[olivercreashe]

Article should be called:

"How we think ancient humans reached remote ..."

We will never know without having been there, just like the bering straight migration "fact" has now been debunked, to name an example.

It is very disappointing how sbjective and arrogant researchers have become, from astronomers to psychologists, and political scientists at the top.

We don't know many things, we think that is how they work based on what we see, but they never say that and it becomes the master narrative.

[mturmon]

Usually, to be generally accepted, hypotheses like in the OP require multiple independent lines of evidence. (E.g., for human migrations, DNA, linguistic traces, and technical artifacts could serve as independent lines.)

Publishing this article in a wide forum like PNAS is the way of asking the community at large for reactions, for or against. If it had been a more narrowly discipline-specific article, it would appear elsewhere, like Oikos or Oecologia.

[vkou]

The only thing that was 'debunked' about the Bering Straight migration was that the first migration took place ~12,000 years ago. Some archaeological evidence indicates that migration took place earlier - which is not incompatible with the BSM theory.

It is, however, incompatible with an orthodox interpretation of it.