It wouldn't matter in the X chromosome Y chromosome scenario because the determination is basically a coin flip.
You still don't get it. Whether it's XY or something else is totally irrelevant. The Nature always have ways to change the ratio if evolution requires it to do it. If X-Y mechanism always produces 1:1 ratio, and it is more favorable evolution wise to have a 1:3 ratio, then nature will find a way to change it, for example, by adding a third chromosome, or through chemical means if the chromosomes are not (yet) changed.
You just cited an authority for the speed of light you complete moron. Which is an appeal to authority you complete fool. You complete lack of integrity manifested again when you said my I misrpresented the quotes of Susskind. You are a complete asshole. I presented the quotes of Susskind and no one has ever said he did not make them or that he refuted them. if you wish to dispute this fact prove I misrepresented them you complete fucking asshole.
You just cited an authority for the speed of light you complete moron. Which is an appeal to authority you complete fool. You complete lack of integrity manifested again when you said my I misrepresented the quotes of Susskind. You are a complete asshole. I presented the quotes of Susskind and no one has ever said he did not make them or that he refuted them. if you wish to dispute this fact prove I misrepresented them you complete moron.
You just cited an authority for the speed of light you complete moron. Which is an appeal to authority you complete fool. You also had scientists in court for years saying fingerprints ID people. This was an appeal to authority by science you fool. Now it has been proven to be wrong. Your complete lack of integrity manifested again when you said I misrepresented the quotes of Susskind. You are a complete asshole. Prove I misrepresented them you complete moron.
and I'm the idiot ... here's you first problem, in attempting to disprove the existence of god , actually that is your fundemental flaw, you're attempting to disprove the existence of god. there is no evidence that god does not exist. if you simply offer evidence of evolution, you may avoid not only pissing people-off, but making an ass of yourself.
the above similar posting are evidence of the difficulty my firefox set up has editing elitetrader posts.
Showing your real colors now. I have offered evidence of evolution. It's your turn to offer the evidence of God.
This still does not prove your point. One can say that the equation you are solving is unlocking the method of the designer. One can also say that what looks like random chance to us is something that is just beyond our comprehension at this point. Considering that the designer (however you want to view him/her/it) would have infinite wisdom compared to us, one could say that it is easier for us to create our own theories in order to satisfy our own need for understanding our existence rather than leaving it to faith alone and believing that there is something greater than ourselves out there. By the way, great touch you added to your last post calling jem out on his grammatical errors. We know that you would never do anything like that. From the above quote: The Nature always have ways to change the ratio if evolution requires it to do it. Or this one: Anyone who still don't get it deserves to be called "idiot."