bees nests

The reading and the lecture are both about bees' nests. The author of the reading feels that several arguments support the skeptics' doubt that the structures were created by bees. The lecturer challenges the claims made by the author. He is of opinion that it is possible to find bees 200 years ago and the arguments are not convincing.
First, the author argues that there are no fossils of actual bees. The article mentions that no fossils were found 200 years ago and the earliest fossils were found about 100 years ago. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. He claims that it might be correct that no fossils were found 200 years ago but there are bees. Additionally, he says that the bees' fossils can not be preserved that much long 200 years, and the nest usually found on trees which were rare at that time but they became more over time so if there is no nest does not mean there are no bees.
Secondly, the writer suggests that the absence of flowering plants means there are no bees. In the article, it is said that bees feed on flowers and because the flowers found only about 125 years ago mean there were no bees. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by mentioning that even if there is a close relation between flowers and bees and flowers found 125 years ago does not mean there were no bees. He elaborates on this by bringing up the point that early bees fed on non-flowering things like ferns and then when flowers were found the bees started to feed on flowers.
Finally, the author posits that old nests' fossils lack some structure details and differ from modern ones. Moreover, the article stated that new nests are closed by caps that have a spiral pattern, but the fossilized chambers lack such caps, and old nests might be done by other insects, like wood-boring beetles. In contrast, the lecturer's position is that new nests lack caps but have chemical evidence. He noted that old nests have a waterproof that has a chemical distinct same used by modern bees.
In conclusion, the lecturer's opinion opposes the author's opinion.