[TallGuyShort]

Out of Africa feels less PC to me, but I won't pretend to understand the rationale behind what is and isn't considered PC a lot of the time. But I agree with GP: we have relatively few DNA samples and try to draw pretty big generalizations between them. Ituitively, I would expect patterns of migration in and out of Africa and all the continents to be far more complex than 1-time events from which entire populations then developed complete independently.

edit: On a related note, my siblings' DNA test results say that they're something like 4% Native American, yet we have very reliable documentation of pure British genealogy back on all lines almost all the way back to the 1500s. Very unlikely to actual have a modern link. I'm sure the companies are likely overplaying the similarity more than anthropologists would, but am I to conclude that I have a closer link to Native Americans than other random samples from Europe?

[progval]

> I won't pretend to understand the rationale behind what is and isn't considered PC a lot of the time.

It's whatever opinion/theory the person speaking disagrees with.

[dominostars]

The poster clearly said that so that they can stay on topic, not sure we need to derail the main conversation to air personal grievances.

[cmrdporcupine]

The DNA tests just look at haplogroups and mtDNA lineages etc. to make _very_ broad generalizations about what population set some of your ancestors _may_ have belonged to.

It's more likely that at some point in the last 15,000 years someone in your lineage had a child with someone with some Siberian background way far back.

[chrisco255]

What if one of your ancestors cheated on their spouse? Isn't that possible?

[TallGuyShort]

There weren't a lot of Native Americans emigrating to the British Isles pre-1800, east India, or Zambia, but sure anything's possible.