No shit. Do the people who believe immigration was invented in the 60s also believe the Vikings used to wear horned helmets?
Their ideas of ethnicity are fundamentally lies which while old aren't as old as they claim to be. People tend to freak out when foundational beliefs are revealed to be lies regardless of how innocous - see the reaction to imaginary numbers, non-Euclidian geometry not only being proposed but proven to be real and the legendary Pythagorean freak out over pi proving that not all numbers are rational.
And as if that wasn't enough, the Norse were quite infamous for taking captured women as wives and they also took slaves from the peoples they raided. Those people didn't just dissapear from the gene record.
Looks real to me: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Principal_compon...
Or are you thinking of some ridiculous weakman* version of ethnicity where no ancestors can be shared ever?
* https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweap...
But of course I didn't expect any less from someone who quotes Slate Star Codex of all sources to prove a point.
A what point?
> You're aware the vectors in a PCA are just linear combinations of the observed features, right?
Yes, I am. Do you have a reason to think that means PCA is bad at representing similarity and kinship because of this?
As for the Slate Star Codex source - that wasn't to prove anything, just to define the "weak man" term. I would have used "straw man", but then you'd dig up some idiot that genuinely believes whatever it is you're debunking as proof that it's not a straw man.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intrinsic
>Do you have a reason to think that means PCA is bad at representing similarity and kinship because of this?
I suggest you read up on the definition of "distance" and "similarity" before drinking the PCA kool-aid. You don't get to define an ad hoc distance just because it fits your ideas about ethnicity. But then, I only have the popgen community to back me up on this. What do you have?
>As for the Slate Star Codex source - that wasn't to prove anything, just to define the "weak man" term.
SSC, providing ammunition to online HBD proponents since 2013.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3392282/
https://speciationgenomics.github.io/pca/
https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/jo...
https://www.genetics.org/content/210/2/719
https://www.nature.com/articles/ng0508-491
If that SSC reference bothers you so much, you can look at the Atlantic for a definition of weak man instead: https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2009/07/the-w...
And I know what intrinsic means, but I don't know what an "intrinsic point" is supposed to be, or what makes my point "intrinsic", as opposed to just a regular point.