Well you will miss a lot of interesting reading, and i really couldn't be bothered repeating what i already said.
A short summary that seems convincing would be fine.
I would again ask you to read through the material i posted links for. It is customary for any scientific paper review to actually read the paper first, then ask questions...
There simply isn't time to consider every idea in science, and there must be some burden of proof on thoroughly investigating new ideas. That's the case for realizing the world was in fact not flat, for Einstein defending his ideas, and every other innovation. As for a peer review process, often it begins with an abstract that the editor will briefly consider and decide whether it is a candidate for peer review.
I know. I didn't start this thread because i wanted to "join the gang" and repeat "official" well known and "agreed" dogma. I started it because I believe that I have discovered something new, which doesn't fit into the "common understanding", because common understanding was developed before all the advances in genetics and new archaeological discoveries.
That's entirely irrelevant. Agreeing or disagreeing doesn't make you right or wrong. I'm not suggesting you can't innovate; you should, if that's where the data leads. But innovation requires a convincing argument. Innovation just because it is new is irrelevant.
...and it is not plausible to me.
Why? Because it does not confirm to what you believe in, or because there is something wrong with my arguments?
Both. The fact that your main arguments so far are based on potential coincidences and DNA make me very skeptical. I would be skeptical of that from a well established theory. And then you also are going against relatively widely accepted research.
You are consistently selecting convenient evidence that supports your claims while dismissing all other evidence as irrelevant. This is a huge sampling bias!
In terms of plausibility the major problem I have is this: your theory is just as plausible as about any other random theory that could be made. Therefore, I find it implausible. The PIE hypothesis makes sense to me. I'd be willing to consider counterevidence, but not in the form of a claim that doesn't stand out as better than other claims.
I beg to differ. I believe that tribes are are carriers of languages. Tribes are family related, therefore genetically related groups. So languages and genes are quite well correlated.
Sometimes. But languages can easily spread to speakers in different regions with very different genetic backgrounds. What typically happens is that a relatively small group moves to a new location and then they begin to inter-marry and the genetic code shifts while the language stays the same (or you could phrase it the other way around).
As a very basic example, skin color in the United States varies a lot, certainly, but you won't find many correlations between language and skin color, although it is possible you will find some.
As a very simple test, what would happen if you checked the DNA of speakers of neighboring languages? Would you find that Dravidian speakers are clearly genetically distinct from Indo-Aryan speakers? And that Welsh speakers are clearly genetically distinct from English speakers?
There are sometimes correlations (to some degree) between languages and DNA, but it's not like a fingerprint-- it wouldn't hold up as evidence in court.
The reason why we have Common language, customs, between Ireland and Serbia, is because of old European R1a and I2 genes found in Ireland and language and culture they carried with them and R1b genes in Serbia and language and culture they carried with them. The reason why we have common language and customs between Slavs and Germanics is because of their common R1a and I genes and language and culture they carried with them. And so on.
No... the genes aren't causing anything. It *might* be the case that the genes and language are distributed as they are because they were distributed by the same migrations of people.
In order to show this convincingly you'd need to consider alternative explanations and show they they can't be correct.
Now, looking more broadly:
1. Do you believe that Slavic is a family of languages? Are Russian, Bulgarian and Serbian closely related?
2. Do you believe that Celtic is a family of languages? Are Irish Gaelic, Welsh and Breton closely related?
3. If so, then please refer to your hypothesized relationship between Slavic and Celtic.
4. What about Iberian Celtic? And Baltic? There are well known reasons for supposing that these are related to Insular Celtic and Slavic respectively.
5. If all of that is true, then why is it only showing up in Serbian and Irish? Is it by chance? Is it due to a shared history now hidden in the other languages? If either of those, when why does your argument hold up?
The only reason i can use modern Serbian to give etymology for Vedic, Greek, Germanic, Celtic god names, which have no etymologies in Sanscrit, old Greek, Germanic of Gaelic, is because these goods were originally named in R1a or I2 language, preserved by R1a and I2 population of Ireland and Balkans...There is no other explanation for this. .Too many "coincidences" to be coincidences. Especially because Serbian and Irish language based etymologies solve some very old "mysteries" of the ancient world and make sense of a lot of "nonsense" in the old belief systems...
Perhaps. But given that we already know all of these languages are related anyway, it's just a matter of determining the direction of change and so forth.
In the end, if you want to argue this, then:
1. You must show that the current theory is wrong.
2. You must support your new theory.
3. You must show that your theory not only explains the new evidence but that it also explains the old evidence.
