(September 26, 2014 at 7:31 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(September 26, 2014 at 7:18 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: reproduction has nothing to do with physics.

Why do these people always do this?

I could write a master's thesis on how reproduction is ALL about physics, but I won't...
Learn.
You can start by learning the basics of Quantum Mechanics - Notice that this IS PHYSICS!.
Then Chemistry... a simplification of a few large scale physical QM events.
Then Biochemistry. Once here, learn about self-replicating carbon-based chemistry.
Then Biology. This is where you learn about reproduction.

Go learn. Come back in 4 years.

Ok genius, explain how the sex of a honey bee is determined by physics...

(September 26, 2014 at 7:34 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(September 26, 2014 at 7:31 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Why do these people always do this?

I could write a master's thesis on how reproduction is ALL about physics, but I won't...
Learn.
You can start by learning the basics of Quantum Mechanics - Notice that this IS PHYSICS!.
Then Chemistry... a simplification of a few large scale physical QM events.
Then Biochemistry. Once here, learn about self-replicating carbon-based chemistry.
Then Biology. This is where you learn about reproduction.

Go learn. Come back in 4 years.

Ok genius, explain how the sex of a honey bee is determined by physics...

Wow! It's been 4 years already?!
Time does fly when you're having fun!

So tell us, what have you learned?

The sex ratio in such populations is governed by evolutionary differential equations, dawkins explains this nicely in TEP. The sex of individuals is fixed by the means of production. Most ofem are haploid like Jesus

(September 26, 2014 at 7:30 pm)Rhythm Wrote: -You- just explained why the pattern expresses itself in honeybee reproduction Huggy....

Quote:males come from a unfertilized egg

-and in doing so, established that it was not random - and not the product of some intelligent designer. It is the product of haplodiploidy, in this instance.

The female follows the same sequence also, and my main point was why, by dividing the number of females with the number of males, does the number equal phi.

---

(September 26, 2014 at 7:37 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(September 26, 2014 at 7:34 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Ok genius, explain how the sex of a honey bee is determined by physics...

Wow! It's been 4 years already?!
Time does fly when you're having fun!

So tell us, what have you learned?

answer the question.

---

(September 26, 2014 at 7:42 pm)Alex K Wrote: The sex ratio in such populations is governed by evolutionary differential equations, dawkins explains this nicely in TEP. The sex of individuals is fixed by the means of production. Most ofem are haploid like Jesus

except the ratio in this case is the golden ratio.

@Huggy

I think because that's the fixed point of the differential equation. Granted, it's not obvious why it should be the golden ratio, but they tend to be simple algebraic numbers like that.

Oh, we're actually doing this bullshit now? Okay...

You're right though, Huggy: the only possible explanation for repeated patterns is god, specifically the christian god. It's the only way. Yep.

Why stop at this specific level of granularity though? I mean, there are much more widespread patterns, after all. Isn't it convenient, for example, that all physical objects are made out of matter? It's such a diverse repeating pattern that the only example is a christian space wizard did it! Oh, and all those things made out of matter are either composed of straight lines or curves... how could that happen through chance, explain to me that?! The only possible explanation is that an uncreated disembodied mind with a boner for crucifixes purposely nudged the entirety of reality into being composed of lines and curves!

Every single bowl of Lucky Charms has green clovers in it! The only explanation for such staggering odds is magic, everyone!

(September 26, 2014 at 7:43 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: The female follows the same sequence also, and my main point was why, by dividing the number of females with the number of males, does the number equal phi.

So the reproductive pattern of bees is caused by haplodiploidy, and it is consistent for any given representative of the colony. Nothing intelligent about that, nothing that requires any designing. They don't need to know any math to accomplish this.

But, onward and upward. Do you get phi when you divide the number of females with the number of males, or is that just something Dan Brown told you? Care to do the math for me?

(September 26, 2014 at 7:43 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(September 26, 2014 at 7:37 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Wow! It's been 4 years already?!
Time does fly when you're having fun!

So tell us, what have you learned?

answer the question.

I gave you a little sketch of the disciplines you must understand prior to realizing that you can answer that question.
Are you seriously expecting me to lecture you on QM, Chemistry, biochemistry and standard biology? And then show you how each plays with the other? How each is a cruder model for the previous... cruder to allow for a different observational scale.
Down deep, all biology is biochemistry... all biochemistry is just chemistry... all chemistry is just Quantum mechanics.... all QM is just QCD.... all QCD is... I don't know. It doesn't matter.
This answers your question... in a very very very crude fashion.
More depth requires research on your part., so go on... chop chop... come back in 4 years when you've done all the required research. Then, if you still have the same question, we can talk.

(September 26, 2014 at 8:11 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(September 26, 2014 at 7:43 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: The female follows the same sequence also, and my main point was why, by dividing the number of females with the number of males, does the number equal phi.

So the reproductive pattern of bees is caused by haplodiploidy, and it is consistent for any given representative of the colony. Nothing intelligent about that, nothing that requires any designing. They don't need to know any math to accomplish this.

But, onward and upward. Do you get phi when you divide the number of females with the number of males, or is that just something Dan Brown told you? Care to do the math for me?

First of all, i have no clue who Dan Brown is although I have hear the name before.
Secondly, I think you would actually need a beehive to demonstrate this.
And thirdly, I got the info from this website.

The George Washington University Honey Bee Research and Beekeeping

---

(September 26, 2014 at 8:21 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(September 26, 2014 at 7:43 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: answer the question.

I gave you a little sketch of the disciplines you must understand prior to realizing that you can answer that question.
Are you seriously expecting me to lecture you on QM, Chemistry, biochemistry and standard biology? And then show you how each plays with the other? How each is a cruder model for the previous... cruder to allow for a different observational scale.
Down deep, all biology is biochemistry... all biochemistry is just chemistry... all chemistry is just Quantum mechanics.... all QM is just QCD.... all QCD is... I don't know. It doesn't matter.
This answers your question... in a very very very crude fashion.
More depth requires research on your part., so go on... chop chop... come back in 4 years when you've done all the required research. Then, if you still have the same question, we can talk.

more dodge tactics I see, either you can explain it or you can't.. me doing research has no bearing on your explanation.

I've read the link already bud. The quote is a one liner at the bottom of the page. It says that I should click the link for more info -which I did.......

...and there's nothing in the page linked which even mentions that claim.

So what gives?

There -are- numbers on bee populations by gender as both specific examples and averages, of course. You're going to have a hard time getting the numbers you made claim to.