Only on Polako's plots when he wants to show our common Mongoloid admix :) I you look at those pics showing now people from Moscow, you dont see even one Finnish-looking person.
Only on Polako's plots when he wants to show our common Mongoloid admix :)I wasn't referring to Polako's plots.
On both 23and Me and de CODEme, Finns and Russians plot close with each other, and on de CODEme, Russians and Finns fall outside of the main European cluster; basically slightly detached from it, because of the minor Mongoloid admixture.
A ‘simple’ word-based language (analytic) such as Chinese, for example, was placed on the bottom of the scale.
Languages were then seen to develop to the agglutinative type (as in Altaic and Uralic languages where separate endings are added to nouns) and, ultimately, to the inflected type, such as Indo-European.
On European map we are not close at all, because it covers European affinity, 93% of our genes, while the global view weights the 7% Siberian admix. Yeah whatever, Finnish-Russian conflicts is not topic.
Anyway I noticed something interesting here, notice how well the lactose tolerance genotype mirrors the Indo-European languages in general and distribution of R-M17 in India and Iran (Baloch regions): if lactose tolerance originated amongst R-M17 men, lactose tolerance should have a higher presence in southern Anatolia too, with the Hittites, but it doesn't.
There is also no reason to write of superiority of Indo-Europeans, it clearly has no valid arguements for backup.
Baltic people are not Slavs or IE to a large extent and have not been. In your earlier post you mentioned, that Lithuanians ‘could’ have been N1c 10%. You mentioned, that Finns speak again IE languages in the form of Swedish and English.
So unless you think proto-Uralic originated in Finland (highly unlikely) and that the proto-Uralic peoples were very closely related with the proto-Indo-Europeans, I think you and Põhjamaalane should stop being ignorant, start making sense and accept the damn facts: These are only general and quite hypothetical models to suggest how the Indo-European languages may have expanded.
We may conclude this section by laying to rest one fallacy that has often appeared in the past.
A tendency to see the Indo-European languages as inherently those of the superstrate can be found widely in literature on the Indo-Europeans.