This was always going to happen. When C14 methodology first burst on the scene archaeologists took the results as gospel, and overturned lots of long standing dates and ideas. However, it didn;t take long for its flaws to become obvious. Is the same thing going to happen with the current confidence concerning genetic research. Is it as reliable as it has been trumpeted? Can it really track our ancestors in a reliable manner?
At https://phys.org/news/2022-08-reveals-flaws-popular-genetic-method.html … I printed off the full article at Scientific Reports – go to https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-14395-4 … which is provided by Lund University in Sweden. The new study, or critique, claims the analytical method within population genetics is deeply flawed. Not just flawed but in a deep manner. This has led to incorrect results they go on to claim, as far as ethnicity is concerned, or genetic relationships in general. The problem is that the same method has been used in hundreds of studies – that hae captured public interest over the last decade or so. The problem they have delineated is the statistical models that have been used by such studies. Notice the word models. These models supply the data in a suitable simple manner. It is also clear that the although the research is limited to population genetics the same statistical methodology is used across many scientific fields. They are a bit cagey on what – but climate change models spring to mind.
They end by saying it is especially flawed when it comes to ancient people – such as the Bronze Age newcomers who supposedly replaced the Neolithic predecessors. Even earlier human groups might be compromised to a greater degree. On the other hand, another study may do the same hatchet job to this study.