causing him to consider mortality, cruelty, kindness -how and why man is different in being able to consider such things -and animals have even been used for specific purposes.
On the positive side, God used hornets to drive out people from before Israel before he eventually gave them over to war.
On the not-so-positive side, there were plagues and death (though even the end thereof will be positive).

The life and death cycle of certain physical species is advantageous -even necessary -given the situation (within a relatively closed and changing system/environment) -and permanence/immortality can also be advantageous -even necessary for some.
If you think about it, we have no hope of lasting peace on Earth without permanence -as each generation makes the same mistakes -and we die just about the time we learn enough to live correctly.
There must be a permanent, capable, righteous government in place.

We have been prepared to accept what will be -and to create responsibly.

Eze 34:25 And I will make with them a covenant of peace, and will cause the evil beasts to cease out of the land: and they shall dwell safely in the wilderness, and sleep in the woods.

Isa 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
Isa 11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
Isa 11:8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
Isa 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

Php 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Isa 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end
 
Last edited:

DawudTalut

Peace be upon you.
Honey looks nice.

But consider this: parasitic wasps trap a caterpillar and keep it warm and alive so that its larvae can slowly eat it inside out.

Was that intelligent design? Maybe for the wasps. Not sure what the caterpillar might think about this design.

I believe that if leaving beings did not need to eat other living beings in order to survive, you would have a point. I don't know, something like solar cells on their back, would work.

Ciao

- viole
Peace be on you.
Some more to consider:
1= As insects lack nocireceptors, or any equivalent, they cannot experience pain (or at least our version of pain). This conclusion extends to all arthropods, which also includes arachnids, crustaceans, and myriapods.

Observations of insects seem to corroborate this idea. A caterpillar or grasshopper will attempt to continue its routine even while being eaten alive or tortured by a toddler. Insects with damaged bodies attempt to operate as usual—no limping or crying.

Since many insects live for only a few days, they have no need to learn from a painful experience. They’ll be dead soon anyway. Insects are bred for pre-programmed robotic actions; they can glean few benefits from learned behavior or emotions of any kind.

Ref: http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/11/23/insects-dont-feel-pain/

2= When we boil water for tea or coffee, do germs cry?
(according to a story, they do cry that is why there is noise in boiling water. :) )
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
All the science I see indicates there was a sudden eruption of many life forms not some slow process where only a few life forms existed for millions of years and more were slowly added.

I think you're misunderstanding what the "Cambrian explosion" is about.

There was plenty of life before then. IIRC, the current estimates are that there's been life on this planet for about 3 or 4 billion years; the "Cambrian explosion" was about half a billion years ago. IOW, in terms of sheer time scales, the current amount of diversity remains the exception rather than the rule.

That "explosion" simply refers to a relatively sudden and rapid rate of diversification at a certain point. And remember that about 300 million years after that sudden diversification, was the Permian mass exctinction, also known as the "Great Dying". It's called that for good reason; 90-95% of all life at that time died. (For comparison, the famous K-Pg mass extinction, the victims of which include the non-avian dinosaurs, killed about 75% of life at the time.)
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
What's even stranger is that these people, who are flummoxed by clear, observable, step by step processes, find magical intervention by an invisible being perfectly reasonable.

And as a theist myself, I'm just as equally baffled by that.

Why is this any more remarkable than flying machines, moving pictures, lightbulbs or telephones?

This is very basic, well established biology, LWS, There are thousands of examples of this all over Nature. Google mutualism or symbiosis. It's not just form that evolves.

It gets much more specialized than just generalized pollinators like bees. Lots of plants can't survive without a single specific pollinator, nor the pollinator without its plant. Some have parts so coevolved that they fit together like a lock and key. Some figs are virtual colonies of nematodes (little worms) and whole generations of tiny wasps who hatch, live, breed, and die inside the fig (which then digests them). None could survive on its own. On the island of Mauritius the calvaria tree is facing extinction. It's seeds didn't sprout till they'd passed through the digestive system of the Dodo -- you can see the problem.

No organism is an island, unto itself (apologies to Donne). Nature is a complicated web of interdependent relationships, with everything depending on everything else. In your own body, most of the cells -- yes, >50% -- are not you. You're colonized by bacteria, protozoa, fungi, mites, archaea, &c. They need you, and you need many of them.

Or, perhaps more immediately observable, domestic dogs and cats coevolved with humans such that many breeds of those species could never survive in the wild, and many humans can be socially dependent on these particular animals.
 
Top