Projection is a psychological disorder, not a scientific argument.[quote=“RichardBuggs, post:208, topic:37039”]
More recently, I have sketched out why I think that the Zhao et al (2000) data is explainable from a bottleneck of two within the last few hundred thousand years, taking their own coalescence analysis as a starting point.
You need to explain how ALL of the data fits a bottleneck of two, and that includes the entire genome, not just a tiny snippet of it. Remember, there are MULTIPLE and INDEPENDENT lines of evidence. Focusing on just one makes it appear as if you are ignoring the evidence.[quote=“RichardBuggs, post:208, topic:37039”]
This would be a substantial amount of work, especially as I do not know of an off-the-shelf package that explicitly models coalescence back to two diploid individuals, and includes exponential (or even super-exponential) population growth, with multiple-merger coalescence events allowed. If we could come to an agreement that this would be a good test of the hypothesis (and I would value the view of @glipsnort on this) then we would have made some useful progress in this discussion.
If there really were a bottleneck of two then the data would have reflected that. The methods used in these papers are up to the task, so I don’t know why you feel like you need to ignore them. Even estimates of a 100 person bottleneck would lend some credence to your arguments, but that isn’t what we see. Instead, the data clearly points to a population that is 4 orders of magnitude larger than the one you are proposing. FOUR ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.
At what point do you admit you are wrong?[quote=“RichardBuggs, post:208, topic:37039”]
I would just point out the elephant in the room, however: this is that every time you suggest to me a dataset to analyse to test the bottleneck of two hypothesis you are implicitly illustrating the major point of my blog: that this hypothesis still needs testing and has not been explicitly and reliably tested in an already-published analysis.
It has been tested.[quote=“RichardBuggs, post:208, topic:37039”]
In my view the most constructive way ahead would be for you to admit that your chapter expresses far to high a degree of certainty on this matter, and cites a great deal of evidence that is actually not testing the hypothesis.
The problem is that your views are not supported by scientific evidence, so why should they be taken seriously?