[roamer_1]

It’s generally thought, also from various lines of evidence, that the migration of what became the North and South American aborigines took place appx 70,000 years ago, which essentially cut them off from other human populations at least until Leif Ericson sailed to northeastern North America nearly 500 years before Columbus.

That's really not a reasonable statement... Clovis points span Europe and America... As does pyramid technology and astronomical knowledge. Sumerian writing has been found at (or around) Chichen Itza... The only known source of copper large enough to drive the European Bronze Age has to be the mines in the Eastern Great Lakes area.

While the linkage is not always there, the evidence is clear - There has always been trade between Europe/Asia and the Americas. The knowledge of 'what was beyond the sea' seems to be a recent aberration.

[onedoug]

What you say is reasonable, based on lines of evidence if not documentation.

But again, I think my real pet peeve re this article is this seeming exclusivity of Old World DNA.

I'm an Old Testament fundamendalist, but also a science buff who sees no conflict between the two.

Maybe I'm missing something in the article, but I don't think so. It seems like an attempt to reinforce the idea that the Earth is actually some 6,000 years old when unification in all lines of physical science clearly indicate it is much, much older.

That said though, Gerald Schroeder in his The Science Of God demonstrates some nifty math based on relativity theory that actually brings both ages into close conformity.