Total Posts:76|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

50% male / 50% female

Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 1:19:40 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
Why does nature produce exactly 50% males and 50% females?
My explanation - This is because the universe is 48% left spin and 48% right spin. The remainder of the universe (4%) has no spin. This spin causes the formation of an equal amount of males and females. The remaining 4% of humans are of indistinct or mixed sexuality.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 2:06:52 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 1:19:40 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
Why does nature produce exactly 50% males and 50% females?
My explanation - This is because the universe is 48% left spin and 48% right spin. The remainder of the universe (4%) has no spin. This spin causes the formation of an equal amount of males and females. The remaining 4% of humans are of indistinct or mixed sexuality.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 3:28:57 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 2:06:52 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:19:40 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
Why does nature produce exactly 50% males and 50% females?
My explanation - This is because the universe is 48% left spin and 48% right spin. The remainder of the universe (4%) has no spin. This spin causes the formation of an equal amount of males and females. The remaining 4% of humans are of indistinct or mixed sexuality.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Brain dead, rest in peace!
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 4:41:10 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 1:19:40 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
Why does nature produce exactly 50% males and 50% females?
My explanation - This is because the universe is 48% left spin and 48% right spin. The remainder of the universe (4%) has no spin. This spin causes the formation of an equal amount of males and females. The remaining 4% of humans are of indistinct or mixed sexuality.

Been some time since I have checked in with the crazy that is Akhenaten. Never disappoint.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 1:22:44 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 4:41:10 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:19:40 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
Why does nature produce exactly 50% males and 50% females?
My explanation - This is because the universe is 48% left spin and 48% right spin. The remainder of the universe (4%) has no spin. This spin causes the formation of an equal amount of males and females. The remaining 4% of humans are of indistinct or mixed sexuality.

Been some time since I have checked in with the crazy that is Akhenaten. Never disappoint.

More brain dead and walking zombies!
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 1:29:44 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 1:19:40 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
Why does nature produce exactly 50% males and 50% females?
My explanation - This is because the universe is 48% left spin and 48% right spin. The remainder of the universe (4%) has no spin. This spin causes the formation of an equal amount of males and females. The remaining 4% of humans are of indistinct or mixed sexuality.

http://www.doggenetics.co.uk...
Meh!
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 1:54:53 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/18/2016 1:29:44 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:19:40 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
Why does nature produce exactly 50% males and 50% females?
My explanation - This is because the universe is 48% left spin and 48% right spin. The remainder of the universe (4%) has no spin. This spin causes the formation of an equal amount of males and females. The remaining 4% of humans are of indistinct or mixed sexuality.

http://www.doggenetics.co.uk...

Rest in peace. amen.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 1:59:26 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 1:19:40 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
Why does nature produce exactly 50% males and 50% females?
My explanation - This is because the universe is 48% left spin and 48% right spin. The remainder of the universe (4%) has no spin. This spin causes the formation of an equal amount of males and females. The remaining 4% of humans are of indistinct or mixed sexuality.

Akh, it's true that among sexually-reproducing species, the sex ratio is often close to 1:1. However, did you first check whether there are other, more testable and predictive explanations? For example, do you know what Fisher's principle is, and of any experiments conducted that confirm it?

Do you also know which species break the 1:1 ratio, and how they do so?

What testable observation does your explanation predict, which Fisher's principle does not? What confirmed observations, if any, does Fisher's principle predict which your explanation fails to meet, and why does it fail?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 2:05:14 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/18/2016 1:22:44 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:41:10 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:19:40 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
Why does nature produce exactly 50% males and 50% females?
My explanation - This is because the universe is 48% left spin and 48% right spin. The remainder of the universe (4%) has no spin. This spin causes the formation of an equal amount of males and females. The remaining 4% of humans are of indistinct or mixed sexuality.

Been some time since I have checked in with the crazy that is Akhenaten. Never disappoint.

More brain dead and walking zombies!

Nothing in the time you have been posting to this forum gives you any credibility in claims of superiority. You do know that you are on the top ten of mocked users, right?
SJM
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 2:13:53 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/18/2016 2:05:14 AM, TBR wrote:
At 7/18/2016 1:22:44 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:41:10 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:19:40 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
Why does nature produce exactly 50% males and 50% females?
My explanation - This is because the universe is 48% left spin and 48% right spin. The remainder of the universe (4%) has no spin. This spin causes the formation of an equal amount of males and females. The remaining 4% of humans are of indistinct or mixed sexuality.

Been some time since I have checked in with the crazy that is Akhenaten. Never disappoint.

More brain dead and walking zombies!

Nothing in the time you have been posting to this forum gives you any credibility in claims of superiority. You do know that you are on the top ten of mocked users, right?

Who are the others?
Hitler- If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.

Stalin- Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.

Machiavelli- It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

Ivan the Terrible- "I will not see the destruction of the Christian converts who are loyal to me, and to my last breath I will fight for the Orthodox faith
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 2:56:17 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/18/2016 1:59:26 AM, RuvDraba wrote:


Akh, it's true that among sexually-reproducing species, the sex ratio is often close to 1:1. However, did you first check whether there are other, more testable and predictive explanations? For example, do you know what Fisher's principle is, and of any experiments conducted that confirm it?

Do you also know which species break the 1:1 ratio, and how they do so?

What testable observation does your explanation predict, which Fisher's principle does not? What confirmed observations, if any, does Fisher's principle predict which your explanation fails to meet, and why does it fail?

1. Fisher's principle doesn't explain why 4 % of a given species has no gender specific traits. Whereas, my model which is based on the space to mater ratio of 96% to 4 % fully explains this anomaly fully. Fisher's study does not include non-gender specific anomalies.

2. Fisher's principle is an after fact study. My study preempts the cause of the division before it occurs. Thus, left and right spin energy is the underlying cause of the divisions in the first place.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 3:51:23 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 1:19:40 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
Why does nature produce exactly 50% males and 50% females?
My explanation - This is because the universe is 48% left spin and 48% right spin. The remainder of the universe (4%) has no spin. This spin causes the formation of an equal amount of males and females. The remaining 4% of humans are of indistinct or mixed sexuality.
Why do the most populous organism, the bacterium, have no gender at all?
Why do some species have 100% females ?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 3:59:51 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 1:19:40 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
Why does nature produce exactly 50% males and 50% females?
My explanation - This is because the universe is 48% left spin and 48% right spin. The remainder of the universe (4%) has no spin. This spin causes the formation of an equal amount of males and females. The remaining 4% of humans are of indistinct or mixed sexuality.

There actually is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this.

Female Karyotype: 46/XX
Male Karyotype: 46/XY

Female Gamete: 23/X (if you split XX and can only keep one of the two, you have a 100% chance of getting an X)
Male Gamete: 23/X or 23/Y (if you split XY and can only keep one of the two, you have a 50% chance of getting X and a 50% chance of getting Y)
Ultimately, the female gamete will always donate the X. The male gamete will donate either the X or the Y, and this will determine gender.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 4:01:11 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/18/2016 2:13:53 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/18/2016 2:05:14 AM, TBR wrote:
At 7/18/2016 1:22:44 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:41:10 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:19:40 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
Why does nature produce exactly 50% males and 50% females?
My explanation - This is because the universe is 48% left spin and 48% right spin. The remainder of the universe (4%) has no spin. This spin causes the formation of an equal amount of males and females. The remaining 4% of humans are of indistinct or mixed sexuality.

Been some time since I have checked in with the crazy that is Akhenaten. Never disappoint.

More brain dead and walking zombies!

Nothing in the time you have been posting to this forum gives you any credibility in claims of superiority. You do know that you are on the top ten of mocked users, right?

Who are the others?

Lets make the list. Brontro(whatever his face is)
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 4:55:05 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/18/2016 3:51:23 AM, janesix wrote:

Why do the most populous organism, the bacterium, have no gender at all?
Why do some species have 100% females ?

1. The bacterium is not a sexual animal and has no sexual reproduction. Therefore, it does not apply to this model.

2. There may be a few species that have a little more males or females per ratio but, this is a very small anomaly and usually balances out so that, overall, species in general, have a 50/50 average ratio.

3. Species that are all female have both male and female functions built internally which function as one. In this case, the species fertilizes its own eggs. Thus, these species have both left and right spin energy.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 4:58:20 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/18/2016 3:59:51 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:19:40 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
Why does nature produce exactly 50% males and 50% females?
My explanation - This is because the universe is 48% left spin and 48% right spin. The remainder of the universe (4%) has no spin. This spin causes the formation of an equal amount of males and females. The remaining 4% of humans are of indistinct or mixed sexuality.

There actually is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this.

Female Karyotype: 46/XX
Male Karyotype: 46/XY

Female Gamete: 23/X (if you split XX and can only keep one of the two, you have a 100% chance of getting an X)
Male Gamete: 23/X or 23/Y (if you split XY and can only keep one of the two, you have a 50% chance of getting X and a 50% chance of getting Y)
Ultimately, the female gamete will always donate the X. The male gamete will donate either the X or the Y, and this will determine gender.

X = left spin. Y = right spin.

How did this system start in the first place?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 5:57:59 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/18/2016 2:56:17 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 7/18/2016 1:59:26 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Akh, it's true that among sexually-reproducing species, the sex ratio is often close to 1:1. However, did you first check whether there are other, more testable and predictive explanations? For example, do you know what Fisher's principle is, and of any experiments conducted that confirm it?
Do you also know which species break the 1:1 ratio, and how they do so?
What testable observation does your explanation predict, which Fisher's principle does not? What confirmed observations, if any, does Fisher's principle predict which your explanation fails to meet, and why does it fail?

1. Fisher's principle doesn't explain why 4 % of a given species has no gender specific traits. Whereas, my model which is based on the space to mater ratio of 96% to 4 % fully explains this anomaly fully. Fisher's study does not include non-gender specific anomalies.

So... your theory predicts 4% neuter rates in every species? Any species lacking close to that that precise number would falsify your theory? (A)

And your theory predicts 1:1 in every species too, since spin is presumably universal? Any species lacking close to a 1:1 ratio would also falsify your theory? (B)

2. Fisher's principle is an after fact study. My study preempts the cause of the division before it occurs.
So your claim requires Fisher mechanisms to fail in experiment? Thus any experiment confirming Fisher mechanisms would falsify your theory? (C)

So either A, B or C would falsify your conjecture, while A, B and C would not only falsify your conjecture resoundingly, but possibly indicate problems with your methods for research, inference and testing ideas?
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 7:39:16 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/18/2016 5:57:59 AM, RuvDraba wrote:


So... your theory predicts 4% neuter rates in every species? Any species lacking close to that that precise number would falsify your theory? (A)

And your theory predicts 1:1 in every species too, since spin is presumably universal? Any species lacking close to a 1:1 ratio would also falsify your theory? (B)

2. Fisher's principle is an after fact study. My study preempts the cause of the division before it occurs.
So your claim requires Fisher mechanisms to fail in experiment? Thus any experiment confirming Fisher mechanisms would falsify your theory? (C)

So either A, B or C would falsify your conjecture, while A, B and C would not only falsify your conjecture resoundingly, but possibly indicate problems with your methods for research, inference and testing ideas?

Its just an average. There may be isolated cases which don't apply because of many factors including - noise, genetic mutation, the island effect, faulty statistics, egocentric exaggeration, manipulation of facts and system analysis bias.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 7:52:41 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/18/2016 7:39:16 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 7/18/2016 5:57:59 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
So... your theory predicts 4% neuter rates in every species? Any species lacking close to that that precise number would falsify your theory? (A)
And your theory predicts 1:1 in every species too, since spin is presumably universal? Any species lacking close to a 1:1 ratio would also falsify your theory? (B)
So your claim requires Fisher mechanisms to fail in experiment? Thus any experiment confirming Fisher mechanisms would falsify your theory? (C)

So either A, B or C would falsify your conjecture, while A, B and C would not only falsify your conjecture resoundingly, but possibly indicate problems with your methods for research, inference and testing ideas?

Its just an average. There may be isolated cases which don't apply because of many factors including - noise, genetic mutation, the island effect, faulty statistics, egocentric exaggeration, manipulation of facts and system analysis bias.

So you can stipulate no reasonable conditions which, if discovered, would make your theory false -- including conditions your theory itself predicts as inconsistent with its own ideas?

So every experiment one might conduct yielding information about sex ratios in species, you shall deem either confirms your theory or won't falsify it -- regardless of what you actually find?

So your theory has nothing to do with how sex ratios work, but only to do with what you can persuade yourself to believe, whatever you see?

That makes it totally subjective, doesn't it?
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 8:15:31 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/18/2016 7:52:41 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

So you can stipulate no reasonable conditions which, if discovered, would make your theory false -- including conditions your theory itself predicts as inconsistent with its own ideas?

My conditions are as reasonable as any other system of assessment. Note - All systems of assessment have observer bias elements. You have to prove that my case is 100 % false to win the day. If my theory is only 1% correct, then, it is still a feasible idea which has a 1% chance of being correct. Nature is in my favour because nature is limited to what the aether can provide. The universe is governed by positive/negative electrical aether. If you deny its existence you are just forestalling the inevitable. Atoms are (positive/negative) - electricty - (positive/negative) acid/alkaline Thus we have male and female which are also positive and negative. Thus, left spin and right spin are undeniable forces which govern everything in the universe.

So every experiment one might conduct yielding information about sex ratios in species, you shall deem either confirms your theory or won't falsify it -- regardless of what you actually find?

So your theory has nothing to do with how sex ratios work, but only to do with what you can persuade yourself to believe, whatever you see?

That makes it totally subjective, doesn't it?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 8:38:09 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/18/2016 8:15:31 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 7/18/2016 7:52:41 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
So you can stipulate no reasonable conditions which, if discovered, would make your theory false -- including conditions your theory itself predicts as inconsistent with its own ideas?
My conditions are as reasonable as any other system of assessment.
Your assessment requires you to be present to defend it, because you can't say what conditions will falsify it. To you, all evidence is irrelevant, so you can't distinguish verifying evidence from falsifying evidence.

So what evidence will defend your ideas when you're not there?

Essentially, when you're not there, any evidence that doesn't 100% support your idea will immediately fail it, because you haven't made it clear that others can trust their observations. Instead you've told them to trust your opinions and excuses, and your opinions and excuses aren't there when you aren't present.

Now, most of the time when people are formulating their opinions, you're not present. So even if they believed you when you were present, there's no reason to believe you when you're not, because you've already demonstrated that as far as you're concerned, all independent evidence is worthless. People have to believe your ideas because you believe them, not because of what they can observe.

And that does damage to your credibility when you're present too, because that approach doesn't just damage your ideas -- it also disrespects everyone else's ability to form an independent, evidence-based view. So you've pretty much guaranteed your ideas will be rejected just because of how you're treating them, even if there was a grain of insight in them.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 12:17:39 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/18/2016 2:56:17 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 7/18/2016 1:59:26 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:19:40 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
Why does nature produce exactly 50% males and 50% females?
My explanation - This is because the universe is 48% left spin and 48% right spin. The remainder of the universe (4%) has no spin. This spin causes the formation of an equal amount of males and females. The remaining 4% of humans are of indistinct or mixed sexuality.

Akh, it's true that among sexually-reproducing species, the sex ratio is often close to 1:1. However, did you first check whether there are other, more testable and predictive explanations? For example, do you know what Fisher's principle is, and of any experiments conducted that confirm it?

Do you also know which species break the 1:1 ratio, and how they do so?

What testable observation does your explanation predict, which Fisher's principle does not? What confirmed observations, if any, does Fisher's principle predict which your explanation fails to meet, and why does it fail?

1. Fisher's principle doesn't explain why 4 % of a given species has no gender specific traits. Whereas, my model which is based on the space to mater ratio of 96% to 4 % fully explains this anomaly fully. Fisher's study does not include non-gender specific anomalies.

2. Fisher's principle is an after fact study. My study preempts the cause of the division before it occurs. Thus, left and right spin energy is the underlying cause of the divisions in the first place.

Words I think you need to google because you don't seem to understand their meaning:

1 "Explains" / "Explanation"
2 "Study"
3 "Model"
4 "fully"

You're confusing these with:

1 "Literally insane speculation with no evidence, validity or logical coherence"
2 "Literally insane speculation with no evidence, validity or logical coherence"
3 "Literally insane speculation with no evidence, validity or logical coherence"
4 "In no way, to any degree at all."
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 12:43:12 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/18/2016 8:38:09 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

So you can stipulate no reasonable conditions which, if discovered, would make your theory false -- including conditions your theory itself predicts as inconsistent with its own ideas?
My conditions are as reasonable as any other system of assessment.
Your assessment requires you to be present to defend it, because you can't say what conditions will falsify it. To you, all evidence is irrelevant, so you can't distinguish verifying evidence from falsifying evidence.

So what evidence will defend your ideas when you're not there?

Essentially, when you're not there, any evidence that doesn't 100% support your idea will immediately fail it, because you haven't made it clear that others can trust their observations. Instead you've told them to trust your opinions and excuses, and your opinions and excuses aren't there when you aren't present.

Now, most of the time when people are formulating their opinions, you're not present. So even if they believed you when you were present, there's no reason to believe you when you're not, because you've already demonstrated that as far as you're concerned, all independent evidence is worthless. People have to believe your ideas because you believe them, not because of what they can observe.

And that does damage to your credibility when you're present too, because that approach doesn't just damage your ideas -- it also disrespects everyone else's ability to form an independent, evidence-based view. So you've pretty much guaranteed your ideas will be rejected just because of how you're treating them, even if there was a grain of insight in them.

True to form. You have predictably taken the typical lawyer approach of dealing with this matter as a means of avoiding getting down and dirty with scientific evidence which you are obviously in scarce supply of. lol

Thus, you hope to find a legal loop hole to escape an embarrassing defeat which will damage your fragile ego. Thus, you have created an elaborate maze of indecipherable jargon and legal double speak to confuse and disorientate your imagined enemies.

Yes, I am present. Thanks for not acknowledging my presence. lol

Do you have any more childish games or do you want to get on with it?
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 12:49:35 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/18/2016 12:17:39 PM, Ramshutu wrote:


Words I think you need to google because you don't seem to understand their meaning:

1 "Explains" / "Explanation"
2 "Study"
3 "Model"
4 "fully"

You're confusing these with:

1 "Literally insane speculation with no evidence, validity or logical coherence"
2 "Literally insane speculation with no evidence, validity or logical coherence"
3 "Literally insane speculation with no evidence, validity or logical coherence"
4 "In no way, to any degree at all."

I am a master of psychology, science, physics, biology, and language.

You are just a brain dead nobody in comparison. Don't over-rate yourself.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 12:52:56 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/18/2016 12:49:35 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 7/18/2016 12:17:39 PM, Ramshutu wrote:


Words I think you need to google because you don't seem to understand their meaning:

1 "Explains" / "Explanation"
2 "Study"
3 "Model"
4 "fully"

You're confusing these with:

1 "Literally insane speculation with no evidence, validity or logical coherence"
2 "Literally insane speculation with no evidence, validity or logical coherence"
3 "Literally insane speculation with no evidence, validity or logical coherence"
4 "In no way, to any degree at all."

I am a master of psychology, science, physics, biology, and language.

No you're not.
Beisht_Kione
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 11:51:05 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
True to form. You have predictably taken the typical lawyer approach of dealing with this matter as a means of avoiding getting down and dirty with scientific evidence which you are obviously in scarce supply of. lol

Thus, you hope to find a legal loop hole to escape an embarrassing defeat which will damage your fragile ego. Thus, you have created an elaborate maze of indecipherable jargon and legal double speak to confuse and disorientate your imagined enemies.

Yes, I am present. Thanks for not acknowledging my presence. lol

Do you have any more childish games or do you want to get on with it?

Get on with it. Let's see your scientific evidence. As of right now, you have provided none, and are ad hom-ing people who are skeptical of your argument, which at this point boils down to "correlation must mean causation".
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 2:16:56 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 1:19:40 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
Why does nature produce exactly 50% males and 50% females?

It doesn't.

My explanation - This is because the universe is 48% left spin and 48% right spin. The remainder of the universe (4%) has no spin.

All fundamental particles have the property of "spin". Sometimes that value is 0. It is not current to say that it has "no spin", but rather that it has a spin of 0.

A particle can have a spin of:

0 (the Higgs Boson, which permeates the universe)
1/2 (quarks, electrons, neutrinos, and their family members)
1 (messenger particles such as photons, gluins, and bosons)

So far that is all we have discovered. Gravitons (not yet discovered) are hypothesized to have a spin of 2.

Spin also has a directional component, but this direction is either up or down.

So, there is no mapping of the spin to the concepts you have highlighted.

This spin causes the formation of an equal amount of males and females. The remaining 4% of humans are of indistinct or mixed sexuality.

The quantum particles involved in procreation are your basic particles: quarks and electrons. While can can trivally attribute any outcome to quantum behavior (which we can do for anything, hence its triviality), it is not the case that certain types of particles are responsible for males, another type is responsible for females, and yet another type is responsible for indistinct or mixed sex individuals.

Male and female gametes are determined randomly, based upon random timing, motions, and the physical environment they find themselves when the attempt at fertilization is made.

Anomalies resulting in ambiguous sexal characteristics are random errors that arise through this process.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 3:09:39 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 2:16:56 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:19:40 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
Why does nature produce exactly 50% males and 50% females?

It doesn't.

No evidence.?

My explanation - This is because the universe is 48% left spin and 48% right spin. The remainder of the universe (4%) has no spin.

All fundamental particles have the property of "spin". Sometimes that value is 0. It is not current to say that it has "no spin", but rather that it has a spin of 0.

When I talk of spin, I am referring to 'dimensional spin'. Something that spins in another fractal dimension doesn't necessarily spin for us. Dimensional spin has a independent time factor which doesn't relate to our dimension. Smaller fractals spin faster than larger ones. You can't see or measure this spin. You only know its there by using logic and observation our dimension and how these invisible forces move and interact with objects. Thus, the way that light travels from the sun to the Earth must use spin energy mainly because there is no other logical way of doing it. Secondly, the universe is pervaded with electrical forces. This involves positive and negative charge, but what is positive and negative charge? Positive and negative can only be left and right spin. Again, there are no other logical alternatives to describing what charge can be. Ultimately, the universe only has spin as the only logical means of storing energy. Matter is created and destroyed. But from what and how? Again, the aether must contain left and right spin particles which spin at the speed of light to justify the amount of energy produced by the sun. Thus;----------- positive/negative - black/white on/off - left spin/right spin - up/down - male/female etc etc..............
Thus, we can see that the universe works on the principle of opposites. This is because the sub-atomic world is divided into opposites and the world is driven by fractals and repetition.

Thus, the amount of sexual neutrality is also determined by the amount of neutral matter in the universe which is 4%.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 3:16:49 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 3:09:39 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 7/20/2016 2:16:56 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:19:40 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
Why does nature produce exactly 50% males and 50% females?

It doesn't.

No evidence.?

You don't appear to have any, no.

As for me, the sex ratio varies depending on age. Overall there is 1.01 males for every female, or about 50.2% male to 49.8% female. Not "exactly" 50% males and 50% females.

My explanation - This is because the universe is 48% left spin and 48% right spin. The remainder of the universe (4%) has no spin.

All fundamental particles have the property of "spin". Sometimes that value is 0. It is not current to say that it has "no spin", but rather that it has a spin of 0.

When I talk of spin, I am referring to 'dimensional spin'.

There is no such thing. It is a fictional concept you made up.

Something that spins in another fractal dimension doesn't necessarily spin for us. Dimensional spin has a independent time factor which doesn't relate to our dimension. Smaller fractals spin faster than larger ones. You can't see or measure this spin. You only know its there by using logic and observation our dimension and how these invisible forces move and interact with objects. Thus, the way that light travels from the sun to the Earth must use spin energy mainly because there is no other logical way of doing it. Secondly, the universe is pervaded with electrical forces. This involves positive and negative charge, but what is positive and negative charge? Positive and negative can only be left and right spin. Again, there are no other logical alternatives to describing what charge can be. Ultimately, the universe only has spin as the only logical means of storing energy. Matter is created and destroyed. But from what and how? Again, the aether must contain left and right spin particles which spin at the speed of light to justify the amount of energy produced by the sun. Thus;----------- positive/negative - black/white on/off - left spin/right spin - up/down - male/female etc etc..............
Thus, we can see that the universe works on the principle of opposites. This is because the sub-atomic world is divided into opposites and the world is driven by fractals and repetition.

All of these are made up concepts. They don't refer to anything real, they're fictional.

Thus, the amount of sexual neutrality is also determined by the amount of neutral matter in the universe which is 4%.

The roughly equal members of the sexes are already adequatley explained by Fisher's principle. That's the answer and there isn't a need to posit a different one.