Originally Posted by
Damião de Góis
I thought this was a matter of you not interpreting the data correctly, but no it's you denying what is written in the study and making up data on your own even after being shown sreenshots of the study itself. I didn't take you for someone that invents data. I kept replying because i didn't know, but now i do. Also now i can't help but wonder what other liberties and assumptions you made while doing your map, if this is how you treat data.
The Hoyos Sainz study has a table for blue eyes and a table for mixed eyes ("several colorations derived from blue and green that are mixed with brown which prevents blue from apprear in a clean way"), there is nothing else other than dark eyes in the study. There is no mention of gray eyes in the study, much less a frequency for it. I have said this multiple times now, accompanied with screenshots and your reply has been "it has grey eyes" also repeatedly.
I have no idea how a category wich includes blueish mixed with brown and greenish mixed with brown magically turns into grey.
They do if you invent data so that the numbers match, which is what you did.
Hoyos Sainz has the following numbers (averaged):
Blue - 10,6%
Mixed("several colorations derived from blue and green that are mixed with brown which prevents blue from apprear in a clean way") - 7,3%
If you add blue and this mixed category it adds up to 17,9%
Sanchez Fernandez has the following numbers (averaged) for categories we only have their names and not what they contain (blue, brown and black):
Blue - 17,5%
Then there's numbers for brown and black.
So for them to match you had to turn mixed eyes in Hoyos Sanz into grey, and you turned "blue" in Sanchez Fernandez into "blue and grey" as well, and you had no problem doing it. So by inventing a little bit you now have similar blue and grey numbers on both studies, despite what is written on these studies.
Keep up the good work.
Bookmarks