Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis/Archive 1

Tears and Sweat
Tears and excessive sweating are considered further evidence to support the theory.


 * Details? --Brion

'Theory' v. 'Hypothesis'
Why is the word "theory" used for this page title? This idea is at best a well developed yet largely untested hypothesis and at worst a weak one. Unless there is a good objection otherwise I will move this page. --mav Because a Hypothesis can be proven with a short experiment or series of controlled experiments. One can observe various aspects of geology and paleontology, but they are not testable in a way that makes hypothesis meaningful. If you'd like to call it a hypothesis, what test would you like to see? --Cambrian.


 * A cursory google search seems to indicate that fans of the hypothesis call it the "aquatic ape theory", while critics are more likely to call it the "aquatic ape hypothesis". --Brion


 * Well if the word "theory" is to have any meaning here we should move the page. --mav


 * Fine by me. Don't be shy about adding a link to pseudoscience neither. :) --Brion


 * In my experience as a student of physical anthropology, both supporters and critics of aquatic ape theory refer to that subject by the name aquatic ape theory, just as supporters and critics of creation science and the theory of evolution refer to those subjects by those names. In any event, renaming an article based upon your personal objections to the use of a word like theory would be a confusing mistake as well as a clear violation of the NPOV policy. Simply put, Wikipedia is not the right place to carry on a debate about the merits of a particular theory/hypothesis/pseudoscience.--NetEsq


 * True; that's why we have the meta wikipedia! --Brion


 * You misunderstand NetEsq. I actually like the idea and think it has merit -- however it does have an ambiguous title as is. When something is scientific in nature and purports to be a theory one can automatically assume theory to mean scientific theory. Here in wikiland we have a specific definition of the term theory in the same way that we have a specific definition of the word terrorist. We tend to be consistent with our definition of that word and we should also be consistent in the use of the word theory. --mav


 * I think I understand quite well. First of all, I have a background in both the "hard sciences" (i.e., upper division college level courses in chemistry, physics, and calculus) as well as the more contentious social and behavioral sciences (i.e., Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology, Cum Laude), where both cultural and physical anthropology are often (inappropriately) classified along with pscyhology and sociology, and I disagree with your unfounded and unsupported assertions about the nature of science, theories, and hypotheses.  Second of all, you are purporting to speak on behalf of the entirety of wikiland -- i.e., "we do this; we do that" -- and you have no authority to do so.  As for the appropriate use of the word terrorist, what does that have to do with the price of oil in Iraq?


 * The appropriate way to voice your concerns about the use of the word theory in the title of the aquatic ape theory article is by including those concerns in the body of article. To wit, "some critics of AAT believe that it should be referred to as the aquatic ape hypothesis."--NetEsq


 * NetEsq, I also happen to think that this is an interesting hypothesis and one which deserves attention. However, given, as mav says, we have certain particular definitions (which are not unalterable, it just helps to have some solid ground on which to stand) and theory is a key one, I do not believe this article deserves a theory tag just yet. It does not conform to the key precepts of theory and is at best at present hypothesis. user:sjc


 * Did I not read, somewhere authoritative in the wikipedia guidelines, that when there's a dispute in the name of an article like this, it's the more common and expected format which is to be used, not the more technical one? Since the aquatic ape premise is almost universally referred to as a theory, I would guess that this is the name it should therefore receive, even though it (like the plains ape theory of bipedalism) is, indeed, a hypothesis.


 * In fact, I'm pretty sure wherever the guideline was, it specifically said of the "but this has a specific, technical reason to have a different name", something along the lines of "tough cookies, people being able to find the name they expect is more important".


 * Anyone know the rule I'm talking about? I haven't time to dig it up now, I came across it a few weeks ago. Kaz 23:55, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * FWIW Elaine Morgan refers to all of this as the aquatic ape hypothesis in "Scars of Evolution and goes on to articulate why she does not use theory.

I think there may be a misconception on the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, and there is certainly quibbling over the "correct" usage and the actual usage. In every day life, the use of the word theory is commonly abused, e.g. "conspiracy theories" are always hypotheses, yet we still call them theories. A theory is a statement or set of statements, proposing to explain a law of nature and using theories one may test many different hypotheses. Hypotheses are proposed explanations for observations, in this case Sir Hardy's hypothesis proposes to explain the observation that humans are the only primate with fat attached to their skin (is this true???)

Thus, the article is correctly termed Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, though in actuality may be discussed as the Aquatic Ape Theory. An educational 'fix' would be to create a redirect page from Aquatic Ape Theory to Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, allowing all to find what they are looking for. The redirect should be to Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, because in a non-technical, merely literal sense, Hardy has proposed a hypothesis.

On the other hand, it would seem ludicrous to create a redirect page from "Conspiracy Theories" to "Conspiracy Hypotheses", so why should we in this case? If those who care most about the hypothesis prefer "Aquatic Ape Theory" in order to grant the idea more weight in their minds, it seems petty to enforce the alternative.

Science & Fairness
From the NPOV page:


 * If we're going to represent the sum total of "human knowledge"--of what we believe we know, essentially--then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. . . . The task before us is not to describe disputes fairly, on some bogus view of fairness that would have us describe pseudoscience as if were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view, and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. . ..


 * There is a minority of Wikipedians who feel so strongly about this problem, however, that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." What these people have failed to establish, however, is that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to those who might be misled by pseudoscience.

The NPOV policy statement later goes on to address the specific problem of discussing the topic of the theory of evolution from a scientific point of view:


 * <I>There are virtually no topics that could not proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also philosophy, history, physics, etc.</I>

In sum, the editorial decision to change the title of a Wikipedia article from one which uses the word theory to one which uses the word hypothesis in an attempt to reflect the scientific point of view is a clear violation of the NPOV policy. The proper way to address such concerns is in the body of the article itself, as I pointed out earlier. If you disagree with the NPOV policy, and wish to ignore it, then go right ahead, but do not attempt to speak on behalf of Wikipedians such as myself who believe in the NPOV's correctness.--NetEsq


 * NPOV vs POV isn't really the point (as I've already said my POV is that I like the idea). The point is that the common use of the word "theory" is nothing more than a dictionary defintion but in the context of an encyclopedia the word "theory" means "scientific theory" so any use of that word must consider this context (otherwise ambiguity is the result). See "Be precise when necessary" of of our naming conventions. --mav


 * As I stated earlier, what I see here is a conflict between NPOV and what often passes for the Scientific Point of View (SPOV). That is why I cited the relevant sections of the NPOV in re the problems one encounters when attempting to conform Wikipedia to the SPOV.  And, once again, I disagree with your unfounded and unsupported assertions about the nature of theories and hypotheses in re scientific inquiry.  To wit:  It is often argued by scientists, that the theory of evolution is not falsifiable, and (therefore) is not scientific.  This view can be attributed to the philosophy of science of Karl Popper, which is not at all universally accepted.  Rather, according to  the scientific philosophy of Thomas Kuhn, you can't even compare when one theory is better than another scientifically.  Underlying all of this is the problem of conceptual bias, an intractable problem one encounters when dealing with scientists, not unlike the problem which anthropologists encounter with ethnocentrism among their informants.


 * When Charles Darwin first posited the theory of evolution, he attempted to present it as a Newtonian science like physics or chemistry. This backfired when his mentor William Whewell dismissed his theory as unscientific.  Whewell's conceptual bias is not unlike the conceptual bias that you have demonstrated toward the semantic conception of theories, i.e. what you might refer to as the "Scientific Point of View."  However, the nature of science, theories, and hypotheses is still the subject of considerable debate, as set forth above.

'Theory' v. 'Hypothesis' 2

 * Back to the Aquatic Ape Theory. Most scientists refer to the "aquatic ape hypothesis" by the name "aquatic ape theory," as evidenced by the "aquatic ape theory" categories at both ODP and Yahoo! and the 4 to 1 ratio of Google results for "aquatic ape theory" as compared to "aquatic ape hypothesis."  If you disagree with the purportedly "unscientific" nature of this nomenclature, then state so in the aquatic ape theory article, but do not make a totally irrational appeal to authority by making an irrelevant reference to Wikipedia naming conventions.--NetEsq

Tears & Sweat 2
I had never heard of this theory until today's debate, and I am very curious what it has to say on one point. Our body fluids are much less saline than sea-water, but much more saline than fresh water. Living in either hypoosmotic or hyperosmotic conditions is a severe environmental stress. The aquatic adaptations of various mammals to the two environments are different and in some cases totally opposite. In which environment are humans purported to have evolved according to the Aquatic Ape Theory? --Karl Juhnke


 * The idea as I understand it (and this may be the weaker view) is that early humans spent a large amount of their time in and around water -- which included inland seas, lakes, rivers and also coastal environments. This does make sense from a caloric intake stance -- human babies need a lot of calories in a very consistent supply in order for their brains to develop properly. The savannas have severe seasonal differences in the amount, quality and regularity in food supplies - and yet we are fertile (and interested) in the opposite sex year-round (well most of us are). In aquatic evrions, however, the food supply is far more apt to be constant and plentiful. Of course we may have simply used tools such as spears and crude boats instead of actually spending so much time in the water but since the end of the last glacial maximum ~13,000 years ago all previous coastlines and nearly all of these early human settlements are now under a 100 or so meters of water -- thus it is very difficult to test this interesting hypothesis in order to elevate it into a theory. --mav


 * Opps! I forgot to answer your physiology question. This simple answer is this; if this idea does hold water (needless pun, I know) then the time in which these adaptations took place would probably not have been long enough to change our base physiology too much. Therefore the salinity of our body fluids would be pretty much the same as other primates (which it is). And there is also the issue that under many forms of this hypothesis humans lived in both aquatic and marine environments (as stated above). The idea of tears and excess sweating is used by some to suggest that these human body functions are a way to get rid of excess salt (however I think this argument is a bit weak). --mav


 * Well, then the tears and sweat theory would mean we lived in saltwater. Freshwater vertebrates don't have trouble with excess salt because they can always drink; on the contrary, they have a need to retain dissolved ions while eliminating the water.  Only marine vertebrates benefit from effecient salt excretion.  However, I agree with you that the argument is weak, because our salt-excretion capabilities do not enable us to have a net gain of water from drinking ocean water.  It costs us more water to eliminate the salt than we get from drinking saltwater, no mattter whether we cry, sweat, or urinate.  The adaptive salty tears of, say, marine turtles and birds are very concentrated, i.e. they eliminate lots of salt for a little water.  If we were a marine species we ought to be able to do that too. --Karl Juhnke


 * This is a good objection to the form of AAH (there are several) that argues for a singular, coastal 'phase'. Of course, it could have been fresh water, or (as is my view) a combination of the two. --Algis Kuliukas 06:57, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Timescale
Some dates would be useful: when is this proposed to have happened, either in rough time or what species? (I read about this back in the early 1980s, and don't have the books. I can google if nobody else knows.) Vicki Rosenzweig 13:56 Aug 26, 2002 (PDT)


 * That's one of the problems with calling this a theory - I've rarely heard of a time period in which this took place. And when I have it has been from people who know little about this (like me) guessing. However I've never read any books on the subject as you have (it's just something one of my biology professors mentioned as an unsubstantiated and highly flawed yet interesting idea during a lecture on human evolution). Most vague ideas about the time period that this may have occurred are within the last 3 million years. --mav


 * A long, long time to wait for an answer to the query about dates (but then I've only just discovered Wikipedia - and what's 22 months compared with 3 million years? :-) ) I have understood the AAT/AAH scenario to be the event that led to the separation of hominid evolution from that of chimpanzees (humans' closest ape relative).  This figures if you consider the suggestion that the semi-aquatic lifestyle was what led to full-time bipedalism; the earliest bipedal human ancestors can be identified by their remains - so this puts the putative aquatic period as between 5 and 8 million years ago.  --Tiffer 21:14, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * The biggest problem with the AAH is that it's never really been unambiguously defined. The definition here on Wikipedia is probably accurate in that it reflects most people's idea of what it is, but it's interesting that there is no citation to back it up. Hardy (1960) described his ideas, sure, but it was very tentative - a request for comments, really. It was written in 1960 when there was a huge gap in the fossil record. A gap that has long since closed. Morgan's books followed in Hardy's footsteps and she deliberately avoided being too definitive about what it actually was. Therefore people have been left to interpret it in whatever way they want. People that have understood it to mean some kind of 'primate seal' or 'merman' phase, understandably, have sneered at the thought. People who have understood it to be proposing that human ancestors merely swam a lot more in the past can't see what all the fuss is about.


 * This is why the timescale question is difficult to resolve. Hardy proposed a singular, distinct 'full-on' littoral phase between 10 and 2 Mya. It was a reasonable guess, considering the fossil evidence available to him at the time, but it's clearly wrong. Morgan followed that basic idea but when La Lumiere suggested Danakil as a possible locoation she got a little more specific and suggested that the flooding and dessication of that inland sea corresponded to the dates. (Apparently the flooding occurred around 4ma and the dessication happenned very recently ca 80ka.)


 * People should understand, however, that these ideas on timescale do not make or break the AAH. It could be that human ancestors lived in fresh water wetlands (gallery forest floodplains, swamps, marshes, laes etc). This would completely destroy the argument that the fossil evidence contradicts the AAH. (This notion is based purely on the idea that it backs a marine coastal phase. Actually the fresh-water version is strongly supported by the fossil evidence as thousands of individual hominins have been found in fresh water depositional substrates but zero chimp or gorilla fosills have.)


 * I'm a PhD student at UWA working to try to add some scientific rigour to this idea. I've critiqued Roede et al (1991), Langdon (1997) and Moore's web site and I've tried to define it simply and unambiguously AAH Proposed Definition --Algis Kuliukas 07:17, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

'Theory' v. 'Hypothesis' 3

 * This article needs to go to "hypothesis", because that's what it is objectively, no matter the POV. AxelBoldt 15:04 Aug 26, 2002 (PDT)


 * Axel has spoken. That is enough for me. The move will commence. --mav


 * In other words, you've decided to ignore all rules and ignore my objections. That works fine for me.  My objections are here for the record.--NetEsq


 * Sometimes I think the most recent entry should be at the top instead of the bottom, so that one wouldn't be tempted to reply to the first instance of a discussion as I just did. See the first Theory v. Hypothesis...


 * Anyway, they are indeed ignoring the rule, and I object as well, even though I agree that it is technically a hypothesis. So is the plains ape "theory".


 * But don't credit them with the perfectly respectable ignore all rules technique, because they're...strangly...citing ONE rule in order to justify their violation of another rule which is more relevent to this scenario. I'm a real hater of poor science passing itself off as the real thing, as with so many "facts" presented even by the scientific establishment based upon uncontrolled studies and inductive reasoning...but the title of this entry should be considered from the perspective of what people call it, and the first LINE of the article is where it should say "a hypothesis". Kaz 00:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Teleological
It struck me, in reading The Descent of Woman, that there's a very teleological view of natural selection; Elaine Morgan frequently makes statements along the lines of "humankind needed X, and evolution provided it." I wanted to add a mention of this to the article as an argument against the AAH, but I'm not sure if this teleological viewpoint is that book's, Morgan's, or the hypothesis's. If it's only Morgan who thinks that way, never mind -- especially if she herself was ultimately disabused of the notion. --Calieber 20:31, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)


 * I had to look up 'teleological' in the dictionary after reading the above. It's not clear to me why this should be an objection; if I understand natural selection correctly, it's that individuals who possess features better suited to the environment come to dominate within a population; and these favourable features tend to spread throughout the population as a result.  IOW, the environment creates evolutionary pressures, and evolution 'responds' by promoting characteristics that provide for a need.  What other way is there of viewing natural selection?  --Tiffer 22:33, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Objections included on page
I've just become aware of Wikipedia and as AAT/AAH is an interest of mine I had to find out what has been said about it. While I think there is a fair summary here, at least of some the main themes of AAT, it seems rather odd to me that it should be interspersed with arguments for non-aquatic evolution.

Firstly, is this really necessary to satisfy NPOV? I don't see atheist objections or Muslim teaching being floated on the pages for Christianity. Surely it should be sufficient that the AAH themes are presented dispassionately, making it clear that they are a minority opinion (the 2nd paragraph does this), and allowing the reader to make a judgement for himself or herself.

Secondly, in my opinion the non-aquatic arguments themselves run counter to the principle of NPOV. The language is confrontational and subjective ("Sceptics counter ...", "... highly flawed ..."); and contentious assertions are stated as fact in more than one place ("... particularly effective at remaining active during the heat of the day", "... kangaroos ... use their upright state ..." - kangaroos are not upright at all, but balanced body and tail over the hind legs in a way quite unlike the human situation). The article reads like 2 different people having an argument.

Can I suggest (if it is felt necessary to include them) that the land-based evolution arguments be moved to a paragraph headed "Objections to AAH" or similar, that the confrontational language be removed, and that the points of contention be re-worded to indicate that they are an alternative opinion rather than fact?

9 June 2004 Tiffer

Hmmm ... nobody seems to be monitoring this ATM. I have now prepared a new version of the page with the objections and alternative land-based explanations collected together in 2 new paragraphs towards the end. If nobody comments within a week or so, I shall upload it then. --Tiffer 21:15, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, how ironic...I was going to commend everyone on their surprisingly objective presentation, but apparently it's just you. Perhaps you should move the name back to Theory, too, since nobody seems to care... Kaz


 * <Grin> - actually I've spent a lot of time on an online debate on AAT/AAH, and become sensitised to what sort of arguments cut any ice. As for "theory" v. "hypothesis" I note that someone (not me) has now moved the name back to "theory".  For myself, I'm quite comfortable with "hypothesis" which I don't consider pejorative, and seems to be more accurate scientifically. --Tiffer 19:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you are still watching: There is a difference between science and religion. (Withing rather wide limits) you may believe into anything, but there narrow limits of what can be considered a scientific theory. So, if the Aquatic Ape theory/hypothesis should be handled as a religion, we can concentrate on the belief and the believers, but if it should be handled as scientific theory, some context about its current standings and reputation in science is needed.

Not that I want to criticize the article as it is now, only regarding comparisons with "Christianity".

OTHO I fully agree, that Pro/Con lists are often the worst method to achieve NPOV.

Pjacobi 19:10, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)


 * My reference to Christianity in the discussion was purely as an analogy. I certainly didn't want to imply that the AAH argument is a religious one. --Tiffer 19:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the current format is a bit uncomfortable. On the other hand, I'm surprised at how much objectivity the article has managed to settle upon, considering the religious fanaticism displayed (outside Wikipedia) on both sides. Some of the establishment dismissals of AAH arguments are rube goldberg, reverse-engineered refute-at-all-costs responses, but some AAH advocates cling adamantly to even the weakest, most unlikely claims. Kaz 20:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the acrimony associated with the debate is really quite startling, sometimes. The question why some find the idea so threatening is a mystery, but when someone is ideologically committed to "defeating" a heresy, it can be an effective strategy to turn any discussion into something unpleasant, so as to discourage the idea from being considered. --Tiffer 19:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As for "weak and unlikely claims", I have to confess to committing that tactical error in my early debating with sceptics. But look at it this way: were AAT to be generally accepted, then a number of mysterious physical features unique to humans could be made to make sense, when they don't make sense if you cling to a terrestrial story of evolution. It is these aquatic explanations which seem "weak and unlikely" to the sceptic, because you have to be convinced by AAT generally before you can give them credence. Think about it. --Tiffer 19:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I started to do some editing on this page; I've only before made changes to links. I'm afraid much of what seems to be objectivity in this entry is simply no one making informed changes on a number of errors. For instance, a quick look reveals that the info about the diving relex is wrong, the "10 times as much fat" bit is wrong (a common error which could be an honest misreading of reserch although it's been corrected online so often I'm not sure it's unwitting); the false "bipedalism is inefficient" idea; false info about cutaneous muscle; false info about DHA and LNA (the fatty acids that are involved in the discussion about "Omega-3" oils); false, and long discredited, info about tears and sweat; false info about mating positions; incomplete info about webbing between fingers; false info about hairless mammals; false info about the larynx. It really seems a bit much to correct it all, and I'm afraid, given my long experience with this subject, any changes toward a more accurate page may well be shortlived. (Just as I note that Tiffer has several times added an editorial comment to my outside link -- something I, for instancxe, did not do when I added back several pro-AAT links which had been removed in late Jan (apparently due to someone's sloppy edit).

Besides the number of things that need correcting, I have a problem with how to do these changes. The problem is that these statements and false info are often made and repeated by proponents of the AAT/H and I think this should be pointed out, yet -- again from my long experience with this subject -- this would probably be taken as being harsh or improper. But it seems to me that pointing out that proponents often make false claims is valid. But doing so tends to make for convoluted sentences, or the need to completely rewrite entire paragraphs and sections. I'll have to think about how best to do this. - Jim Moore 17 April 2005

Jim - please excuse my modifying your external link again. You are right that some external links got deleted apparently by mistake by another contributor. They were replaced to what they had been at an earlier date, losing my comment and some links added in the meantime. This is why I put back the missing links and my comments. I hope you will agree that this doesn't constitute "several times".

The link now simply includes the title (without the POV description "scientific critique") and a link to your user page. I can understand that you might not like the pejorative "(his description)" rider, and I'm sure you will accept the compromise of removing the POV description it refers to. --Tiffer 10:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS. I await your contributions with interest, and I hope that with other contributors we can find a form of wording that is acceptable to both sides of the discussion. --Tiffer 10:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation of how the links got changed. I assumed, having had quite a lot of experience with the subject and seeing animosity at the mere mention of my name all too often, that I was dealing with that here. My apologies.

I still have a bit of a problem with how to correct all the stuff that needs correcting (and some time and laziness problems :) but I'll have to give it a whirl and see how it comes out. -- Jim Moore 27 April 2005

Wikipedia update
To keep you current: The german parallel article de:Wasseraffen-Theorie is now at "Review" stage, the stage before "Exzellente Artikel", which is the equivalent of "Featured article candidate". There is a possibility that an author and expert in the field of Hominisation will take part in the review. After all that done, I'll try to merge some enhancements into this article. --Pjacobi 19:57, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

That's intriguing news. If only it was the English-language version. Of course, being a "featured article" is only a transitory honour, and to achieve that we'd need to have some graphics, at least. Can you say whether the German article was independently-posted? --Tiffer 20:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The german article started April 2004 completely indepedendent (IMHO), from someone mostly re-phrasing the exposition in "Langdon, John H. - Umbrella hypotheses and parsimony in human evolution: a critique of the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis". Then mostly de:User:Plattmaster worked for some time on the article, include some syncing with the en.wikipedia, I assume. Then the article surfaced during review and more people did have a look. --Pjacobi 22:47, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Yeah - after I replied previously, I had a look at the German-language article. I'm afraid my German is completely inadequate to understand it - although I could interpret enough to see it was set out quite differently from ours. Can you say whether it is positive or not towards AAT? --Tiffer 16:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's rather friendly towards theory, presenting in "Grundprobleme von Hominisations-Hypothesen" general problems of theories of hominisation and just barely transports that it is a minority view. According to my tastes it could have been a bit more critical, but as our field experts are satisfied, who am I to object? --Pjacobi 20:49, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

Thanks for that - it's a deep question whether an article like this should be sympathetic or "neutral". It perhaps depends on how much merit you consider the hypothesis has in the first place, I suppose. --Tiffer 13:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just a note: In the "breathing" paragraph it is said the diving reflex is unique to humans and marine mammals. The Wikipedia "Mammalian Diving Reflex" page notes that the reflex is present in all mammals, not only marine mammals and humans. There should be no contradictions within Wikipedia; Who knows the truth regarding this and could fix the contradiction? --Guest writer, 23:00 (GMT+2), 25.3.2005.

The other Wiki page has the correct information. The diving reflex is present in all animals which have been tested -- it's apparently an ancestral holdover in all vertebrates, for instance. And it has been known to be so for more than 50 years, well before any published accounts of the AAT. - Jim Moore 16 April 2005

"Naked/Hairless"
Isn't it worth finding an alternative phrase to use instead of naked or hairless, seeing as humans have just as much hair as other primates, but it is much shorter and thinner. -samaraphile 27 March 2005

I really don't see any need for other words, here. In the strictest sense, humans are not hairless (although I don't agree that we have "just as much" body hair, or anything like it); but we are naked, in the sense that our skin is exposed over almost all the body (apart from a few unusual individuals). I have seen this point made ad nauseam in the AAT/AAH 'debate', AFAICS in order to take up time and avoid discussion of one of the main unexplained differences between apes and humans. The main protagonist even posted an image file of his own wispy chest in order to "prove" the point! Needless to say, he regarded this as an "argument" against AAT.

(please excuse me adding the date to your previous contribution for future reference) --Tiffer 10:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reason that it's good to have an accurate description of the differences between body hair in apes and humans is that using inaccurate descriptions, such as "hairless", are guaranteed to lead to inaccurate conclusions about how and why this change occurred. If you want to look for an accurate answer, you have to have an accurate question. - Jim Moore 16 April 2005

"References and outside links"
I find that someone has several times changed the description accompanying my link (Jim Moore's site) to include the editorialising "his description" in parens. I find this rather petty and think it should be stopped. Putting the whole description as a clickable link (as I did when I restored that and several other links that had been eliminated earlier this year) quite clearly shows that the phrase that someone objects to is part of my site's title. I notice that such editorialising does not go on with pro-AAT sites in this article. - Jim Moore 16 April 2005

Omitted evidence?
I can't remember where I heard/read it (which is a pity, because that means I can't add it to the page), but somewhere I heard/read that additional evidence in favor of the AAH is the relatively high water content of human urine and feces. Other savannah animals apparently have much more concentrated urine and much drier feces than humans do, because they need to retain water. If humans were once aquatic, that would explain why we could survive excreting so much water in our waste. Has anyone else heard this? Can anyone provide a source so it can be added? --Angr/comhrá 23:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Newbie impressions
Forgive my top posting but I wanted to make a point separate from the argument below; please feel free to edit it and put the comments at the bottom if the top posting is offensive. I recently heard a documentary about this theory on BBC Radio 4. The arguments were very cogent, and well-proposed with as good substantiation as any theory can hope. It makes a lot of sense to me personally. I was disappointed at the dismissive tone this article takes; one might believe it was written by an outright opponent to the theory in hopes of casting doubts on its validity.--leica 18:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this is it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/scarsofevolution.shtml  --Landwalker 04:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, I'm listening to Attenborough's take on AAH and I'm genuinely surprised. The BBC's presentation makes the hypothesis sound much more believable than I thought. In fact, it implies that it's making slow headway into the mainstream. Attenborough says "Then, in the early 90s, the consensus has begun to fall apart." This is too cool. British accents make everything more respectable! Ooh, he's getting ready to review the evidence.


 * “And there’s another persuasive aspect to the theory—it’s predictive. It predicts that because iodine & other nutrients in the marine food chain are essential to the evolution of the human brain, then if we switch to a new land based diet that is poor in those nutrients, brain function will suffer. And that’s exactly what has happened According to the World Health Organization report of 2004, iodine deficiencies amongst inland populations affects around 740 million people worldwide.” --David Attenborough


 * They say humans swam to Flores!


 * Apparently, AAT predicted the existence of Vernix caseosa or a similar substance on newborn aquatic mammals. It was unknown prior to the production of the BBC series above!


 * Note: National Geographic, in an article on seals, mentioned the presence of vernix on newborns. DD


 * Sir David says that the evidence seems to be tilting in its favor...the tide is turning. Wow. Time to rethink things guys.


 * Aelffin 19:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Article quality
i looked up this theory today and was fairly shocked at the article. From reading the article and discussion, it seems that POV should not be the complaint... instead, a lot of it should be disputed. For instance, the article claims that the dive reflex is and is not present in other mamals. Well, which is it? Article claims humans have 10x the fat of other mamals. Discussion claims otherwise. So is the article talking about overweight humans? How is that at all related? Forget if the hypothesis is accurate or not for a moment -- can't this article at least be consistent with the facts it mentions? I really think this needs to be started over. --Steven Fisher 02:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you the same poster as 63.183.161.115, who put up the NPOV banner yesterday (not at the same time as your comments above)? You say your comments are more about consistency and clarity than POV. If not, then this person hasn't seen fit to post any justification in the discussion page, and I'd like to ask what the recognised procedure is for putting up such tags.
 * As for your comments, don't forget that this isn't an article written at one time by one person. Also, it's a subject on which people have published complete books - it's not something where all the questions are going to be answered in a single Wikipedia article. The contradictory statements about the diving reflex need to be resolved; and in answer to your question about human fat: no we are not talking about overweight humans - although I understand that to be more accurate, the article should refer to the number of fat cells, rather than just the amount of fat. --Tiffer 20:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not that user. I just dropped in looking for an explanation of this theory and was surprised at the contradictions I found and thought I'd comment on them. With apologies if you're an AAT proponent, the more I investigated this theory the less sense it made... and the more I felt like the article is not just factually contradictory, but incorrect in other ways and has the NPOV problems mentioned as well. --Steven Fisher 09:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * What NPOV problems mentioned? Whoever placed the NPOV banner did so anonymously and without explanation.
 * Yes, I am an AAT proponent, but I don't wish to start a discussion here on whether or not it makes sense. If you come fresh to the subject, a lot depends on what sources you read. There are a number of sources in the web devoted to scotching AAT, sometimes misrepresenting it and generally not making a proper comparison with possible non-aquatic hypotheses.
 * I think this article has suffered from too many cooks. When I first came across it, it read like an argument between 2 people (or even 2 groups of people) - the original article had evidently been editted by someone who didn't like AAT, and had interspersed the text with what he saw as a rebuttal of each point. It was me who moved these objections to their own section, and added a section making a comparison between AAT and the land-based alternatives. Since then, several people have added snippets of evidence here and there; and whether or not individually they are valid, it doesn't make for a very coherent setting-out of the hypothesis.
 * You may be right that the article could be started again; alternatively, it could be rewritten using the existing material organised more coherently and with some more attributions where appropriate. I don't know if I have time to do that. --Tiffer 21:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Right now, it makes a whole lot of false claims and states a lot of pseudo-science under "The aquatic ape hypothesis puts forward these main arguments:". This is not an adequate warning that nearly everything that follows is pseudo-science and for the most part proven incorrect. It also claims that support for AAT is growing amongst the scientific community. In fact, so far as I can see, no one in the scinetific community supports AAT. 0->0 is not growing. See Time Cube for a way of handling a fringe theory that does not make any sense. --Steven Fisher 22:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay. I've reworded the introduction a bit, putting the note that this is a minority viewpoint sooner. I've also put in more adquate warning that the bullet points may not be factual, and I've removed the bit about growing support, since there's no proof of that. This is not to say I now agree with the article or even feel it is now neutral, but simply that I feel these changes are mostly non-objectionable and make it more neutral. I plan to investigate neutrality procedure on wikipedia and try to do whatever the person who applied the template missed. And sorry about the TimeCube link -- AAH is not nearly that crazy. ;) --Steven Fisher 23:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Steven, you'll have to do better than this. Before going any further, I think we need to agree on what "neutrality" means, and what is the proper level of exposure to be accorded to a minority view. Some of your comments above and on the main page make me think that you are not yourself coming to this discussion from a position of neutrality. In particular, statements like "should be viewed with a certain degree of suspicion" are no more than value judgements; and your comments about "pseudo-science" and claims that the basis for AAT has been "proven incorrect", I think are also inappropriate.

You refer me to Time Cube; let's both refer to Neutral_point_of_view, particularly the paragraph on Fairness and sympathetic tone. I highlight that particular paragraph, because I interpret it to mean that even minority viewpoints are entitled to be treated sympathetically, and not have a page devoted to them laced with warnings and challenges. There is (and was) already a section in the page for "Objections to AAH", which I think is the appropriate place for most of your concerns. For example, I see no need to place the comment about AAH being a minority position in the the first sentence; it makes sense to place it where it was: alongside the statement about the conventional ("savannah" or "mosaic") view of pre-human genesis - which AFAICS is no more scientifically sound than AAH.

I haven't at this stage attempted to improve on your contribution. I have no wish to do anything to precipitate an edit war - let's not reduce the AAH page to the situation of the Time Cube one! --Tiffer 17:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Tiffer, do whatever you want to the article. I don't really care. I'm not interested in an edit war, either. I tried to make the article more encyclopedic. If you are determined to keep it promotional and full of incorrect information stated as fact, that;'s your choice.

However, I feel the most important fact about AAH is this: It is a minority position. In fact, it is a zero position, not held by any serious scientists.


 * That is just not true. Here are just a few "serious scientists" who could be labelled as pro-"AAH": Michael Crawford, Stephen Cunnane, Leigh Broadhurst, Eirka Schagatay, Derek Ellis, Simon Bearder, Chris Knight. Here are a couple of "serious science students" who could be labelled as pro-"AAH": Algis Kuliukas (me, PhD at UWA, Perth), Stephen Munro (PhD at ANU, Canberra). Here are some "serious scientists" who could be labelled as open to the "AAH": Philip Tobias, David Attenborough, Colin Groves, David Cameron. And here are some dead scientists who could be labelled as open to the "AAH": Alister Hardy, Max Westenhöfer, C O Sauer, Gorden Hewes. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As usual, the aquasceptic view is based more on gossip than fact. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a very strong objection to labelling something "Arguments for" and then stating a lot of stuff as if it was fact. Interpretations of facts there are fine, but this does not even slightly excuse putting incorrect information in there. You agreed here that the diving reflex is present in all mamals, but it is stated there as if it was fact. The alternative to putting a note that the arguments (including facts) are all under objection is to use the dubious statement for every point there. That doesn't really make sense, since those are the arguments being put forward. It's just some of them are known false. Thus, it needs an introduction that states that not only are the interpretations following in question, so are the "facts." In fact, that facts aren't in question, they're known by everyone to be outright wrong.

So I not only agree with the NPOV tag, I think it also needs a request for deletion in its current state. Better to have nothing than have incorrect information stated as fact. I plan to watch the article out of the corner of my eye for a while, and nominate it for deletion if it remains at this quality and factual level. Better to not say anything that to have this article promote a crazy hypothesis with incorrect information.

To address your other "point" (that being the personal attack on me), Yous seem to have decided that my objecting to the article or arguments therein means I object to AAH, but such is not the case. In fact, maybe I do dislike AAH, but it is only as a result of reading this article and researching the facts stated therein which are wrong. And regardless of whether AAH is true or not (and it may be true), it certainly deserves a place in wikipedia.

What I object to most strenuously is the level of dishonesty present in the article. I object to statements of fact that are untrue. I object to the article misleading people about the popularity of AAH. I object to, in short, pretty much this entire article. Someone wrote this without respecting the neutrality guidelines, and in particular "write for your enemy." In fact, not only did they fail to write for their enemy, they failed to write for someone new to the subject -- me. Statements of fact on wikipedia must be true as far as I am concerned. This is why I'd rather have this article deleted than continue to exist in its present form. Saying you don't have time to fix it does not make it fixed, nor make it less objectionable.

Perhaps instead we should be discussing how to reduce this article to a point where it can be entirely true. Three or four accurate paragraphs would be much more acceptable to me.

--Steven Fisher 23:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, how do you feel about the first two paragraphs now? I think the first paragraph neds a little more on what the actual disagreement is, like the time frame. Got any data on that? To clarify, I think a better introduction would include something like as a final sentence to the first paragraph:

''That life initially evolved in the water is not in dispute. Where the AAH and conventional viewpoint diverge is at what point day-to-day life spending significant amounts of time in water stopped having a direct influence on the evolution of man.''

It would then give some dates.

--Steven Fisher 03:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Steven, the first paragraphs are better than your original edit - although on an uncontentious point I would remove the duplicates of the 2 words "theory" and "hypothesis". I am sorry you have taken offence at my comments on your neutrality, although I would add that your use of language like "fringe theory" and "crazy hypothesis" says more than I can on the subject.
 * I think there are other places where you have misunderstood my position. I am not, after all, the author of this article - all I have done is reorganise it and added some material, as have others. I agree that the article needs some dates - at least approximate ones. Most people I think understand that the hypothesis relates to the divergence of the human ancestral line from the apes - but for one reason or another even that isn't made clear in the first paragraphs. --Tiffer 09:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Tiffer, I think we've both insulted each other. Sorry. I can be an ass at times. I forgive you, and it seems you forgive me, and we're working well together despite some initial problems so let's not blow it! Well, I think anyway. The reason for the doubling of the "(or theory)" is that I didn't really know how to smoothy handle the wording, based on the proximity to it being called a hypothesis (or theory). It sounds like you're okay with just calling it a hypothesis, so I'll go ahead and do that.

Moving down, I'm wondering if an overview less detail is the answer. For instance, if the arguments were laid out plainly without supporting facts or statements up front, I'd be much less concerned with a AAH perspective later in the article. In short, we'd have three sections where we have two now: A simple bullet list without comment one way or the other, the AAH perspective, then the response, then the links. I'm not sure what to do about the response to the response, it seems to bog things down a bit, but we won't get there for a while anyway. I don't plan on making these changes right now, so let me know what you think asap. --Steven Fisher 09:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I also want to just quickly add that I'm a lot more fair sympathetic in articles than in discussions. I think you'll agree with that based on what I've done so far. :) I think it's a little natural that I'm swinging the article a little anti-AAH at times, since the first few paragraphs started out a bit pro AAH. We'll just work together on this for a while and see if we can find a nice middle ground.

Anyway, I found a better tweak to the first paragraph than what I'd planned on using. That good with you?

Also, since we seem to be the only people commenting here and this is more of a dialogue than a thread (and we haven't been indenting consistently anyway) I propose we dispense with indenting our discussion and quote when it is unclear what we're replying to. Should that become difficult to follow, we can always switch back. --Steven Fisher 09:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hang on, let's not talk about anyone being insulted. I've suggested that you weren't entirely neutral on the subject, that's all. It's no more than you were suggesting about everyone who'd put anything into this article - it's certainly not a personal attack. And I don't feel insulted either; I've engaged in this debate online for some years up to now; there's nothing you could say that I haven't read in that time.
 * And let's have some proportion - this isn't about some terrible injustice, it's not capital punishment, it's not the Iraq war. Nobody is going to die, just because a few more people get taken in (since that's how you see it) by AAH. After the Wiki page on neutrality, can I suggest you also have a look at the page on staying cool?
 * Back to the questions you raise. Seabhcan (see below) is quite right IMO - the article shouldn't be either about promoting or rebutting AAH, but about reflecting accurately what it says. So in a sense it's not the scientific truth of the claims that matters; it's whether or not, as Seabhcan points out, they are in the AAH literature. Whether this can be achieved in a Wiki environment is a good question - certainly all the time I've been on Wikipedia this article has been loaded with the AAH pro-anti debate. I take on board your concerns about including suspect facts; but in the absence of a point-by-point assessment, you haven't convinced me that there are serious issues of that sort here - other than the point about the diving reflex.  It is not AIUI now claimed by AAH sources, and is an inaccuracy in the current Wiki article.  Having said that, it was never something on which AAH depended, and my experience of the AAH controversy is that it is more about interpretation of facts than agreeing what they are.  Certainly I have seen at least as many false claims of fact by anti-AAH debaters as pro - for example that sweat-cooling requires naked skin.
 * So, rather than have safety warnings about the facts in the article, more important perhaps is a statement at the beginning, addressed to potential future contributors, that the purpose of the article is to state objectively and verifiably what is in AAH, not to argue the case for or against, and certainly not to make any judgements about its value as a scientific hypothesis. Perhaps then we can get away from debating, and back to being a reference source. --Tiffer 23:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. In that case, I think we'd want to trim some of both the pro- and anti- arguments out of this article. It's bald statements like the diving reflex being only present in humans in the arguments that bother me. Yes, that's what the AAH theory says (well, let's be honest, it's really what some of the AAH theories say), but it's known to be untrue. I don't know that I want to try to go through and verify every statement in here, and even if it obviously false I can't apply the dubious template since it is what AAH argues, it's just wrong. This is a really sticky situation. --Steven Fisher 23:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

As an outside observer of this dialog, I'd just like to make a few points: Finally, remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If you disagree with theory or belief, this is not the place to fight it out. Go do some science, write a paper or a book. Only then your beliefs or ideas can be added here. Seabhcán 16:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * AAH is a minority theory but cannot be described as a 'fringe' theory. Google Scholar lists 76 scientific papers on "Aquatic Ape", Amazon has books and the BBC recently did two radio documentaries on the subject, narrated by the anthropologist Sir David Attenborough.
 * This theory is scientific, as in, the Scientific method has been applied. See above 76 papers for examples.
 * It is the nature of Scientific theories that a theory is valid until it is proven false. A theory is never proven 'true', as there is always the possibility of some falsifing evidence arising in future. See Karl Popper. It is apparent that this article refers to a theory. There is no need to keep repeating that it is unproven. All theories are unproven.
 * If there are points in this article that have been "proven incorrect", they should be discussed specifically. What are they? Where have they been proven incorrect? All the points made in this article are (or should be) taken from the Aquatic Ape literature. Thus if a wikipedian believes a point has been proven incorrect elsewhere the burden is on them to provide the references, while keeping in mind that Wikipedia is not the place for original research.


 * Read previous discussions, please. There's quite a few fact claims by AAH that are, in fact, false. That is why this article is do difficult to edit in a way that makes both sides happy. I actually would argue it is a fringe theory, since the people supporting it seem to have little to no link to real science. However, I'm certainly not proposing putting that phrase in the article. :) --Steven Fisher 23:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Steven, you are confusing AAH with what every supporter of AAH says. The claim about the diving reflex was introduced by one contributor, presumably on a misunderstanding of what AAH actually says. In her 1997 book, Elaine Morgan specifically states that all mammals display the reflex, although it is more highly developed in aquatic mammals. This, I think, is a correction of early statements she made, when she was still developing the hypothesis.
 * I have now removed the sentence on the diving reflex (although left it in the "Objections to AAH" section) because it is evidently both wrong scientifically and not part of AAH. It was worth you drawing attention to it, but not worth the amount of time that has been spent on it. Given the contentious way in which the article has been developed, there may well be similar instances in the article; and a review of it, based upon sources that reliably reflect AAH, is required. This is not going to happen instantly, and the more time we all spend on this discussion, the less time there will be available to correct the main article.
 * I reject your suggestion that AAH is based on scientific falsehoods. Serious authors, particularly Elaine Morgan, have taken considerable pains to ensure that the facts on which they base their arguments are sound. That is no guarantee that AAH supporters who are less well-informed will not make unsound claims, but that does not reflect upon the general soundness of AAH. It is also clearly the case that some anti-AAH debaters make untrue claims, as well as misrepresenting AAH. --Tiffer 09:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, Tiffer, I think you're confusing my point of view. I couldn't really care less what AAH says, or what AAH proponents say, or what AAH opponents say about what AAH proponents say, or whatever. What I care about is that this article supports AAH proponents statements with some falsehoods stated as facts. That needs to be corrected. --Steven Fisher 01:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I just noticed you removed that bit about the diving reflex. Thank you. That makes the article less objectionable to me. In fact, I can at least turn away from this now since I can't immediately spot more problems. (I'm fairly sure there are more, somewhere, but as I've noted before I'm by no means an expert on this subject, and I have desire to become one.) See you around. :) --Steven Fisher 02:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not pro-AAH so much as I recognize that the hypothesis of terrestrial origin for hominid traits lacks even the circumstantial evidence the AAH can summon. Essentially, it got the majority position by default. People said, more or less, "well, great apes live entirely on land and mostly in forests, so I guess eventually they moved out on the plains and stood upright".

Faced with this alternative, I don't see any harm in a neutral-sympathetic tone in even a hypothesis that the clearly bureaucratic and anti-change anthropological establishment hasn't yet embraced. There is nothing pseudo-scientific about this hypothesis, only about those few people who insist that it clearly is hard fact, not (at best) a perfectly valid theory.

Note that it was pretty clear two decades ago that birds evolved from theropods, but it was a "fringe theory" until the last decade or so, and is really only a majority position very recently. There is overwhelming evidence of human inhabitation of the Americas up to 20,000 years ago, yet the establishment still rejects the premise of pre-clovis habitation utterly and without examination. I'm not sure the idea that Europeans and Australo-Africans lived in the Americas before the amerindians showed up from Asia 12,000 years ago is even accepted enough to quality as "fringe theory", yet it is supported by hard evidence, like genetics and a plethora of archeological sites. Even the Mayo Clinic has, through unfairly heavy peer review, managed to publish serious evidence that cellular life as small as 10% of the 200nm limit exists...in fact, it's starting to seem likely that "nanobes" are the most common life form on the planet, comprising the largest segment of its biomass...and yet most microbiologists won't even discuss the possibility, they're so dogmatic about the meaningless, arbitrary 200nm limit.

All of those things, unlike AAH (which is very hard to either falsify or verify), will probably be the widely accepted establishment position, in a generation. But...either now or until recently...they all are "fringe theories". They all are or were called pseudoscience, mainly because they're rejected out of hand by the establishment, through knee-jerk defense of popular preconceptions.

Remember, continental drift was universally laughed at or completely ignored for decades, then suddenly turned out to be probably true, with the previous lack of proof/evidence simply being a result of knee-jerk refusal to give it a chance. Now it's opposition to continental drift which is a nearly nonexistent fringe.

But all of them deserve articles treating them as seriously as any other theory.

Including the semi-aquatic origin of various key hominid traits.

If anything, I'd suggest that the article is sometimes not presenting the circumstantial evidence firmly enough. Oreopithecus is a strong sign of the possibility of a semi-aquatic origin to walking erect, for example, as well as moving the possible benchmark for bipedalism much earlier, along with Sahelanthropus...yet it's only cited as "another animal" with an aquatic bipedalism origin.

Kaz 20:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It isn't that AAH doesn't deserve an article. It's that that AAH article has a bunch of falsehoods stated as facts. The diving reflex being present in only humans is one of those (it's in all mammals), but not the only one. How do you handle a situation where some of the arguments are outright lies but people will not accept a statement like "Not only are these interpretations in dispute, but so are the facts"? This is a serious question, btw. --Steven Fisher 23:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If you can give some references for your assertion that the diving reflex point is false then you can add that. If you can show using references that "people supporting (AAH) seem to have little to no link to real science" then you can certainly add that too. There is no point endlessly repeating yourself in this talk page if you can't produce the references. Seabhcán 08:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * With the greatest respect, do your own searching. The Earth has been proved to not be flat, and mamals have the dive reflex. Neither of those are in ANY serious question anywhere but on this page. This is in no way a controversial claim, it's an outright false one. --Steven Fisher 01:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No, YOU do YOUR research...you're the one wanting to change the article. Instead of a false claim that the facts themselves are in question (and it's false, because it's too general, encompassing the true facts as well as the ostensibly false ones), identify each fact in error, and cite some proof of that error we can check.


 * One doesn't generally just attack whole articles, one does (should) identify and fix specific parts of it, WITH references and citations on the Talk page (or, as in a case already under discussion like this, by posting it here first in case someone has counter-arguments). Also keep in mind (not accusing you of anything, just have seen it happen too often) that a good editor fixes, instead of censoring. Some guy defending Robert Byrd kept trying to simply delete all mention of that senator's long history of racism, instead of changing the statement of those facts to be more objective/neutral. Similar stuff happens on the global warming page, George W Bush page, et cetera, spawning long delete wars where neither side seems to give a rat's ass for the actual truth, just spinning the article for their own personal agenda.Kaz 00:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Unrelated to overall quality
"Some young children also have the ability to close their nostrils at will like an aquatic mammal." Now, I'm 19 and maintain this ability. Is this rare, or was the orignal author simply mistaken, which affects how the corrected version should read. Thoughts? 68.60.221.121


 * Interesting. An old friend of mine (whom I've since lost contact with) was able to do so as well (the last time he demonstrated it, he must have been in his early twenties), and he claimed his sister had the same ability. I've no idea whether it's fairly common or not, though. --Twid 00:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I can do this too. I cannot completely shut them when out of water, but under water, the pressure seals them. Also, Steve would be VERY useful to this article if he could at come half way and at least highlight all these falsehoods so that interested parties can research and verify/disprove them instead of talking generally about "a bunch of falsehoods stated as facts" "Valid criticism does you a favor" Carl Sagan, page 32 of The Demon-Haunted World (1995). -greg

I am extremely interested in this ability, but can't seem to find any reference to it on wikipedia or elsewhere on the net. Can somebody find me a reference? - DJsunkid

Most paleoanthropologists

 * Few paleoanthropologists accept the hypothesis. Most adhere to the Savanna Theory, the dominant school of thought among scientists for the past 20 years, which holds that human ancestors evolved in savanna environments.

Most paleoanthropologists may reject AAH, but do they really support the savanna theory ?

For example take this quote from the proceedings from the Valkenburg Conference:
 * "But at the same time there does seem to be evidence that not only did they take to water from time to time but that the water and by this I mean inland lakes and rivers) was a habitat that provided enough extra food to count as an agency for selection. As a result, we humans today have the ability to learn to swim without too much difficulty, to dive, and to enjoy occasional recourse to the water."

It seems that support for the "wet" environment, even if not completely aquatic, is pretty broad. Taw 06:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Restructuring
I restructured the page to make full use of Wikipedias sub-heading ability. I thought the article was a bit chaotic (perhaps due to the great amount of changes made, and the disputed ideas contained in the article). I hope this hasn't degraded the article quality. These changes will probably make the article both easier to read and easier to navigate. Shandolad 14:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Love It
I like this hypothesis. It raises interesting questions and it is simple 1:24 AM MYTime

The article is too strong for the weakness of the theory
It's not a bad theory mind you, it's just wrong. At some point speculation isn't enough. More than 30 years without finding any evidence and just adding more speculation. Whereas the "orthodox" theories have found more and more evidence. Humans fish a bit. Living near the water is a bit easier than living in a fairly lifeless desert. Plenty of non-aquatic mammals grab some stuff from the ocean when they can, this doesn't make them aquatic. Tat 06:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, AAT isn't wrong, and is based on anatomic and physiological evidence, not speculation. The limited amount of fossil evidence we have is entirely consistent with a scenario of hominids first developing in the Red Sea area, then extending their range along the waterways and forests of the Rift Valley. As for the "orthodox" theories - what "orthodox theories"? All they have to offer is assertions that human features such as bipedalism developed as a continuation of ape bipedalism, with no particular driver for natural selection required. There is absolutely no evidence for "orthodox" alternatives to AAT/AAH. --Tiffer 23:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Humans bipedalism is easily a continuation of ape bipedalism. Most apes are at least temporarily bipedal. Brachiation is a bit faster, so it is used. But, such apes are still able to use bipedalism. There are a number of major advantages of bipedalism due to the freeing of the arms and hands. Walking around bipedal has huge numbers of advantages such as seeing over grass, carrying tools, walking and running. Also, if the species wasn't a knuckle-walker when Africa dried out there wouldn't have been any real choice. These advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. That's more than enough of a "driver" for evolution. As for evidence, what more do you need? We can show the progression from tree to walking ape (tree apes walk without trees), advantages for walking bipedal, and a pretty solid line from then on out. The period of time you seem intent on focusing on was long long after hominids were fully bipedal. I mean, we have fossil evidence of bipedalism from the miocene! Apes walk bipedal. Humans walk bipedal. Humans just do it more. This isn't a big leap from some to more. And it certainly didn't require water. Tat 03:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, all of that is just wrong. Evolution does not proceed by picking up momentum; it reaches an optimum position and stays there until conditions change. To talk about the advantages of bipedalism to us is the teleological fallacy; there had to be an advantage to the first creatures that adopted full-time bipedalism - and for that creature, on land, the balance of advantages and disadvantages would be the same as for the apes. Apes walk bipedally only if they have a particular reason to do so; humans do it because we have lost the ability to go quadrupedally - that is a qualitative difference.


 * You appear to be trying to apply a scientific basis for your criticisms, yet you show these errors of thinking. --Antony Rawlinson 08:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ofcourse evolution doesn't pick up momentum. Nor does it tend to hit reach an optimum position, or stay there (it's a constant process). The advatages of bipedalism to us is deeply important. We are the results of our ancestors. It's an anthropic argument to be sure. If it wasn't useful to us, we certainly wouldn't have it. But the fact that we use it and use it to our advatage is very important to the question of how we got the ability. Some apes walk bipedally because they don't have a better way to move around, such as trees. It's not that "there had to be an advantage to the first creatures that adopted full-time bipedalism" there had to be an advantage for increased bipedalism. It's all done gradually. One of the best reasons for increased bipedalism is carrying stuff and not having a tree around (after the forests were replaced by savanna), increased tool use, sentry ability (lesser so). Each of these present a good reason to become increasingly bipedal. Evolution is gradual. It's not you walk bipedal, you don't. Our ancestors would need to become more and more bipedal. There isn't a jump to full-time bipedalism... there aren't jumps in evolution. Tat 00:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You say that the article is "too strong" for the theory, but today I find it full of POV debating points from AAT doubters. The purpose of this article is to provide information on what AAT/AAH has to say, not to act as a platform for sceptics to try to knock it down. --Tiffer 23:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I filled it with facts from modern antropologists. I suppose these could be considered AAT doubters, as they don't accept the hypothesis as such. Human traits are pretty standard. We aren't that fat. We can't swim without a good amount of training (unlike all other mammals). Apes are bipedal to a degree, humans to a greater degree. Hairloss is probably due to a neoteny. I mean, sure humans live by lakes and rivers because they are a great place to get food. Some of this has probably contributed to selection (if somebody drowns, that's selection for you), but the degree which is argued and the traits which are argued for are just wrong. The modern explanations are better. I mean, even in the 1960s these arguments had to stink. Women have more fat because they hang out in the water more to dodge the magical predators. If women hang out in deeper water why aren't they taller than men? Also, head hair is camouflage? Since when? A black spot of hair popping out of a blue ocean, that totally blends in. And camouflage from what? The predators are going to swim out and eat these ocean apes if only they could find something that looked like a black ball floating on the ocean. Because, there are so many grass covered beach balls out there. Hair keeps in heat (as everybody who has shaved their head will tell you), if you want to to be active more hours in the day you need less of it. In colder regions humans have more hair, lighter skin and hair, and more fat. Just as humans in warmer regions have less hair, darker skin and hair, and less fat. Tat 03:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Head hair as camouflage? I've never heard of that before. If it's in the article then it's been put in without justification. The reason for retention of head hair in AAT is much more obvious - the top and the back of the head are the areas least in contact with water. Ocean apes? Where did you get that from? The aquatic apes were (putatively) shallow-water creatures.


 * Look, I'll say it again - the purpose of this article isn't to provide a platform for anyone to knock down AAT, or to put in their own subjective judgement about whether land alternatives are "better". It's to set out what AAT says so that readers can make their own judgement - no more and no less. The only criterion for inclusion in the article is whether a particular point is in AAT sources - and that's the case even if the point is a contentious one. Even the "Objections" section is a huge concession to AAT sceptics. What you are doing is equivalent to going through the article on Islam and interspersing it with Christian doctrines. --Antony Rawlinson 08:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Tatarize, you'll have to do better than this. I have reverted your changes (keeping your earliest additions, to the "Objections" section), because I see very little other than your own POV in them. You also removed one section wholesale ("Comparison with Land-based theories") which is rather important to understanding what AAH is all about. After this, I'll check through and put back any non-POV bits. --Tiffer 23:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed section: Some should be reincorporated without pov
See above. If you think this section needs trimming down, then please state which bits of it need taking out. After reverting your previous changes, I have now gone to the trouble of putting back some possibly valid points of yours in the "Objections" section, so please don't take this as an incitement to an edit war. As I said earlier, a Wikipedia article is not a suitable location for the pro/anti debate, but is intended to inform on what the hypothesis has to say. --Antony 00:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Reincorporated the comparison section properly. Although, most of the comparison is pretty weak and based as largely on speculation as straw man of the position of terrestrial theories. Tat 01:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't see what problems you think were in the original version of this section, which I have put back, with some inaccuracies and repetitions removed. I can see that you are unhappy about some of the statements in this section which you regard as contentious; however, they are intended to reflect what AAH says, without implying any value judgement about it. As to whether it is based on straw man versions of the terrestrial theories, I'm afraid that since the terrestrial alternatives are even vaguer than AAH (IMHO), there's always going to be an element of that.


 * Your version of this section begins: "Proponents of AAH contend ..." With respect, I don't think it's down to you to say what AAH stands for, and you have IAC included a number of misconceptions about it which I have taken out from other parts of the whole article.


 * I have also put back and renamed the "Conclusions" section, which was there to outline the contentious nature of the AAT debate, without stating a viewpoint on the correctness of AAT. Please respect this.


 * The "Objections" section exists to reflect the sceptical viewpoints - there is no need for you to rewrite the rest of the article, including a sceptic's rejoinder in every paragraph. The article is not going to reflect your opinion on every aspect of AAH - that's not what Wikipedia is for.

--Antony 10:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Childbirth
There is a section that states that childbirth before hospitals was generally done standing up or leaning, I think this need a citation!

I have seen this before but can't give a citation.

Illogic in Criticism
Under Breathing: "if AAT was correct, infants would be born with a descended larynx to prevent them from drowning in an aquatic environment."

This is akin to saying that if the Savannah theory were correct, infants would be able to walk within minutes of birth (like other animals) to prevent them from being eaten by predators. There are many human capabilities that are not present in infancy (e.g. use of verbal speech/language), which does nothing to invalidate a theory of why non-infants have those abilities. I will remove that sentence. --Landwalker 04:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism
There should not be a separate section for criticism, it should be spread througout the article alongside the arguments for. As per Wikipedia policy. Thanks JPotter 03:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Swimming and other semi-objections
In the "Swimming" objection, the current revision states: However an ape and human without training would typically drown. How is this a criticism of AAH? If humans can swim better than all other apes, doesn't that show that we have good aquatic abilities... for apes? If we first evolved into apes, and later moved into an aquatic environment; then we would be bad swimmers because of our ape nature, but better swimmers than other apes, just as this "objection" states? More generally, many of the criticisms of AAH seem to assume that AAH posits that humans were fully aquatic. If humans started to evolve to fit an aquatic or semi-aquatic environment, then moved to another environment... one would not assume that they would exhibit all aquatic characteristics. One would expect to see various aquatic characteristics implemented to varying degrees, no?

-One would like to see more information on the exact theory. The critisism and the theory holders both fail to specify if it was fresh water aquatics, salt water, marsh, swamp, river and the text seems to swing wildly too and fro. For example, what's the point of the argument that humans cannot drink sea water if they developed on a delta hunting in the salt water but living near the fresh? I know it's just a wiki article, but clarifications of the specifics of the thoery, and a consistant set of objections to specific versions of the theory would be helpful.

Falsification
Curious, what do AAH researchers say about falsification of the hypothesis? Specifically, how, or what evidence, could falsify it? JPotter 22:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How about this: Unequivocal evidence that chimpanzee or bonobo infants can be trained to swim as well as or better than human infants. If I read such a study I'd drop my support of waterside hypotheses of human evolution (a better label than "the aquatic ape hypothesis") in in instance. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Objections section
Almost every statement made in the Objections... section is unsourced and unattributed. Many points that are disputed are asserted without any evidence. This needs to be fixed. Ashmoo 06:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Semi-aquatic babirusa?
Please be aware that there are 3 species of babirusa. 2 of these species are hairy and the third, albeit the most common, is described as having either a sparse coat or absent coat. See [] and/or []. Clearly, nakedness cannot be looked on as a general feature of the babirusa family. Moreover, I can find no corroborating evidence that these animals are semi-aqautic and, indeed, no reference to it outside of wiki nor before December 2005 when it was added anonymously here. For reasons that I wan't go into, I suspect this information is a deliberate plant. If it cannot be substantiated then I would suggest that references to the babirusa be completely withdrawn.


 * A sparse or absent coat sounds like nakedness to me. Humans could also be described as having a sparse or absent coat, and babirusa look as or more naked than humans in the photographs I have seen. Regarding the statement that they are semi-aquatic, your link [] says that their natural habitat is "on the banks of rivers and lakes" and that they are "good swimmers, being able to swim to off-shore islands", so they certainly appear to be a creature with ties to the water. Exactly what qualifies as semi-aquatic is a partly semantic argument, however I think that littoral (dwelling on the lake or seashore) might be a better description of a babiruas habitat, I have added this to the text. I take your point that there are 3 species of babyrusa, thanks for bringing it up, however as you point out, the most common species, the one typically thought of as a babirusa, fits with the description in the text. I shall edit the article to add "Babyrousa celebensis" to clarify which species is being talked about. Might I also suggest that you try to take other peoples edits in good faith, rather than using offensive terms like "deliberate plant." All the best, Nicolharper 15:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but what should be said is that one of the three species is naked. Failing to mention that 2 others are not gives a biased view of the situation, albeit unintentionally so. As to being semi-aquatic, I would ask what aspect of their lifestyles requires an aquatic environment? Almost all animals can swim. Many animals are also very good swimmers. I don't think it is reasonable to maintain that an animal is semi-aquatic merely because it swims well. What aspect of its life is carried out in water? What aspects of its life is it unable to carry out if deprived of an aquatic setting? Without an answer to those questions it is unreasonable to say that the animal is semi-aquatic. As to the use of "deliberate plant", I have chosen that term after a great deal of consideration. Wiki is not the only place where AAH is debated and I find it highly suspicious that there is no reference to babirusa being semi-aquatic outside of wiki, and that the first mention of this occurs at the same time as the debate began elsewhere. It may just be co-incidence, and if it is then there will be independent corroboration of the claim. As to good faith, I'm afraid I cannot approach wiki in that way. This is a great concern of mine and should also be a concern for you too. As the Siegenthaler affair has shown, the wiki authoring process is deeply flawed and easy for partisan opinions to manipulate, particularly in an area where emotions can run high like this one - and I remind you that it is an anonymous posting that made the claim. I hope I am wrong in this case, but only the referencing of independent corroboration would allay my fears.    Steve 17:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite Needed
My overall impression of this article is that it is not written from a neutral POV. Whilst some effort has been made to show the pro and anti sides of the argument, the layout and haphazard writing quality gives far too much prominence to the pro argument. (I'm not saying that was intentional. I just think that far more effort and quality control has been put into one side than into the other.) I think an expanded summary section is needed up front, before the for/against sections, to summarise briefly what the arguments are. This prepares the reader to look for both sides of the debate.

The section on comparison with terrestrial models is a pure propoganda job. Why is it needed in the first place? AAH, like any other theory, stands or falls on how it alone measures against the evidence. Any relevant points in this section ought to be merged in with the relevant subheadings of the for and against sections. If people want to know about other theories, they can read it for themselves if the links are put in. Whilst on the subject, the bee-in-the-bonnet thing about the savannah theory needs to go. Fossil evidence has blown that out of the water a long time ago. Rabbiting on about ST just makes the article look out-of-date.

How one deals with the large number of factual innaccuracies is an interesting question. Yes, there are a large number of things stated to be true, at one time or another, in AAH which are demonstrably false. Does one let these statements stand, as they accurately reflect the nature of the hypothesis, or does one strike out those which (for example) contradict another wiki entry or were later withdrawn by (for example) Elaine Morgan. As a minimum, I would like to see an expanded history section showing how the theory has evolved and the changes made by the main protagonists where these are a matter of record.

I also think the writing throughout is suffering from too much entropy. It doesn't flow. It's full of non-sequiturs. It's very obviously the work of too many people, and there are too many obvious 1-line edits.

Overall, I think this article would benefit from a total rewrite. Steve 20:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article is very poorly written and I agree with your diagnosis of the reason why: too many authors, too many contrary views.
 * I disagree that it is too pro-AAH, however. I consider myself a proponent of this idea and I think reading this piece gives a very poor explanation of the idea and far too many criticisms of it. If you look up any other hypothesis in Wikipedia I doubt that so much of the content is taken up by counter arguments. It is as if there are some people out there who are so nervous about this idea they are almost trying to censor it out of existance.


 * I am a PhD student who has been trying to study this properly for the last seven years and in my time in academia I have found a great deal of ignorance and gossip and almost no open minded enquiry.


 * Your point, that the idea should be summaried first, is a good one but I would go a step further. It should actually be defined first. Actually, it should be properly labelled even before that. The so-called aquatic-ape hypothesis is clearly a misnomer for an idea that is not really proposing and aquatic ape. The label was giveen to it by Desmond Morris as a short-hand term for Hardy's original question "was Man more aquatic in the past?" and, unfortunately, it has stuck. It generates misunderstanding and no clarity and this has not been helped by the fact that none of the proponents, until recently, have tried to make it very clear what it actually is.


 * I suggest that if we do not know what it is, it is impossible to discuss in any meaningful way.


 * I have tried to define thiss hypothesis and have included that definition on this page before but, it would seem, some egotistical people do not like that definition and would rather promote their own ideas. The result today is that no-one really knows what the idea even is.


 * Here is my label and definition again:


 * Waterside hypotheses of Human Evolution:
 * The hypothesis that moving through water (i.e. wading, swimming and diving) and obtaining food from aquatic habitats has acted as an agency of selection more in the lineage leading to Homo sapiens more than it has in the lineage leading to the other great apes and thus explains most of the distinct physical differences them. It assumes that even very slight levels of selection can result in profound and rapid differences in and phenotype and therefore does not require that our lineage was ever parrticularly adapted to moving through water, only that our ancestors were exposed to the risk of drowning more than their's. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems to be quite watered down from, say, Morgan. Your comments on "very slight levels of selection" has nothing to do with AAH; that's just biology. Somewhere on this talk page I mentioned watching a swamp guenon swimming under water for extended periods, but I now have something referenceable: 3 minutes before the end of the TV series Planet Earth, "Fresh water" episode, they show macaques that live in a mangrove swamp and spend a lot of time playing, swimming, and feeding under water. They can stay under for 30 seconds, about what I saw with the guenon, who was trying to keep up with river otters. Aquatic adaptations are rare for primates; what Morgan proposes is more like an isolated population of much larger primates living as or probably more aquatically than the guenons and macaques. kwami (talk) 07:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say that was only your interpretation. Elaine Morgan has actually endorsed my definition. Her five books on the subject carefully avoided tying herself to any particular mast simply because she was weary of being attacked. Her aim was always, merely, to promote some study of the idea. You mention her references to larger primates (but, I note, you do not give a specific citation) but there are many others in her work, and that of Hardy before her, where it is clear that they are thinking of something far less aquatic than people have assumed. This is really the main point I want to make: it has been misunderstood.


 * Some quotes...

My thesis is that a branch of this primitive ape-stock was forced by competition from life in the trees to feed on the sea-shores and to hunt for food, shell fish, sea-urchins etc., in the shallow waters off the coast. [0-2] I suppose that they were forced into the water just as we have seen happen in so many other groups of terrestrial animals. [0-3] I am imagining this happenning in the warmer parts of the world, in the tropical seas where Man could stand being in the water for relatively long periods, that is, several hours at a stretch. [0-4] Hardy (1960:642) Hardy, A. Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?. New Scientist 7:642-645, (1960).

Nobody has suggested that they turned into mermen and mermaids. They would have been water-adapted apes in the same sense that an otter is a water-adapted mustelid. If we knew nothing of the otter except what we can deduce from its bare bones, it would take a clever scientist to detect that it was any more aquatic than its cousins the stoats and the polecats. (0-2-2) Morgan (1997:31) Morgan, E. (1997). The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. Souvenir Press (London)
 * AlgisKuliukas (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The original comment you replied to is more than a year old - chances are that editor won't reply, though obviously others may (and did in this case). Note that your qualifications are not really important, more important is the addition of referenced material from reliable sources, and this is a much better way of demonstrating expertise.  Hardy and Morgan are both already in the page as references, and can be cited as reliable sources.  If you do not have sources for your definition of the AAH, you are engaging in original research and this is not suitable for the page.  Without a source, Morgan's support for your ideas is not suitable for the page either.  That the AAH is a misnomer is also WP:OR without a source - there's many things that are badly named but still stand, and all the OR in the world doesn't matter, no matter how common-sense it is.  I can't point out that the fundamental presupposition of The Matrix violates the laws of thermodynamics, so I understand your frustration.  Sources are always worth more than theories and personal experience.  WLU (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand and accept all your points. It is a well known frustration in promoting ideas that are not mainstream. They are subject to Catch 22 problems. You can't back them up with published referenced sources but you can't get anything published either because the peer review process has the same kind of principles. It's all stacked up against anything that is not orthodoxy. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Nutrition
To whoever amended the nutrition section: this smacks of OR. It should have appropriate references or should be clearly labelled as "proponents believe" rather than be presebted as fact. It seems to contradict the wiki article on omega-3s which mention several common sources. Steve 17:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Flubber?
forgive me, i may not be the smartest person in the world but who quotes the insulating properties of flubber? the fictional substance that bounces a lot... pwapwap 02:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Finger and Toe Webbing
I could be wrong, but I believe that the webbing between fingers and toes in humans has been ascribed to the AAT. Shouldn't it have it's own section?

Three noteworthy issues about finger and toe webbing immediately spring to mind:


 * One, only animals who have spent a significant part of their evolution near or on water develop them, in order to improve their ability to swim.
 * Two, chimpanzees and other evolutionarily proximate primates do not have any sort of webbing, whereas water-based primates do, which indicates that primates can develop webbing under the right circumstances, but that humans' closest relatives did not.
 * Three, traditional, land-based evolutionary theories cannot explain how humans developed webbing, since if we had developed on dry savannahs, there would have been no evolutionary advantage in having webbing between the fingers and toes.

Any thoughts?--TallulahBelle 17:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a couple. What webbing are you referring to? JPotter 17:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The obvious kind: The flaps of skin between fingers, close to the knuckles, that do not exist in most other primates. --TB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TallulahBelle (talk • contribs) 18:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I've heard of syndactylism but that is a birth defect that occurs in both humans and non-human apes. But if you can cite a reliable source that indicates the hand's web spaces are evidence of an aquatic past, or that syndactylism is, go for it. JPotter 19:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's my point: I read somewhere about webbing as a possible indicator of an aquatic past, but I don't recall where I read it or in what context. Hence I can't cite it in the article, though from what I understood, webbing was considered a major piece of evidence for the theory. The webbing refered to the normal webbing humans have, not syndactylism, which is a birth defect. --TallulahBelle 22:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Does finger and toe webbing occur in non-human apes? This is first I have heard of this. Do you have a source for that please Jason Potter? Certainly non-human apes do not have the partially webbed toes and feet that humans have to this day. I think that this should be mentioned in the article. SmokeyTheCat 13:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I read a book about AAT that mentioned webbing as support for the theory. I'll see if I still have it somewhere. It also mentioned the orientation of the body hairs. That it in humans was more streamlined than other apes. // Liftarn (talk)

Objection by comparison to hairy aquatics
In the section on objections to the theory, specifically regarding the nakedness, there's a comparison to hairy aquatic mammals. Does anyone have a timeframe to compare when the aquatic ape was suppose to have existed, and when these other furry animals first took to the water? I really have no idea, but I feel like polar bears, for instance, are relatively recent arrivals to the water. Similar with beavers, otters, etc., which seem so close to fully land based rodents that I feel like maybe they haven't been in the water long enough for nakedness to catch up with them. But i really have no idea. Any input?  B. Mearns <sup style="color:red">* , <tt style='color:pink'>KSC</tt> 03:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind child-birth, whatabout child-rearing?
Anybody who's ever been a parent should try to ask themselves the question of how the heck we as a species could possibly have developed in the same environment as large predators. Let me tell you, wherever we evolved it was loud. -- MarkJaroski 16:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms of the criticism
Don't get me wrong, I love people offering alternate points of view, and considering I had never heard of this theory before yesterday, when I read the criticisms as a scientist, they were very weak and fallacious. I'm going to change a lot of them, and here's why:

Nakedness
Differences is human hair is somewhat trivial. Human hair has more in common with land mammals than aquatic animals, but this does not disprove the theory as the contention is that humans were land animals living in a semi-aquatic environment, not that they were aquatic animals themselves. Be mindful that there are also land mammals that have varying purposes for “hair”, or keratin, which include hooves and horns.

Breathing
The length of time an animal can hold its breath is usually related to the amount of time would have been optimal to secure the underwater food or avoid predators based on principles of evolution. Had humans been in a semi-aquatic environment, it may not have been necessary to dive deeply to locate a food source and thus not being able to hold one's breath for 40 minutes is hardly proof that they didn't have to hold their breath for food.

The use of “dog” as a non-aquatic example is flawed, as dogs do swim and have been known to dive underwater for various reasons and would then have a similar reason to control their breathing.

Fat
It should be important to distinguish that fat has different forms and purposes. Brown fat and white fat are the two main types that animals possess. Human babies have large amounts of brown fat to generate heat, but adults have larger amounts of white fat which insulates and produces energy for the muscles. High amounts of white fat is more common among aquatic mammals than land mammals. Blubber is another fat entirely. This criticism needs to articulate itself a lot better to be considered legitimate.

Additionally, rural people generally have more fat than urban people (France, Nigeria, Tunisia, India, Canada[www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/21-006-XIE/21-006-XIE2003003.pdf]), with the exception of the United States. However some countries, including Japan, find rural dwellers are also affected by more variables.

Childbirth
This is a problematic argument as it is nearly impossible to comment on the problems associated with size of the infants head due to brain size as we don’t have anything to compare it to. Compared to early hominids or other animals? It’s not a sensical argument. Also, the narrowing of the hips is a bit of a misnomer. In some ways, the pelvis did become slimmer to contain the internal organs much like a bucket, but the main and most life threatening problem is that a baby’s head must pass the pelvic opening and the tailbone at the same time in humans as a result of being bipedal, while quadripedal animals give birth first by passing the pelvic opening, and then the tailbone at different stages. Oh, and what did this have to do with proving or disproving the theory at all?

As for a “typical method of childbirth”, different cultures all over the world birth in different ways. I have not read any studies which have examined the ways in which these positions are advantageous to the birthing process. Many websites cite squatting, sitting, and on hands and knees as being advantageous positions, but delivering a baby while standing upright is not one of them. There is some interesting information on labour positions. The position for birthing may not be a good argument for or against, as the advantage of being a semi-aquatic creature is that just because a hominid ancestor spent large amounts of time in the water, doesn't mean they would necessarily birth there. Salmon are known to leave their usual habitat in saltwater to go spawn in freshwater. Animals are versatile.

That being said, water births appear to be the most beneficial to a mother, and a lesser extent, the baby. Increased buouyancy helps mothers produce additional hormones like oxytocin which aid in birthing and breastfeeding. Babies are in little danger of drowning and do not take their first breath until they make contact with air and continue receive oxygen through the umbilical cord for several minutes until this happens.

Nutrition
Omega-3 is actually a difficult fatty acid to obtain in proper quantities when balanced with Omega-6, since terrestrial Omega-3 is found in few plants and in grass-fed, not grain-fed, animals (which is not how we typically feed our livestock in North America). The criticism is additionally flawed as the theory is about how humans developed, not how humans are able to survive now. The Omega-3 article attributes the need for Omega-3 to humans living in coastal areas.

Swimming
Swimming well is not a completely necessary trait for an animal in a semi-aquatic environment. Being able to paddle and hold one’s breath from a young age is a good indicator that it was needed at some point in evolution. Stating that children will drown unattended is a fallacial argument because young of current tree-dwelling animals fall out of trees when unattended. Expecting young to have all of the skills as an adult is not a good argument.

In modern humans, many people drown as a result of panic and not paying intention to instincts. This is also why humans who are great swimmers also find themselves drowning in 4 feet of water when they could easily stand up. Natural abilities for most humans include floating and paddling and this is actually indicative of having evolved to spend some significant time around water. This also brings up a second problem, that the word "excercise" in the pro should be changed to "physical activity" Nnnudibranch (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * An Error in counterclaims: One pro for swimming is that it is the easiest excercise on the joints, as compared to walking, running, jumping, etc... yet, the con is "Water-based exercise results in greater levels of body fat" which has nothing to do with the original pro, and is simply there (I assume) because of seeing the word "excercise".
 * The bigger problem is that the entire claim is unsourced and original research. WLU (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Traits atypical of aquatic and semi-aquatic mammals
This is a fallacial argument. The theory never proposes that humans are are aquatic mammals, but that they were land mammals living in a semi-aquatic environment and developed some traits similar to those of aquatic animals. That being said, large ears, long limbs, and long cranial hair are all good examples of criticisms in this vein. They do not disprove, but they do raise a good question.

Broad, rounded shoulders is a function of the limbs and is akin to saying “and elbows, fingers, wrists and fingernails.” It is not a separate proof.

Large breasts is also not acceptable, because while it is not shared with aquatic mammals, it is also not shared with land mammals. The nearest animal to this is probably the gorilla whose breasts grow postpartum, but then disappear when done breastfeeding. Most land mammals have small teats.

Current lack of aquatic behavior is also not valid as much as saying birds never evolved through a stage shared with lizards because they no longer have teeth and eat meat. There are other land mammals, like the Elephant, who no longer have aquatic behavior either. Or don't we? Humans still build up major cities around waterways and bodies of water.

Recent Fossil Finds
Hominid evolution did not occur in a straight line, and in fact there were often several hominid species living at the same time at different points, and no evidence for other gaps. Orrorin tugenensis does not “fill a gap” and disprove that humans never lived in a semi-aquatic environment, espcially because according to the wiki article, researchers are still trying to determine whether O. tugenensis or Australopithecus afarensis is the most direct ancestor to modern man, and also as such, does not actually fill missing gaps in a timeline, but proposes an additional brach in hominids.

Vagueness
This is a great example of criticism.

So, honestly, most of these criticisms are not very good, though some are valid. I encourage everyone to examine things with a critical mind. In many cases, what was said made sense, but had no basis to refute the theory presented because in many cases as it was arguing the wrong point.

As an aside, humans in utero have tails and gills at different points of their development (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny), but these is just a function of developing our most recent adaptations last. For reference, this does not support the theory. --Waterspyder 19:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A seperate idea/ sort of fitting into this subsection though: In general, I was confused as to why a lot of the criticism shuts down ideas based on humans not being fully this, or fully that; when the theory in general seems to say that humans were in the process of evolving to aquatic areas... and a lot of the counter-arguments seem to argue against a fully aquatic human. At this point the article has been gutted of the debate form it was in, and has lost a lot of material, but if it is to be brought back, this should be taken into consideration.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnnudibranch (talk • contribs) 20:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

both hypothysis
could parts from both hypothesis' be true, humans do like to move around abit, we could have learned a few bits in the water and a few in the savannah, maybe savannah man and water man bred together


 * Humans are naturally a pretty strong opportunist. There's no doubt that groups of humans after modern humans evolved traveled along the beach sides and ate a large amount of fish and seafood. Upwards of 30% of the diet in areas. The same is true today. However, most of the traits prescribed to AAH are absurd and more likely adaptations to as actual anthropologists suggests to distance running, walking, bipedalism, fire, or as a secondary byproduct to our large brains. Some proponents like Algis Kuliukas (personal correspondence) try to leverage "humans ate fish" into some larger grand theory of water. Some people today live by the sea and fish and some people live inland. However all of that is already a part of mainstream anthropological thought and doesn't require a new theory which starts from the hypothesis and looks for evidence (which is why it reportedly happens sometime between 4 million years ago and a few thousand), that isn't the way science works. Humans ate fish... grand theory of human evolution and dozens of books are a must for this stunning revelation. Tat 06:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a typical misrepresentation of the idea. Tatarize clearly doesn't like the idea so he/she feels compelled to attack and distort it at every opportunity. No-one has ever argued that humans are not opportunists or that they were totally reliant on aquatic foods. The question that Hardy asked was "Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?" - the word "more" is key. Now more is a relative term, it means that since the LCA with the chimps we have been exposed to greater pressure of selection from moving through water (wading, swimming and diving) than their lineage has. That's all. It doesn't mean that we were aquatic in the sense that a seal or a dolphin is aquatic. That's why the label is wrong and that's why so many people have just missed the point. It should be called "Waterside hypotheses (plural because there are more than one) of human evolution".


 * Humans swim better than the apes. If you were to compare any two other animal taxa in a given substrate and determine that one was better than the other then, if you are a Darwinist, you'd conclude that natural selection was the explanation. Since the LCA of the two, one species has been exposed to greater selection to move through that medium than the other. This is a ubiquitous explanation for all of the billions of permutations except, it seems, one: When humans are compared to apes in water. Then, suddenly the rules change and, apparently, the explanation is anything BUT natural selection. We're smarter than they are. There are lots of things we can do better than them: play musical instruments, ride bikes, climb mountains etc. We're opportunists. Why not just go with the usual Darwinian explanation: since the LCA our ancestors have been more aquatic than their's?


 * AlgisKuliukas (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I must point to WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR and now I add to this, no personal attacks. Tat disagrees with the hypothesis, that's not a reason to make it personal.  Cite sources, as they are far more convincing, and a statement backed by a reliable source pretty much can not be challenged or removed by other editors because they don't like it.  Though its interpretation can be bickered about and debated.  WLU (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologise for my "personal attack" on Tartarize. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 10:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's not really a personal attack (you could always strike it out, thus, or delete it outright, or refactor it to a more neutral statement) but it does make the paragraph unduly pointed at another editor; when pages like this one (fringe topics) don't get a lot of traffic, the talk pages usually get a lot of abuse heaped on them just 'cause there's less need to be civil 'cause there's no-one to talk to. Anyway, hopefully Tat will come back to the page and we can work on a version of the article that represents a consensus of believers and skeptics.  I'll drop him a line on his talk page.  WLU (talk) 12:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sea of Afar
I created this section. I had to create the Wiki entry on the Sea Of Afar to do it. It that becomes deleted it will become meaningless but see the Afar Depression which was once flooded and underwater. SmokeyTheCat 14:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The section didn't have any actual evidence in it, or citations - it looks like WP:OR to me. Also, even logically it doesn't make sense - early humans or protohumans were not locked into specific geographic locations.  If an area got wet, they would move and therefore not evolve to suit the environment.  If it dried, they would follow the water.  Anyway, a citation would be useful.  WLU 22:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the section needs evidence before being included. But I do want to point out that emigration was not necessarily an option. If the Red Sea suddenly burst into the Afar Depression, then the lucky few who didn't drown may have found themselves on an island. They could have tried to get off the island... or they could have found that suddenly they have an abundant seafood source and no competition for resources, so... why leave? — Epastore 15:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A definite possibility, but without a source, is original research. Also, it would have to be a very large island, would dramatically reduce the breeding population, tremendous inbreeding; I'm guessing there would be some genetic evidence of such a powerful population bottleneck.  Anyway, once someone puts in a reference, it could be replaced but right now it's too dodgy in my mind.  We'll see what Smokey has to say as it is his section.  WLU 16:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No argument on the OR... though I do think there is a cite out there somewhere. But to the point of the stranded-on-an-island idea... it could be a large island, containing a significant population of the primates in question. And if the event were 7 million years ago, it wouldn't be a population bottleneck in homo sapiens, it would be an event in primates overall. Our first ancestor to diverge from the chimps is believed to have originated... around 7 million years ago: orrorin tugenensis. See also: Timeline of human evolution. — Epastore 17:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It'll have to wait until the source then. Note that I changed the indent on the talk page - I use the second system discussed in layout.  WLU 21:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A link is :- http://www.exn.ca/Stories/2000/06/29/58.asp You can find several more by searching under 'Sea of Afar'. Definitely not OR at least not by me. Apes *can* swim if forced to so our ancestors wouldn't have drowned. I don't like to revert if I am in a minority of one but this seems like persuasive evidence to me.SmokeyTheCat 10:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to re-ad it with a citation, though that one doesn't seem appropriate for the page. If you've got a better one with references, I'd be happier. WLU 15:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Sea of Afar" produces exactly 66 Google hits. Not exactly what I would call persuasive. JPotter 22:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've put back in my 5 shillings worth, with a link this time. Like I said not OR by me. It's still a relatively new idea tho' which explains why there are so few Google hits. Still no reason why Wiki can't be cutting edge. The link is - inevitably - Elaine Morgan SmokeyTheCat 12:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Swimming children
Under "Childbirth" the article staes the children can "swim" from birth. The use of quotes suggests some doubt on this, so where is the source of the information? If it is undisputed, why is it quoted? Or is this swimming different from what we recognise as swimming? Can we have a reference, please?!


 * Children tend to hold their breath and go through some vaguely crawl like motions while underwater. This isn't swimming and could never keep the infants head above water. Calling it swimming makes it seem like there's some there there. You can check youtube for a number of videos, they move their arms and legs, we move our arms and legs when we swim, therefore, babies must swim. Yeah, the quotes are there because without them you need to say that they babies when shoved underwater tend to move their limbs. Tat 21:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Aquatic mammals are all testicond
The principle argument of the aquatic ape hypothesis seems to be that humans have aquatic origins because they are largely hairless. However, hairlessness is not a precondition to aquatic or semi-aquatic life histories. It cannot even be claimed that hairlessness is a general trait of aquatic mammals as there are a large number of examples of aquatic mammals that are furred (Bmearns this includes the majority of seals and sea lions, which are highly adapted to the aquatic environment and not recent entrants to the water). In fact, aquatic mammals of about human size and smaller are almost all furred (there are a few small dolphins and porpoises). In contrast, a trait that is shared by all aquatic and semi-aquatic mammals of all size classes whether they are furred or hairless is that they are testicond (i.e. their testicles are kept within the abdominal cavity or inguinal canal), yet humans are not testicond. If humans have aquatic or semi-aquatic origins why do we not have the one trait that is shared by all mammals adapted for life in water? HMRaven 07:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I am generally a proponent of the AAH but I don't have an answer to that one. Have to give it some thought  SmokeyTheCat   •TALK•  15:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this is relevant, but there is a condition in which testicles "fail to descend". There are also cases in which the testicles "retreat" into the body cavity (i.e. in the cold, during coitus). Do other land animals share these characteristics? If not, then these could be argued to be remnants of a time when we were testicond. Just speculation, of course. Aelffin 20:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The condition in which testicles fail to descend is a developmental abnormaility not a hangover from our evolutionary past, I believe it occurs in other mammals. Testicles do retreat as you say, but they should not retreat inside the body cavity. That would also be abnormal.HMRaven 03:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Proboscis monkeys are not testicond, and they're probably the most aquatic primate other than humans. kwami 23:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2 objections that come to mind: firstly, where is the reference that all aquatic and semi-aquatic creatures are testicond? Dolphins, yes, but creatures such as beavers?  Maybe they are testicond while swimming but not while on land.  I would need to see some verifiable sources to be convinced of this point.
 * Secondly, it's not necessary for modern humans to have retained all aquatic features for AAH to be true. Lets remember that the contention is between some aquatic influence (as AAH proposes), and exclusive land evolution as maintained by the sceptic side.  It's undoubtedly true that humans have many features not typical of aquatic or semi-aquatic creatures - and also many features not typical of land animals.  This is exactly what would be predicted by AAH, given the postulated sequence of a relatively short aquatic period, followed by a much longer period (some millions of years) with a reduced aquatic element. --Antony (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll venture a third one - the page is already stuffed to the gills with unreferenced original research claims and criticisms. Before this can go on the page, it really needs to be sourced.  Otherwise it's another example of wikipedia being co-opted into a fora for the Aquatic ape hypothesis and it's detractors.  WLU (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Feet
Unlike most apes human feet do not have an opposable toe. A primate that treads water would have no need for an opposable toe. Apes often sit when they use their feet to hold things; this would not work in water. Also the arched shape of the feet makes humans more suitable for walking in mud or the sandy bottoms of rivers, lakes, and the ocean. The skin on human feet is very soft and vulnerable to sharp rocks and sticks that might litter the ground in a forest or savannah.

...

Any evidence that AAH proponents have made this silly argument? Tat 05:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

AAH is one of my secret delights, but the distinctiveness of human feet seems more likely to be an adaptation to bipedal terrestrial life rather than bipedal semi-aquatic life. I would imagine that feet with no opposable toe are much more efficient for extended bipedal travel over land than feet with such a toe, and that an opposable toe would be incredibly advantageous for a semi-aquatic species. All of the other extant apes have opposable toes as an adaptation for aboreal or semi-aboreal lifestyles. Animal species adapted to ongoing overland travel have dense, relatively fused feet. An opposable toe would make the feet very useful for finding and grasping bottom-dwelling prey while keeping the head above water, and in your "treading water" example a modern foot would be useless, but a foot with an opposable toe could manipulate underwater objects. The modern human foot may possibly be more efficient for swimming, but I don't think that any AAH proponent contends that these postulated lifestyles involved locomotion that was meaningfully rapid in comparison with other aquatic organisms. --Raphite 05:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Morgan at least suspects that our feet are adapted primarily for a terrestrial environment, not an aquatic one. If we did go from arboreal to aquatic to terrestrial, you'd expect adaptations to all three environments, with the earlier ones coopted by the latter ones. kwami 07:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Newer Format
To address the problems with the old format, giving the arguments and then way later establishing the counter claims where there were better terrestrial theories or falsehoods in the argument presented. This format allows the counter claims to be quickly and easy presented. This gives a reader a clear view of the arguments used by proponents of AAH without providing false information. Arguments do not need to be removed because they are false or dishonest, simply addressing those points which are misrepresented. Also, the counter claims to the arguments weren't properly "criticisms". Tat 07:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Finger and toe webbing
If you look at a human hand you can see that vestigal webbing still exists between our fingers. Indeed to this day one in hundred humans are born with partially webbed toes. How to explain this without a period in our evolutionary past spent in water? Anyone mind if I add this to the article?  SmokeyTheCat   •TALK•  16:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're going to cite it as evidence, make sure there's an actual citation. Speaking of citations, I've went through the intro and added actual inline citations rather than author/year, and attached it to specific statements.  I then removed the citations from the references section.  Also changed section title capitalizations and removed a couple entries that looked like pure OR and had no citations.  This is not the place to debate the theory, so any criticisms and counterclaims need to be referenced.  I trimmed the citations in the intro somewhat so only a representative sample remain, rather than have 15 citations in the first paragraph alone for criticism/support/neutral.  Looks cleaner.  WLU 17:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Arguments section
The 'arguments' section, and I use that term loosely, has virtually no citations. I realize that there is a long references section, but it's much better to deal with if there's citations for specific statements. I'm going through the page now, if anyone can review the page later and attach specific citations to specific statements, you'd be doing the page a huge favour. WLU 20:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've re-written some sections, but I'm out of time. I'll try to continue later on.  Unfortunately this leaves the article as somewhat of a hybrid, so if anyone else wishes to continue, feel free.  WLU 21:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

monkeys swimming underwater
Allen's Swamp Monkeys, as their name suggests, are somewhat aquatic. Saw a young one at the San Diego Zoo, where they're raised in an enclosure with otters, play chase an otter about 10m, tumble with it a couple times, then swim the 10m back, all under water, only to be pulled out by an older monkey. It looked like it could do at least 30m underwater on one breath if it wanted to. There used to be a troop of guenons in the enclosure, and I never saw any of them swimming. Suggests that perhaps breath control is an adaptation to an aquatic environment. kwami 23:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately without a discussion in a reliable source, it's primary source and not a published one. Though it's a good idea if you can find a discussion of said species.  WLU 23:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wasn't planning on adding it to the article, just thought I'd mention it here for those who are interested. There is some stuff about them in back issues of ZooNooz, since I think the SD Zoo staff were surprised at how well the two species got on together, but I don't know if anything is ever mentioned about swimming underwater. kwami 05:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

removed "arguments against" // Restored
I removed the counter-claims from the evidence section. I'm not trying to censor them, but they belong in the criticism section. Mixing them together only results in the arguments becoming confused. I thought of just moving them down, but it's so obvious that whoever wrote many of them had never read any of the AAH literature (such as saying that dog barking contradicts breath control as being unusual to humans) that I couldn't stomach it. There are plenty of good arguments against AAH; let's stick to ones that actually address the issues rather than setting up straw men. kwami 06:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * , potential source. WLU 12:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Good. Not very specific, but something we should use. kwami 18:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Removed in the reversion. The reason counter claims are in line is to keep the article neutral. The arguments need to be presented as AAH proponents present their arguments while remaining factually accurate. This requires a bit of a balancing act. Previously the structure had the counterclaims at the end with the criticisms which was far more confusing and could leave people with the impression that the arguments are themselves factual.


 * For example:


 * Humans are the only land animals with a dive reflex. Most land mammals have no conscious control over their breathing. The voluntary control humans have over their respiratory system can be compared to that of (semi)aquatic mammals which inhale as much air as they need for a dive, then return to the surface for air. Morgan argued that this voluntary breathing capacity was one of the preadaptations to human voluntary speech.


 * This is an argument for AAH, it is an argument used by AAH proponents. However, it is factually inaccurate as all vertebrates have a dive reflex, to the point where thinking that animals would start inhaling water when dumped in is rather odd. Morgan and other have claimed that AAH explains voluntary control of speech even though most mammals easily make voluntary noises. And that actual aquatic mammals store oxygen completely different than humans and other terrestrial mammals. There's no other way to do this. You cannot present the argument promoted by AAH while remaining factually accurate. You could do it completely in-line but that would completely butcher the statements. Humans are not the only land animal with a dive reflex, in fact, all land animals seem to have one... but never the less the AAH proponents say that it's false and that only AAH explains it well enough. And you can't shove it down in criticism because (as noted above in the talk) it isn't criticism of the theory itself it's a set of corrections to factually inaccurate statements made.


 * Also the issue of strawmen is worth noting and should be noted, but that's mostly due to the vagueness of the theory and the multiple proponents without any formal education or peer-reviewed studies, or without any formalized definition of the theory itself. Certainly some supporters have claimed that AAH explains mermaids as race-memory of aquatic stages of man. Limiting to just the arguments of some limited selection of AAH theorists would at least make it practical to present the article without "strawmen" -- but the article is concerning the entire theory and there are some people who suggest that "aquatic stage of man" functions as a "preadaptation" to human speech (Morgan specifically). If the theory were more formalized and less scattered it would help in this respect, but the best that can be done is to present the arguments for AAH given by the proponents and correcting any counterfactual data. Tat 06:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem I have is that they're unreferenced, and often misrepresent the arguments. Let's take breath control. Morgan specifically uses the dog as an example of an animal without voluntary breath control, describing how difficult it is to teach a dog to "speak" compared to training them to follow other commands. Perhaps she's wrong, but to say that her claim is invalid because dogs bark strikes me as dishonest.
 * Also, this isn't an article about human evolution, it's about a particular hypothesis, and we don't present other hypotheses with in-line critiques this way. For example, there are no in-line counter-claims in astrology, despite the fact that its claims are full of factual errors; rather, a note on how the scientific community views it is included in the introduction, and a section on research is found at the end. With the way you restored the article, it seems that the editors of Wikipedia are doing their best to ensure that our readers do not believe in AAH, surely not our role. kwami 08:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The whole page needs sources, for both for and against. That's the biggest problem.  There are some, but they're not really used - citations, footnotes, inline links, everything.  The whole page needs a re-work and it needs to be made clear that the theory is NOT accepted as good science.  The page, and the savanna theory both need to be re-done so they don't look like a soapbox for the AAH.  WLU 15:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hold on a minute! Why does it need to be made clear that 'the theory' is not accepted as good science? Who are you to make that claim? Just one paper has even addressed the subject in 50 years in a first class anthropological journal (Langdon 1997) and that paper is clearly givingg a straw man argument. It is fair enough to state somewhere that mainstream anthropology has ignored the idea or that almost no primary research has been to to test its various hypotheses but in no way can anyone asssert that it is not good science. If it is defined carefully I would argue that not only is it very good science but it actually explains ape-human divergence very well indeed. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I tend to agree with you that pro-AAT theorists tend to rattle on too much about the savannah theory, it is equally inaccurate to portray this as a straw man argument. Pick up any text book about human evolution written in the last 75 years, or look at any peice of literature which discusses the subject broadly, and you'll find implitly if not explictly the basic idea that it was climate shift and an increase in aridity that was the root cause of ape-human divergence. Langdon (1997) said that the savannah theory was a straw man invented by Elaine Morgan but this is almost exactly the opposite of the truth. Langdon, in fact, published a classic straw man against this 'more aquatic' idea. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are no in-line counter-claims for astrology because astrology doesn't consist almost exclusively of vague pseudo-science arguments. I checked the astrology article and no, it doesn't and can't be seen to suggest astrology actually works. It talks about the history, traditions, beliefs, branches. All the things a good article about astrology should talk about. It doesn't say: Astrology tells something meaningful about a person, requiring a claim to clarify that there is every reason to believe that isn't so. Your example of the dog is quite noteworthy, in that, of course she's wrong, arguing that a dog doesn't have voluntary breath control is absurd. And the only reason she does it is to argue that humans are different. The biggest problem with AAH is that it isn't scientific. Morgan just pulled out this theory and went around making up arguments to support it, even if the data didn't support it, she literally went about picking out the differences between humans and chimps and making up water-based arguments for them. Conclusion first, then data: while science is done the other way around, data first, get a theory and as more data comes in, your theory gets to live or die with it. The progression of AAH was conclusion, make up a bunch of arguments how everything was related to water, as data comes in make the theory more and more vague. Still, to this day the only thing it has is a bunch of arguments for some vague association with water. Those are presented and the problems with them are explained. You can't simply omit the argument because it's flawed because without the arguments the only thing which is left is a claim that AAH is a theory that man went through some water stage sometime, somewhere, in the past. No anthropologists support this theory and when addressed it is addressed by peer-reviewed scholarship (which isn't often) it is usually soundly rebutted. It would certainly be less soapboxy, and might be a better article. If you omitted all the non-evidence from AAH you are left with: "humans tended to live near water and eat fish", which isn't even a theory, it's just a statement of fact and doesn't have any of the bizarre claims like water made humans evolve bipedal locomotion, or the ability to hold your breath (which every chordate has by the way). Without the arguments, I don't think it gives a proper overview of AAH. And without the counterclaims it would be seen as giving factually false statements. Yeah, it isn't perfect, but it's better than the counter claims being given way at the bottom. This is a marked step up from that format, and I would be happy to hear any suggestions for improvement. Other than removing all the arguments (and counterarguments) and noting that there are some arguments composed by finding differences between humans and apes and suggesting they are water related differences none of which have been supported by anthropology... I don't know what could be done to fix it. Tat (talk) 10:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you are showing your bias against this idea quite clearly here: "The biggest problem with the AAH is that it isn't scientific." Actually, it is as scientific as any other idea about evolution. The hypothetico-deductive method suggests we make an observation, then we try to come up with an explanation for that observation and then we test the explanation iteratively. Hardy and Morgan were basically doing steps 1 and 2 in that list. It should be pointed out that most 'orthodox' theories of human evolution do not even do that, when it comes to the traits being considered here. (How many texts on human evolution attempt to explain increased adipocity or nakedness? they tend to just to ignore it.) Hardy was a fellow of the royal society, the very elite of the British scientific establishment and carefully considered the idea for 30 years before going public on it. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What is true and fair to say is that mainstream anthropology has almost completely ignored the idea for almost 50 years. Therefore no research has been done. Because no research has been done, nothing much has been published in peer reviewed journals. Because nothing has been published few students are encouraged to study it and so it goes on. Catch 22. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sources can still be provided for both articles based on what people believe about both, and there are extensive possible sources for of both (in astrology, I would assume popular books, still sources even if not scientific; for this article, there's an extensive reference list to draw from). The problems with this article are both stylistic and with the references.  Better than a bunch of uncited claims would be a series of citations on 'arguments for' and citations for 'arguments against', all written in summary style, with good tone and organized according to the MOS.  WLU (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference links
The following links were culled from the EL section - they aren't appropriate as links, but could (and should) be linked as inline citations. WLU (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Morphological evidence of marine adaptations in human kidneys A 2006 Medical Hypotheses research article by Marcel F. Williams
 * The role of floods in ape evolution - a BBC article.

Here's some sources that are included in the page, but not linked to a statement and don't reference the AAH, making them look like WP:OR.


 * Pagel M., Bodmer, W., "A naked ape would have fewer parasites" Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 270 (2003) S117 - S119, DOI 10.1098/rsbl.2003.0041, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2003.0041
 * Seedhouse, E., The Spleen in the Spotlight, January 2003, Deeper blue.

WLU (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I embedded a bunch of the references as inline citations where I could, removing them from the references section. The page is still disgustingly full of original research and syntheses for both claims and counter-claims.  We should not be citing 'video of a monkey wading through water' as a source in either direction - that is a primary source and not eligible to prove anything on the page.  All editors should remember that wikipedia reports verifiability, not truth - wikipedia does not prove or disprove that the AAH is true, we merely report what the most reliable sources have to say about the subject.  I'd like to remove the remaining 'references' as they are not linked to any statements in the main body, but I'd like other comments, and to give people time to link them to statements if they know where they should go.  WLU (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with you, WLU. The wikipedia page should indeed report what is verifiable about the so-called 'aquatic ape hypothesis'. So, what is verifiable? Not much. Basically all we have are the published books and other literature about the subject. The majority of that literature, about 55 pieces in all (Roede et al 1991 includes 11 for and 11 against) is in favour and about 16 pieces are against. So the Wikipedia page should reflect that, right? However, the only paper published in a first class anthropological journal (JHE, Langdon 1997) was against and that should be weighted accordingly but not used as an excuse to rubbish the idea.


 * The published material then should clearly provide the core, verifiable, source for the article. However, this alone would not make for a very accessible or intereting page for the reader. What is clearly required is some kind of general statement as to what the idea actually is and that is where we get into difficulties. The biggest problem with this idea is that is has not yet been very carefully defined in the literature and therefore there has been a great deal of misunderstanding about it. Even its name 'The aquatic ape hypothesis' was not used by its original author but applied later, almost for journalistic reasons. The very label has caused confusion because the idea is not suggesting there ever was an an aquatic ape. Hardy (1960) asked "was man MORE (my emphasis) aquatic in the past?" - this is not saying that man was aquatic in any sense, just more aquatic than we are now and, by implication, more aquatic than the ancestors of the apes. I have attempted to relabel and define the idea accordingly - []. Although this has not yet been peer reviewed, Elaine Morgan has publicly voiced her endorsment.


 * I think that any meaningful, useful page about the so-called "aquatic ape hypothesis" (far better labelled 'waterside hypotheses of human evolution') should treat this problem in some way. It should also provide a launching pad to other web sites (both critical and favourable) which deal with aspects of the subject in more detail.

AlgisKuliukas (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Gutting the page
I'm thinking about gutting the page of everything that doesn't have a citaiton. The page is still a huge mess of claims and counter-claims, none of which are sourced, or those that are sourced are synthesis and evaluations of what research summaries exist. Any claims and counter-claims that could be sourced could be re-added gradually, with the citation. As is, the page reads like a web fora debating on the truth of the AAH, and that is not what we are here for. What do other editors think? WLU (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I did something along those lines once, but it all got added back in again. kwami (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've a revert button. WP:PROVEIT says it's up to the add-ee to source, not the remover to justify.  WLU (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The page has been gutted. I've removed everything without a citation, as well as all the citations I found that were worthless (i.e. weblinks to nowhere or dead pages) or OR if included(i.e. didn't mention the AAH at all, but still used to support or counter things).  I may have been somewhat overzealous, but anything I've removed that was supported is easy enough to pull out of the history and paste back in rather than a blanket revert.  WP:PROVIT supports removing unsourced information, and the page was a hideous mess of OR and unsupported 'nuh-uh' claims and counter-claims.  WLU (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and it's been reverted. I'm talking to User:StephenBuxton to see if it is just a reflex at the loss of massive amounts of text, or if he's got a particular interest in the page itself.  WLU (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It was a reflex action to large amount of text going with no valid edit summary. I've reverted my revert. Consider the article now vert. :-) StephenBuxton (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ...and it's back to its gutless self, thanks Stephen. And my edit summary was totally valid!  As long as the editor read the talk page.  Ok, so maybe it wasn't.  I'll be leaving comments on a couple editor's talk pages to let them know and request help in re-populating.  WLU (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's certainly for the best. The majority of the article was AAH proponents say X, counter claims: X is categorically false. -- How many times can you read the same crap. I honestly think there needs to be some overview, perhaps the intro should be expanded a bit (certainly not the arguments back). And some of the "mix" receptions needs really to be fixed. It hasn't been mixed. Mainstream paleontology has rejected it and the "supporting" links are excruciatingly weak. I wish there was something to simply tag a page as pseudoscience. The last 40 years of paleontology and the AAH reply *STILL* 'poppycock! It has something vaguely to do with water!'. This is a good step in the right direction. Tat (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually agree that the page was very badly written and needed "gutting". Unless there is a verifiable source, it should not contain a list of claims and/or counter claims. But to argue (as Tatarize does) that this is only what proponents do is a gross misrepresentation. Opponents of the idea seem to do it even more in my opinion. To say that "mainstream anthropology has rejected it" is an exaggeration. The fact is only one paper has even looked it in a mainstream anthropological journal in 50 years and that paper (Langdon 1997) only critiques a straw man argument. It would be more accurate to say that "mainstream anthropology has ignored the idea". When people use terms like "pseudoscience", "poppycock", "vaguely to do with water" etc I think it just shows their bias and ignorance. But anyway, I agree that it this is a step forward. I say good riddance to all that unsubstantiated argument. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * However, now that chunks of the page have been culled it's clear (e.g. comment below) that some seriois content is now missing and that the general reader would not be greatly enlightened from using Wikipedia. I think the defition of the idea needs much more stucture and it should make it clear that there is not just one single idea but a cluster of them. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm tossing my two cents in here. I think a little more needs to be added back in as I can now no longer really give you a good synopsis of what the aquatic ape hypothesis is really about. Now, I do agree that it looks like there was way, way, way too much happening in this article, but there should be no problems in outlining the major bases for the formation of the hypothesis, and forget listing "counter claims" entirely since that has very little bearing on the actual hypothesis as a scientific tool. We're describing the hypothesis, not attempting to falsify it here.--Waterspyder (talk) 08:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What you're asking for is basically a rewrite. The "toothy" version is written from an inappropriate point-counterpoint perspective, so we can't just add it back in; lots of work to be done in any case. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We seem to have gone from one extreme to another, from TMI to TLI. Overall I think the slimline version is better but I might change the emphasis a bit. And, yes, lots of work still to do on this article.  SmokeyTheCat   •TALK•  11:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've absolutely no problem with what's been said so far about the page, the only thing I would like to see happen is that when information is added, it be sourced, even just to the Morgan books. Ideally though, if sourcing the books the page where the specific information is taken from the page number should be cited as well to allow verification and discussion of how to represent the source text (if challenged).  There are enough sources in the lead alone to write the skeleton of the theory, and with three sources justifying the statement of 'criticism', there should be enough to flesh out the mainstream opposition.  WLU (talk) 12:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarify, how?
In the article there is a clarify note: "and the proposed degree of selection arising from moving through water.[clarify]" -- Is this justified? There is no clarification for that. It actually is that vague. There is some selection arising from water is the core claim of AAH. It's all an oversimplified idea concept of analog evolution. Look at the differences between humans and other apes, find differences, attribute those differences to water. The biggest objection to that I've seen is the fact that it isn't science. You can't make up a conclusion and then look for evidence. So, for example, humans are hairless, have complex language, and are bipedal. So hairlessness is good for swimming, language is the result of a preadaptation of breath hold, and bipedalism evolves standing in water (the modern understanding of these characteristics is far better). The section in question isn't clear because that's not the way evolution works. You don't interact with water and slowly have features morph towards water organisms and having varying degrees thereof. It's understandable how you could get there, but it does lead that portion to be unclear.

How do you clarify that section if it actually is a core claim of AAH and doesn't make sense because the claim made is off? Tat (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This comment contains many errors and misconceptions. "Moving through water" can easily be clarified - "wading, swimming and diving" - there, clrified.
 * The selection proposed by waterside hypotheses are not vague at all. Far from it. They suggest, for example, that body hair loss resulted from reduced drag in water. The Sharp & Costil papers showed up to 9% reduction in drag in male competitive swimmers just by shaving their body hair so it is logical that hominids would gain even more. Similar aquatic arguments can be made for bipedalism (wading in waist deep water keeps the face above the water line), increased adipocity (increases buoyancy and acts as a better thermoregulatory insulator in water) and several others.
 * "attribute those differences to water" is a bit of an over simplification but it begs the question: if not to water, then what? The orthodox argumentss to explain bipedalism, nakedness, increased adipocity, large brain/small teeth, increased altriciality, improved swimming ability (compard to the ape clade) etc etc are usually circular or contradictory, much more unparsimonious and backed up by far less evidence.
 * "it isn't science" is just a cheap slur. Hardy, the original proponent was a fellow of the royal society. You can't get more 'elite' than that. Tobias, one of the key anthropologists today has called on his peers to look at this idea. Crawford et al are very well respected brain nutrition scientists. Just becuase one field of science - paleoanthropology - has decided to close its eyes and ears to this idea for two generations does not mean that it is not science. The hypothetico-deductive method saus - we make an observation, then we come up with an hypothesis to explain that observation and then we test the hypotheses. Hardy did steps one and two after 30 years serious consideration. He called upon his peers to do step three but they just ignored him (or sneered) - it's the response that has been unscientific, not the idea itself.
 * No-one is making up a conclusion, it's called an hypothesis. In science it's what we do. We make up hypotheses to explain observations and then we set about testing them. If there's any cricisism that can be made against proponents of waterside hypotheses it's that theye haven't done enough testing. But as Hardy was retired and Morgan was a 50 year old playwrite that's hardly a fair criticism. Some of us are actively engaged in trying to correct this but there is such inherant bias in the system now it's very hard even to get simple experimental data published.
 * People who argue so vehemently against this idea demonstrate to me that theye reeally do not know what it is all about - that's the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.189.114 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

support[4][5][6] in mainstream paleoanthropology?
I think the support line needs to be removed. All of the sources are wrong.


 * 4: Hardy in New Scientist-- He's not a mainstream paleoanthropologist and was laughed out of the room.
 * 5: Broadhurst, "Evidence for the unique function of docosahexanoic acid (DHA) during the evolution of the modern hominid brain". - Does talks about DHA as pertaining to brain evolution. This is an article which suggests early man ate fish.
 * 6: Tobias, P.V. (2002). "Some aspects of the multifaceted dependence of early humanity on water." - Suggests (rightly so) that early hominid habitat may have been wetter than previously thought.

-- This isn't paleoanthropology or a line of support for the theory as a whole. The criticisms against the theory are typically criticisms as a whole theory. A few papers which suggest that humans did, in fact, spend time on the coast, did eat seafood and DHA probably helped is extremely far from a vindication of the theory as a whole.

Though, we do need to note the citations of AAH. It is brought up, for example in Pagel's paper on human nakedness relating to parasite load and even Nina Jablonski's book Skin: A Natural History and even some citations which are far less critical like Tobias (2002) -- These need to be noted in the article, however, the line that 4,5,6 count as the theory (as a whole) being met with support by mainstream anthropology is a lie.Tat (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Lots of ideas in science are "laughed out of the room" when they are first announced but, years later, it's the people that did the laughing that have egg on their faces. I think you are showing a clear bias here. It's only a hypothesis. Why are you so determined to censor it out of existance? Hardy's idea is a very interesting one that deserves some serious scientific attention. The fact that so little science has been done since 1960 has more to do with the power of peer pressure and authtority than any scietific rejeection. Hardy was a very well respected scientist and wrotee several books about evolution generally. Why do you have to try to discredit him?
 * The Crawford et al work says more than "man ate fish". They make a strong case that the marine food chain contains many nutrients essential to brain growth and as this is a key characteristic of human evolution it is logical that this diet was a major contributory factor in that evolution.
 * Tobias (1998) actively supported Elaine Morgan's work and encouraged his peers to look at the idea seriously.
 * I think you're clutching at straws - anything to try to censor this idea out of existance. We should also cite Cameron and Groves comment on this - from two mainstream paleoanthropologists -


 * “... Nor can we exclude the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (AAH). Elaine Morgan has long argued that many aspects of human anatomy are best explained as a legacy of a semiaquatic phase in the proto-human trajectory, and this includes upright posture to cope with increased water depth as our ancestors foraged farther and further from the lake or seashore. At first, this idea was simply ignored as grotesque, and perhaps as unworthy of discussion because proposed by an amateur. But Morgan's latest arguments have reached a sophistication that simply demands to be taken seriously (Morgan 1990, 1997). And although the authors shy away from more speculative reconstructions in favor of phylogenetic scenarios, we insist that the AAH take its place in the battery of possible functional scenarios for hominin divergence.” Groves and Cameron (2004:68) Cameron, D., Groves, C. (2004). Bones, Stones and Molecules ("Out of Africa" and Human Origins). Elsevier (Sydney)

Since the 1960s, the theory has not changed much
The concluding sentence "Since the 1960s, the theory has not changed much nor increased its testable predictions; in most respects it has become less specific as objections have been proposed" is both contradictory and incorrect. If it hasn't changed much, how can it simultaneously be argued that "it has become less specific" as objections have been proposed"? Also the citations listed at the end of the sentence did not verify it, they were just citations showing some of the diverse ideas surrounding the idea.

The fact is that the scientific process is all about ideas being modified as new evidence arises. The so-called "aquatic ape hypothesis" as originally formulated by Sir Alister Hardy in 1960 was clearly incorrect in its timescale. At the time there was a 'gap' in the fossil record between Procinsul and the later australopithecines and so 6Mya or so was a logical slot in which to place a putative "more aquatic" phase for human ancestry. The MacLarnon & Hewitt (1999) paper rejects the idea largely on this basis. As more evidence has arisen, (e.g. A. afarensis 3.5-3.0mya, A. ramidus 4my, Orrorin 6mya, Sahelanthropus 7mya) the original timescale proposed for coastal (but not waterside generally) life has increasingly seemed less plausible but this does not mean the the whole idea was wrong, just the original idea of when a purely coastal phase may have happenned.

The point that needs to be stressed somewhere on this page, I think, is that there is not one single "aquatic ape hypothesis" (so-called) but several, disparate waterside hypotheses of human evolution that vary in proposed timescales, modes of selection and supporting evidence offered. It's not that proponents have dodged and twisted the hypothesis in order to somehow keep it going, as seems to be implied by this statement, but that there always were several proponents with differing ideas. Terms like "the theory", "its" and "it" are just inappropriate to describe a cluster of ideas such as this.

At the end of the day, since 1960 the ideas under the banner "waterside hypotheses" have changed quite a lot, some of them have testable predictions and most of them have become very specific largely in response to emerging evidence and criticisms. The statement is just plain wrong and so I am going to remove it.

AlgisKuliukas (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree if only because it is unsourced and seems to go against NPOV. --Woland37 (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

AlgisKuliukas and Marc Verhaegen
I know this topic isn't specifically about either Kuliukas or Verhaegen but aren't there guidelines on Wikipedia which say something along the lines of, if this is something that you're basically the only person around still propping up you don't get to edit the wikipedia page on it? Verhaegen readded his tiny unpopular yahoo group as a link (replacing Aquaticapes.org -- actually a great site), and Algis Kuliukas's Riverapes.com is listed there in the links too. I could see some biologists editing biology pages, but adding links to their own yahoo groups or webpages? Tat (talk) 09:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See Conflict_of_interest Tat (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Most important is if the links are OK per WP:EL (I like to include WP:RS - if they're not a reliable source, why are they a link? If it's just some guy's website, why should it be linked to?  Unless that 'some guy' is really notable, in which case it should be easy to source their work rather than their website, why do they have a website on the page?).  WLU (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Tatarize has shown him/her self to be consistently biased against this idea. Marc and I are not the only people propping up this idea. There are many of us, including some creditable scientists. The link to my web site was originally entered here by someone I do not know, not me. Recently my link was taken down again because "the problem with riverapes is reliability and lack of demonstrated expertise, not what it supports" - interesting as 'www.aquaticape.org' was developed by Jim Moore's someone who admits on his first page that he has no expertise on the subject at all. I'm no expert either but I do have a masters degree and I'm currently doing a PhD in the subject.


 * Despite Jim Moore's "lack of reliability and demonstraated expertise" his site not only continues to get listed but also included (until I removed it) his own marketing angle "scientific critique". It is NOT a great site. It is nothing more than a sleazy attempt at a character assisination of Elaine Morgan. If anyone doubts that, they should at least see my critique of it "Sink of Swim?" Note that I have not removed the link to Jim Moore's web site or re-inserted the ref to mine, even though I think someone who is impartial should do something to restore some balance.


 * There is a clear bias against this idea by many people, for reasons which I do not really understand. People seem to be too keen to assign this idea to the "crazy box" along with creationism and Von Daniken, but when they do so they just show how ignorant they are about it. Can they not discriminate between the likelihood that wading through shallow water might have been a factor in the origin of hominid bipedalism and the idea that aliens came down from outer space to inseminate our ancestors. Really? Is it so hard to see that one is actually very likely and the other is all but impossible?


 * If you are going to remove links to Marc's web pages and mine then, if you are at all consistent, you must remove the links to Jim Moore's too.


 * I prefer to see more links here than fewer, otherwise what on earth is this page meant to be informing people about? We can't agree on what content to go in, so at least it should provide links to other web sites, both for and against, so people can at least be a little more informed and make their own minds up. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The pages do not appear to be reliable sources and therefore in my mind their removal is completely appropriate per WP:EL. The ones that are present seem fine to me.  WLU (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a bias against the idea it's that the entire idea isn't scientific. AAH was created to explain a bunch of facts, in fact, Morgan had the theory already and went through a painstaking process of looking up things and making up how they relate. Finding facts to fit the theory rather than making a theory to explain the facts is pretty much the hallmark of pseudoscience. It is quite likely that some several hundred thousand years ago our ancestors ate a large amount of fish and probably caught them too, and probably swam. There may be some evolutionary effects, as it true with many things. However, all of the traits typically mentioned are better explained with the mainstream theories, which, have actually changed and progress with the data. A good understanding of modern understanding of anthropology pretty well explains all the traits (with the exception of why massively larger brains, which intelligence explains but isn't very satisfying). I am not very favorable to the idea, and I do find Jim Moore's critique to be the best critique available anywhere. I highly recommend reading it and the explanations of the claims made by proponents and how they are wrong. Saying that it is "nothing more than a sleazy attempt at a character assassination"  is reprehensible. The fact remains that you and Marc are established enough as the community to warrant your links to be on the page as well as having a vested interest in the theory and thus a Conflict of Interest.  Tat (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that it is the idea or hypothesis that is unscientific. In fact is is a perfectly viable hypothesis. However, the real issue is how the main proponents have conducted themselves and how they have conducted their research; ideas should not talk the blame for people who use them.
 * This is neither here nor there though as we should only be presenting what reliable sources have to say about the topic. As of now this article is a much better representation of this than it has been in the past and I think that the three external links are also representative of this and see no reason to add more. --Woland (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How, exactly, can an idea be unscientific anyway? The original proponents (Westernhōfer & Hardy) were well respected scientists who raised questions to their peers expecting others to follow with proper scientific investigations. Hardy was retired when he fisrt published his ideas. The astonishing thing is that no anthropologist took any interest in the idea at all. Any criticism that should be dished out, therefore, it seems to me should be to directed at the field of paleoanthropology as much as to the proponents. What, exactly, is it proposed Elaine Morgan (a playwrite at the age of 50) should have done? Start her own anthropology department? For thirty years she has bravely campaigned to try to get this idea taken mores seriously but even today the main response is sneering, gossip and ignorance - hardly the hallmark of science.
 * Finally, I want to address Tatarize's reply to my comments about Jim Moore's site. You say it's the "best" critique of the AAH "available anywhere." What do you mean by "best?" Most damning? Most vitriolic? It's certainly not the most scientific. That title would have to go to Roede et al (1991) which at least gives a balance account with 11 proponentss and 11 opponents contributing. Each paper, unlike Jim Moore's web site, is properly referenced. The conclusion of Roede et al (1991) by the way, although rejecting a strong form of the AAH clearly endorsed a weaker form. Anyone who has been recommended Moore's site should also know there is a severe critique of it ("Sink of Swim?").
 * However, I do actually agree with you about the conflict of interest criticism. It is right that main article should not have links to web sites put there by any author. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ideas about the role of aquatic environments on human evolution

 * Hi. Talk pages are generally reserved for commenting on the article not as a forum for generating discussion about the topic. If you have edits you would like to make, please do so as long as they are properly sourced. If you go through the history of this page you'll notice that it was gutted not too long ago for many valid reasons, so I would suggest going through that before making any additions. --Woland (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that Minotaur's post appeared to be original research, I've collapsed it into a box per WP:NOT. It's there if people wnat to read it.  WLU (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

individuate per author
I haven't gotten to this article like I'd hoped, but I have an idea for organizing it.

One of the primary problems with this article has been that many of the criticisms have addressed a particular author, rather than of the hypothesis as a whole. This makes it very difficult to come to a synthesis that's acceptable to both camps. What say we create sections for each important author/researcher? So, we could have a section on Hardy's version, and the criticism he received. Then a section on Morgan, using her most recent version, incidentally showing how she's responded to criticism of Hardy (as well as of her earlier works), and the criticism that that's received. Etc. etc. Otherwise we're going to either say practically nothing, as now, or we'll in a constant state of flux, with people arguing that critical points should be removed because they're not relevant to publication Y of author X, which is what this looked like a few months ago before I gutted it.

Also, since this is an article of AAH, the points of each author should be included regardless of whether they hold water. However, criticisms should only be included if they're valid. Criticisms that don't address the issue they claim to (such as arguing that humans aren't really hairless), or which are unsupported or factually wrong, don't belong in an article on the AAH itself. This isn't a debate where anything goes. That's another problem with where the article had been a few months ago. — kwami (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if such a format would be useful. Also, an article about a particular theory or hypothesis does not usually have sections devoted to particular people and their ideas (excluding articles about the history of a particular theory). The reason that this article, as of now, doesn't have very much to say is because all unsourced material has been removed. I think it is a good idea to add more relevant sourced material but I don't think it would be a particularly good idea to break that material down into sections by particular author/researcher.
 * Criticisms that don't address the issue they claim to (such as arguing that humans aren't really hairless), or which are unsupported or factually wrong, don't belong in an article on the AAH itself. This isn't a debate where anything goes.


 * Please keep in mind that this isn't a debate at all. What this is is an article on the AAH using sourced material which includes sourced criticisms, it is not up to us to decide which criticisms are valid and which are not, we should report what sources say and let them speak for themselves. --Woland (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The page needs, more than anything else, an expansion based on reliable sources that discuss the actual hypothesis itself, support for the hypothesis, and criticism of the hypothesis. Structure isn't the problem, it's the lack of digging for sources.  WLU (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of the criticisms have in the past been clearly unreliable, and it is our job as editors not to use unreliable sources. However, the hypothesis is the hypothesis, regardless of the reliability of its claims. — kwami (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, my comment about reliable sources applies to hypothesis, support and criticism. Though as a fringe topic, parity of sources may apply.  WLU (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%.--Woland (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree 100%. I do not think the article needs to be split by authors, as such, but a historical narrative of those publications that have been written about it is the very minimum this page should have. At the moment it has been gutted down to less than its bare bones. Anyone using Wikipedia to find out about this hypothesis would almost be none the wiser. i propose to start the ball rolling by creating a historical section which describes the way the idea has been developed over the years. May I suggest that those who are just opposed to this idea refrain from trying to censor this historical aspect out of existance but, instead, perhaps build a section entitled "Published Criticisms". Please note that these criticisms should also be sourced and not just taken from vociferous opponents' web sites. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there's now enough pubmed sources for criticisms that there's no need to resort to less reliable sources.   WLU (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

New, properly sourced, version
I've decided to take this bull by the horns and try to add some decent content to the page that has always been missing. The page was almost completely culled (in my opinion rightly) because it was filled with largely unsourced material. It also seemed to become a kind of battle ground between proponents and opponents. In this version I have made everything sourced and tried to stick with the historical facts about the hypothesis itself. I think this will, at least, provide the reader with a much more informative page than they had before.

I have tried to define the idea as generally as possible at the beginning and then, in the next section, I've stressed the variety of views within this hypothesis, an important point that is usually ignored. Next is a brief historical narrative of the idea. I admit to being largely ignorant about the work of Westenhofer as well as a few others who might have preceded him, namely the Italian Sera. But I hope others will be able to improve on that. I feel very confident that the material from Hardy's speech onwards, however is largely correct. I've tried to use the words of the authors where I think it is important because, after all, it was their idea.

I admit to perhaps showing a little impartiality toward the the end of the historical narrative. I do feel that the idea has been misunderstood and I think the concluding words from Reynolds' summary and the fact that Langdon bracketted the idea alongside creationism and Von Daniken make the point well enough for me. I was going to include that point about Langdon's paper but I decided against it because I thought people would accuse me of bias. But it does beggar belief: Can anthropologists not discriminate between the likelihood that wading in shallow water might have helped make us bipedal and the idea that aliens came down from outer space to inseminate our ape ancestors? Really!

I've gathered criticisms of the idea into a section at the end and I would invite people to bolster that section with any published accounts they can. It would be good, for example, if people could delve into the critiques sources and write in some of their arguments. Please let's not have any links to Jim Moore's web site though. Despite his self-promotion that it is a "scientific critique" it is far from that.

I think this page has been greatly improved by these changes but I await other people's opinions.

AlgisKuliukas (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks good, I've wikified a bit. The number of sources alone gives a large amount of material to work with to expand the page in a sourced, reliable manner for a good long while.  Excellent work! WLU (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Outstanding. This is a big improvement. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Now we're getting somewhere! My only quibble is with the last paragraph of 'history', which is confusing enough that I don't want to try and fix it myself. Now, if we can just get a referenced section covering the major pieces of proposed circumstantial evidence and their criticisms, we'd have a truly informative article. I'm mostly only familiar with Morgan's work, so I'm probably not the one to do it. — kwami (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What does assessing if there was an "aquatic ape" mean? Also the last line of that paragraph. — kwami (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, perhaps that needs a little elaboration. My point is that that anthropologists have rejected is an interpretation of the "aquatic ape hypothesis" that is quite literal... "was there an aquatic ape?" in the sense that a seal is an aquatic mammal. This is quite clear from the wording of Vernon Reynolds in his summary in Roede et al. It's also clear in Langdon's paper that he thinks the idea is quite extreme (bracketting it alongside Von Daniken's alies from spoace idea and creationism. Other important critiques also compare humans with aquatic mammals as if Hardy had suggested human became truly aquatic. Zihlman and Lowenstein, for example, argued that limb size reduction is predicted in aquatic animals and early hominids didn't exhibit that. Like most people, they have rejected the idea based on an interpretation of what *they think* it is proposing when, really, it wasn't.


 * In the 'hypotheses' section, I'm going to add a sentence elaborating on this potential to interpret the idea in different ways so that this point is made clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.189.114 (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Listing circumstantial evidence
Jmcc150 has added a list of circumstantial evidence from Morgan. I'm in favor of something along these lines, to give the reader the flavor of the argument. However, other editors have deleted this, and I can sympathize. I see two problems with it:


 * 1) This is not the AAH as a whole, but only Morgan's take on it. However, as Morgan is the primary proponent of the AAH, this might not be undue weight. That's an issue for discussion.
 * 2) The list will get clogged with counter arguments and then counter–counter arguments. I don't think this will be a problem as long as we demand that each counter argument be sourced.

kwami (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In a message to User:Woland37 I said that there is no denying that evidence has been put forward, and therefore his deletion of my referenced material was unwarranted. It seems to me that an article on a hypothesis must say why some people believe in it, even if they are misguided. That is what a hypothesis is all about. In answer to kwami's first misgiving, I have no problem if the evidence advanced by people other than Morgan is added. As ever if all additional material such as the counter arguments are also referenced, it will give a balanced view. Incidentally, at what point does circumstantial evidence become evidence? JMcC (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Woland37 has again deleted the section on evidence in favour of the hypothesis. An eminent zoologist has stated in public that evidence has been advanced and this cannot be denied. I have asked User:Woland37 on his talk page to explain how you can have an article on a hypothesis without stating why people have advanced it. Listing the evidence does not imply acceptance of the hypothesis. I have asked if Sir David Attenborough is not a reliable source that evidence has been proposed. I have also asked that if I provide scientific references for every one of the items of evidence that has been deleted, whether they will be allowed to remain. JMcC (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I did indeed have a bit of a knee-jerk reaction. My issue is that this article was previously a bloated sack of unreferenced claims/original research and what I saw was you essentially adding the same type of stuff back in. This has nothing to do with what I personally think about the AAH. Also, what I meant by references was in text citations for each claim; I may be wrong but I don't think that they were there. I would hate to see this article spin out of control and became what it once was with claims and counter-counter claims and counter-counterclaims ad infinitum. I appreciate your position. I have no problem with a section similar to what you added, it just needs to be sourced better. --Woland (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right. I would have to add that as a third concern to my list above, and it is by far the most serious. Jmcc, it should be easy enough to do. The problem is not so much with your list (though I don't recognize a couple of the claims), but with the near certainty that other people will add their favorite tidbits to it, and many of these will not be from your global reference. If we insist that each bullet point have its own reference, then we can keep the list under control, and there shouldn't be any serious problems with it (though we will probably get into POV battles over individual points). kwami (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Link to Moore's site
Sorry to stir things up a little (especially as I am doing a bit of a "drive-by")... but I have added a link to Moore's site and to Kuliakis' rebuttal. I agree that Moore overdoes his criticism of Morgan, but he does address issues that sometimes arise on this topic and some that are relevant to the supporting facts raised in the Hypotheses section. I have however also added the rebuttal. I think that people who are really interested would read both. Incidentally, from the discussions above, it looks as though the article has been cleaned up quite nicely. --Muchado (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, so long as it doesn't turn into link madness. --Woland (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: I wish we could find a better website for a rebuttal though, that format is horrible. I guess its par for the course though.--Woland (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've long opposed those two sites I believe, on the basis of them being non-reliable, essentially opinions from random people (somewhat tongue-in-cheek since they have done some research). I've removed them, which no-one will agree with, but used the DMOZ link instead.  To everyone's satisfaction I believe, it's got links to both sites (acutally looks like the old EL section when it was a linkfarm).  Any objections?  WLU (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I like that much better. It is inclusive, comprehensive and a better resource altogether. I hate having a bunch of EL's.--Woland (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)