So are you just lazy, a lunatic or a liar. I don't see how you can't be at least one of these based on this reply. Your realize not one jot of what those links to "new" information does much of anything to controvert what I put in my post. Let me help you out with a quote from the Science article.
"In this view, maritime explorers voyaged by boat out of Beringia—the ancient land now partially submerged under the waters of the Bering Strait—about 16,000 years ago and quickly moved down the Pacific coast, reaching Chile by at least 14,500 years ago."
You do realize that's EXACTLY what I posted, right? Literally not one tiny thing has changed from this observation I made.
"Meanwhile look at what Luzia's ancestral path looks like. So given your above quote do you think a path leading all the way up through E Asia to the Bering Strait (You know, effing Siberia) and down through NW Canada and W US would constitute "new environments"?"
The only thing different is there's some debate jiggering around with the timeline, which is irrelevant in the context of our discussion. The fact (100% still in accordance with your links) is that the people that made their way down through the Americas had spent 10's of thousands of years migrating NE through Asia eventually crossing via Beringia. You know, through all those different environments that (according to you) bring about phenotypical changes.
And to call your last paragraph laughable self-serving speculation would be charitable. Nobody (certainly that you've cited or anywhere else I've found) support what you posit. Even if you move the timeline all the way to the 30k mark (which is not without it's skeptics at this point btw) you realize you're knocking less than 20k off the older Clovis models. That sounds like a lot (and for hard archeology it is) but in the context of a full out of Africa migration all the way up E Asia and across Beringia we're still absolutely talking millennia.
