There were probably several waves of populations that moved into Europe. An early one went through Turkey and the Balkans. A bit later, another ricocheted out of Asia, moving SW to squash the peoples living there but also W and NW. You have to go to the Andamans to find ethnic isolates that weren't swamped by the NE Asian backwash.
We're all out of Africa. But most of European DNA is out of Asia. Most major differences between Europeans and Asians are later.
After that you have another out-of-Anatolia wave because of agriculture, c. 10k BCE. Not the spread of PIE, whatever Ivanov and Gamkrelidze might say. (I have to be careful there; I know Ivanov. Then again he's a teddy bear and would argue but not take offense.)
And then you have another wave of out-of-Asia, with whatever Indo-Europeans were. At this point it's really important to distinguish between language, culture, and genetics. It's recent enough that we have information on all three and know they don't match up. So this guy from Iberia clearly wasn't an IE speaker. Probably didn't speak anything Finnic, either. Finnic would have arrived there later. Proto-Uralic is 4-6k BCE, and this guy's older than that.
http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust258/sust258_janhunen.pdf seems to handle the arguments and data fairly, if cursorily.
Some argue in favor of a greater time depth for Uralic or Finnic in currently Finnic areas. This is nationalism bleeding into archeology and linguistics. It happens with Slavic and Indo-European, too, with Indian linguists arguing that PIE had to have originated in S. Asia and Polish researchers arguing that, no, really, SE Poland is the home--and not only the home of PIE, but also the home of Common Slavic, millennia later. Russians argue that the PIE and Slavic homelands are there. Don't want to know what the Iranians argue. Bleah. I've seen older arguments that PIE had to start in the Germanic language territory, but those died with Nazi "Aryan" ideology that the IE speakers were "Aryans." (It's a common kind of thing. The English wanted to ground their new-found common law in olden times and a pre-Germanic Arthur popped up--alternating for a few centuries with Anglo-Israelism. Read one goofy medieval manuscript in the _Monumenta graeca_ minor series that talked about Abraham having wandered through Bavaria, so that the Bavarians are actually children of Abraham instead of a mix of older tribes with Roman soldiers and more recent Germanic invaders. The current Palestinians want to date their "ethnicity" to pre-Israelite times in order to establish their greater right to the land and their historical importance. Time depth apparently means "right to exist" for some people, in a really silly way.)
But that ties in with a nice point. Western Baltic Finnic speakers tend towards being blond. Blondism is centered around Sweden, leading to the Nazi (and prior to that, German) viewpoints about the spread of PIE. But this mutation is likely to be much older than the PIE or Uralic breakup. PIE couldn't haven't started in N. Europe any more than Finnic in N. Europe. Too many problems with that, whatever the nationalists want.
The counter-problem to this is to question whether or not blondism *originated* in Sweden. It's certainly where it's concentrated; there are nice trends resulting in less and less blond hair as you go in pretty much any direction from there, with due allowance for things like the Volkswanderung of the 5th and 6th centuries. But given how genetic drift works, we need more deep time DNA studies to actually establish relative percentages of blond hair in the area. We could make the same kind of claim about lactose tolerance, which is more concentrated in N. Europe than elsewhere, but it certainly didn't originate in N. Europe. It's just that dietary practices encouraged its predominance there. The same with blondism, if it's linked with lower melanin levels: Less light means less vitamin D formation which means lower fertility rates. That would only matter at high latitudes, where very low melanin levels in skin and presumably hair (if there's any correlation) would produce more kids; at very low latitudes the opposite happens, where too much vitamin D formation suppresses fertility and darker skin drives evolutionary pressure. (But if you get enough of the vitamin from your food--as the Saami did--then this kind of genetic pressure would be suppressed, if not flipped.)
Sorry. Sort of an oddball hobby at this point.
= new reply since forum marked as read
