I'm really confused by the article:
Either the rate of mutation was much faster than generally accepted, OR, the author is stuck on a 15,000 year time line and assumes that it is evolution/mutation that varied (greatly) and not his concept of when the human record bagan in the Americas.
The rest of the piece seems merely to brag about the importance of his line of inquiry.
When the results are perfectly ambiguous, I'm not too sure about the value of the inquiry.
Wrong?