The problem with so called peer-reviewed abstract "sciences" is the same as with theology and any sectarian movement - that reviewers are from the same sect and praise effort instead of refuting nonsense.
If you do logical refutation the whole field might collapse easily and leave reviewers out of luractive jobs and high social status. Precisely what happened to priests - from people next to God to merely funny freaks.
Socially constructed bullshit is what we have instead of science. The principles of science including the one that only which cannot be disproved and experimentally refuted is accepted as a operational approximation to the truth, NOT some fucking current social consensus among some sectarian establishment.
And no, DNA is too far removed from high level population processes to even try to establish a meaningful correlation, leave alone a causation.
Look, I don't entirely disagree. There are often problems with trying to use genetics to talk about the interactions of historical people. However, historical sciences in general don't work that way. The evidence we have generally underdetermines theories and moreover, it's often still useful to use a theory that isn't universal for a more limited application.
This kind of bullshit is an insult to intelligence and to the very principles of science.