The critics of the 2008 Paisley paper raised legitimate questions that the original evidence genuinely could not answer.

The concerns about DNA movement through sediment were not invented — they were based on documented phenomena with real implications for the interpretation of the evidence.

The concerns about coprolite identity were not pedantic — they identified a genuine gap in the evidentiary chain that needed to be filled.

The concerns about stratigraphic integrity were not obstructionism — they reflected genuine knowledge of how caves work and how archaeological evidence can become unreliable through post-depositional processes.

The critics were right to ask these questions, and the Paisley evidence is stronger because they did.