It's time to resume our evolution bashing endeavours, using the little bee as a diabolically powerful instrument.
First, let's look at the mathematical abilities of the bee.
"The two most efficient packing arrangements are the hexagonal closest-packed structure (hcp) and the cubic closest-packed structure (ccp). This exercise focuses on the hexagonal closest-packed structure, and the next exercise deals with the cubic closest-packed structure."
"In the hexagonal closest-packed structure, a = b = 2r and c = 4(2/3)1/2 r, where r is the atomic radius of the atom. The sides of the unit cell are perpendicular to the base, thus α = β = 90o. The base has a diamond (hexagonal) shape corresponding with γ = 120o."That is too difficult for me to derive, and I would not have guessed that the hexagonal structure is the most efficient for a storage structure. But it is - and can you imagine the ancestors of the bees sitting somewhere with pencils and paper at the ready, figuring out which shape to use?
No? But it MUST have happened sometime.
To even suggest that a bee, with brain the size of a pinhead, could figure out any such thing is the height of stupidity. To suggest that it took millions of years of evolution to produce such a thing is absurd. The bees would have died out long, long before they ever managed the calculations.
But let's hypothesise that one did figure it out. The next question is devastating. HOW DID THIS ABILITY GET INTO THE GENOME? The instincts possessed by all honeybees are transmitted from generation to generation - presumably in the genetic structure of the insects.
But how did it get in there? No evolutionist even dares guess - it woud expose them to too much ridicule. Here is some idiotic bleating: http://everything2.com/user/eien_meru/writeups/honeycomb
"In nature, evolution is the mother of all design. In order to produce an ounce of beeswax, bees have to collect eight times as much pollen. Collecting pollen is a very dangerous activity, as compared to hanging around the hive. So one could speculate that bees that made efficient use of their wax had more "disposable income" to deal with contingencies, and it just so happens that the honeycomb shape is very, very close to the optimal shape, in terms of unit volume per unit area."
Just so happens. Marvellous. My Mercedes just happened! And evolution is the 'mother of all DESIGN'. Get that? This totally blind process, is the mother of all DESIGN. THEY CAN'T GET AWAY FROM USING THAT WORD - IT'S SO BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS! And yet, have to kow-tow to 'science'. Here he is again:
"Mother Nature is a mathematician at heart. Really, I should say Mother Nature is an engineer, but some things are too elegant to be left to engineers."
And of course, engineers just drop out of trees. And 'too elegant' designs just happen!
"A honeycomb constructed from beeswax is nothing short of a triumph of engineering. It consists of hexagon shaped cylinders (six-sided) that fit naturally side-by-side. It has been
proven by mathematicians that making the cells into hexagons is the most efficient shape. The smallest possible amount of wax is used to contain the highest volume of honey. It has also been shown to be one of the strongest possible shapes while using the least amount of material."http://www.beeswaxco.com/howBeesMakeWax.htm
"Math teachers (and Platonist mathematicians) point to things like the honeycomb as examples of mathematics realized in nature, descended from some higher Form. But bees, as smart as they are — and they're quite intelligent — are only acting on an instinct passed down from generation to generation.
So true. Instinct. Passed down from generation to generation. But we're really inquiring about Bee No.1 - the one who figured all this out. How could it? And how did that 'instinct' evolve - and from what.
The simple answer is that it didn't. Mathematics and engineering do not come about by randomised guesswork. Genetic engineering doesn't either - but that is what the evolutionist must postulate to get this to work.
Bee A (can't make a honeycomb) -----------X----------> Bee B (can make a honeycomb.)
What happened at X?
Let's leave that for the moment and think of another little problem. Well, another dozen really.
WHY does a bee build a honeycomb? Answer, to store honey. But there are a few odd things here.
Back to Bee A (above) who can't make a honeycomb. Did it figure out that it was going to store honey in it? But, what's honey? Do you see that there is purpose involved in this?
Honeycombs without honey are just so much waste of good wax. But equally, honey without honeycombs can't really be stored. And if our evolutionist enemies start shouting that there are bees which don't store honey in combs, then we ask: how did those bees, who don't know how to make honeycombs become bees which have learnt how to do so? And we're right back to square one.
The bees plainly make combs to store their honey in. Equally, they make honey to PUT in the combs. So which came first? The honey or the comb? Evolution has no answer.
The claim is sometimes made that the bees came from wasps, but we've put that to rest in the previous article on bees.
Here's another little problem.
Honey. As you may know, bees go to flowers, slurp up the nectar (how did they ever figure out that there was such a thing? I wonder.)
Most wasps are meat eating - we gave a beautiful illustration in the article on the Eumenes wasp.
Bees eat nectar and honey. The digestion of these entirely different substances is entirely different, requiring a totally different set of digestive enzymes, a totally different stomach wall structure - because the protein digesting enzymes would destroy the walls of a non-protein digesting alimentary canal. Enzymes are tremendously complicated proteins with very, very specialised functions.
A protein digesting enzyme cannot digest sugars such as are in nectar. And a sugar digesting enzyme cannot digest proteins. And to add insult to injury, proteins cannot be made without other proteins to make them! The trap has closed on our poor evolutionist friend.
But here's another problem.
Wasps make paper to buil;d their nests. Bees make wax to build their nests. The chemical structure of these substances is entirely different. Wasps chew timber and make their paper. Bees produce wax from glands under their abdomens.
Paper is a mixture but its main constituent is indigestible cellulose, which is a complex carbohydrate with chemical formula (C6H10O5)n, where n is a very large whole number.
There is a lot more than this, obviously, but even from this (below) you can see that there is nothing simple about it.
The nature of the other lipid constituents can vary greatly with the source of the waxy material, but they include hydrocarbons, sterol esters, aliphatic aldehydes, primary and secondary alcohols, diols, ketones, β-diketones, triacylglycerols, and many more.
- Tulloch, A.P. Beeswax: structure of the esters and their component hydroxy acids and diols. Chem. Phys. Lipids, 6, 235-265 (1971).
That means, the substances which make the paper made by wasps, NEVER ENTERS THEIR ALIMENTARY CANALS.
That means that the sources of the wax made by bees, enters their alimentary canals, is biochemically processed, and secreted out of the wax glands.
There is nothing common to the processes in wasps and bees. They did not evolve from one another.
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.uky.edu/KGS/fossils/images/de_tab_pleuro.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.uky.edu/KGS/fossils/tabulatemound2.htm&h=394&w=796&sz=113&tbnid=MSAvGDK0hLipNM:&tbnh=71&tbnw=143&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfossil%2Bwasp%2Bnests%2Bpics&hl=en&usg=__tvRkbqFIsPOAhr054XqJLy6cimI=&ei=mWv8SoKFGdGx4Qawi73fAw&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=3&ct=image&ved=0CA0Q9QEwAg
Fossil Wasp nests
Fossil bees nest
http://www.ub.es/dpep/meganeura/ichnol06.jpg
Fossil bees nest
http://www.ub.es/dpep/meganeura/ichnol06.jpg
These are pictures of the earliest fossil nests found. They don't look very different to those of today - so we can safely conclude that both bees and wasps had figured these things out right from the very beginning. Like for instance:
1The wasps knew how to make paper and the bees knew how to make wax.
2 They knew how to make honey in the case of the bees.
3 That flowers existed, which were producing nectar for the bees.
Which creates one hell of a conundrum for evolution. Flowers and bees HAD TO HAVE ARISEN AT THE SAME TIME. Otherwise, the plants could not survive, and neither could the bees.
How did that happen? Ah, says our evolutionist triumphantly, Co-evolution! As if a name makes a difference to the total absence of explanations!
On the right is a fossilised bee from 45 million years ago. It's impossible to tell the difference between this one, and a modern bee.(Similarly with the centipede on the left) Have they evolved since then? Clearly not. Did evolution get them there? Equally clearly, no.
S J Gould wrote:
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology . . . We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study. (S. J. Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, p. 14, May 1977.)
The above furnishes very clear evidence of the truth of Gould's statement.
We could go on at length about the bees, and will probably do so in subsequent articles, but next, we will look at the phenomenon of bird migration and the absolutely horrendous problems the instincts of those beautiful creatures pose for evolution.
1The wasps knew how to make paper and the bees knew how to make wax.
2 They knew how to make honey in the case of the bees.
3 That flowers existed, which were producing nectar for the bees.
Which creates one hell of a conundrum for evolution. Flowers and bees HAD TO HAVE ARISEN AT THE SAME TIME. Otherwise, the plants could not survive, and neither could the bees.
How did that happen? Ah, says our evolutionist triumphantly, Co-evolution! As if a name makes a difference to the total absence of explanations!
On the right is a fossilised bee from 45 million years ago. It's impossible to tell the difference between this one, and a modern bee.(Similarly with the centipede on the left) Have they evolved since then? Clearly not. Did evolution get them there? Equally clearly, no.
S J Gould wrote:
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology . . . We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study. (S. J. Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, p. 14, May 1977.)
The above furnishes very clear evidence of the truth of Gould's statement.
We could go on at length about the bees, and will probably do so in subsequent articles, but next, we will look at the phenomenon of bird migration and the absolutely horrendous problems the instincts of those beautiful creatures pose for evolution.
STOP PRESS
(PhysOrg.com) - "Their brains are tiny - about the size of sesame seeds - and yet the behaviour of the humble honey bee is so advanced it has scientists scratching their heads in disbelief.
New Australian research just published by Proceedings of the Royal Society of London has shown that the bee brain has the ability to estimate energy expenditure while foraging for pollen.
"To make honey, bees must gather more nectar from flowers than the energy spent collecting it, so in order to forage efficiently they need to know how much energy each foraging trip costs them," said Dr Andrew Barron, the author of the study and senior lecturer at Macquarie University.
Bees estimate distance visually, by watching the environment pass them during flight. Barron set out to determine whether bees also use this visual information to estimate their flight costs. His first step was to build two tunnels - one 10 metres long and one 20 metres long - and place feeders at the end of each to attract the bees. He then created an optical illusion to trick the bees into believing that the closest feeder was actually the furthest distance away."
Good one, evolution!
NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!
“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”
OR
Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus
AT LAST!
The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is
NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!
35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30
100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!
Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.
Incredible points. Keep up the great work.Thanks for sharing in detail.
ReplyDeleteGrossistes du miel au Québec