> > Again, the robot bee worked (and very poorly at that), even when they > paired the bee motion with odor. So why not credit odor as the responsible > agent? We in science call upon a law called "Occam's Razor" in such a > case; use the simplest explanation that can accommodate the evidence. Odor > is by far more simple than a human-type language. > "human-type" maybe but that is not the claim of the dance "language". The dialect would be tiny, less than 10 symbols. Language is such a poor choice of words. If it exists it is a programmed response, it would be programmed in a finite language called DNA. Selection for a "dance" gene could start with a mutation where bees returning full "giggle" and attract other bees. Exchange of the scent brought in with these workers would assist them in locating a food source. In additon to that data, selections for movement response that varied with direction and distance could further give advantage to that attribute.