Jones concludes that 13,000-year-old wooden tools found in South America cannot be attributed to peoples whose ancestors first crossed from northern Europe into Alaska. Why not? Because to get as far as South America, those peoples would have to migrate south well before 13,000 years ago. And no one has found wooden tools older than 13,000 years along the way from Alaska to South America. Jones assumes that if these wooden tools were correctly attributed, even older wooden tools would have been found on the way from Alaska.

In response, Smith concludes that Jones' evidence is inconclusive. Smith isn't saying Jones is necessarily wrong, just that Jones' evidence doesn't truly support Jones' conclusion. And why not? Because wooden tools can be preserved in peat bogs, but in other soils usually decompose pretty fast. The tools in question were found in peat bogs, but peat bogs are rare in the Americas. Smith is showing that even if older wooden tools had existed further north, they probably wouldn't have survived.

So where do Jones and Smith disagree? Well, we can be clear on where they don't disagree: they both accept (or at least don't dispute) the factual evidence about ancient wooden tools, the peoples who migrated from Alaska to South America, and the rarity of peat bogs. Their only disagreement is on the interpretation of the evidence. Jones interprets the absence of older tools to mean that scientists' attribution is wrong; Smith thinks the evidence is inconclusive, and the scientists could be right.