Given that @riversea and @OneGod have repeatedly inserted this thesis in off-topic posts to threads on Thomas Nagel and the Authorship of the Pentateuch, I thought it was high time this topic had a thread of its own.
Finally, we show that the genomes of present-day groups geographically and historically linked to the Bronze Age Levant, including the great majority of present-day Jewish groups and Levantine Arabic-speaking groups, are consistent with having 50% or more of their ancestry from people related to groups who lived in the Bronze Age Levant and the Chalcolithic Zagros.
Genetically therefore, Jews are local to the Levantine area.
Afroasiatic languages are not spoken anywhere close to the Indian-subcontinent (see map below), nor have I seen any evidence of any historical link to that area.
Linguistically, therefore, Jews are local to the Levantine area.
The Paleo-Hebrew alphabet derives from the Phoenician alphabet which in turn derives from the Proto-Sinaitic alphabet. (The current Hebrew alphabet is of Assyrian origin, and is called in Hebrew Ktav Ashuri, literally “Assyrian script”.)
In terms of writing systems therefore, Jews are local to the Levantine area (and any “parallels” to other writing systems are likely to be spurious).
What is “evidence”?
Evidence is facts tending to prove or disprove a conclusion.
This means that to be evidence, they must (i) be factual and (ii) be *dispositive, i.e. they must be relevant to the conclusion under discussion.
What is not factual
Legends are not factual.
This quote from Israel Finkelstein’s chapter in The Archaeology of Israel_ Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present seems relevant:
A special word should be devoted here to the biblical text and its meaning for the question of ethnicity in the Iron I. It is widely accepted today that historical narratives, especially those dealing with origin myths of early nations, tell us not only how the past led to the present, but also how the present creates the past (on this in ethnicity studies, see Chapman et al. 1989: 1). Regarding the early history of Israel, the Bible presents a 'fictional but functional' origin myth. As such, one must remember Cohen's words that
ethnic group formation is a continuing and often innovative cultural process of boundary maintenance and reconstruction. Once the ethnic identities and categories are triggered into being salient, cultural rationalizations for the legitimacy of the mobilized grouping are actively sought for and created by those involved… The emerging history can be part real part fancy (Cohen 1978: 397-98; see also Horowitz 1977).
This applies very well to the biblical account on the origin of early Israel. Though it may have some historical seeds, which are extremely difficult to extract from the myth (Na’aman 1994), it is concealed in the wrap of the ideology and politics of a much later phase in the history of Israel, that of the late-monarchic or even post-exilic period.
Also this comment seems relevant:
Importantly, no evidence of the Mature Indus civilization with cities (2600–1900 BCE) is seen in the Vedic texts: there are no cities, no international trade, no seals, none of the major Harappan religious features. The Vedic texts do not correlate with or overlap at all with the Harappan civiliza- tion, one of the several reasons to date the Vedas much later than 1900 BCE. 
What is not relevant
Anything that does not establish a link to both (pre-Diaspora) Jews and the (ancient) Indus Valley.
R-M124 (lacking any evidence linking it to either pre-Diaspora Jews or the Indus Valley, let alone the ancient Indus Valley).
Indian genetic studies that do not include the Indus Valley.
Localities outside the Indus Valley.
The Hebrew word “Mizraim”, which has no established connection to the Indus Valley.