A Question For Science

Wait a minute. I may be stupid, and I'm a total freshman in science, but maybe someone out there can help me understand this:

As I have noted before, Chicken science tells us that the new world was discovered and populated by Asian chickens before it was seen by European men.
The chickens were found by Europeans to be living with the Aracuna Indians in Chile.
It is also in Chile that the oldest evidence of New World humans occupation has been found: not much evidence of not many people in the most recent case: the foot prints of half a dozen short-term-stay huts, and remains of some sushi-like sea weed preparation, dating back about fourteen thousand years.....as opposed to the eleven thousand year old remains which until recently were the oldest. That was also in South America. Nine thousand years is about the best we can do in North America.

It is generally accepted that these earliest Americans came on foot via the Siberian land bridge, surviving on the wide variety of foods to be found in the coastal region.
It is reasonable to conclude, as spokes-scientists are presently concluding, that there are so few traces of the coastal migrants, because the sea levels are a couple of hundred feet higher now than they were at the time of the migration, so that the old coastal route is now miles out and under water on the continental shelf.

The bothersome questions I have are these:

A.) Why does the earliest sign of human habitation appear at the southern extreme of the migration?

B.) Did these ancient migrants carry their chickens, or did they make them walk?

C.) If the chickens didn't just drift here from the East on floating islands, but came across the Pacific in boats,why didn't the humans come that way too? They could have come together.

D.) Or if the humans brought the chickens by boat, was it for the purpose of trading them for sushi....or did they come to stay?

You know what I mean?