Interesting that @GutsickGibbon differentiates between the model being empirical and the initial conditions being empirical. The third model (similar to RTB) is consistent with the data, but it assumes some special initial conditions (four specially created heterozygous individuals with just the right genetic characteristics to make the model work) which we would probably never posit based on the data alone.
Is GG’s analysis fair? For one’s views to be “scientifically acceptable”, is it required to not only believe a model that evolves consistently with the data, but also reject initial conditions which are not “supported” by empirical evidence? I sense that this is at the heart of disagreements between certain types of theistic evolutionists and Christians who are OEC and may favor RTB or GAE-type models. It is linked to this question of “Scriptural vs. science realism” (which I wrote about before here). Is it OK to posit a few miracles or a set of special initial conditions in order to harmonize science and a particular preferred reading of Scripture?