God's bees truly demonstrate they were designed. Newton's math exceeded!

In regarding to answering the creation/evolution question each person must ask themselves if they want to do their due diligence regarding God's amazing bees.

In short:

To bee or not to bee, that is the question!

(this was a pun for those comedically impaired)

There is some very interesting information that is widely and not widely known about bees.


1) hexagon/honeybee beehive info

First, here is the fairly well known information regarding the hexagon shape of the beehive cells:

"Hexagon shaped cells in the hive are strong enough to hold five gallons of honey. The hexagon shape has less wasted space than a circle shape, is stronger, and is less work since the sides of one cell form the sides of the next cell."

taken from: http://www.palmbeach.k12.fl.us/PantherRunES/pantherrun/bees.htm

Here is more information regarding the hexagon/hive issue:

"Bees use the hexagonal shape to provide the maximum space with the least amount of building material. Snowflakes also exhibit this hexagonal pattern. Again, these patterns, in which things fit together with the least waste of space, is most efficient and what makes nature most comfortable. Most school children would be hard-pressed to tell you this."

taken from: http://www.earth360.com/math-naturesnumbers.html


2) rhombic dodecahedrons and honeybee beehives

Here is some info from a website:

"The module involves a study of the geometry of the rhombic dodecahedron. It has twelve surfaces, like the regular dodecahedron, with each face a rhombus (a square that has been sheared) but its vertices are made up of clusters of three surfaces at some vertices and four at others, in a particular pattern. By investigating the model we will discover it has two elevations, one square and one hexagonal, both of which tessellate in a three dimensional space.

Indeed, the honeycomb in the beehive looks exactly like the packing together of the rhombic dodecahedra with their hexagonal sections. What is even more surprising is that the bees seal the ends of their hexagonal cells or prisms with the three faces of the rhombic dodecahedron. The honeycomb has attracted attention since the early days of mathematics. Pappus of Alexandria left an account of its hexagonal plan and attributed to the bees a 'certain geometrical forethought!'. However, as late as 1739, the Secretary of the Royal Academy in Paris denied intelligence to the bees but nevertheless found them blindly using the highest mathematics by 'divine guidance and command'!

The geometry of the model is quite fascinating, especially in the study of the particular rhombus which forms the face of the rhombic dodecahedron. The key to its shape is in the ratio of the diagonals which defines its face. We shall investigate this ratio in a very simple way, once we have studied the model.

In addition, by making a family of small rhombic dodecahedra, we will investigate the capacity of this shape to fill space in the three dimensional space. There are only five shapes altogether that we can find that are 'space fillers' i.e. the packing together of identical polyhedra in the same orientation to fill space. We shall list the five space-filling solids which includes the rhombic dodecahedron - the shape of the Garnet crystal."

taken from: http://www.devon.gov.uk/dcs/maths/shapes/module17.htm


3) The total mathematic package of the honeybee beehive explained:

(awesome link! Click this link! Yes that means you! )

http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/root1891c.htm

(Did you click the link? What are you waiting for? )


4) The almost UN-BEE-LIEVABLE mathematics behind a honeybee beehive excerpts taken from this website: http://fccl.ksu.ru/papers/gp008.pdf )


"Kepler's discovery "passed unnoticed, so that the astronomer Miraldi was later creditedwith determining the rhombic dodecahedral shape of the bee cells as well as the angles of therhombic surfaces. Then Euler developed his ideas of maxima and minima mentioned earlier.So Reaumur hypothesized that perhaps Miraldi's rhombic dodecahedron was a "minimalconfiguration" and might be that which "employs the minimum of surface for a givencontent: or which, in other words, should hold the most honey for the least wax" (Thompson,1992:529). Reaumur put the problem to Johann Samuel Konig, who later ignited the famousquarrel over priority to the principle of least action between Maupertuis and Voltaire. Konig calculated the predicted angles and was "agreeably surprised" to find that his calculationsagreed to within 2 minutes with Miraldi's measurements. He was actually so surprised that he "asserted that the bees had solved a problem beyond the reach of the old geometry andrequiring the methods of Newton and Leibniz." Fontenelle, the secretary of the FrenchAcademy, "denied intelligence to the bees but nevertheless found them blindly using the highest mathematics by divine guidance and command." ....

My commentary: Actually bees have non-mammalian brains and cannot solve such a problem. Plus bees work in the darkness of the hive! God is in a much better position to solve the problem! I reject the "genius bees" hypothesis!

....Colin Maclaurin also took up the study of the honeycomb. He had participated in thedevelopment of the calculus after Newton and Leibniz, as every calculus student who hashad to calculate the Maclaurin series may have suspected (Marsden & Weinstein, 1985). But for whatever reason, he decided to solve for the honeycomb angles without using "anyhigher Geometry than was known to the Antients [sic]."[6] He calculated the angles to be109=9A 28' 16'', and its supplement, 70=9A 31' 44". It turned out that Konig had made amistake in determining the square root of 2 and that the angles calculated by Maclaurinagreed precisely with Miraldi's measurement.This led to the dictum that the bees "had been proved right and the mathematicians wrong,an error spread by Lord Brougham. However, it was eventually realized that this was anoverstatement since, in reality, the bee cells "are far from identical, and do no more thanapproximate to an average or ideal angle." The consensus was that Miraldi's"measurements" were actually idealizations that he had made and that he "had really donewell and scientifically when he eked out a rough observation by finer theory, and deemedhimself entitled thereby to discuss the cell and itsangles in the same precise terms that he would use as a mathematician in speaking of itsgeometrical prototype."Darwin devotes a whole section in The Origin of Species to the "Cell-making instinctof the Hive-Bee" and even performs a series of experiments with bee-hives himself. Heseems to favor Reamur's theory discussed above:We hear from mathematicians that bees have practically solved a recondite problem, and have made their cells of the proper shape to hold the greatest possible amount of honey,with the least possible consumption of precious wax in their construction. (Darwin,1958:242) ....

My commnentary: Darwin was wrong again!

Here is the actual truth it appears:

"We can say with certainty that Darwin was wrong in saying that the honeycomb is "absolutely perfect" in economyterms. It was proven by the Hungarian mathematician Fejes T=F3th in his paper "What theBees Know and What They Don't Know" that the bee cell is not perfectly optimal. There isa slight imperfection. He formulated the "isoperimetric problem for honeycombs" and was able to come up with at least one better result (Hildebrandt & Tromba, 1996:227). As werecall, Kepler had found that the "keel" or base of the cell consisted of three equal rhombi.T=F3th found a slightly better cell base consisting of two rhombi and two and two hexagons...."

My commentary:

I am guessing the three rhombic dodecahedrons at the base of bee behive (if memory serves) cells are more easily to organize bees behavior in the hive. If anyone else wants to offer some information it would be (or should I say bee!) most welcome. Also, perhaps the brain on non-mammalian bees was not conduscive to having this more complex arrangement.


5) More UN-BEE-LIEVABLE FINDINGS (PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL SCIENCE)

http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/design/bcs079.html


6) Bees and flowers

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/godevol2.html


7) Lastly, I think the information in this thread is so compelling I take a Ripley's attitude towards it!

Bee-lieve it or not!

In short, the creationists once again fly like a butterfly and sting like a bee!


Sincerely,

Ken

 

TO: ALL

I predict this string will create a lot of buzz!

Sincerely,

Ken