Signal and Noise

[Chris_Falter]

@Cornelius_Hunter

Well I’m afraid the only thing “dramatic” here is your misrepresentation, and the extent to which you take it, of my words

Hi Cornelius,

Here’s what you said:

“Most of the sets were actually closer to random than to the common descent model!”

You also said this:

@Cornelius_Hunter

Above about 30, almost all the CI values were less then a half! They ranged from about 0.2-0.4, with random being around 0.15. In other words, the results were far closer to a randomized data set.

What does closer mean, if not arithmetically closer along the Y axis (CI measurement)?