I'm not saying you are wrong. For one, there is a substantial shared R1a inheritance between Germans and Iranians going back to only about 3000 BC. But the question is still a conflation of language, culture and genetics. Regardless of what our academic overlords try to assert, there is no simple answer to it or refutation of it
A common paternal origin (partially) that traces back to the Steppe is not to be confused with OP's theory that "proto-Germanic" people migrated OUT of Iran. Alternate theories that still consider evidence (not cherry-picked evidence) are how the scientific field moves forward. Blatantly ignoring data, omitting portions of quotations when they don't suit ones needs and other displays of academic dishonesty do not make one any more convincing nor does it make ones theory more "legitimate". The motives of this forum and the earlier discussion about deleting misinformation is geared toward the t-roll-like nature of the misinformed theory as it is presented despite repeated references to legitimate peer-reviewed sources that state the actual accepted theories on the origins of "Germanic" people.
I've never argued that the "Germanic" people were a homogeneous group, I am well aware they are heterogeneous, but their population sources are most definitely not migrants from a Bronze Age/Iron Age source of the Zagros region.
Please stop these offensive accusations, I'm an academic historian and my works have been published in Iran.
Your status as an academic historian does not make you some superior figure in genetics (or linguistics) and you should stop presenting it as such, and if anything, repeatedly omitting portions of quotations from papers that pertain to population genetics and the movements of humans, and ignoring scientific data simply discredits you, especially when you state that you are an academic historian. I do not intend to offend and let's be clear here, I have nothing against you, I do however vehemently disagree with your theory.
I'm really interested that you prove I am wrong, for example you can say:
1. There is a consonant or vowel in proto-Germanic phonology which didn't exist in the west Iran.
2. There is a sound change in proto-Germanic which didn't happen in the west of Iran.
3. There is something in the Germanic culture which didn't exist in the west of Iran.
4. There is a paragroup among original Germanic people which doesn't exist in the west of Iran.
...
You continue to ignore actual language laws and developments that preceded various aspects of a language, yet again you compare two Indo-European cultures that have parallels and you believe that to be evidence? All Indo-European cultures have similarities (Sky God, Storm God, Divine Twins, Horse Twins) and that shouldn't be a surprise really. Your last point makes no sense, what are you arguing with that? Are you referencing a paragroup like R1a/R1b or something along those lines and ignoring the specific phylogeny?
We are all dissenters to a degree on this forum. No problem with that. But when somebody asks such questions as...
they can't hope to be taken seriously. Germanic people in the 6th millenium BC?!? Why not ask what was the predominant haplogroup of English people in the 6th century BC?
Up from a certain point you lose all credibility. Either you are totally lacking in any sense of chronology (a weakness in a "historian" for sure), or you are a t-roll.
Precisely.
I'm still researching and there are some things that I need more evidences for my theory, like ancient DNA evidences. Of course I'm not a geneticist but as a historian I can use genetic evidences in my work.
Continuing to research, that's what everyone is doing, hence all of our collective interests in these topics, however using ancient DNA evidences and misconstruing them, misinterpreting them or disregarding the information as presented by scientific papers in pursuit of proving your own theory is really quite dishonest. An example from earlier was the earlier stated theory (by you) that the Gutians were somehow the ancestors of Goths yet a genetic paper on the cultural complexes in Poland (and further east) as they pertained to the Gothic people showed a genetic connection to Iron Age Jutland (in the male population) and supported the idea that the Goths came from Scandinavia.
You are the one presenting a theory, the onus is on
you to present the data and account for discrepancies in your theory, so I will ask again, if your theory is ever found to be true why do we not see autosomal admixture of Zagros populations in Bronze Age, Iron Age, etc Northern Europeans? Why does the archaeological record support a continuation of shared material culture of the Nordic Bronze Age in Southern Scandinavia/Northern Germany (Kinder & Hilgemann 2004 among others) as it relates to the origins of "Germanic" peoples? Why does the archaeological record not support a Zagros migration?
What is wrong about this question? Proto-Germanic is a direct descendant of proto-Indo-European which became extinct in the 6th millennium BC, if you believe it is not, please prove it.
He's not denying that Proto-Germanic is a descendant of PIE, but he was quoting you as your initial question there was anachronistic as it pertains to "Germanic" peoples.