Did the Bees evolve with the flowers?

This is such a fun question! I especially enjoy the answers from the atheists that try to blame it on co-evolution and whatnot. I'm really curious about this subject, though, since everybody has a theory nowadays. Anyway, did the bees evolve at the same time as the flowers and plants that require pollination? If so, please explain this coincidence. Hell, your guess is as good as mine, right? While we are at it, please explain flying squirrels and beetles that damn-near blow fire from their bunghole, too. Well, don't stop there, either, as we got walking whales and all sorts of cool stuff to discuss after that, as well.

Personally, I'm so sick and tired of hearing about atheists and religionists that can't seem to ever get along. You got God or Gods on one side, and you got science magic and things that mysteriously go "bang" on the other side. It really gets old. What? Do most atheists believe in the Primordial Soup Theory, too? If you are interested in that subject, you can start with the hilarious history of it, here: www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
Or go to Wikipedia and have even more fun: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

I don't even know where to begin, as there are too many holes and laughable gobbledygook flying around, it is utterly ludicrous. By the way, in case you are unsure, I'm not an atheist nor am I involved with any organized religion. Good grief, I wonder if the Buddhist people argue over this crap. Uh, I doubt it... Anyway, if you can explain more about co-evolution and/or stuff like how the bees evolved simultaneously with the flowers, I'm all ears. Thanks!

Side Note:  I originally posted this query on another website.  The comment field on that site contained the following, in reverse order (so start at the bottom and work your way up):

Insane Mundane

• @nicomp - The common debate I usually hear, is where a land mammal went swimming a few too many times and they eventually turned into a whale. Ha-ha!

  
  
• nicomp

  
  

  a year ago

  @insanemundane , thinking critically, if the walking whale needed millions of years to evolve walking legs, a control system, and logic to control the legs, then that violates the macro-evolutionary model. All those intermediate steps consumed energy but produced no useful survival mechanisms.

  
  
• Insane Mundane

  
  

  a year ago

  @nicomp - In addition to that, I also find the "walking whale" debate to be especially funny, as well.

  
  
• nicomp

  
  

  a year ago

  @insanemundane , the macro-evolutionists explanation of eye-evolution does not even match up with their model. A 'light-sensitive' cell connected to a circuit of neurons and provided information to control bodily functions? Unless all this happened at precisely the same time in the same body plan, then none of it would be any benefit. Each system would consume critical energy but produce no useful result until they all functioned together at the same time. Their model stipulates that each new 'step' must provide an increase in survival possibility.

  
  
• Insane Mundane

  
  

  a year ago

  @nicomp - There are loads of examples why it doesn't work. I would say that I'm amazed at how many people buy into some of these wild claims, but then I look around and, oh, never mind. Ha!

  
  
• nicomp

  
  

  a year ago

  @insanemundane , macro-evolutionists have a model, creationists have a model. Their model assumes particles-to-people, mine does not. Their model is not sciency enough for me because it does not explain the eye, blood clotting, photosynthesis, and the Alectura lathami.
  
  There is no evolutionary path for the Alectura lathami: the first one would have to have popped out of an egg with fully functional systems.

  
  
• Insane Mundane

  
  

  a year ago

  @nicomp - Yeah, it is amazing how hard some people will try to make those theories work. LOL!
• nicomp

  
  

  a year ago

  macro-evolutionists have no choice but to assert that bees evolved in parallel with flowers. The first flower that evolved distinct male and female pollination mechanisms would have died immediately without a helpful bee hovering nearby.

  
  
• Insane Mundane

  
  

  a year ago

  @Gommish - I'm glad you found some humor within this post, as well. LOL! I may write about that particular beetle, later on. ;)

  
  
• @Gommish

  a year ago

  Are we discussing the bees now, what about the birds? isn't that a subject that goes together :P
  
  hmmm, beetles that have fire coming out of where :O too much beans in their diet perhaps?
  
  LOL , this is a subject that requires a face to face discussion with couple of bottles of good wine :)
• 
  

  a year ago

  @helenschild4 - It is okay, as even the ones that remove people from NASA that don't believe in their theories, also don't know, either. :/ LOL!

  
  
• Insane Mundane

  
  

  a year ago

  @jowast - There is nothing random about a flying squirrel or a beetle that blows hot gas out of its sphincter, for example. I mention those, because I include 'em in this particular post. Random explosions also do not work in harmony. The expansion of space is yet to keep up with the trending theories of the big bang without constantly adding cool, magical stuff into the equations.
  
  Plant consciousness would be required for this, also, which is kinda strange for the atheists to accept. Yes, this entire planet is one giant substrate for conscious life. We can't replicate any of this in a laboratory, and the Primordial Soup Theories are also hilarious. Speciation concepts do get ridiculous, too, when people try to tell me that a Raptor eventually turned into a turkey! Then there is the great period (Cambrian explosion) when these random, slow mutations and evolving processes suddenly "took off" and increased their speed dramatically, which also doesn't make sense with any sound theory. Yeah, I'm using some common arguments, when involving the last two, but they all add up.

  
  
• Insane Mundane

  
  

  a year ago

  @Knowles202 - Yeah, but it is a fun mental exercise, even if nothing else productive spawns from it. This post is loaded with potential subjects, as I'm just waiting for the verbal fly bait to effectively bring in the crazy flies... LOL!

  
  
• Joe S.

  
  

  a year ago

  Yes, I meant to imply that that process applies to all organisms, not just the plant in my example. As I said before, it's an ecological arms race. And not just between two organisms; it is obviously more complex than that. The fly has relationships with other organisms (like predators) for which mutations may or may not be advantageous. It gets very entangled very quickly when trying to understand a whole system instead of just a species or two.
  
  But, back to the original topic: The question is really what force causes those subtle genetic mutations that control speciation. The atheist answer is random chance. The religious answer is God sculpting his creation. The judicious answer is we don't really know.

  
  
• Madge F.

  
  

  a year ago

  I have no idea. lol

  
  
• Insane Mundane

  
  

  a year ago

  @jowast - No, it is all systems go on this post. Many people think the flies originated in wet environments and as they evolved they adapted to feed in almost any nutrient-rich substrate in almost any environment on Earth, too. You are saying that certain flies happened to also become pollen-oriented due to some favorable mutations and turned into stuff like bees? So this is more about "fly magic?" I'm not talking about growing corn.

  
  
• Joe S.

  
  

  a year ago

  A population of plants is wind pollinated. One plant has a genetic change that makes it smell different. It attracts flies. The flies move the pollen around better than the wind. The next generation of plants now has a few individuals with the smelly gene instead of just one, since it was able to reproduce efficiently. Each successive generation, then, has a higher percentage of smelly plants. The smelly plants don't do as well in flat, windy areas since the smell dissipates and there are less flies. So the original plants survive better there. In still, fly-infested areas, though, the smelly plant comes to dominate. Then voila, two different species with two different pollination strategies. No consciousness required (unless you want to argue that the machinations of nature are themselves a form of consciousness, which I will accept; but that's a different conversation).

  
  
• Insane Mundane

  
  

  a year ago

  @jowest - Certain plants evolved their own strategies? LOL! This is so cool. I've read about plant consciousness before, but atheists usually hate that concept, though.

  
  
• Joe S.

  
  

  a year ago

  Insects are not the only pollinators. Many plants (like trees and grasses among others) are pollinated solely by wind. Certain other plants evolved their own strategies to attract insects. Then insects evolve better strategies to exploit the plants that are trying to attract them. They don't evolve at precisely the same time. It's more like an arms race.

  
  
• Jacob Knowles

  
  

  a year ago

  I'm exactly the same way you are....
  
  Humans want to come up with answers to questions we CAN'T answer. You can't throw a God in there and say he magically did it, and you can't say you know the universe was created through a bang.
  
  For as long as man is on this Earth we'll always wanna make up reasons as to why things happen, and we'll end up fighting in the end.

  
  

  ---End of prior comments.

  Feel free to add new ones to this post; cheers!

Related Post: "Theory of Evolution: Where is the Missing Link between Homo erectus & Homo sapiens?"

Image Credit: https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slika:Bees_on_flower.jpg

---End of Post "Did the Bees evolve with the flowers?"