congrats on another horrible thread.

I'm too lazy to go and look, but I'm pretty sure I heard that there is a higher percentage of females to males. Which would make sense if we evolved to live in groups led by one dominant male who mated with a large number of females. Having as many males as females might be a waste of resources. Of course there isn't an option for a higher chance of it being a girl besides 100%, so I choose anal beads. And since that isn't an option, I refuse to vote out of protest.

If anything it should be slightly higher than 50%. If they are twins then they're more likely to be the same sex. So 51%. Picked 50. And any gender variation such as asexual/haemophrodite/statistical variations like slight changes in birthrates thrown in wouldn't tip it more than 5% either way.

Especially since the scenario doesn't outline if the known girl is the younger or older sibling

i'm going to say 33% because if it's a boy, natural selection has created a group ratio of 2:1. it seems to me that there needs to be more women because birthing is a longer process than f*cking. and i have no other input on this other than to say i deduced it from a beach boys song.

:rofl:

It's a trick question. She's barren.

50%. She'll either have a boy or a girl.

more productive than that 'MB was so much better back in the day' delusion youve been under


answer is 33% cause there's four different possibilities:

BG
GB
BB
GG

Because one of them is already a girl, that dismisses the possibility of BB, leaving:

BG
GB
GG

Since one of them is already a girl, 1/3 chance the other will also be a girl (GG)

I'm not sure if I understand this logic. Are you trying to use the Punnett square technique to determine sex? Because then all four choices would still apply for subsequent children.

I think you and me are making the most threads lately! I go through phases of thread ideas. But yeah MB is just as good now as it was before. However people are a lot more whiney these days, including me!