It's not only 'typological similarities' as you've mentioned. What's I've posted are not 'typological similarities'. If so, Linguists wouldn't take this discussion seriously. By the way, have you ever heard about 'Pultova' and the Swedish general taken to Siberia?
When talking about morphology or syntax, it makes Altaic language' exclusive characteristic, which is different from Dravidian or languages like that.
And the most powerful aspect of these relationship is form-related; and not word-related. Grammer can be easily discussed comparatively; while finding common words are a bit harder.
About your fourth and fifth questions, I invite you to study papers made by Ramstedt, especially when I see you refer to him. If you believe his works, so you should believe his words too. It's what he has said:'Mongolian and Turkic were not different languages until 600 B.C.' Don't tell me to provide sources for you, cause I've done it for you. Just go for those books.
It's not only similarities which are talked about in Linguistics. Linguists have got their own techniques to see if these similarities propose the original relationship or not. Now, want to know about these skills, please go chek any papers by Proffesor Noam Chomsky.
Anyhow, I think this is my last post talking about linguistics here in this thread. You know, I should be familiar with a branch to start talking about it; instead of sitting on my seat and complaining. People like writers of those article just criticize, without proposing the right way.
That's about it for the time being. Take care...
P.S: Please invest some time reading my posts. Becaue I'm not able to answer repeated questions.
< = ="" defer>