I, for one, am optimistic that scholars do not want to wait another 50 years and support Dr. German Dziebel efforts as Out of America will not compromise “the scientific method” if we but apply its principles. We must first agree to test its merits. Critical areas of human evolution remain in debate mode. No two bigger than the unresolved nature of both Native American and Old World modern human origins! That these two issues still remain unresolved might lead some to link them to one another. Let’s cut to the chase and accept that we have yet to resolve the most basic facts/truths as to why one species was replaced by another. Could looking only in the Eastern Hemisphere for explanations for the origins of our own species be the problem? Do we need to wait another 50-180 years to examine compatible evidence the Americas offers (a list of predictions is available on my website)? The following quote(s) suggest we have a problem in the first place. Accepting that we have a "crisis" is at the heart of looking for alternatives that both justify and remedy this dilemma. It is simply good medicine to look objectively at "Out of the Americas."

Willarmet, C. M., and G. A. Clark. Paradigm crisis in modern human origins research: Journal of Human Evolution (1995) 29, 487-490. 1995

"Despite the considerable efforts of many well-informed investigators, however, no resolution of the controversy is in sight. We think that the slow progress to resolution of the debate can be attributed to differences in metaphysical paradigms of modern origins researchers that in turn result in a biased selection of specimens and/or variables used in analysis. How selectively biased are researchers? An extensive literature review of published multivariate data invoked in support of "continuity" and "replacement" positions produced some dramatic results (Willamette, 1993, 1994). A total of 680 data points were collected, representing 61 variables on 55 fossils. Of these, only 72 variables on 11 fossils, or 11% of the reported database, were common to both paradigms This means that in the sample, 89% of the data collected were used by members of only one paradigm (p. 488)."

"Given the construal of the paradigm just outlined, theories (more accurately the hypotheses deduced from them), can only be confirmed or discomfirmed according to the tenets of the metaphysic (the construal of "reality" defined by the biases and preconceptions of the paradigm). Outside a particular paradigm, its constituent theories ("hypotheses") might appear nonsensical. Despite assertions to the contrary (e.g. Klein, 1989), the venerable history of the debate suggests that simply acquiring more data will not help us choose between opposing paradigms. The reason is that data have no meaning or existence independent of a paradigm that defines and contextualizes them. In light of the plethora of articles and books that have appeared in the last 10 years, it is worth asking ourselves whether we are any closer to solving the question of our origins than we were a century ago. If there is a lesson to be learned from the debate, it is that students of human evolution must begin to confront the inferential basis for their knowledge claims. So far, they have not been much concerned to do so. The result is an interminable debate, now well into its second century, with no resolution in sight (p. 489-489)."

NOTE: This is an older quote but a resolution is still wanting.