>Yes, but how old is it? 50,000 years, 20,000 years? If it's that old it's irrelevant.
It probably arrives in the Balkans sometime between 3,000 BC and 1,000 BC. Perhaps earlier, but definitely not earlier than 6,000 BC. Perhaps someone on here more familiar with the period between the Mesolithic-Iron Age can chime in.
>No part of me is from the Caucasus, and neither is 12% of France.
A large part of your ancestry (25% according to that graph, plus whatever is hidden in your steppe ancestry) is part of the Caucasian genetic signature. This is just a fact. Nobody is "pure." All populations are a composite of older groups.
French people are about 12% differentiated Caucasian, plus about another 15% due to their steppe ancestry. Not even people living in the Caucasus are pure Caucasian.
>They're hard proofs of patrilineal ancestry. It's not possible for a population to have significantly different genetics from it's forefathers
Haplogroups aren't genes, they're chromosomal markers.
>What does that have to do with anything? If these populations grew over the millennia then so did their genetic material and their haplogroups in equal measure.
Yes, they grow over millennia, usually incorporating genetic material from nearby populations. so if a group of men settle a far off land, and their male descendants continue to have reproductive success, their descendants will still carry their Y-chromosome markers, even though genetically they will resemble nearby peoples rather than their old-country ancestors.
Haplogroups are a useful tool for studying migrations and the diffusion of languages and culture, but they are not a useful tool for determining the genetic makeup of a people. Jow Forums-tards constantly spam haplogroup maps thinking that they constitute some kind of "proof," but the fact is that they are, again, just a meme.