A Bee in Evolution's Bonnet!

Once, as a young man, I had the opportunity to work for a couple of months at the Rulison Brothers Honey Farm in upstate New York. It was during their busy "harvest" season. My job, for ten hours a day, six days a week, was running the big extracting machine that removed the honey from the honeycombs.

When I started that job, I knew absolutely nothing about honey bees. By the time I finished, I had learned a great deal about these incredible little creatures. Through all the years since, as I have watched honey bees in action, I have marveled at how much they know about what they do, and how hard it is for evolution to explain their actions.

I could give you a whole series of examples, but let me list just one:
When collecting pollen, they always go to the same type of flower. For example, if they are going to clover blossoms, they go ONLY to clover blossoms- if buckwheat, only to buckwheat, etc.

The interaction between bees and blossoms is well known in science. They even have a name for it: symbiosis, which is described by Webster as, "a relationship of mutual interdependence", which is exactly what this relationship is. The bee depends on the blossom for food, and the blossom depends on the bee for pollination. One can't exist without the other.

Ask any evolutionist how it all came about and they will give you the same answer: it developed over millions of years. But that isn't an answer - it's an evasion of the question!

Here's the problem: If the bees and blossoms were existing independently of each other for how ever long, WHEN did they start depending on one another? And WHY?

There's no way the blossom could have thought, "I think I need the help of those cute little honey bees to pollinate me and keep my species alive", because plants don't think.

And, even given that the bee has a brain, it isn't capable of thought, either, so it didn't think, "H-m-m, those blossoms need my help to get pollinated, and I need a source of food, so this could work out well for both of us!"

The undeniable conclusion is BOTH the blossom and the bee would have had to "evolve" this relationship at exactly the same time, if evolution actually works the way its proponents say it does.

Look at the fallacy of the evolutionary concept!
If these two totally different species only gradually evolved the idea they needed each other, what happened in the meantime? Obviously the blossoms would have had to pollinate themselves another way. And if that way worked, there would have been no need to change!

At the same time, the honey bees would have had to get their food supply elsewhere. If that was happening, and they were successful at it, once again there would be no need to go to a totally different system, where they depended upon the blossoms, as they do today.

What if, while the blossoms were trying to lure the bees into this relationship, the bees refused?" Or if it were the bees who first proposed it, the blossoms said no way?

Did the bees simply force themselves onto the blossoms? Or perhaps when the bees landed on them, the blossoms held them captive until they submitted to their demands?

When did it enter their little bee minds that if they were visiting clover blossoms, they would stick to just those blossoms, even though there might be many other tasty and inviting species close at hand?

Charles Darwin's whole theory is based on the survival of the fittest over eons of time. But if either species had survived for untold millions of years by themselves, they were ALREADY the fittest. They didn't NEED each other!

You simply CANNOT explain this arrangement away using evolutionary theory! It doesn't FIT in anywhere in the picture. Yet it exists! And untold millions of people have watched this partnership in action over the millennia!

And enjoyed the end-result of it as they ate honey!

Seems like this is one case where there's a bee in the evolutionist's bonnet!