Details Relating to the Extinction-by-Man Theory
56. 
Abundant Food. There is little precedent for believing that man would push any animal population into a harsh environment having little food. Only Dima, a baby, appeared underfed. Most frozen mammoths that were complete enough to evaluate were well fed.
57. 
Yedomas and Loess,
-150°F,
Large Animals,
Vertical Compression. The extinction-by-man theory does not explain the relationship between mammoths, yedomas, and loess, the sudden drop in temperature to -150°F, the vertical compression found in Dima and Berezovka, or the preservation of larger, harder-to-freeze animals.
58.
Elevated Burials. Even if man pushed these animals north into Siberia and Alaska, why would a disproportionate number be buried on the higher elevations of generally flat plateaus?
59.
Rock Ice. With this theory, one would expect Type 1 or 2 ice, not Type 3 ice.
60.
Frozen Muck. If man killed the mammoths, how were mammoths and forests buried under frozen muck? Where did so much muck come from?
61.
Suffocation. If humans killed mammoths and rhinoceroses, why did at least five suffocate?
62.
Dirty Lungs,
Peppered Tusks. Being hunted by man would not explain silt, clay, and small gravel particles in Dima’s respiratory and digestive tracts or millimeter-size particles embedded in mammoth tusks.
63.
Animal Mixes. Mammoth remains are often found near bones of animals that man would probably not have simultaneously pursued, such as: rhinoceroses, horses, tigers, badgers, bears, wolves, hyenas, lynxes, etc. Why would a hunted horse be frozen?166 Today, wild horses live only in mild climates.
64.
Upright. Mammoths killed by man would not be found standing up, especially in muck.
65.
Other/No Human Signs. One doubts that primitive man could have exterminated the formidable, even dangerous, mammoth in a remote, frigid, and vast region. Yes, man almost exterminated the less-imposing buffalo—with guns in a temperate climate. No human remains (even bones or teeth), no weapons (arrows or knives), and no other artifacts (pottery, utensils, or art) have been found alongside frozen mammoth and rhinoceros remains. Besides, most primitive arrows and spears would do little damage after penetrating the mammoth’s thick skin and fat layers. Nor are the distinctive marks of man’s ax or knife clearly seen on mammoth bones and ivory. If man exterminated mammoths, some signs of human activity should occasionally be found among the millions of mammoth remains. To capture or kill large animals, humans often dig deep pits, which would be difficult in permafrost.
66.
Other/Unpopulated. Humans in today’s heavily populated areas might try to exterminate mammoths and rhinoceroses. But why would man do this thousands of years ago in barren and sparsely populated regions of northern Siberia?
67.
Other/Logic. Humans do not travel to desolate regions for food, especially food difficult to preserve and transport. Even if man occupied these regions, less dangerous and more desirable game would have been available. In Africa today, man has no great desire for elephant or rhinoceros meat. In fact, before the day of the rifle and the ivory market, man generally avoided these huge African animals. If man killed mammoths for their ivory tusks, why were so many tusks left behind? Why would man kill rhinoceroses?
68.
Other/DNA Shift. Corings into the Siberian permafrost have shown a sudden change in DNA with depth. Below a certain level, DNA is from mammoths and lush, temperate vegetation. Above that level, the DNA matches Siberian vegetation today. As one writer concluded:
The DNA documents a dramatic shift from a landscape of mostly herbaceous plants to dominant shrubs and mosses. ... This lends credibility to the idea that environmental change associated with climatic events was responsible [for the extinction of the mammoth], not human hunting, as many have claimed.167
69.
Other/South. Same as item 52.