Ok, thanks for the site...sorry, but what do you mean with "controversial" about that fact?

I mean that most linguists don't agree with the paleolithic continuity theory.

I personally see the Palaeolithic Continuity Theory as a work in progress and not an attempt for creating a new dogma. In my opinion the flaws of the PCT should be examined with positive criticism and not outright rejected using fallacies of the pseudo-sceptics. The traditional theories should also be criticized and examined and not merely defended.

yes...I agree with you...anyway, discussing in a good way it's always good...
then, about languages I think, theories will be always be more or less discussed.
what do you think about the Altaic argue? the real "altaic" languages should be compared with the finno-ugric ones? are they with no relations?

I know, well, almost nothing about Altaic languages. They're quite a mystery for me. I know mostly about Slavic languages if you are interested. Coming from a culture that has always seen everything that came from Asia as invasive and barbaric I have hard time shaking off the impression of Altaic languages as primitive and evil. It's ridiculous I know. My perception of languages is very clouded by my origin and I admit that.