Hypothetical-A bizzare mutation on the X cromozone causes children to be 15% more....

[Gatekeeper]

Azazel:

Well, the Ukraine does border most of the Sea of Azov, and that land surrounding that sea was roughly where Scythia was located. As for giving that land, plus Asia Minor, "back" to the Amazons ... well, it was theirs in the first place. Some 3000 years ago, of course, but who's counting the years?

Gatekeeper

[Ben Kenobi]

The evolutionary reasoning assumes:

1. The gene producing more females then males must select out.

Yet that is the point in question so the reasoning is circular.

How about this? You've proposed a gene that will select for females over males.

Are there any inherent disadvantages in this selection?

1. Lack of protection for the increased numbers of females. If the males need to hunt and gather food, and are more likely to get killed while doing so, then there would be a selection against this gene, since the groups with this gene would be more likely to perish from insufficient food.

Does this case apply today? I'd argue no.

2. Problems with polygamy.

This is probably the best argument, are polygamous relationships and families likely to produce more children and healthier ones than a monogamous family?