Replies

This is what I should have said.
"Native or indigenous" means original occupiers of a land. Native Americans (NAs) are certainly that.
"DNA doesn't lie" - You are correct and the DNA studies for the origins of NAs have been very consistant. Terminal Pleistocene Alaskan genome reveals first founding population of Native Americans "..the Ancient Beringian population and ancestors of other Native Americans descended from a single founding population that initially split from East Asians around 36 ± 1.5 ka, with gene flow persisting until around 25 ± 1.1 ka"

Understanding the above requires knowing a little paleoanthropolgy and who the East Asians of the pleistocene were. Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China
"Genetic differentiation was higher in the past than the present, reflecting a major episode of admixture involving northern East Asian ancestry spreading across southern East Asia after the Neolithic, transforming the genetic ancestry of southern China. Mainland southern East Asian and Taiwan Strait island samples from the Neolithic show clear connections with modern and ancient samples with Austronesian-related ancestry, supporting a southern China origin for proto-Austronesians."

I'll cut to the chase about NAs ancestry. They are a Pleistocene mixture of 2 populations that no longer exist. Proto-Australasians (related to Aborigines) and Eurasians (the ancestral population that produced 3 large groups, Caucasions, NAs and East Asians. Modern East Asians are the newest of the groups and therefore cannot be the source for NAs south of the Polar regions.

The rest of your post about head morphology is out of the 19th century. Some are still trying to make these arguments but it doesn't hold up as the genetic evidence has come in. Primarily there is no relation between modern morphology and distant ancestry.