Are bees evidence of intelligent design?

[SUNTHREIT]

A lot of people who believe in natural selection believe that is has been the only driver of animal evolution. There are a lot of arguments for this idea- namely the extent to which natural selection influences the development of animal traits over many generations. Scientists such as Darwin have shown this very well, and I respect these people immensely.

There are some, however, who disbelieve in evolution in favour of intelligent design and creationism. While YECs, or Young Earth Creationists, are definitively wrong by all empirical measures, I have come to notice that some more moderate creationist viewpoints have a lot of logic behind them. Namely the idea that god made the start of things (it had to come from somewhere beyond the universe, as the universe is finite but the creator of the universe cannot be finite, or else it would require another creator and so on- god is infinite?) and waited for natural selection to finish the job, and also that god sort of assisted in the process of evolution in some areas.

One argument against total natural selection was the eye. This is, however, a faulty argument, as it can be demonstrated that the eye developed over time through a series of selected-for improvements. Jellyfish have patches on their skin sensitive to light, other invertebrates view light through a tunnel or more-defined visual organ, creatures like fish attach muscles to this organ to move it, and so on. All improvements that are selected for, as the eye is beneficial to survival, and this process can be demonstrated to have occurred naturally and gradually in a series of steps. The main argument for god creating the eye was the eye's sheer complexity, but with 600 million years at least of eye development that is borderline fallacious.

I have an argument for god assisting evolution, however, that cannot be disproved in the same way that the eye can. Look no further than the bee.

The bee has six legs and two wings. All insects, wingless or not, have six legs. Therefore, the bee's wings must have sprouted from its back, starting as small accidental structures that were later selected for by natural selection for their usefulness.

However, with these small, primitive wings, there is no way the early bee should have been able to fly. Those tiny, primordial wings would have been too small to get its fat little body off the ground. The bee, of course, went down the evolutionary path of flight anyway. The bee still has tiny wings and a fat body to this day- imagine a less highly evolved bee from the prehistoric past! It is ridiculous to imagine such a thing flying.

Given the life cycle of bees and their larval stage, I can see how the original mutation developed, but I don't see how it caught on unless something helped them develop their wings into useful body structures. Maybe it was some kind of god aiding the evolution of these organisms, maybe it was extraterrestrials who decided to genetically-engineer bees for whatever reason. I don't know. I could be forgetting something, but this all seems mightily fishy to me.

For people who believe in pure natural selection, how did the bee develop its flight with such small early wings? Why did it do this instead of, say, living in tree bark and forming colonies that way? Why didn't natural selection take the logical route and nip these ridiculous winged bees in the bud?

Please explain this.

[Mascargo]

But do bees care what humans think?

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

The bee has six legs and two wings. All insects, wingless or not, have six legs. Therefore, the bee's wings must have sprouted from its back, starting as small accidental structures that were later selected for by natural selection for their usefulness.

They didn't 'sprout'. They're outgrowths of the exoskeleton. That's why beetles have hard coverings for their wings called elytra. Same set of developmental pathways.

However, with these small, primitive wings, there is no way the early bee should have been able to fly. Those tiny, primordial wings would have been too small to get its fat little body off the ground. The bee, of course, went down the evolutionary path of flight anyway. The bee still has tiny wings and a fat body to this day- imagine a less highly evolved bee from the prehistoric past! It is ridiculous to imagine such a thing flying.

Doesn't have to fly. Gliding is beneficial too. As is any extension that would slow down an insect's fall. Probably a useful thing for insects that live on and around tall plants, no?

Given the life cycle of bees and their larval stage, I can see how the original mutation developed, but I don't see how it caught on unless something helped them develop their wings into useful body structures. Maybe it was some kind of god aiding the evolution of these organisms, maybe it was extraterrestrials who decided to genetically-engineer bees for whatever reason. I don't know. I could be forgetting something, but this all seems mightily fishy to me.

Wings predate the divergence of bees from their hymenopteran ancestors. Hence why some species of ants have wings too.

For people who believe in pure natural selection, how did the bee develop its flight with such small early wings? Why did it do this instead of, say, living in tree bark and forming colonies that way? Why didn't natural selection take the logical route and nip these ridiculous winged bees in the bud?

Some hymenopterans did. They're called ants.

[SUNTHREIT]

But do bees care what humans think?

No, of course not, they're bees.
But look at bees compared to, say, dragonflies, and things humans have designed to fly such as planes.

Look at a plane. It's got giant wings, huge engines. You don't see that in a bee, especially in archaic types of bees.

[SUNTHREIT]

The bee has six legs and two wings. All insects, wingless or not, have six legs. Therefore, the bee's wings must have sprouted from its back, starting as small accidental structures that were later selected for by natural selection for their usefulness.

They didn't 'sprout'. They're outgrowths of the exoskeleton. That's why beetles have hard coverings for their wings called elytra. Same set of developmental pathways.

But how on earth did these outgrowths ever catch on as wings? It's crazy.
As for your gliding thing, can a creature with such small gliding-things and such a fat body even glide in the first place?

[Senkaku]

They didn't 'sprout'. They're outgrowths of the exoskeleton. That's why beetles have hard coverings for their wings called elytra. Same set of developmental pathways.

But how on earth did these outgrowths ever catch on as wings? It's crazy.
As for your gliding thing, can a creature with such small gliding-things and such a fat body even glide in the first place?

"I think this lifeform is weird and as a certified armchair 'scientist' I don't understand how it could have evolved the way it did, but have done no extensive investigation of my own, therefore I will simply assume that it means God snapped his fingers and made the world in seven days 6,000 years ago or something"
"???"

Tbh seems like this is just a cleverly devised HW thread almost

[Nilla Wayfarers]

But do bees care what humans think?

No, of course not, they're bees.
But look at bees compared to, say, dragonflies, and things humans have designed to fly such as planes.

Look at a plane. It's got giant wings, huge engines. You don't see that in a bee, especially in archaic types of bees.

Look up the opening to the bee movie.
Then you'll get it.

[Senkaku]

But do bees care what humans think?

No, of course not, they're bees.
But look at bees compared to, say, dragonflies, and things humans have designed to fly such as planes.

Look at a plane. It's got giant wings, huge engines. You don't see that in a bee, especially in archaic types of bees.

So now your question is "why didn't bees evolve jet engines"

Alright lmao bye

[Aclion]

They didn't 'sprout'. They're outgrowths of the exoskeleton. That's why beetles have hard coverings for their wings called elytra. Same set of developmental pathways.

But how on earth did these outgrowths ever catch on as wings? It's crazy.
As for your gliding thing, can a creature with such small gliding-things and such a fat body even glide in the first place?

let me wiki that for you

In short there are several hypotheses(hypothesi?) and the fossil record is not yet complete enough to make a determination.

[Lady Scylla]

A lot of people who believe in natural selection believe that is has been the only driver of animal evolution. There are a lot of arguments for this idea- namely the extent to which natural selection influences the development of animal traits over many generations. Scientists such as Darwin have shown this very well, and I respect these people immensely.

There are some, however, who disbelieve in evolution in favour of intelligent design and creationism. While YECs, or Young Earth Creationists, are definitively wrong by all empirical measures, I have come to notice that some more moderate creationist viewpoints have a lot of logic behind them. Namely the idea that god made the start of things (it had to come from somewhere beyond the universe, as the universe is finite but the creator of the universe cannot be finite, or else it would require another creator and so on- god is infinite?) and waited for natural selection to finish the job, and also that god sort of assisted in the process of evolution in some areas.

One argument against total natural selection was the eye. This is, however, a faulty argument, as it can be demonstrated that the eye developed over time through a series of selected-for improvements. Jellyfish have patches on their skin sensitive to light, other invertebrates view light through a tunnel or more-defined visual organ, creatures like fish attach muscles to this organ to move it, and so on. All improvements that are selected for, as the eye is beneficial to survival, and this process can be demonstrated to have occurred naturally and gradually in a series of steps. The main argument for god creating the eye was the eye's sheer complexity, but with 600 million years at least of eye development that is borderline fallacious.

I have an argument for god assisting evolution, however, that cannot be disproved in the same way that the eye can. Look no further than the bee.

The bee has six legs and two wings. All insects, wingless or not, have six legs. Therefore, the bee's wings must have sprouted from its back, starting as small accidental structures that were later selected for by natural selection for their usefulness.

However, with these small, primitive wings, there is no way the early bee should have been able to fly. Those tiny, primordial wings would have been too small to get its fat little body off the ground. The bee, of course, went down the evolutionary path of flight anyway. The bee still has tiny wings and a fat body to this day- imagine a less highly evolved bee from the prehistoric past! It is ridiculous to imagine such a thing flying.

Given the life cycle of bees and their larval stage, I can see how the original mutation developed, but I don't see how it caught on unless something helped them develop their wings into useful body structures. Maybe it was some kind of god aiding the evolution of these organisms, maybe it was extraterrestrials who decided to genetically-engineer bees for whatever reason. I don't know. I could be forgetting something, but this all seems mightily fishy to me.

For people who believe in pure natural selection, how did the bee develop its flight with such small early wings? Why did it do this instead of, say, living in tree bark and forming colonies that way? Why didn't natural selection take the logical route and nip these ridiculous winged bees in the bud?

Please explain this.

You're thinking too linear for one. Secondly, you're assuming bees have always retained the social structure they do today. There was no 'bee' that far back.

The ancestors of bees were wasps in the family Crabronidae, which were predators of other insects. The switch from insect prey to pollen may have resulted from the consumption of prey insects which were flower visitors and were partially covered with pollen when they were fed to the wasp larvae. This same evolutionary scenario may have occurred within the vespoid wasps, where the pollen wasps evolved from predatory ancestors. Until recently, the oldest non-compression bee fossil had been found in New Jersey amber, Cretotrigona prisca of Cretaceous age, a corbiculate bee. A bee fossil from the early Cretaceous (~100 mya), Melittosphex burmensis, is considered "an extinct lineage of pollen-collecting Apoidea sister to the modern bees". Derived features of its morphology (apomorphies) place it clearly within the bees, but it retains two unmodified ancestral traits (plesiomorphies) of the legs (two mid-tibial spurs, and a slender hind basitarsus), showing its transitional status. By the Eocene (~45 mya) there was already considerable diversity among eusocial bee lineages.

The highly eusocial corbiculate Apidae appeared roughly 87 Mya, and the Allodapini (within the Apidae) around 53 Mya. The Colletidae appear as fossils only from the late Oligocene (~25 Mya) to early Miocene. The Melittidae are known from Palaeomacropis eocenicus in the Early Eocene. The Megachilidae are known from trace fossils (characteristic leaf cuttings) from the Middle Eocene. The Andrenidae are known from the Eocene-Oligocene boundary, around 34 Mya, of the Florissant shale. The Halictidae first appear in the Early Eocene with species found in amber. The Stenotritidae are known from fossil brood cells of Pleistocene age.

As far as their coevolution:

The earliest animal-pollinated flowers were shallow, cup-shaped blooms pollinated by insects such as beetles, so the syndrome of insect pollination was well established before the first appearance of bees. The novelty is that bees are specialized as pollination agents, with behavioral and physical modifications that specifically enhance pollination, and are the most efficient pollinating insects. In a process of coevolution, flowers developed floral rewards such as nectar and longer tubes, and bees developed longer tongues to extract the nectar. Bees also developed structures known as scopal hairs and pollen baskets to collect and carry pollen. The location and type differ among and between groups of bees. Most bees have scopal hairs located on their hind legs or on the underside of their abdomens, some bees in the family Apidae possess pollen baskets on their hind legs while very few species lack these entirely and instead collect pollen in their crops. This drove the adaptive radiation of the angiosperms, and, in turn, the bees themselves. Bees have not only coevolved with flowers but it is believed that some bees have coevolved with mites. Some bees provide tufts of hairs called acarinaria that appear to provide lodgings for mites; in return, it is believed that the mites eat fungi that attack pollen, so the relationship in this case may be mutualistc.

Bees < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crabronidae < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apoidea < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hymenoptera < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endopterygota < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoptera < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metapterygota < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterygota < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect

[Des-Bal]

This fucking thing again. Science breaks down a logical evolutionary path for every single creature it can, backing these up with an ever expanding fossil record and the similarity of modern organisms but if one dude thinks one small piece doesn't make sense rather than assume they misunderstood the theory and do more research, that scientists just haven't figured out that bit yet, or that some other factor is at play it's time to tip over the whole fucking board and declare that the Judeo Christian God breathed life into the world 6,000 years ago, that magic is real, and that everything else was just a coincidence.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

But how on earth did these outgrowths ever catch on as wings? It's crazy.
As for your gliding thing, can a creature with such small gliding-things and such a fat body even glide in the first place?

The most common theory for the development of wings is that they represent modifications to the ancestral gill structures that all insects share. See this mayfly larva for instance;

They're the paddle-like structures sticking out of the sides. They're pretty feathery, but they look like wings, don't they? The theory goes that when the arthropod ancestors of all insects first emerged from the ocean onto land, they retained these gills as their breathing structures even on land. If an insect with large gills like that falls out of a tree, an insect with big feathery gills will have its fall slowed down and be more likely to survive. That selects for insects with the biggest, most feathery gills. From there the theory goes that an error during reproduction in one of those ancestral insects caused a gene that is involved in the development of the insects' legs to get copied into the group of genes that controlled the development of at least some of those gills, causing them to fuse together into the first wings. Those wings would naturally be much better at slowing the fall of those insects than the feathery gills, so they in turn got selected for and the fused-gill insects outcompeted the feathery-gill ones.

[Wacksytopia]

In response to the title of this thread - no.

[Neanderthaland]

I have an argument for god assisting evolution, however, that cannot be disproved in the same way that the eye can. Look no further than the bee.

Let's assume you're right (you're definitely not) and bee wings cannot have evolved.

Why does this necessitate a god assisting evolution?

It's a complete non-sequitur. it's like saying "Ancient Egyptians couldn't have built the pyramids using ramps, therefore Kaiju did it."

[Montchevre]

I have an argument for god assisting evolution, however, that cannot be disproved in the same way that the eye can. Look no further than the bee.

Let's assume you're right (you're definitely not) and bee wings cannot have evolved.

Why does this necessitate a god assisting evolution?

It's a complete non-sequitur. it's like saying "Ancient Egyptians couldn't have built the pyramids using ramps, therefore Kaiju did it."

Kaiju can't build pyramids! The only thing they're good for is knocking down walls. Why do you think Drumpf hates them so much?

[Lady Scylla]

As far as why they can fly.

http://www.pnas.org/content/102/50/18213.full

[Drayxaso]

Tardigrades are the most resilient animal, capable of surviving temperatures close to absolute zero, extremely high temperatures, doses of radiation that would be fatal to humans, extremely high pressures, and the vacuum of outer space. Yeah, that's right, outer space. Not to mention that they can survive without food or water for up to 30 years.

Therefore, god is a tardigrade.

[The Liberated Territories]

No, of course not, they're bees.
But look at bees compared to, say, dragonflies, and things humans have designed to fly such as planes.

Look at a plane. It's got giant wings, huge engines. You don't see that in a bee, especially in archaic types of bees.

Look up the opening to the bee movie.
Then you'll get it.

oh god please no not that meme

[The Alma Mater]

I have an argument for god assisting evolution, however, that cannot be disproved in the same way that the eye can.

Have you actually tried disproving it yourself ? After all - that is what a good scientist does - think up a hypothesis, and then try to disprove it.
If so,tell us what you tried

[Giovenith]

No.

[Dahuangti]

Biological patterns are probably contained in the electrical field permeating the planet, but I don't consider it evidence of intelligent design.
http://www.historicmysteries.com/andrew ... xperiment/

[Minarchismusland]

No, of course not, they're bees.
But look at bees compared to, say, dragonflies, and things humans have designed to fly such as planes.

Look at a plane. It's got giant wings, huge engines. You don't see that in a bee, especially in archaic types of bees.

Look up the opening to the bee movie.
Then you'll get it.

Centuries will pass by and I still won't understand how the script of that movie became a meme.

[The Serbian Empire]

Insects have had wings since the Carboniferous Period. The timing happens to occur with life making it's way out of water. Wings gave those amphibious insects an advantage in predation that no fish could rival which tells me that evolution could easily explain that. All winged insects date back to the late Devonian at earliest.

[Farnhamia]

Biological patterns are probably contained in the electrical field permeating the planet, but I don't consider it evidence of intelligent design.
http://www.historicmysteries.com/andrew ... xperiment/

Wiki sayeth, "Crosse did not claim that he had created the insects. He assumed that there were insect eggs embedded in his samples. Later commentators agreed that the insects were probably cheese mites or dust mites that had contaminated Crosse's instruments."

[Dahuangti]

Wiki sayeth, "Crosse did not claim that he had created the insects. He assumed that there were insect eggs embedded in his samples. Later commentators agreed that the insects were probably cheese mites or dust mites that had contaminated Crosse's instruments."

His contained experiments and the same of his contemporaries would have to be contaminated as well.