Why must @glipsnort address it? He stated that the frequency and number of rare variants alone ruled out a bottleneck of 2 for the past 500,000 which more than falsifies the claim that the human population sprang from a bottleneck of 2 in the last 10,000 years. Why would he need to include other evidence that pushes the dates back farther when he has already disproven the 10,000 year date?
What does @glipsnort mean by “the evidence”? He means the frequency and number of rare variants. That’s it. As far as I can see, @glipsnort is correct when he says that this specific evidence alone can not rule out a bottleneck of 2 farther back than 500,000 years.