"Early Americans" - someone who knows a little about the big picture

Found an intelligent comment in Yahoo News here from a person called "Score". This is about the recent skeleton found in a cenote in Mexico.

To quote from this article, "The girl's nearly complete skeleton was discovered by chance in 2007 by expert divers who were mapping water-filled caves north of the city of Tulum, in the eastern part of the Yucatan Peninsula." With prior research or current searches on the Internet, someone would find that these underground water formations are "cenotes". "Cenotes" are almost everywhere in the Yucatan with most being totally underground. It has been well documented that some "cenotes" were used to deposit bones for reasons one can only speculate many thousands of years later in the 21st Century. There are only three major types of DNA with 20 or more subgroup classifications of DNA. Each human gene has some 3 billion individual genomes. To give you an idea of DNA testing as of 2012, the Philidephia Children's Hospital tests for 64 million genomes in their DNA research and Ancestry tests for 600 thousand genomes to classify one's genetic ancestry. It is interesting to note that while eastern Russian DNA is part of the major Mongoloid (Asian) DNA grouping, the far eastern Russian DNA subgrouping is associated with only the native people of most of Alaska, extreme northern Canada, and Greenland to reflect the close ancestry of this Eskimo (Beringia grouping which this article discusses) subgroup by DNA from northernmost North America and Greenland with far eastern Russia. Native Americans south of Alaska and the northern most portions of Canada are also part of the major Mongoloid (Asian) DNA grouping but are a related but totally different DNA subgroup from the eastern Russian, Alaska, Canadian, and Greenland eskimos. This separate Native American DNA subgroup stretches continuously from the southern tip of South America and through North America continuously without interruption stopping only at the northern extremes of North America where the Eskimo DNA subgroup starts. One might ask why this common Native American DNA subgroup for all of the native populated South America and for almost all of North America until the Eskimo DNA subgroup is reached in the farthest north portions of North America comes from the popular lore of the Russia-Alaska land bridge when evidence seems to point otherwise. In 15,000 plus years, there would be many opportunities for many multiple migrations of peoples to the Americas. The South Pacific Islands across the southern portion of the Pacific Ocean and lead directly toward southern Chile. The oldest human remains in the Americas are found in Chile with newer human remains found in slightly ever increasing newness of DNA remains travelling north along the Pacific coast when looking at a map of the location of these remains. The newest human remains in the Americas are along the Pacific coast and are found in Alaska. Based on carbon dating of remains, the logical conclusion is that the settlement of Native Americans started from South America to the North contrary to all popular explanations. Keeping an open mind on what happened more than 15,000 years ago, there are many possibiities and many chances for multiple migrations to the Americas. As the Eskimos of far Eastern Russia, Alaska, far northern Canada, and Greenland are in one of the three major DNA groupings called Mongoloid, so are all of the other Native Americans of North and South America. These two groups, the Eskimos and the Native Americans of most of the Americas, are different subgroups as far as DNA subgrouping of Asian related populations. As each individual human being and each individual gene has 3 billion genomes, I am sure that there is much commonality in many of these genomes between the Eskimo and Native American DNA subgroups of the major Mongoloid (Asian) DNA grouping. This would be completely expected, but it does not link the two different DNA subgroups of the Eskimos and the Native Americans of the Americas. As Professor Jantz questions this article's findings at the conclusion of the article by stating at the conclusion of this article hat the new paper "leaves a lot of unanswered questions."