Rick Baudé Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What's there to refute?

RB wrote: "Exactly and these look like fully formed spearheads,"

Name the industry.

RB wrote: "and if you push it back to 15.5 KYA"

You didn't even get the date right, and you want to have a discussion? Why don't you read the papers first before commenting? Or are we going to just have a rerun of this discussion:
[www.hallofmaat.com]

"throw a couple of thousand more"

Couple of thousand more what, more disappearing acts?

What is there to discuss, a bone-free, DNA free, pile of mixed up clay pseudo-industry that can't repeat itself twice, let alone a "thousand".

"onto it to allow migration from Beringia to Texas. Yep, Clovis wasn't first."

A data free discussion so far. Please let us know when the flat-earth Buttermilk Society has something to talk about, thanks.

[www.sapiens.org]
Score: Clovis/Folsom 15+... Buttermilk 0

DNA?
[www.hallofmaat.com]
Rick Baudé Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not suprised at all. I think this discovery at
> over 100,000 is outside the range of any DNA.

Corrected by Lee Olsen:
[www.the-scientist.com]
"A 400,000-year-old mitochondrial genome adds new twists to scientists’ picture of early human evolution."

And you want to discuss the data-free DNA at Buttermilk? [www.researchgate.net]

BTW, they have found a few human teeth at Buttermilk...DNA failed and so did the 14C dating.
How cherry picking nice. So how can one discuss nothing results?

Got direct-dating on human bone results here though:
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

To sum up the DNA evidence so far:
[www.scientificamerican.com]
[core.tdar.org]
[www.scientificamerican.com]
[www.nature.com]
[www.sciencemag.org]

Score: Clovis 6 ...Buttermilk 0

But that's OK, I'm sure the snippers will snip all this out, as usual, with zero rebuttals from behind the pay walls.