That makes sense, considering that "Amerindians" came from Asia via the Bering land bridge thousands of years ago[1].
Proto-Afro Asiatic (edit: ancestor of Coptic, Hebrew, Amhara, Arabic, Tigre, the Berber languages, Aramaic, Hausa (IIRC), and a number of less commonly spoken languages) likely dates back to more than 10K years ago, but we have the benefit of more than 5,000 years of writing in both Egyptian and the Akkadian. We don't have that benefit with any of the indigenous languages of Siberia or North America.
Also, linguistic typology is not the best way to show relatedness, since languages change. For example, proto-Indo European had Nominative Accusative alignment, and was highly inflected, but modern English is almost completely uninflected, and Hindi has Ergative-Absolutive alignment for some tenses.
I looked at the structural features they mentioned, and at least some of them are well known to change quite dramatically. (Some Indo European languages picked up a difference between exclusive and inclusive we, places of articulation change, languages develop and lose gendered nouns, others have lost some distinctions of number (dual has been lost in most IE languages).
But I'm not a linguist, so any linguist can comment on whether these are fair criticisms.
Also, as others mentioned Na-Dene (Navajo is the most spoken language in this group), is already believed to have a connection to the Ket language of Siberia.
That really depends what you're counting; if you ask which words in a sentence must be inflected, English still looks highly inflected. If you compare it to other inflected languages, the number of distinct forms for any given word is low, but this doesn't do much to help learners coming from languages that don't observe the same distinctions that require inflection in English. They don't do a lot better choosing between the fivish forms of an English verb than between the dozens of forms of a Latin verb.
> dual has been lost in most IE languages
This is a good tangential example; the dual persists, in reduced form, in modern English! We don't inflect verbs for it. But we do inflect determiners; we scrupulously distinguish both from all in a manner that most people in the world find confusing.
In another thread, post-civil war, US Calvary hunted all bison (a million animals? whole herds including calves?) to eliminate them and therefore cut the food supply of the native people; really brutal and ugly realities.
The high arctic was one of the last places on earth inhabited by humans. We don't find evidence of humans (archaic or modern) before about 45ka. Even then, habitation seems to have been minuscule outside refuge microclimates for millennia. Beringia was probably the biggest and most important of the Arctic microclimates, likely comparable to modern Alaska in some areas.
Living in the high arctic is quite taxing.
https://anthropology.dartmouth.edu/news/2016/02/new-evidence...
Time and again, “real scientists” act like teenage pop star fans when something is established as “making sense”. I'm not even talking about politically important issues or personal gains from being part of some “school”, just something that is “generally accepted”… until it is not.
For example, mass extinction event after an asteroid impact is such an enormous media icon that a lot of scientists merely work on decorating it. From the very beginning, there was evidence that extinction was neither short nor had a single peak, but it was routinely dismissed as “local variations” or without any reason at all, simply because it made things more complex.
Too many people solve the problem actually stated as “What if everything we believe is true, which models should we invent to support it?” It is important to think whether you are studying something, or just gathering the pieces in a pre-defined manner.