The Flower and the Bumble Bee (Evolution)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, March 29, 2013, 10:39 (4040 days ago)

There has been a lot of talk lately on whether or not there is any sense of purpose in nature. Most of it revolves around whether or not there is a designer or intelligent energy or simple evolution. It is generally accepted that there is no way of proving any of these, so we have to resort to logic. -Here is one of the best examples I can give for my belief in purposeful creation. I call it, The Flower and the Bumble Bee.--With flowers, you often have male and female. These flowers must cross-polinate in order to reproduce, or they die out. These flowers generally produce both pollen and nectar. Bees like nectar because it is a source of high energy food. However, the relationship between bees and flowers produces a paradox in terms of evolution.-If the flowers produced nectar, but no pollen, they would not have needed to reproduce sexually, and therefor would not have needed pollinating insects to transport for them. If they had produced pollen but not nectar, they would not have been able to attract the bees or other pollinators. -If the Bee drank the nectar, but did not transport the pollen, the flowers would die out. However, if the Bee did not drink the nectar, they would not get on the flowers to cross-pollinate them in the first place. -This is a chicken and the egg problem. Given that no evolutionary adaptation is instantaneous, that any of these four functions could have adapted individually, that none of these four functions could possibly have been crucial to survival without the others being in place, how can we reconcile this with evolution. Further, given that each species is individual, how could their 'intelligent genomes' have created the adaptation without some form of external awareness. -In essence, without all four adaptations across both species in place at the same time, within the same generation, it all goes to shambles. Recap:-1. (Flower)Nectar is possible without pollen.
2. (Flower)Pollen is possible without nectar.
3. (Bee)It is possible to pollinate without drinking nectar(See 1).
4. (Bee)It is possible to drink nectar without being a cross pollinator(See 2).-Now, let's go a step further:->Plants fall into pollination syndromes that reflect the type of pollinator being attracted. These are characteristics such as: overall flower size, the depth and width of the corolla, the color (including patterns called nectar guides that are visible only in ultraviolet light), the scent, amount of nectar, composition of nectar, etc.[1] For example, birds visit red flowers with long narrow tubes and lots of nectar, but are not as strongly attracted to wide flowers with little nectar and copious pollen, which are more attractive to beetles. When these characteristics are experimentally modified (altering colour, size, orientation), pollinator visitation may decline."-Flowers are specific to the pollinator, though natural selection would suggest the following.-1. Flowers would benefit more by being attractive to all pollinators, thus increasing their likelihood for survival.
2. All creatures would gravitate towards the highest and easiest to acquire source of free energy.(High nectar plants)-Instead, what we see is:
A. Creatures with higher energy needs seek the high energy plants, but leave low energy plants for the creatures with lower energy requirements. 
B. Creatures with low energy requirements seek the low energy plants, but leave the high energy plants for creatures with high energy requirements. 
C. Plants with high energy output have biological markers that signal that information to creatures with high energy needs, but deter low energy needing creatures. 
D. Plants with low energy output have biological markers that signal information to creatures with low energy needs, but deter high energy needing creatures. --How do you explain co-dependent traits developing amongst diverse species that would have been required to have developed at the same time or any/all of the creatures involved would have faced extinction? Further, how do you explain that the plants 'knew' which markers would attract which pollinators? Further still, how do you explain that every single action in this case flies directly in the face of natural selection and survival of the fittest?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.