The fundamental problem with the interpretation of this study is the same as with any study of big genomics data: If your dataset it sufficiently large and the

The fundamental problem with the interpretation of this study is the same as with any study of big genomics data: If your dataset it sufficiently large and the phenomena is sufficiently complex you can find myriads of tiny, valid yet uninteresting and ultimately irrelevant effects. It is simply about accuracy - take any genomic data and any visible observable phenotype of the population for the genomic data, if you don't find anything relevant it simply means your method is not yet accurate enough. Will people that like to play pokemon have a genetic marker compared to those that do not? If you average it over hundred of millions of instances you might see a difference. Does it mean anything with respect to one single individual playing pokemon? No, many other factors will down out that contribution. etc. the same is with this study as well, of course every population will eventually develop its own markers unless are being constantly mixing randomly. Does it mean anything at all, beyond what we already know - that a population develops its own markers ...