The default position is, like it should be for any scientific field, to assume nothing. Unless there is enough evidence pointing to a specific cause, the consen

The default position is, like it should be for any scientific field, to assume nothing. Unless there is enough evidence pointing to a specific cause, the consensus will be "we don't know for sure, but here a few possibilities". Certainly there is evidence of hunting, but was it enough to lead to extinction by itself? Knowing that there was also a shift in the climate at the same time. It was the same story with the Cretaceous extinction, where multiple factors were put forward (See: Fantasia for example). That is, until the KT boundary was discovered, showing a clear link to the extinction and a major asteroid/comet impact. Hopefully as more evidence comes in we'll get a better picture.