I'm sure Dienekes has his biases, as does everyone involved in, or commenting on, population genetics. What is important, imo, is if the data is reproducible by other researchers, and the conclusions are supported by the data.

In terms of the threads in question, so far as I can see they really don't refer to the "womb of nations" hypothesis. This has to do with whether modern "clusters" present in certain geographic areas today "cover" or hide other populations. Dienekes recognized, just applying statistical analysis to his own admixture results, that they did.

That has been borne out by analyses done comparing modern Europeans to ancient samples, when those became available. So, we now know indisputably what he pointed out in these threads, that the modern "North Euro" cluster contains Anatolian Neolithic, Caucasus, and some Siberian. The fact is that all Europeans are made up of the same ancient populations; it's just the proportions that are different.

The Lazaridis and Haak papers made that clear. (Yamnaya of course includes CHG)

Or Allentoft: