I'm not trying to patch up any theory nor am I grasping at any straws. You've taken a very absolutist stance by presenting it as a categorical fact that the PI

I'm not trying to patch up any theory nor am I grasping at any straws. You've taken a very absolutist stance by presenting it as a categorical fact that the PIE speakers achieved genetic dominance through extermination. But you find it "annoying" when you're challenged despite the theory not being universally accepted. I'm peripherally interested in the subject - more historical linguistics really - so I presented some alternatives by which the genetic effects you describe could have occurred. > All the historical, ethnographic, archaeological, and generic evidence points in one direction. Could you provide references to this evidence? Because I can't see how historical evidence would prove something about pre-history? And as far as I'm aware, there is only very speculative identification of any archaeological features with the spread of PIE. Simularly with the PIE culture - outside of historical linguistics - there is no widely accepted archaelogy to confirm anything about their culture.