Adam, Eve and Population Genetics: A Reply to Dr. Richard Buggs (Part 1)

[RichardBuggs]

Hi Joshua,

I’m just catching up with this dialogue on a train. I should be marking essays, but will just take a moment to quickly repond to a couple of points.

@Swamidass

His response to Ola Hossjer (colleague of @agauger) has been very well measured, and entirely correct. (Glipsnort responds to a critical article) Notice that he does not prese a case against ancient bottlenecks, but only for common ancestry with great apes and huamns, and against a recent bottleneck. Both those claims are very well supported by the evidence, and he produces analysis of his own all the time.

I know you are not attacking @glipsnort personally, or even leveling an unfair scientific critique. I do think, however, it is important to clarify that he has been a measured and careful voice. In my opinion, he has not drawn incorrect conclusions from the AFS work, nor has he overstated his certainty of those results.

Thanks, I had not seen that exchange before between Ola Hossjer and @glipsnort. Very interesting. However, it does pre-date the current discussion, and I am keen to hear Steve’s own response to the papers I have referenced on the AFS method. I agree with you that he has been a measured and careful voice in this discussion and I have great respect for his expertise.

@Swamidass

A couple technical updates:

ArgWeaver Does Not Assume Large Population. The computed TMR4A is biased downwards, not upwards, by the prior.

But would you agree than in their analyses reported in the paper they have assumed a constant effective population size? If not, how do you understand the footnote to the table that I referenced above.

My train has just arrived at King’s Cross Station - sorry to have sign off. I greatly appreciate your work on this thread, and the honesty and open-mindedness that you have shown.