I will skip the second one for now, as it's slightly different. But I think the other two can be covered by one simple premise. The creation of one led to an environment which allowed the other to both thrive and diversify. I think the problem here is that you are stuck in the creationist view point that things suddenly sprang into existence, which just didn't happen changes are small and take place of millions/billions of years.
Keep in mind here that you have asked questions on macro and micro biology as well as geology, evolution and atmosheric science. I am not an expert in any of these specific fields but I have touched on all fields in my study so I will give it my best.
Lets start with flowering plants and insects, and I'm guessing that what you are going for (*at least in part) here is Darwin's "abominable mystery” - I really wish you would stop looking at the efforts to create a model OVER 100 YEARS AGO - as I have said, the models change and improve as we look and find new information and discard what we can disprove.
Firstly, insects existed well before flowering plants (angiosperms) and we can see this from the fossil record. We can also see that these specimen far less numerous and diverse than they are today. Plants at the time (and still today) would use the wind to spread pollen to come into contact with other plants to create new seeds. Insects at this time would have been feeding of plants, including pollen. Then at some point we have a mutation in a plant species which created pollen which was an appealing food source for an existing insect. This would have allowed the particular mutation to lead to more successful pollination as the pollen would come into contact with plants at a greater distance and with a higher hit rate. If more genetic material, which included the new mutation, made it to other plants then this mutation would be more prevalent in the offspring of those plants. Thus the those plants became more common in the environment. Now if those plants are more common in the environment then there is a change and an opportunity for new mutations. So insects which can make better use of increase of these plants will also increase and mutations will lead to successful insects passing on more genetic material and unsuccessful mutations passing on less. Remember we aren't talking about huge changes but tiny ones, lots of them, over a very long period of time. And we can observe these sorts of changes today over decades.
With a rise in pollen eating insects there will also come a rise in predator species such as wasps. The wasps kill and harvest insects which have been feeding on pollen and store them in nests and essentially planting seeds with added nutrients for the plants (again they were doing it before flowing plants came along but the change in conditions created an improved opportunity and increased numbers).
Now the same process will continue with the plants. If the insects become too efficient at eating the pollen then plants which with pollen slightly higher may do better than something sitting at ground level - which could give rise to an advantage to flying insects. A mutation creates part of the plant or a byproduct which is more appealing than the pollen, so less needs to be produced but still comes into contact with insects and the mutation is more effective and successful. More of this genetic material is passed on and the trait becomes more common. Mutations which take further advantage of this efficiency occur and are passed on until you reach something similar to nectar. At the same, some wasp like insects which are visiting plants to harvest the insects feeding there may see start to see the nectar as a potential food source and those with mutations which allow it to be processed more efficiently will use it as a greater food source and there will be a divergence between these wasps as some begin to utilise this new and increasing food source while others continue to utilise the existing one. Then we have a cataclysmic event; whatever wiped out the dinosaurs and a large amount of plant life with it. When the dust finally settled, the most successful plants were those which could reproduce the most efficiently - the angiosperms. And they spread, giving an increase in new environments to colonize and more genetic material to produce new mutations and take advantage of these new conditions. This process continues in tiny gradual changes until we have modern flowers and modern pollinators which have evolved over time, with successful mutations which created an advantage of the environment of the time.
Please let me know where you have any issues. But again I need to add:
- None of this tells people how to live their lives.
- It is not a belief system it is a model which is constantly changing to reflect the investigations that scientists are doing to better understand it.
- It does not disprove the idea of some great creator being (as nothing can) and I don't use it as such.
- Attempting to discredit it does nothing to prove your idea of an Abrahamic god and you are simply trying put pressure on what you believe is a competing idea. They are not equivalent and all you are doing is distracting from the fact that there is ZERO good evidence to support your belief and your justification for prejudice.
