Talk:Velociraptor/@comment-30510983-20160914001957/@comment-10943908-20160918152150

I understand where you're coming from, but I think your assertions are somewhat extreme. What you're suggesting is that because evidence could be interpreted in two different ways, we should automatically assume that it is interpreted in one manner rather than the other. That, I believe, is the issue with circumstantial evidence, in that it can both prove or disprove a theory. I'd like to venture so far as to say that Palaeontology is not like our legal system - here, creatures are not innocent until proven guilty, they are ambiguous until proven guilty. The evidence seems to suggest that Dromaeosaurs were pack hunters, but it could be pure coincidence that we have this evidence. Personally, I'd believe that dromaeosaurs were pack hunters - it seems to make sense, and again, the evidence is open to various interpretations at the moment. Mine is as possible as yours.