Maju: &quot;The argument is there but it is always...

Maju: "The argument is there but it is always very limited: only 2% of Indian Y-DNA, unable to justify the alleged morphological similitudes (too shallow in any case - IMO a matter of shared preservation of some archaisms in the past much more widespread, as shown in the archaeological record, not any special relation). Plus it's a 2002 paper, from a time when Indian C was mush less researched (Y-DNA C5 was only described in the last two years)."

Maju Maju Maju! First you dismiss the correlation I’ve found between music and tone language on the basis of a complete misreading of my musical maps. Then, after I correct you, instead of apologizing and accepting that I could be right after all, you go on to find other objections based on the fact that non-tonal languages are also important in SE Asia. When I explain that this is beside the point, you then make a beeline to the Andamans to point out that their language isn’t tonal either. And when I counter by pointing out the many instances of indigenous tone language in New Guinea, you find some other reason to dismiss the whole idea.

Same with the notion of a gap centered in South Asia, which you originally claimed there was no genetic evidence for. Then, when I provided you with genetic evidence from prominent researchers, you dismissed it as obviously wrong. And after I then went on to provide additional evidence, you dismissed that as well.

Now, after you’ve insisted there were no genetic signs of a connection between India and Australia, and I’ve provided you with two separate studies based on exactly that sort of connection, you refuse to admit you were wrong but find other reasons to dismiss the whole idea. This is the definition of a nit-picker, Maju, and I warn you, unless you change your ways, you will become a permanent member of that sad tribe. :-)

Science is not about establishing definitive proof. It is about exploring, formulating testable hypotheses, and testing them to see whether there is some reasonable fit with the evidence. There will always be holes to be found in any argument, and they need to be taken seriously, but science would grind to a halt if we let the nit pickers have the last word.