Summarise the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they case doubt on specific points made in the reading passage.

The article and the lecture are both about the possibility of the existence of bees 200 million years ago. While the author of the paper argues that some doubts about fossil structures have been found, the lecturer disputes the claims presented in the article. Her position is that it is plausible that the bees lived 200 million years ago. According to the reading, the fossil of a bee, having lasted 200 million years ago, has not been found. The author mentions that the earliest bee fossil is from 100 million years ago. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. She says that the reason for the lack of a 200-million-year fossil is that there was no chemical that the fossil could preserve. Additionally, she claims that a particular type of resin could maintain the fossil for such a long time that it may not have existed then. Secondly, the author suggests that due to the lack of flowering plants 200 million years ago, the bees did not have anything to nourish. In the article, it is said that the first flowering plants came into existence 125 years ago. The lecturer, however, asserts that the bees might eat nonflowering plants at that time. She goes on to say that the bees might be adapted in such a way that they could nourish from nonflowering plants such as pine trees. Finally, the author puts forth the idea that the fossilized structure lacks some details of modern bees' nests. The writer contends that modern bees' nests are surrounded by caps having a spiral pattern; however, the found' fossils lack such caps. In contrast, the lecture's stance is that bees' nests are constituted from a particular chemical substance. She notes that the fossilized structures having founded are made from the same material.