Evolutionists: Flower or bee, where is the evidence or can you admit it is all speculation?

I read the great sorce on coevolution that was suggested. In it it said,';The HYPOTHETICAL coevolution of pollination and angiosperms..'; It listed many great species DESIGNED specifically for each other too.Evolutionists: Flower or bee, where is the evidence or can you admit it is all speculation?
Early gymnosperms and angiosperms were wind-pollinated.





Like modern gymnosperms, the ovule exuded droplets of sap to catch pollen grains.


Insects (beetles) on the plant found this protein/sugar mix and used it as food.





Insects became dependent on this food source and started carrying pollen from plant to plant.





Beetle-pollination must have been more efficient than wind for some species, so there was natural selection for plants that attracted insects.


Next to occur would have been the evolution of nectaries, nectar-secreting structures, to lure the pollinators.





Development of white or brightly-colored, conspicuous flowers to draw attention to the nectar and/or other food sources would also have occurred.





The carpel (female reproductive structure) was originally leaf-shaped. It became folded on itself to enclose and protect the ovule from being eaten by the pollinators (hence Angiosperms). Plants with protected ovules would have been selected over ones with ovules that got eaten.


By the beginning of the Cenozoic Era (65 mya), the first bees, wasps, butterflies, and moths had evolved. The significance in this is that these are insects for which flowers are often the only source of nutrition for the adults.





From this point on, certain plant and insect species have had a profound influence on one another’s evolution. A flower that attracted specific pollinators on a regular basis had an advantage (less wasted pollen) over flowers that attracted “promiscuous” pollinators. It is also an advantage for the pollinator to have its own “private” food source because there is, thus, less competition. The varied shapes, colors, and odors of flowers allowed sensory recognition by pollinators and excluded unwanted, indiscriminate pollinators.








Today, over 65% of Angiosperms are insect-pollinated and 20% of insects, at least at some stage, depend on flowers for their food.





Check out the excellent link for more info.Evolutionists: Flower or bee, where is the evidence or can you admit it is all speculation?
The co-evolution of pollination and angiosperms is a theory based on evolution. All the science suggests it is true. Some forms of co-evolution have even been observed and studied.





Within evolution, there are many theories as to why specific types of species became the way they are. All these theories are based on scientific study, data, experimentation, etc. None of this science suggests in any way that there was something ';designing'; species.
Evolution is fact. The theory regards the mechanisms behind the fact.





Creationism is not a theory, it's not even science. It has no evidence.





You should also be aware, that if evolutionary theory were ever overturned, it would be done so via a scientifi theory that better explains the evidence (rather unlikely).





Pointing out well-known gaps in evolutionary chains in no way demonstrates ';God did it';.
You've become trapped by words, but I suppose that's understandable for a literalist. What has captured you is known as teleology and I'll let you read about that on your own:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology





Your other point - hypothetical and speculation - is entirely true. The theory of evolution moves incrementally from speculation and hypothesis to concrete knowledge. It's not a complete theory but it is a well-established theory. No evolutionary biologist will admit we know it all - science is always a work in progress - but since Darwin's day, evolution has had more than a century of support from every aspect of science. To effectively argue evolution (for or against) you're going to need more than a ';great source on coevolution,'; I'd suggest an advanced degree in one of the life sciences.
Huh?





Evolution isn't just speculation. There are predictions. Those predictions are tested, and found to be true.





Sorry, but we all know that design is just Creationism dressed up. And we all know that modern Creationist are felons, like Kent Hovind.





So if you want to go on your soapbox and say ';Yes, I proudly embrace the same sense of honesty that tax frauds like Kent Hovind do';, then go ahead. It'll make life easier for everyone else to know which side is honest, and which side is criminal.
There is lots of evidence of evolution, and the fact of the matter is that while it's referred to as a theory, the difference is that there is NO evidence of intelligent design. Which theory would you have us lean towards, then: a theory with solid evidence to back it up, or a notion that some magical being created us all and which has no evidence supporting it?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;…
It is a hypothesis based on a theory.





More scientific than Creationism, which is speculation.