ORIGINAL: bluebird2
Breeding rates were supposed to increase statewide as a result of HR and ARs. Breeding rates would increase the most in areas with the lowest breeding rates and that is why in my example I increased the breeding rates by just 4%. But, you doubled the sample size in the areas with the lowest breeding rates with no logical justification. Did road kills suddenly double in 2f and 2G due to HR. Your example has no relation to reality,whereas mine reflects what was supposed to happen.
Twist distort and lie! Sorry but you're
You claimed that a 5% difference was impossible from a shift in sampling size by location. then used a distorted example to prove it . I used a very similar example without throwing in other variables and showed a 4% difference! When analyzing data, any good scientist strives to eliminate excess varaibles to keep the real cause and effect clear. Spin doctors, on the other hand, throw lots of variables in the soup till they like the taste!You claim a 5% difference was impossible. That was the point you saidyou were proving. Now that your little lie isbusted you shift gears and throw in a change in breeding rates!
