Jump to content

Bees Flight Explained


Guest Caddius
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Caddius

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060110/sc_...reouthowbeesfly

 

Proponents of intelligent design, which holds that a supreme being rather than evolution is responsible for life's complexities, have long criticized science for not being able to explain some natural phenomena, such as how bees fly.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

Now scientists have put this perplexing mystery to rest.

 

Using a combination of high-speed digital photography and a robotic model of a bee wing, the researchers figured out the flight mechanisms of honeybees.

 

"For many years, people tried to understand animal flight using the aerodynamics of airplanes and helicopters," said Douglas Altshuler, a researcher at California Institute of Technology. "In the last 10 years, flight biologists have gained a remarkable amount of understanding by shifting to experiments with robots that are capable of flapping wings with the same freedom as the animals."

 

Exotic flight

 

The scientists analyzed pictures from hours of filming bees and mimicked the movements using robots with sensors for measuring forces.

 

Turns out bee flight mechanisms are more exotic than thought.

 

"The honeybees have a rapid wing beat," Altshuler told LiveScience. "In contrast to the fruit fly that has one eightieth the body size and flaps its wings 200 times each second, the much larger honeybee flaps its wings 230 times every second."

 

This was a surprise because as insects get smaller, their aerodynamic performance decreases and to compensate, they tend to flap their wings faster.

 

"And this was just for hovering," Altshuler said of the bees. "They also have to transfer pollen and nectar and carry large loads, sometimes as much as their body mass, for the rest of the colony."

 

Try this!

 

In order to understand how bees carry such heavy cargo, the researchers forced the bees to fly in a small chamber filled with a mixture of oxygen and helium that is less dense than regular air. This required the bees to work harder to stay aloft and gave the scientists a chance to observe their compensation mechanisms for the additional toil.

 

The bees made up for the extra work by stretching out their wing stroke amplitude but did not adjust wingbeat frequency.

 

"They work like racing cars," Altshuler said. "Racing cars can reach higher revolutions per minute but enable the driver to go faster in higher gear. But like honeybees, they are inefficient."

 

The work, supervised by Caltech's Michael Dickinson, was reported last month in the Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences.

 

The scientists said the findings could lead to a model for designing aircraft that could hover in place and carry loads for many purposes such as diaster surveillance after earthquakes and tsunamis. They are also pleased that a simple thing like bee flight can no longer be used as an example of science failing to explain a common phenomenon.

 

Proponents of intelligent design, or ID, have tried in recent years to promote the idea of a supreme being by discounting science because it can't explain everything in nature.

 

"People in the ID community have said that we don't even know how bees fly," Altshuler said. "We were finally able to put this one to rest. We do have the tools to understand bee flight and we can use science to understand the world around us."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ID arguments are not about science's ability to explain how things work. The question is about how working things got here.

 

In the case of the bees, we are supposed to accept the "scientific" idea that their flight dynamics, hyper-complex navigation and olfactory systems, social structure and engineering/fabrication abilities, are all atttributable to DNA replication errors. They always seem to drift away from the basics when they observe purpose and design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ID arguments are not about science's ability to explain how things work. The question is about how working things got here.

 

In the case of the bees, we are supposed to accept the "scientific" idea that their flight dynamics, hyper-complex navigation and olfactory systems, social structure and engineering/fabrication abilities, are all atttributable to DNA replication errors. They always seem to drift away from the basics when they observe purpose and design.

You know... just days ago, a common statement was "evolution can't even explain how a bee flies"

 

Isn't it funny how, within hours of the explaination of how a bee flies being announced, the statement is now "evolution cannot even explain how the mechanisms developed that enable a bee to fly, it must be designed that way..."

 

Classic "God of the Gaps" argument.

 

 

 

Oh, and tx...? Get a clue will you, it's not just copy errors. (not that you're gonna pay any attention to me... you never do when I prove you to be an idiot)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Caddius
You know... just days ago, a common statement was "evolution can't even explain how a bee flies"

 

Isn't it funny how, within hours of the explaination of how a bee flies being announced, the statement is now "evolution cannot even explain how the mechanisms developed that enable a bee to fly, it must be designed that way..."

 

Exacty, and so common, there will always be some expaination, because comon lets face it, God exists, we can't let some like reality get in the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fascinating topic..... As far as how this relates to ID, above and beyond all that has allready been pointed out against it, is the fantastic leap the adherents of ID make to assume that if a god made everything, that he was concerned about your day to day life or afterlife. Or is now. Or, will be tomorrow. People enter into "relationships" with their "diety" without even a scrap of common sense that they would use to even form the simplest acquaintance. In short : what is at the root of the relationship between worshiper and god? Answer: Fear and acquiesense. Whenever I hear someone try to justify their special relationship with god, I feel the need to show how it is the greatest institutionalization of cowardice on the planet, especially when it stands in the way of and refuses to support scientific inquiry as cited here. We need to better institutionalize curiosity and real, courageous thinking to clear the air these sentiments cloud.

 

I never got stung by one either, I think they like me back.

 

They live on honey, so they like what's sweet.

 

....can't count how many times I've been nailed by them....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every time I see this thread the dizzying song, The Flight of The Bumble Bee, comes to mind. :wacko_old:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it funny how, within hours of the explaination of how a bee flies being announced, the statement is now "evolution cannot even explain how the mechanisms developed that enable a bee to fly, it must be designed that way..."

 

Hey crazy cat

 

Did you get that from an actual source, and if so, could you please tell me where?

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it funny how, within hours of the explaination of how a bee flies being announced, the statement is now "evolution cannot even explain how the mechanisms developed that enable a bee to fly, it must be designed that way..."

Hey crazy cat

 

Did you get that from an actual source, and if so, could you please tell me where?

 

Thanks!

Oh yeah... I got it from a YEC Creationist...

The ID arguments are not about science's ability to explain how things work. The question is about how working things got here.

 

In the case of the bees, we are supposed to accept the "scientific" idea that their flight dynamics, hyper-complex navigation and olfactory systems, social structure and engineering/fabrication abilities, are all atttributable to DNA replication errors. They always seem to drift away from the basics when they observe purpose and design.

:grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ID arguments are not about science's ability to explain how things work. The question is about how working things got here.

 

 

 

Call me dense but what does ID mean? I’ve been seeing it lately in various forums and I’m stumped. The only things I know ID means is Identification and the abbreviation for Idaho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ID arguments are not about science's ability to explain how things work. The question is about how working things got here.

 

In the case of the bees, we are supposed to accept the "scientific" idea that their flight dynamics, hyper-complex navigation and olfactory systems, social structure and engineering/fabrication abilities, are all atttributable to DNA replication errors. They always seem to drift away from the basics when they observe purpose and design.

 

The problem with your statement is that just saying "God/Higher Power" had to have designed it clearly answers no questions. "How" did this "God/Higher Power" create the Bee? What mechanisms did it use? It all points to Evolution anyways, so your statement is clearly moot if you can't even answer the question of how it was done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I never got stung by one either, I think they like me back.

 

They live on honey, so they like what's sweet.

 

....can't count how many times I've been nailed by them....

 

The bees consider you sweet but pass me up?! What's wrong with this world? :HaHa:

 

But really, now I'm a little hurt. Oh, they're gonna sting me guldurnit!

 

:pureevil::poke:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bees consider you sweet but pass me up?! What's wrong with this world?
\

 

...I meant it the other way around, you know...if they don't sting you they like you, if they nail you they don't....hmmmm....but I think you know that......

 

I swiped a copy of your smiley-turning-into-a-bat. Too cool. Hope you don't mind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ID arguments are not about science's ability to explain how things work. The question is about how working things got here.

 

In the case of the bees, we are supposed to accept the "scientific" idea that their flight dynamics, hyper-complex navigation and olfactory systems, social structure and engineering/fabrication abilities, are all atttributable to DNA replication errors. They always seem to drift away from the basics when they observe purpose and design.

 

Just what I was thinking. I saw this thing about bees and I thought, wow, if this isn't prooof that God must be the creator, what is? I mean, how could random chance account for something as heavy as a bee flying? And if the wings evolved so the bee could fly, how did it get around before its wings could work? So then it would have been eaten by wasps and stuff and it wouldn't've reproduced. So there must be a creator that made it. It's obvious that anyone who denies this does so out of sin and is without excuse, since the creator is manifest in the things that He made.

Glory!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ID arguments are not about science's ability to explain how things work. The question is about how working things got here.

 

In the case of the bees, we are supposed to accept the "scientific" idea that their flight dynamics, hyper-complex navigation and olfactory systems, social structure and engineering/fabrication abilities, are all atttributable to DNA replication errors. They always seem to drift away from the basics when they observe purpose and design.

 

Just what I was thinking. I saw this thing about bees and I thought, wow, if this isn't prooof that God must be the creator, what is? I mean, how could random chance account for something as heavy as a bee flying? And if the wings evolved so the bee could fly, how did it get around before its wings could work? So then it would have been eaten by wasps and stuff and it wouldn't've reproduced. So there must be a creator that made it. It's obvious that anyone who denies this does so out of sin and is without excuse, since the creator is manifest in the things that He made.

Glory!

:lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ID arguments are not about science's ability to explain how things work. The question is about how working things got here.
Huh? Saying that a designer made it doesn't answer the question "how?". It evades the question.

 

Besides you're taking out of the realm of science, in which we might be able to one day learn "how working things got here" and instead replace it with "shit that I make up". There is no methodology to Intelligent Design. There's no way to learn "how". Your entire premise appeals to ignorance.

 

In the case of the bees, we are supposed to accept the "scientific" idea that their flight dynamics, hyper-complex navigation and olfactory systems, social structure and engineering/fabrication abilities, are all atttributable to DNA replication errors.
AND THE SELECTION OF ADAPTABLE FEATURES. You seem to always leave that part out.

 

And please, find some more original response than your typical meaningless "you need mutation to have selection" response. While that's true, that doesn't change the fact that your initial characterization of evolution is a strawman and is thus invalid.

 

You can't think of evolution as just copy errors. Evolution is THE BEST of the copy errors; the ones that actually work! It's from the success of these small improvements that you get structure in biology. It's the not the picture of chaos you keep trying to paint. You can't just keep ignoring this as though it's going to go away.

 

You must realize that you're wrong by now. Why do you keep using these lame, moronic arguments?

 

They always seem to drift away from the basics when they observe purpose and design.
Because if you actually studied biology, which you obviously haven't, you'd see that it's actually the other way around. Things are not molded to fit the environment. Rather, it's the environment that does the molding. Life has no choice but to evolve to face new circumstances on planet Earth, or else it goes extinct. The "designer", to put it facetiously, is not a self-aware being.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't think of evolution as just copy errors. Evolution is THE BEST of the copy errors; the ones that actually work! It's from the success of these small improvements that you get structure in biology. It's the not the picture of chaos you keep trying to paint. You can't just keep ignoring this as though it's going to go away.

 

If you can correct if I am wrong? Isn't causation of mutation due to environment constraint, ie the actual process may be random, but the cause of it is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't causation of mutation due to environment constraint, ie the actual process may be random, but the cause of it is not.

 

Mutation isn't caused by environmental contraint (unless you're talking about the microenvironment of the cell structure, or external mutagens like cosmic radiation or chemical mutagens in the environment). Selective adaptation is caused by environmental factors, like predation, disease, climate changes, reproductive fitness, food availability, etc.

I would venture to say the cause is entirely random, but the actual process is not.

 

Any disagreements?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, as has been said the mutations may be random acts but selection isn't. It's what drives evolution : no selection, no evolution, it's really quite simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Mutation isn't caused by environmental contraint (unless you're talking about the microenvironment of the cell structure, or external mutagens like cosmic radiation or chemical mutagens in the environment).

 

I meant to ask do the mutation occur due to change in the environment?

 

I would venture to say the cause is entirely random, but the actual process is not

 

Well, TXViper did give a very good link, which says the opposite

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo1...C1aRandom.shtml

 

Factors in the environment are thought to influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random—whether a particular mutation happens or not is generally unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

 

In the case of the bees, we are supposed to accept the "scientific" idea that their flight dynamics, hyper-complex navigation and olfactory systems, social structure and engineering/fabrication abilities, are all atttributable to DNA replication errors.

 

I agree txviper, worker bees dont pass on genetic errors.

 

BEE DANCE THEORY CONFIRMED, as reported in Nature vol. 435, p205, 12 May 2005. When bees find a source of nectar they return to their hive and recruit other bees to forage from the same source by performing a dance consisting of moving around in the figure of eight formation and waggling their abdomens.

 

In 1960 Karl von Frisch made careful observations of the bees’ dance and foraging activity after he provided artificial feeding stations for them. He concluded that the bees were able to communicate the direction, in relation to the angle of sun, and distance to the food source.

 

Some scientists were sceptical that bees could communicate such precise and complex information and suggested that the dance simply attracted other bees to the returning forager so they could pick up the odour of the food source.

 

This seemed to be confirmed as further experiments showed that bees took longer than expected to find food in artificial feeders than they should if they had precise instructions. A team of British and German scientists led by Joe Riley of Rothamsted Research, Harpenden Hertfordshire, UK tested von Frisch’s theory by tracking individual insects using tiny radar tansponders, which enabled them to plot an accurate record of the flight path of each bee from the hive to the food source.

 

They found that the bees flew straight to the vicinity of the food source but then had to search to find the feeder itself. If they didn’t find it immediately, they would return to the point at the end of their initial straight flight where they began the search behaviour. To confirm that the initial straight part of the flight was the result of instructions communicated within the hive the researchers captures some bees as they emerged from the hive and released them from three points 200-250 metres from the hive.

 

These bees flew in a straight line in the direction that would have taken them to the vicinity of the food source if they had not been displaced. This confirms von Frisch’s theory that the bees were flying according to instructions received in the hive, rather than following odours left by the bee that originally found the food. Riley suggests that the bees’ apparent lack of accuracy in finding the food at the end of the flight is that the artificial food source had no scent, and the bees do use scent and other environmental cues for to locate the exact food source at the end of their outward flight, but the artificial food sources lacked these. (end of quote)

 

All the genetic information involved in the bee communication system would have had to "evolve" in the queen bee and the drones – neither of which actually do any foraging. The worker bees, who go out and find nectar and pollen, do not reproduce, so any genetic changes in them would not be passed on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.