Quote Originally Posted by DM1975 View Post
The OP seems to have posted limited data on what he collected due to everyone asking him to do so, not to just simply make things even. I bet for his paper (what this was done for, not our entertainment) he posted all data.

It amazes me that as many people on here did not get what he was talking about at first and resisted as much as they did. It was almost like people were either offended or scared of the question.
I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that the question was asked as if it were an unanswered question and that he was attempting to show that the spider trait was sex linked. Many people, myself included, believe its an asked and answered question, spider is not sex linked and that attempting to prove otherwise is a waste of time. Personally I reacted so negatively because there are questions being debated regarding spiders. Such as whether Spider is a dominant trait or a co-dominant. Is the super form lethal. I further think that his research shows that its a straight 50/50 and that the variation he is seeing can be explained by a small sample set and unreliable data. And yes data that you get from other people is unreliable. The collector has to assume things that should not be assumed in order to rely on it. Given that the OP posted his results even to us with omitted data shows just how unreliable people can be when giving numbers. Further it sounded to me like the OP was very delibrate in his omission of data. I don't recall anyone asking him to make things even so it seams like he did so "to make it more fair"