Consensus is building that the theory of Multi-Culturalism is a Dud

Why don't you see if Netflix will rent Spencer Wells' The Journey of Man?

You may or may not have noticed how old that page that you posted is. I've known about the Clovis theory for years. I still think it is speculative.

How is that even remotely an answer to my question oif when do you think Asians migrated to the Americas ?
I am ??? You are a bewildering person.

I'm only bewildering to you because you just aren't intelligent. You are sound and fury signifying nothing.

What are you talking about? The Asians who walked over the Bering land bridge met Europeans already settled in the Americas. Pre-Clovis, not Clovis, way pre- Many "native" Americans have European-mixed DNA.

The first Europeans sailed the seas out of sight of land well over 130,000 years ago, maybe a lot earlier. One site found by Prof. Runnels in Crete was settled before the last glaciation. Look at the differences in sea levels

I don't know where you are. Did you check the DNA of your "natives"?

I'm in N. Canada. Look it up. We have plenty of natives.
Where are you?

I hope you can follow this (emphasis mine):


Introduction

In the complex history of human migrations, it is widely accepted that the New World continents were the ones colonized most recently by Homo sapiens, most likely from Asia through Beringia.1 A popular model for the peopling of the Americas suggests that the archaeological remains known as the Clovis complex (thought to be the oldest unequivocal evidence of humans in the Americas) represent the people that first colonized the continent after a late-glacial migration through the ice-free corridor that separated the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets.1 However, the recently re-evaluated age of the Clovis sites to only between about 12.7 and 13.2 thousand years ago (kya)2 and the confirmed human presence at the Monte Verde site located in southern South America around 14.5 kya3 challenge this Clovis-first model and call for alternative hypotheses.

Because the earlier date for Monte Verde implies that peopling of the Americas south of Beringia occurred before the ice-free corridor was formed, a first migration along the Pacific coast may have been a viable route.4 Unfortunately, archaeological verification of this scenario is very difficult because most of the late Pleistocene coast is currently underwater; the sea level has risen more than 120 m since the end of the last glacial maximum (LGM).5

The maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) has been widely used to understand the peopling of the Americas. Since the first studies, it has been found that extant Native American populations exhibit almost exclusively five mtDNA haplogroups (A–D and X)6 classified in the autochthonous haplogroups A2, B2, C1, D1, and X2a.7 Haplogroups A–D are found all over the New World and are frequent in Asia, supporting a northeastern Asian origin of these lineages.[6] and [8] This distribution, together with the similar coalescence time for these haplogroups, was used to suggest a single-migration model.[9], [10], [11] and [12]

However, a different pattern of diversification and distribution of haplogroup B found in some studies led some authors to hypothesize that it could represent a later and separate migration from the joint arrival of haplogroups A, C, and D.13

The history of haplogroup X is more elusive; it is presently found in the New World at a relatively low frequency14 and only in North America,15 it is rare in West Eurasians, and it is almost absent in Siberia.16 In addition, some have claimed that Native American haplogroup X is less diverse and has a younger coalescence time than haplogroups A–D17.

These differential features have been cited to argue that haplogroup X represents an independent migration to the Americas from Asia or even Europe.17 More specifically, it has been used to support a putative connection between the European Solutrean and the American Clovis lithic technologies.18

This so called “Solutrean hypothesis” proposed the colonization of North America by Europeans through the North Atlantic, even though this interpretation is heavily debated (e.g.,19). All the five founding haplogroups have been shown to be present in Native Americas in pre-Columbian times.[12] and [20]

In general, the studies on mtDNA control-region variation have been taken to support a pre-Clovis migration, between 20 and 30 kya, before the LGM, for the single (or the most ancient) migration.[6] and [21] However, the uncertainties about and range around these dates are very large. One cause for this variation is the limited information content of the mtDNA control region, which is also too divergent to allow reliable substitution-rate estimation by comparison with the chimpanzee.22 Alternatively, the complete coding region of the mtDNA is being increasingly used to circumvent these limitations in studies of human migrations (e.g.,[22] and [23]) but has not been used so far for studying the origin of Native Americans.

Another frequent controversy is about the size of the founding population during the peopling of the Americas. The initial results showing the existence of few founder haplogroups for the mtDNA and Y chromosome suggested a strong population bottleneck,6 although this interpretation was not supported by further mtDNA studies.21 However, a recent analysis of several genomic loci, including mtDNA, suggested that the Americas could have been founded by as few as 80 effective individuals, and even the largest values in the credible interval only comprise a few hundred effective individuals.24

On the other hand, the study of other single genetic systems does not seem to support much loss of genetic diversity during the initial settlement of the continent;[25], [26], [27] and [28] instead, it concludes that a moderate-intensity bottleneck is the best scenario. Another recent genomic study using exclusively autosomal intergenic markers also suggested moderate values, with the Native American founding population consisting of around 500 effective individuals (95% confidence interval 74–1332).29

In this study, we analyze 86 mtDNA genomes (58 of them new) belonging to all five major Native American haplogroups (A2, B2, C1, D1, and X2a) to provide a better understanding of the timing and mode of the peopling of the New World. Our analysis suggests a complex scenario for this migration, in which the founding population underwent a moderate bottleneck during the LGM to expand along the continent toward the end of the LGM, around 18 kya, probably via a Pacific coastal route. Furthermore, we support a model in which all mtDNA haplogroups were present in this expansion, thus refuting multiple-migration scenarios such as the Solutrean hypothesis.

From The American Journal of Human Genetics, Vo. 82, Issue 3, 3 March 2008, pp. 583 592

Your pouting and posturing about European origins for Native Americans is racist.

Whether it is or not:
is it TRUE qua the earliest Americans ???

Sadly, most any thread where Ionus shows up ends up off topic.

I've long suspected that science is not your strong suit. In fact, I am willing to say that you haven't made science's acquaintance.

As the synopsis says, the single haploid group that indicates a European origin for some segment of the population we now call Native American could also indicate an Asian origin. In other words, it is up in the air.

The only thing reputable scientists are willing to say with assurance at this time is that there was more than one migration that formed the diverse group to which we give the umbrella name Native Americans.

Just because one group may have arrived earlier than another does not mean that this group founded all the tribes and linguistic groups of pre-Columbian America. The foundation legend for Marseilles, France indicates that Greeks came there and established a colony. There were already people there who were Celts. That does not mean that all Frenchmen are descended from Greeks. What you seem to be saying is that all Native Americans are descended from one intrepid group of white men out of Europe.

SPencer Wells has demonstrated that people out of Africa walked into India and then went on to populate southeast Asia and Australia. He used the y chromosome in his work. Other geneticists used mitochondrial (mother's or female) DNA, which is what was used in this study.

It is entirely possible that the descendants of the people Wells traced out of Africa to the Pacific sailed further east to South and/or Central AMerica.

Even if your fantasy of white men finding this hemisphere first is true, it does not mean that their presence was significant, which I think is what ceili and littlek have been trying to tell you and the others without insulting you by telling it so baldly.

After all, we are all out of Africa.

That is true about Ionus.

If it's true it's no fantasy. All the evidence points to it being true. How significant the presence of early Europeans was or was not makes no difference to whether they were present or not.

So Africa is uninhabited now since "we" are all out of it.

Do you understand the difference between TRUE and FALSE?

Are you on a videocam? How else can she claim you're pouting????
I think the 2 of you are married and having all your fights online.

None of the evidence points to any presence -- let alone a significant presence -- of white males here prior to the Vikings and the French, who preceded the English. You have no idea what you are talking about and you didn't read the posting from the Journal.

You are just another racist. Please, try to learn something.

YEs, I do understand the difference and it is true that you are ignorant. I would guess you never took a science class in your life.

Typical right wing ignorance.

It DOES look like that, right ???????????