I agree. That's not in question. That's also not how she worded her argument, which was why it was confusing.

Recognizing that there were several migrations over time rather than just one, the Bering Strait migration, is not proof that the Bering Strait migration is a myth and did not happen. There's proof that it did. There's also proof of other people's finding their way to the Americas.

It is also not proof that all Homo sapiens peoples originally migrated out of Africa, meaning that the species arose from the African continent and then spread out and evolved as separate tribes from there.

There was not a convergent evolution of humans. Evolution doesn't work that way.

The way she worded her argument, she's suggestint that humans evolved from an ancestor species here in the Americas. And the dsme.thi t happened in Africa. She's claiming that people have always been in the Americas. It's in the wording.

But they haven't. They haven't always been in Europe, Australia, Asia, or even Africa either. There was a time before Homo sapiens.

There were other hominid species before us. If she was referring to one or some of them being in the Americas, that would be one thing. And maybe they were. I don't personally know of any evidence found to suggest it, but I'm not an archaeology geek. But it wasn't clear what she meant.

But either way, it still wouldn't be true. That would make Indigenous peoples a decendent species of the hominid species that found it's way here and Homo sapiens a decendent species for (arguably) Homo erectus or Homo rhodensis.

But Indigenous peoples are not a separate species. They're Homo sapiens. Having special population genetic markers doesn't make you a separate species. As you said, there's less genetic diversity between humans than in a troupe of chimps.