The questions you pose are important. I think the...

The questions you pose are important.

I think they are, so I am glad that you acknowledge this.

For me, the biggest difference between us is that I am extremely fixated on worldwide distribution patterns and you seem willing to discount them and fall back on certain basic principles instead. To me these principles are based on assumptions, whereas the distribution patterns reflect (however indirectly) real evidence.

I do not understand well what you mean here. In particular I'd ask which are those "principles" you think are biasing my understanding.

In what regards to global distribution patterns, I think I am aware of the problem they may pose because I have also gone through that kind of what I'd call oversimplifying understanding in the issue of global human genetics and I still see many people, usually those who are relatively "new" or "shallow" on the understanding of the subject who tend to such oversimplifications, for instance over-emphasizing the duality of mtDNA M and N as if they represent two totally distinct populations and even "races".

In fact, and I think that everybody that has a somewhat deep understanding of the matter will agree (even if each one with his/her particular emphasis) this can't be the case but you really need to dive for some time in the "nit-pick" (the devilish details, the "yes, but..." and then again "but...", and so on) of the matter before you really gain a good insight.

So I think I am aware of the problems that such a pattern-based approach on a map can cause if not done with due care.