Buggs did cite this. But this work on SFS never faced scrutiny. If you look back at the exchange, you’ll see this wasn’t enough to convince Buggs when it was first put forward by @glipsnort. I was very skeptical at the time that it was a valid line of evidence. Several valid statements objections were made to which @glipsnort never responded.
Since then, as I expected, several studies have been published that contradict @glipsnort ’s results, showing how a more recent couple is compatible with observed SFS. This does not surprise me. The approach that @glipsnort takes does not appear to be scientifically valid. I don’t think this is a valid line of evidence for the claims he is making.
@glipsnort is aware of these papers, of course, as I’ve brought them to his attention on this forum over the last couple years. What is surprising to me is that he still claims it’s a valid line of evidence.
It’s worth pointing out some key things:
SFS is a simulation based approach that is entirely distinct from LiTI, which is a measurement based approach. We use simulations to validate (as everyone does), but that’s distinct from using simulations to construct virtual test data, as @glipsnort.
SFS doesn’t estimate an Nmin over time, but LiTI does.
I tried replicating @glipsnort’s results with standard software and couldn’t. So there is something off here for sure, and until he allows his work to be peer reviewed, we won’t be able to sort it out. (Once again, @glipsnort is aware of this).
#1 is a critical weakness because at best he can claim to rule out the specific scenario he simulated. But no one thinks that is a plausible model of human history (not YECs, not WLC, not RTB, not even @glipsnort ). There is very good reason to think that making the simulation more realistic will alter the conclusions. So his work relies critically on a particular type of strawmanning.
SFS doesn’t demonstrate why other approaches don’t work.
#1 and #4 are two reasons (of several) that the SFs reasoning is invalid. This is an exceedingly weak case, so vulnerable to criticism I have always declined to even recognize it as a valid line of evidence.
More to the point, LiTI does not rely at all upon SFS. It is entirely independent. It would be a mistake to think the problems with SFS apply also to LiTI/TMR4A.