>
>    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.