Evolution of honeycomb design

well never mind then

 

I understand what you're saying and yea, I know. I had already thought of that before I even started this thread. It's the very reason I chose the honeycomb. Highest chance of evidence to be/have been recovered (that I've thought of anyway). But since were on this ... I'm not even sure that bees can survive more than a couple generations with ANY other method of hive making. That doesn't really leave room for evolution. Maybe It HAD to be perfect from the start. Just a theory.

But besides all that crap.. doesn't evolution imply that they had to be around long enough to ... oh, I don't know... evolve? If they were alive for any decent period in history, there has to be some ancient hive in amber somewhere out there. Maybe it doesn't exist, maybe it just hasn't been found. I personally don't think it exists. They'll never find it. It always was this way. That's how I feel deep down, anyway.

Not to be a dick but I don't think you read all the posts here. Like I said before, I'm not pointing to an answer, I'm just pointing out something I think is odd, quite possibly miraculous. So don't direct that intelligent design stuff at me. It was something I mentioned in the beginning but it could be any number of answers that I haven't even thought of or quite possibly, are simply out of my realm of understanding at this current time.

It's been discussed already that both intelligent design and evolution seem somewhat flawed and there is a possibility that it's a combination of the two or something else that we haven't even considered.

 

A 'science' minded person might dismiss you machinist.. but you might be onto something. I don't know if it's as you say but I feel there might be a connection.

 

Considering that most of the estimated few billion species of life-forms in the earth's history have taken wrong turns and gone extinct leaving only tens of millions, something is going on that has defies full explanation. This calls for a new branch of inquiry known as the 'stupid design' theory. In this theory we hypothesize that there is a mystical 'stupid agent' that permeates the universe and causes at least some of these failures. This theory is not necessarily in conflict with the 'intelligent design' theory. It could very well be that there are two agents that compete with one another but that the 'stupid agent' somehow has the advantage most of the time. Some have postulated that the 'intelligent agent' quickly designs and manufactures a new life-form but that the 'stupid agent', much like a terrorist, subsequently sneaks in and disrupts the DNA which later causes the failure of the life-form. Further inquiry hopes to solve the current dilemma of not being able to fully explain this phenomenon that has occurred throughout the history of life on Earth.

 

Experiment.
Put a bunch of spheres (ping pong balls or marbles or something) into a frame or on a tray. (Make sure there is seven or more).
You will notice that a pattern forms; 6 spheres around a central 1. (The same can be seen in even sized bubbles on the surface of a liquid).
Now what happens if you squeeze out the space between the 6 outside spheres and the central 1? - You get a honeycomb design.
It is the mathematical result of using space the most efficiently.

p.s. Meagain answered the evolution question perfectly first time with this quote:

 

Hmm. A lot of people seem to be stuck on 'design' theories here...

 

You're very right and we went over this before. Doesn't make it any less dumbfounding that it just happens to be 'perfect'. As in, no possible room for improvement that I can see. Interesting about the 'feedback from simple sensations'. Maybe it's not the bees or evolution so much, maybe it's just laws of nature, physics (or other?). I don't know. But if that was so, that doesn't really change my mind that something interesting/special is going on. Perhaps it could be almost as if they were exemplifying some sort of mathematical truth inherent to nature and reality as we know it. Which is sort of what machinist was getting at earlier, i believe.

 

What do people expect those in the realm of science to do?

Science is not an activity of trying to behold perceived perfection and beauty and ascribe it to an intelligent or mystical or mythical agent. It's not an act of trying to make believers out of people about a fuzzy claim that's difficult or impossible to prove or disprove.

Scientists observe a phenomenon, formulate a hypothesis that is based on natural laws and is amenable to being falsified, test the hypothesis with objective theoretical and experimental methods, and decide whether the hypothesis has merit. If a sufficient number of independent groups produce similar results and agree on an explanation, a scientific consensus is formed. The consensus isn't written in stone and is amenable if people are able to produce a more correct or complete explanations later.

For those who want to hypothesize about something such as a sudden creation of DNA done by an intelligent agent, perform what's in the above paragraph (assuming the hypothesis is even within that realm) using the process that scientists have been using for many decades to study the time evolution of biological lifeforms. Produce a more accurate or complete explanation than what is currently available and publish the results in respected journals that are reviewed by scientists.

 

perceived perfection, eh? Well you're right.. but i suppose if the bees excreted titanium out of their butts to make their nest then it wouldn't be 'perceived' perfection anymore lol
All I was saying was I think this points to something, something unknown, and yes, possibly even something that you would call mystical now but will be called science later (and still be no less miraculous).