A review of some attacks on the overkill hypothesis, with special attention to misrepresentations and doubletalk

This paper addresses misrepresentations and errors in attacks directed against the Overkill hypothesis that was proposed by Paul Martin to explain selective late Pleistocene extinctions. The opposing Climate-Change hypothesis to explain extinctions is driven by ideology as much as by objective reasoning because it is repeated so frequently without strong new evidence to support it, but it has failed to nail down a victory in public opinion. Overkill, which is not an anti-climate-change hypothesis, is perhaps too “flexible” to persuade all scientists, especially because negative evidence (a lack of megafaunal killsites) is considered to be as corroborative as positive evidence. Multiphase models of extinctions that propose different genera died out at different times have become less and less likely as more radiometric dating is done, and overlook the documented variability in atmospheric radiocarbon around the end of the Pleistocene, which prevents the high resolution chronology-building necessary to support a discontinuous model of the extinctions. The extinctions were geologically abrupt, selective, and unique, and therefore they require unique explanations.