Recently, there has been a ton of debate as to the existance of bees as early as 200 million years ago. More specially, in regards to the passages the author of the reading puts forth the idea that it cannot be possible for bees to be existed from 200 million years ago and he mentions that the skepticals refuse this point of view by some arguments. The professor in the listening is quick to point out there are some serious flaws in the writer's claim. In fact she believes there are some reasonable evidence that showes the life of bees in that time, and she addresses, in detail, the trouble with each point made in the reading text.
First and foremost, the author states that deficient actual fossils of bees are is a good point to refuse the existance of bees in that time. Some professionals in the same field, however, stand in firm opposition to this claim. For example the speaker in the listening passage state that devoid of fossil evidences of bees does not mean they had not been alive in those time, and she goes on to say that there are no fossil evidence of bees, because they could not fossilize in that period of time.
One group ofscholars, represented by the author, think absence of flower as the main food resource of bees, reminds that there are no chance for bees to be alive 200 million years ago. Of course, though, not all experts in the same field bellieve this is accurate. Again the professor states it could be plausible that bees in that time were feeding by non-flowering plant recpectly to the bees revolutionary.
Finally the writer wraps his argument by positing that there are no sufficient details on fossilized structures found in Arizona to improve the existance of bees. Not surprisingly, the professor takes issue with this matter by contending that there is a chemical evidence of water proof matterial on these fossils which probably were made by bees, because bees produce water proof material in some kind of living activities
Recently, there has been a ton of debate as to the
existance
of bees as early as 200 million years ago. More
specially
,
in regards to
the passages the author of the reading puts forth the
idea
that it cannot be possible for bees to
be existed
from 200 million years
ago and
he mentions that the
skepticals
refuse this
point
of view by
some
arguments. The professor in the listening is quick to
point
out there are
some
serious flaws in the writer's claim. In
fact she
believes there are
some
reasonable
evidence
that
showes
the life of bees in that
time
, and she addresses, in detail, the trouble with each
point
made in the reading text.
First
and foremost, the author states that deficient actual
fossils
of bees are is a
good
point
to refuse the
existance
of bees in that
time
.
Some
professionals in the same field,
however
, stand in firm opposition to this claim.
For example
the speaker in the listening passage state that devoid of
fossil
evidences
of bees does not mean they had not been alive in those
time
, and she goes on to say that there are no
fossil
evidence
of bees,
because
they could not fossilize in that period of time.
One group
ofscholars
, represented by the author,
think
absence of flower as the main food resource of bees, reminds that there are no chance for bees to be alive 200 million years ago.
Of course
, though, not all experts in the same field
bellieve
this is accurate. Again the professor states it could be plausible that bees in that
time
were feeding by non-flowering plant
recpectly
to the bees revolutionary.
Finally
the writer wraps his argument by positing that there are no sufficient
details
on fossilized structures found in Arizona to
improve
the
existance
of bees. Not
surprisingly
, the professor takes issue with this matter by contending that there is a chemical
evidence
of
water proof
matterial
on these
fossils
which
probably
were made
by bees,
because
bees produce
water proof
material in
some
kind of living
activities