Are Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Austro-Nesian related?

[FlatAssembler]

I personally wouldn't assume an especially close connection between Indo-European and Uralic, as most of the people who try to reconstruct the older proto-language do, but between Indo-European and Austronesian. Look at the pronouns. Most of the proto-languages have a nasal in the 1st person singular, while both Indo-European and Austronesian have a velar. In PIE, it's *egjoh2, in PAN, it's *aku. Then look at the PAN Swadesh list. Doesn't it seem to you that PIE *r corresponds to PAN *l, that PIE *s corresponds to PAN *q and that PIE *d corresponds to PAN *d?
*treys (three)-*telu (three)
*romk (hand)-*lima (hand/five)
*ser (to flow)-*qalur (to flow)
*skend (skin)-*qanic (skin)
*stembh (to walk)-*qaqay (foot)
*smew (smoke)-*qabu (ash)
*serw (to watch)-*qalayaw (day)
*bheh2s (to talk)-*baqbaq (mouth)
*dwoh1 (two)-*dusa (two)
*dyews (sky)-*daya (upwards/height/sky)
*danu (river)-*danaw (lake)
Another potential cognate on the Swadesh list might be PIE *men (to think) and PAN *nemnen (to think), by the metathesis. I'd guess some people here know more about PIE than I do, and I am pretty sure there are some people here who know more about PAN than I do, so what do you think?

 

[Tdol]

Given that we mostly discuss modern English, you might find more people who know about this on a specialist forum.

 

[Skrej]

Given that all reconstructive linguistics is based solely on comparative methodologies, you can find enough evidence for anything, if you look long enough and wish hard enough.

Follow the hypothetical language tree far enough back, and they all theoretically stem from Proto-Human. Until we find the recording or transcript of Greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat*10 Grandpa Ug's story about hunting and mating, we'll never know for sure.

 

[Hunia]

English is also an Indo-European language, and theoretically the question of the OP may be of some relevance here as well. "Theoretically", certainly not practically.
Linguistically, all proto-"languages" are hypthetical reconstructs and depend on the quality of empirical data used and available.
I have a graduatre student from Nepal working on a research project regarding his native ethnic minority language with approx. only 20,000 speakers in total. He has done some linguistic fieldwork, and from data obtained I can "conclude" that his native language, Dhimal, is distantly related to Tibetan and Chinese.
I can say for sure that it is not related in any way to the Bantu languages of Africa...loool