Did mainstream population genetics accept the 2007 'human adaptive evolution accelerated one-to-two orders of magnitude' claim, or was it rebutted?

claim-hawks-2007-human-adaptive-evolution-accelerated-recently records what Hawks, Wang, Cochran, Harpending & Moyzis (PNAS 2007) argued — a 10× to 100× recent acceleration in adaptive substitution inferred from HapMap SNP patterns. The claim clears the sourcing floor as a Tier-1 primary, but the capture that surfaced it hit a dead end trying to establish whether the field accepts the number: no mainstream rebuttal was located. The note stays seedling until this is resolved.

What to check:

• Published critiques. Search the peer-reviewed literature (and formal PNAS correspondence) for direct responses to Hawks et al. 2007 — the obvious names are commentaries on the "acceleration" inference and on The 10,000 Year Explosion's popularization of it. Quote the specific objection, not a paraphrase.
• Ascertainment bias. HapMap SNPs were selected for common variation; assess whether the discovery/ascertainment bias in that panel inflates apparent recent-selection signals, and whether the paper corrected for it.
• Demography vs. selection. The confound that most often mimics a selection signal is population growth / bottleneck history. Establish whether critics argued the observed linkage-disequilibrium and heterozygosity patterns are explained by demographic history alone, without accelerating selection.
• Did the number survive? Determine whether later genome-scan work (denser data than HapMap) up- or down-graded the one-to-two-orders-of-magnitude estimate.

Why it matters. The acceleration figure is the quantitative spine of a politically loaded body of work; the vault should be able to say whether it is consensus, contested, or superseded, rather than repeating the primary's own framing. Resolving this either moves the note toward budding/evergreen or narrows it to "the paper argued X, the field pushed back on Y."