Passage Summary: Some scientists doubt birds came from dinosaurs because we found bird fossils that are older than any dinosaur fossils found so far. The paleontologist says this doubt is silly because just because we haven't found the older dinosaur fossils yet doesn't mean they aren't buried somewhere.

Conclusion: The reasoning used by biologists who reject the theory that birds evolved from maniraptors is flawed.

Reasoning: The absence of discovered fossils from a specific time period does not prove that those creatures did not exist at that time.

Analysis: The paleontologist is essentially arguing that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' While this is a fair point in logic, the paleontologist might be overstepping by dismissing the skeptics' evidence entirely. The skeptics are basing their view on the *available* evidence, whereas the paleontologist is basing their defense on *hypothetical* evidence that hasn't been found. Look for an answer that suggests the paleontologist is ignoring the fact that the current fossil record, however incomplete, still constitutes the only evidence we actually have.