Humans arrived in the Kaliko Islands about 7,000 years ago, and within 3,000 years most of the large mammal species that had lived in the forests of the Kaliko Islands were extinct. Previous archaeological findings have suggested that early humans general

In this argument the author claims that the only clear explanation of the extinction of most large mammals on the Kaliko Islands is excessive hunting by the humans over 3000 years after they first came there. Yet there are certain crucial assumptions that make this conclusion unsubstantiated.

First of all the argument neglects to review any possible geological changes that might have occurred over the timeframe of 7000 years. It is possible that the Kaliko Islands were interconnected or even connected to the mainland in the past and that the mammals who lived on the islands were simply driven away by growing human population or might have migrated elsewhere with changing environment or climate. Unless further research is implemented on these factors the argument does not make a cogent case.

Another alternative explanation for extinction might be based on Charles Darwin evolutionary theory and the famous phrase “survival of the fittest”. The argument speaks of a period of time of 3000 years when archeologists could no longer find evidence of large mammals inhabiting the forests of Kaliko Islands. But in this period, is it not possible that the native mammals simply have adapted to their new life among people and changes of their environment. Maybe certain mammals evolved into smaller species.

Finally the argument claims that the archeologists have mostly found fish bones on numerous sites and it is “likely” that humans hunted mammals as well. I emphasize the word “likely” since this clearly shows that there is no proof if archaeologists found mammal bones among the sites nor that there is proof people hunted them. The tools that were found could simply be used for catching fish and cooking or building things. Thus here to the authors point is unsubstantiated by his/her claims as shown above.

Ultimately the evidence supporting the conclusion that humans hunted so excessively that the native mammals became extinct does little to prove this conclusion. There are a few alternative explanations that make the authors argument fallacious. There should be more research implemented on the possibility of the mammals migrating or driven away, for example a study of nearby islands or mainland could be done to see if large mammals inhabited these parts of the land. Another study could be done to discover if findings of smaller mammals could be related to evolution of the species.