Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis/Archive 2

Rejection by mainstream science
The lead section does not summarize the article without a mention, ideally more thorough than what is there right now, of the AAH being generally not accepted by mainstream science. Criticisms are about a third of the article and must appear in the lead. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The impression I'm getting is not that the AAH has indeed "been criticized by biologists, and has found little acceptance in mainstream science" - but that it's irrelevant. AAH simply doesn't make predictions and hence cannot currently be proved or disproved. Nina Jablonski's 2008 criticism doesn't appear to deliver any knockout blows, whereas Morgan and Todaro's claim about the "baboon marker" do lead somewhere. They suggest that the "Savannah theory" should be dead - that's something that should be difficult to ignore. Is Morgan correct, her theory is definitely more likely than what went before? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've read through the section again, calling it criticism and rejection is a bit strong actually, but I've an inkling many of the criticisms have been swept from the article. Jablonski's criticisms are only one part, there must be more on google books.  Anyway, it's not up to us to choose if it's right or not, just to source criticisms.  Right now on a read-through it seems like the page is saying "The AAH has been unjustly rejected by science", which is POV in my mind, rather than "The AAH is a fringe science" (in a nonpejorative sense).  Anyway, perhaps I'm wrong, I'll start on some research.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since some mainstream scientists actually support AAH, then it's not a fringe theory. Desmond Morris, one of the pioneers in evolutionary psychology is certainly a mainstream scientist and he is sympathetic to AAH. In order to dismiss AAH, one issue that would need to be determined relates to why our closest relatives, chimpanzees and Gorillas, who live near lakes and rivers do not swim, but humans do swim. Somewhere in the primate lineage, after the divergence from the chimpanzee, our ancestors learn't how to swim. Most apes don't swim, and the few that do swim, do so mainly to cross rivers, such as the proboscis monkey, and orangutans have been observed to swim in captivity. But no primate swims for pleasure or to hunt for food in the way that humans do, indicating that human swimming most likely occurred recently during the evolution of homo. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Specific criticisms
Rather than a lump of "AAH has been criticized by some people", the specific criticisms should be spelled out. I'll try to do so when I have the time, but right now I don't. Here's the ones I haven't had time to embed yet. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)



Two edits
I removersed two edits. The first was to remove an external link that was out of keeping with guidelines on external links - no indication it was a reliable source, it looked like a personal web page. The second added criticisms to the lead that were rather extreme and not sourced in the body. The AAH does appear to be a pseudoscience, make no predictions and is not testable, but those are strong claims that need to be made in a reliable source before they should be included. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no way this article should be claiming that the AAH is fringe or pseudo-science. In it's weak form (ie not "aquatic ape") it seems to be accepted. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

reference
I don't have access to the work cited in this link. Is the sentence in Academic reception strongly supported by this textbook on Pediatric ENT therapies? "The hypothesis and its variations explains a number of unique features of humans compared to their ancestors but has largely been ignored by mainstream paleoanthropology or met with significant skepticism."
 * Yup. "Alistair Hardy put forward the aquatic ape hypothesis to answer these and many other question,and Elaine Morgan has been a forceful resuscitant of it (Morgan, 1997).  But the theory is still met with profound skepticism, and needs much more evidence to be thoroughly accepted."  There's a soupcon of interpretation (whose skepticism?  Paleoanthropology makes sense since they're the relevant experts) but I think it's reasonable.  Try the page forward button, google books jammed on me but forward/back brought them up.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I tried the forward back w/o success. A soupçon for one part, maybe, but turning up in a medical specialist's textbook doesn't support "ignored". cygnis insignis 20:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC) This 2007 source (Cardiff University) weights it differently, as you would expect when they are awarding an honorary fellowship "for her contribution to scientific knowledge". "This [AAH] was received by the scientific community with a large amount of resistance that her later publications sought to overcome, latterly with a greater degree of success."


 * Perhaps the absence of fossil evidence should be mentioned in the lead?  cygnis insignis 20:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The fossil evidence (as I understand it) all points to water-side existence. All through the Rift Valley and the location of the Taung baby when it was revisited in 1985. Lucy was found amongst crocodile and turtle eggs and crab-claws. All that evidence can be discounted on the basis that only in such places would fossils survive - but you can't claim it's absent! The impression I'm getting is that debating AAH has a very low priority (except amongst students, where it's a favourite). Its predictions are the kind of thing that researchers are doing anyway. There's a BBC linked prediction about the baby-wax which is interesting and better than nothing but doesn't rate for much. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Morgan's profession
The second paragraph of the lead ends "... and was popularized and promoted over the next 30 years by ex-script writer Elaine Morgan." It used to say "...popular writer Elaine Morgan". I tried just "writer Elaine Morgan" (because "popular" repeats "popularized"), but it's now back to "ex-script".

It is desirable to find some words to make it clear that Morgan is not a scientist, but describing what Morgan is not ("ex-script writer") doesn't seem reasonable. In my edit summary, I described those words as POV because it is abundantly clear that Morgan is a writer in addition to having written scripts many years ago (see Elaine Morgan (writer) for a list of books). I can't think of an WP:NPOV way of saying "not qualified to have written a book with a hypothesis on human evolution", so can someone explain why "popular writer" or just "writer" is not adequate? Johnuniq (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I may have just been inspired. What about this: "The aquatic ape hypothesis was discussed by Desmond Morris in his 1960 book The Naked Ape, and was promoted over the next 30 years by popular writer Elaine Morgan"? Johnuniq (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Writer" and "popular writer" are perfectly acceptable but fail to note that she was a professional presentation writer before turning those powerful skills onto other topics. There is some indication that these skills have caused resentment in the wider scientific community, causing more outspoken resistance than seems justified according to other sources. Anyway, I've tried something different and much more specific again, tell me what you think. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The article now reads "... and was popularized and promoted over the next 30 years by television screenwriter Elaine Morgan." We can clean out the overlinking later, but why are people wanting to avoid plain "writer" when describing Morgan? Is it an attempt to accurately describe Morgan (with the suggestion that "writer" is not sufficiently precise)? Is it an attempt to pigeon hole Morgan as something less than, or more than, a writer?

Surely Cardiff University's fellowship award can be regarded as a reliable source. They declare "Ms Elaine Morgan is a writer". Yes, she was also a television scriptwriter, but she wrote her first book in 1972 (a long time ago). Elaine Morgan (writer) describes Morgan as "a Welsh feminist writer", and says she has written 8 books. The title of her latest book (Pinker’s List: The New Darwinists and the Left) makes me cringe, but "writer" is accurate.

Re MalcolmMcDonald's comment above about the possibility of resentment regarding Morgan's presentation skills, that is interesting and should be in her article if we can find a source. However, I don't think we can or should convey that information in a quick description.

Is there a reason to not change the sentence to "...by writer Elaine Morgan". Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there is some value in implying that Morgan cut her teeth as a specialist in "entertainment" writing. It's a fairly trivial matter compared with the distortions of AAH that come later, but it's an attempt to NPOV a statement of something significant, viz that the supporters of AAH are championed by a professional communicator, just as are its opponents. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Need better treatment of the arguments.
The article can contain only a small number of the arguments for/against AAH, so it's important that we deal with them in an NPOV fashion. That's not what's happening. Langdon and Jablonski (references #23 and #256 respectively) have the most cites (4 each) but our use of their work is dubious, allowing them to make arguments that don't relate to Morgan's, and in at least one case to address something different. Vanstrum's (#27) arguments may be better or worse, but they do little to undermine AAH. In the New Scientist, 1991 (#29) Zihlman says "Morgan ... ignores the fossil record altogether" - so? None of his arguments suggest Morgan is in conflict with the fossil evidence, only that he's irritated because his speciality is treated as irrelevant on this point.

The current state of the article claims that AAH is undermined by "the failure of the fossil record to support the claims" (this is referenced to both Langdon and Jablonski) - an argument that Morgan elegantly dealt with at the beginning. At p.18 of one of her earlier AAH books, Scars of Evolution 1990, Morgan argues that the fossil record supports AAH, Lucy's "almost complete skeleton was discovered in East Africa among the remains of crocodile and turtle eggs and crab claws" and that all the known remains are water-side, or at least, in regions more humid than they are now. Scars p.174 points out that "it is hard to conceive of any fossil evidence that would be regarded as conclusive one way or the other. To take a parallel situation, if fossil hunters in five million years' time unearthed the fossilised skeletons of an otter and a stoat, they would be able to deduce that two closely related mustelids co-existed in Scotland in the twentieth century. They would find it very difficult to establish whether one of them was aquatic."

I propose taking out all the arguments that are presented in this POV fashion, starting with "the failure of the fossil record to support the claims". If there's anything valid in the references that deal with the actual AAH case, then they needs presenting properly. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the including information on the other arguments for hairlessness such as the need to sweat, sexual selection, and fewer parasites. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree there's a problem over the number of arguments the article can cover, and I presume we cannot include all of them. I'm concerned to choose representative examples. However, I'm more concerned that those we do include are treated properly. And I think the fossil argument is treated carefully and convincingly by Morgan and quite poorly in this article. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * NPOV doesn't mean we don't have criticisms. Morgan's work is not all that the hypothesis is, and further, since she didn't publish in academic circles, her work is far from the most reliable sources that can be used.  When dealing with fringe topics like this one, the failure of academics to take it seriously doesn't mean we give full play to the people who presented the theory to popular attention.  Morgan didn't "deal with" the lack of fossils, in fact the criticism that MacLarnon uses is supported by fossils.  Jablonski and Vansrum are both published by academic press, something Morgan never managed, and accordingly are extremely reliable.  New Scientist is also popular scientific press, and the article is written by a relevant expert.  Discarding it because Zihlman is piqued is inappropriate, particluarly when he is actually dismissing Morgan's work because "australopithecines show none of the streamlining and reduction of limbs that is characteristic of many different species of acquatic mammals. Rather, the oldest hominids, Lucy and her kin from the Afar in Ethiopia, have curved hand and foot bones that bespeak a recent descent from the trees rather than an ascent for the depths" - in other words, Zihlman is saying the AAH is contradicted by the fossil record. Jablonski doesn't, and I've replaced Jablonski with Zihlman accordingly.  Failure of the fossil record to support the claims is well supported and should remain.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure any of them, including Zihlman, is saying that AAH is contradicted by the fossil record. "Failure of the fossil record to support AAH" is something different and totally unremarkable (and completely untrue, according to supporters). We do the reader a dis-service treating it as a valid objection. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Fossil-hunters treated properly by Morgan
Morgan deals extensively with the strengths and limitations of fossils. She seems to do this fairly - very differently from the way her critics deal with AAH (or at least, her critics as we quote them).

The 2nd chapter of the 1990 book "Scars" is entitled "Fossil-hunters", and she demonstrates a good understanding of what can be, and what cannot be, discovered eg: "There are two ways of trying to reconstruct the evolutionary history of a living species. One way is to examine extant specimens, studying their behaviour when they are alive and their anatomy when they are dead. The other way is to hunt for the fossilised bones of their distant ancestors ... Hunting for pre-human fossils calls for a rare combination of physical and mental abilities ... those who succeed in it tend to be energetic, eloquent and extrovert ... the claims they make about their discoveries result in noisy disputations - which further endears them to the media."

Morgan is not rude to anthropologists, but provides damning evidence of how little they care about soft tissue. She reports (p.70) the only television debate ever held on AAH, in the course of which a professor of anthropology was asked why man had less hair than the apes. Unprepared for the question, he "earnestly assured viewers that there was no mystery about it: the answer had been found - the matter was well understood - the solution was there, on record, somewhere in the literature - but unfortunately it had slipped his mind". Morgan spends the whole of Chapter 6 examining all options for hair-lessness - in 1989 she bought the latest editions of two textbooks on anthropology "both comprehensive, highly commended and frequently updated ... devoted three words to the topic ... humans 'have less hair' ... avoided any mention of the subject whatsoever ... neither the people who set the papers nor the people who mark them know what the answer is". Another telling example provided by Desmond Morris - a "foremost authority" on television telling us that man has not lost his hair - "the numerous quaint theories that have been put forward to account for the imagined loss of hair are, mercifully, not needed".

Now, if we include criticism of AAH from anthropologist Zihlman then we need to include some mention of how the supporters of AAH charge the anthropologists with wrongly (and repeatedly) rejecting the evidence of anatomical research. Morgan tells us that naturalist Charles Darwin correctly "predicted that the birthplace of our species would be found in Africa" - the anthropologists ignored him. Morgan continues: "... within Darwin's lifetime ... began digging in Europe, and their hopes were high ... By the 1920s the prevalent belief was that man had emerged in Asia ... experts came down firmly on the side of Asia ... [in 1947] abandoned their dreams of visiting China and focused on Africa instead" In actual fact, the anthropologists were now wrong for the third time, since the Taung baby (that they'd studiously ignored for 22 years) sent them to South Africa instead (p.13). If the supporters of AAH believe anthropologists have been wrong (and on other occasions been hoaxed), and have evidence like this, then it should go in.

This is not original research on my part, it's an important, hard-hitting argument from a major supporter of AAH and we're ignoring it, while giving space to feeble or mis-stated or even false arguments from its opponents. Zihlman's "Failure of the fossil record to support AAH" is not the same as saying that "AAH is contradicted by the fossil record". MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

... whereas AAH's "Savannah hypothesis" is not treated properly
Now for another major fault in the way we treat AAH - Morgan claims "Savannah explanations were advanced to account for hairlessness, bipedalism, sexual bonding, tool using, and a whole spectrum of other human features ... if the Ethiopian discoveries had been made before the South African ones, it is probable that none of that would have happened. The Hadar site, in the Afar peninsula, is now arid, but there are geological deposits there which prove that it was once a lakeside or riverine habitat. The same thing is true of the Olduvai Gorge". (I've already quoted what Morgan says about Lucy found "among the remains of crocodile and turtle eggs and crab claws").

Now, if knocking down the "savannah hypothesis" is a major part of the AAH (and I think it is, from all sources) then we should include it. Instead of which, we quote Zihlman effectively calling Morgan a liar: "Morgan sets up a false dichotomy between the AAH and the 'savanna hypothesis' ... code name for other prevailing reconstructions of human evolution". We need to do much better than this - AAH at least deserves a fair crack of the whip in its own article. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Humans are bad swimmers
Humans are possibly the worst swimmers in the animal kingdom. Very few other animals are likely to drown in a brief encounter with water. Even sloths and bats swim better than humans. The reason is presumably that our bipedal posture has produced a forward rotation of the muzzle, so that the breathing orifices face downwards (and are plunged in thw water) when swimming. Is this not odd for an aquatic animal? So why is this not mentioned among the objections to the theory?86.159.143.195 (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because its our job to repeat what others have said in reliable references, not to make inferences  of our own.--Woland (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Humans are bad swimmers, but not compared to other great apes. Chimps literally sink like stones in water.  Of course this doesn't change the fact that the AAH is preposterous.Simonm223 (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is debatable, considering that a trained human can dive for about six minutes and, though humans are not very fast, they manage to cover long distances. The main obstacle is not the actual swimming, but the temperature (--> hypothermia).--87.188.253.117 (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * While (untrained) seals, dolphins, whales and other aquatic mammals can dive for hours and swim faster than the pathetic 5 miles per hour of most swimmers and 7 miles per hour of Olympic athletes. None of this matters, this is original research.  You can't defend the page based on what you or I think - what is important is sources.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoever brings up the point of untrained humans being naturally poor at swimming should be... well there's too many bad things to say, I'll keep them out of this discussion. Such a comment is meaningless, to say the least. Do you expect a human who has never walked in their life (hypothetically) to become an olympian the first time they run the 100m? That is preposterous. And then the last comment brings up untrained dolphins and the like. What exactly do you mean UNTRAINED? They live in water! Do you suppose there would be a dolphin equivalent of proffessional and amatuer sports, in which they are trained by elite dolphins, then race for the gold? That's like saying a bird is untrained at flying...


 * Furthermore, from what I have gathered, this theory proposes a form of ancient primate, for some reason, was forced to adapt to some form of marine-centered life. Correct me if I am wrong about this. From here I will continue, the rest of this paragraph is hypothetical, for argument's sake. Now, possibly, this "protohuman" already had a bipedal posture, before a change in environment produced marine characteristics. Especially if these so calld aquatic apes are not living in water exclusively, is the urge so greate to change the orientation of our noses and mouths? (I don't find it necessary to use 'fancy' words to support my arguments, ahaha!) Additionally, in an evolutionary timeline it is completely possible these aquatic apes would have been forced to leave the water before they became in essence, marine animals. Consider it a short stay. Is this not reasonable?


 * Just as well, bipedalism could have been produced after a stint in the water... OP's argument's aren't so strong... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.183.98 (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You've totally missed the point in several key areas. First, the comment about human's poor swimming performance is comparative.  Any aquatic species is expected to show adaptations which improve its movement through the water (webbed feet, flippers, streamlined form, etc.), even after a comparatively short time.  Humans show none of these.  This actually plays into your second point about duration of stay.  A change to a marine habitat involved numerous simultaneous challenges (drag, salt retention issues, sensory issues, breath-holding, propulsion, etc.)  We see simultaneous adaptation to all of these features in all animals which have returned to the water/sea, from otters to snakes to turtles to crocodiles (which were originally terrestrial and looked like scaly dragon-greyhounds).  An animal which is in the water cannot "pick and choose" which adaptation comes first - failure in any respect results in death/extinction.  If an animal spends millions of years in the water, you get something with extreme versions of all of the above adaptations, like a dolphin.  If an animal only recently moved into the water, the all of results are weaker, like the Galapagos marine iguana.  In no case do you get a "mosaic" of traits, with some traits being highly adapted to a marine environment and others either not changed or actually counterproductive.
 * That's a key aspect, and fatal flaw in AAH reasoning. You cannot just consider traits as discrete and independent - they're all combined into one fully-functioning organism, which much survive and reproduce in a given habitat.  A marine animal with poor salt retention is doomed.  One with high drag or low speed is shark-bait (barring other defensive measures such as armor, spines, venom, etc., none of which humans have).  The animal can either function in the water or not, and in this case, the answer is "not".Mokele (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Archives
I've combined archives 1-4 into a single one - as is they were anywhere from 30-100K each, which will produce a lot of unnecessary archive pages. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've restored the recent sections. cygnis insignis 18:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. I had no qualms about removing the ones you replaced since they dated back three months with no real traffic since. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

npov
The aquatic ape hypothesis (AAH), sometimes referred to as the aquatic ape theory, attempts to explain some unique characteristics of humans through a period of time spent evolving in an aquatic environment. These characteristics include subcutaneous fat, hairlessness and bipedalism. The hypothesis has antecedents in Ancient Greece but was first published with an evolutionary explanation by Max Westenhöfer in 1942. The hypothesis was proposed again in 1960 by a marine biologist, Sir Alister Hardy, and popularized and promoted by the writer Elaine Morgan. Though the theory has great popular appeal, it has been criticised by the scientific community for a variety of reasons, including susceptibility to parasites found in water, a lack of innate swimming reflex or adaptations, the characteristics of human subcutaneous fat, the failure of the fossil record to support the idea and human's inability to cope with water-dwelling predators. However, there has been some supporting publications in scientific journals and some support within paleoanthropology, at least for a weak version that doesn't accept there was an actual "aquatic ape".

This is not an neutral introduction; whatever its intentions, it will only succeed in getting up the readers nose. The lead of the article attempts to frame and resolve a debate, when the fact is that AAT/AAH continues to be mentioned in a number of research areas. Authors, reliable sources, and results (and maybe books on diving photography ), may refute or support any of this evidence for what Langdon terms "Umbrella hypotheses". I personally find sympathy with the latter's view (in the cited abstract), "'Finally, the mosaic pattern of hominid evolution demonstrated by the fossil record will not support this or any single cause theory.'," but the fact is "'Evolutionary science must wrestle with this problem both in its own community and in the education of the public.';" This is not the purpose of our article. Co-opting a philosophical view on scientific discovery and theory, to support or dispel a proposed set of characteristics, is as inappropriate as the methodology of a pseudo-scientist. If a morphological characteristic, for example, has been utterly dispelled as evidence, it is merely a historical footnote here. If a user thinks this theory is nearly pseudoscience, they would serve it better by not dignifying it with an edit; downgrading facts, like Morris's association, will not serve that cause. Clearly, if someone wanted to weight the facts in support, they are also at the wrong site.
 * popularized, great 'popular appeal', consider how this term is used. A convenient example: search=popular+appeal.
 * 'criticised by the scientific community', 'some support', 'weak version', actual "aquatic ape"; this selection from sources are operating as weasel terms.

However, as a summary of the article, perhaps the lead quickly reveals to the reader that it is going to be a lump of contentious factoids vying to assert false\true, and can look elsewhere for an encyclopaedic article. cygnis insignis 20:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I noticed that some recent edits had the side effect of introducing a large POV in the lead, but I'm not sure what to do about it. However, it is clear (see WP:LEAD) that even POVs in the lead must be sourced. The AAH seems harmless enough, and I don't think it needs to be dismissed in the lead, although I can't point to any particular issue that I think "must" be changed (except that each POV needs to be sourced). I suppose I would be happy if the second para was drastically shortened: essentially it needs to stop fairly soon after "has been criticised by the scientific community". I also noticed the ref to "The Art of Diving" and wondered if it was a scholarly attempt to investigate an aspect of the AAH (if not, it is WP:OR to put it here). In addition, while not particularly a problem, I wonder why "Ancient Greece" features in the lead. Surely it would be absurd to think that Ancient Greece is sufficiently relevant that it needs mention in the lead (but not in the article!). Johnuniq (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding, and I'm not an anthropologist so this must be a very qualified opinion, is that the AAH has little to no mainstream support, and isn't investigated much by anthropologists. This would make it a fringe theory, and therefore the art of diving book would be suitable per WP:PARITY as a source to debunk claims.  If attention is primarily popular, with minimal scholarly interest, we shouldn't be portraying it as a mainstream, going concern and serious contender within the anthropological community.  Ideally what is needed is a recent scholarly publication in a respected, high-impact scholarly journal that reviews and summarizes both the recent evidence.  I would also like a winning lottery ticket, and if it truly is a fringe theory, the chances seem equally probable.  Some sources suggest that it's a significant, if minority opinion:


 * though this uses the term "savanna hypothesis", which as far as I know is only used by AAH proponents much like "Darwinism" is used by creationists and it doesn't seem to be published in a reliable source
 * Other sources portray it as popularly appealing but scientifically ignored:


 * this book has a chapter on it, and is relatively enthusiastic, until it gets to the evidence and points out that there is none - the AAH is a theory only, with tremendous explanatory power and no real evidence. This makes it rather unproveable in my mind, but that's my opinion
 * this book says much the same thing, lots of potential and little evidence
 * this book is a bit too conspiracy theory for my tastes, but does restate the evidence and also point out that the theory has minimal attention in mainstream anthropology
 * from the Greenwood Publishing Group comes this discussion, which points out the same things - AAH has some compelling explanatory power, minimal mainstream support, frequent popular appearances and little serious attention
 * the Darwin Awards has an essay on the topic and says much the same thing - popular appeal, little evidence or serious scrutiny.
 * Overall, my opinion woud be these sources suggest steering the page more towards the idea that it is a popular theory, with little mainstream anthropological support or evidence (which can be verified with near-verbatim quotes in many of these sources). For me the NPOV nature of the page is striking the right balance between the claimed evidence for the theory, avoiding undue weight on the idea that it is a serious contender within the mainstream scientific circles, problems with the evidence available and avoiding the conspiracy-mongering "it's because it was presented by a woman/outsider/in a popular magazine/they're all snobs" that seems to be found in many "pro" articles and books.
 * Incidentally, it's my understanding of OR that it only applies if editors attempt to put forward their own arguments. If it's a source, then the questions are regarding reliability, weight and parity.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's amazing what a little google will come up with - something from Discover,, a ScienceBlogs post . One thing that I may see as a problem is the use of various unreliable webpages that float about, like riverapes, that if given too much oomph will overwhelm the page with "evidence" that's not subject to peer review or the oversight required of reliable sources.  I like where the intro page of aquaticape.org is going, but would rather mine it for sources than actually use it.  Interestingly, it is cited positively twice thrice on ScienceBlogs, once in the above url, a second time by PZ Myers (here) and a third time below.  ScienceBlogs in my experience is like Talk.origins - good as a source to refute pseudoscience or fringe claims, but not good as an outright source for hard-core science.  This many positive comments about Moore's aquaticape site suggests it might be a good choice as an external link and inline citation.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Another two ScienceBlogs posts and, this time by a paleoanthropologist, and again critical of AAH.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

WLU: Thanks for the info which I will digest later. Above, you say that if the AAH is a fringe theory then WP:PARITY allows use of the "The Art of Diving" as a suitable source. In general, yes, but do you know if that source mentions AAH? I think it would be WP:OR to effectively say "AAH makes a claim about the diving reflex, but the claim is not required because of what this source says about hypothermia". That is, we should only use a source that has considered what the AAH actually claims, and that has then made an assertion about the claim. I agree that it is frustrating to combat a hypothesis with many vague claims, but I think that an attempt is required. Johnuniq (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The source is actually linked to a google books preview - click on the linked page number and it'll take you directly to the discussion. Per WP:SYNTH, I would oppose any discussion where the source wasn't explicit about the link to the wikipedia page.  Here's the link,, it is missing some of the lead-in to the section, but that is mostly about the history of the theory.  The points cited on the main page are there.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When I click that link, I see a "Brief overview" (with no mention of AAH), and "No preview available". I cannot work out whether "The Art of Diving" mentions the AAH or whether it is just used as a source for information about the diving reflex. Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The art of diving mentions the AAH specifically and explicitly on page 192. If you don't have a gmail or other google account, it's possible you may miss out on previews for google books because others on the same IP address have already seen their preview limit.  I've never had a problem with previews on google books, and I'm guessing my gmail account is why.  The section that discusses the aquatic ape idea is called "Back to the Sea" and is about 2/3 of a page, discussing the waterlogging of human skin, the positioning of the nostrils and the mammalian diving reflex as specific reasons why the idea doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.  If you still can't see it, you may have to track down a paper copy.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would definitely recommend linking to Jim Moore's page from this article until further progress is made on it. I have carefully read through http://www.aquaticape.org: the site is a very honest dissection of a majority of the AAH arguments of its primary proponents and a goldmine of diligently tracked references, corrected mis-quotes etc. Moore gives much more (varifiable) information than present here. It is a major AAH reference source (though not a primary source).85.70.228.57 (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a note on possible external links - there is a DMOZ page already appended, and it contains riverapes and Moore's aquaticape site, so there's no need or reason to link to them specifically. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WLU, I see your point here, but why you removed riverapes.com link while inserted aquaticape.org link, that contradicts what you said? I think both websites are excellent resources to AAH, aquaticape.org is the major criticizing site and riverapes.com is the major defending one, they make a good balance and both worth a link. If talking about degree of influence, both sites are now in top 3 in google search (keyword "aquatic ape"). Chakazul (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have submitted the TED lecture to the DMOZ for inclusion. If it is picked up, I'd like to remove all external links except the DMOZ.  I would only include aquaticape.com as a balancing source to the undeniable "proponent" link of the TED lecture.  Remove the TED lecture, I fully support removing the aa.com page.
 * Disagree It is not our job to restrict information. Having two pro-AAH links to one anti does not mean we support the theory, it just means that if people want to read more they can. That is what an encyclopaedia is for. If there are good links that do not overlap, let's list them all, subject to MoS of course, pro or anti. JMcC (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The relevant guideline is WP:EL, which states that links should be kept to a minimum and endorses the DMOZ as a preferred option. All of these links would be present in the DMOZ and there is therefore no issue with balancing pro and anti sites, with no reason to include more links.  In addition, we are exhorted to avoid bias.  Having two "pro" links is unnecessary and undue weight, particularly when the DMOZ contains them all.  If the DMOZ does include the TED lecture, perhaps a request for comment would be appropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood your intentions. I concur that we should leave the external links as they are until the TED lecture is on the DMOZ list. JMcC (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'll monitor the DMOZ page until a decision is made and if TED appears I'll remove them all. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would dispute the description of aquaticape.org as "honest". There are clear examples, if one bothers to go and look at the sorces of his allegations, where it is Moore who's doing the misquoting and the distorting. See (http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Arguments/JimMoore/JMHome.htm) for a full critique. In my opinion he clearly has a distinct bias against the idea and his agenda is to exaggerate it to the point it seems ridiculous. There is a tendency for rational, naturally -sceptical people to assume that whenever there is an idea that is not endorsed by the academic mainstream then it must be pseudoscience. It is a tendency Moore has capitalised on to the full. We see it clearly here when UTC just naturally assumes it is Moore who is being "honest" and, presumably, Elaine Morgan who is not. Most of the web site amounts to an attempted character assasination of her. Clearly UTC, and many others, have never shown anywhere near the same degree of scepticism about Moore himself as they have to any proponents of the idea. I am going to remove the links to this masquerading web site. The citations on this page should be just to the literature and not to web sites written by non-specialists that have not been peer reviewed. Algis Kuliukas, 5/11/2009.
 * Just removed all links to that site now. If anyone suggests they should be put back in I will want to know why pro-aquatic web sites shouldn't also be linked too for balance. Algis Kuliukas, 5/11/2009.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.6.204 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 5 November 2009
 * Moved per WP:TALK. The AAH is not accepted by mainstream anthropology.  Moore provides specific criticisms of specific claims and provides rebuttals to specific points that would otherwise remain unchallenged.  Many scholars point to Moore's site approvingly.  It is therefore due weight on the scholarly opinion that there is no merit or acceptance to the theory.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The TED lecture
It may be worth setting out the arguments for and against the link to the TED lecture by Elaine Morgan appearing here. It is a brief exposition of the theory by its main proponent, so some of the editors who have added the link only to find it removed may still be puzzled. Some advice would also be welcome on a name that can be given to the alternative theory on what caused the divergence of humans from the other apes. JMcC (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In general I support all efforts to prune external links, and to avoid unreliable sources. However, when I noticed the lecture had been added again, I did not remove it because I'm not as convinced about the need to remove it as some others. I tried to watch the video a few days ago, but gave up after several minutes because it looked pretty waffly and unhelpful. OTOH it's doubtful that we would even have an article on this topic if Morgan had not written her books, so I don't see any harm in including it, although I would not want that to be a precedent for links to every other statement by Morgan available on the net. One argument against the link is that it should be added to the dmoz page, and this article already links to dmoz. However, that argument could be used to exclude nearly all links on all articles, so I don't find it totally convincing. I guess I'm sitting on the fence, with an inclination to accept the link (exactly what harm would it do?). Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Morgan isn't a recognized scholar, and plays the conspiracy card far too often in defending her theory while not addressing the substantive points of her critics. The theory has no mainstream support despite decades of history, and I would consider it undue weight to portray it as either a serious theory within paleoanthropology or any other studies of human evolution.  Without a "countering" source, the most accessible link we have in the EL section is one that is unabashedly positive of a theory that has in fact been considered and rejected.  Even in general, a popular presentation by a popular source is not the best and most encyclopedic link for a page.  I don't really have a problem with the lecture being on Elaine Morgan, but not here.  I would even suggest removing the BBC series for the same reason.  It's ultimately a brief interview on a theory that has minimal mainstream support that will have no impact on actual studies of human evolution.
 * As for alternative theories for human evolution, there are many, but none include a lengthy period by and in water. This is not a viable alternative theory of evolution, it's a popularized caricature of a theory that has no substantive mainstream support.  In the mainstream sources that cover human evolution, scientific journals and the like, these claims are not covered.  It also conflicts with the prevailing view within the relevant scientific community, and proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.  These are two of the three tripwires found in WP:REDFLAG.  I can dig up some sources to substantiate these points if anyone is interested, but it'll take a bit of time.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is about the theory: ie what is in it, who proposed it and its status in academia, but it does not try to come to any conclusion about it. I think there is a subtle difference between a reference and an external link. The inclusion of the TED lecture as an external link would not add to the evidence for AAT, which a reference would be attempting to do. A reference provides support for an assertion of a fact, whereas an external link can be included if the site's content is proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.) I even think it meets the criteria as factual because it gives a reliable statement of the theory and its status, without necessarily confirming the reliability of the theory. If there was a similar external link in the article about the Flying Spaghetti Monster that showed its proponents extolling its virtues, I would include it. If there is a link to a source summarising the scientifically accepted factors that drove human evolution and caused our unique anatomical characteristics, I would include that also. JMcC (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a theory though, and would be like including a similar link on the creation-evolution controversy. It gives undue weight to the idea that the hypothesis has serious attention (though not as extreme - NOBODY serious believes in creationism, some people are willing to entertain AAH).  I wouldn't consider the link meeting the "factual" criteria because Morgan's claims aren't reliable, she's not reliable, and she's not a relevant expert.  FSM isn't a fair comparison in my mind because FSM is a deliberate and known satire, and is expressed as such in all its venues.  This is described by proponents as a "real" theory but described by experts as flawed, discarded and not worth serious attention.  As far as your final sentence, that sort of link would be found in human evolution, not here.  A comparable external link would be a discussion by a reliable critic or expert pointing out the myriad flaws of the theory, which won't happen because as far as the scientists are concerned, they've thought about it and discarded it.  I still consider it undue weight on a minority opinion.  Portraying it as a serious but neglected theory, as this link does, misrepresents the reality of things - a considered and rejected theory.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In 2004 Colin Groves, an Australian professor, said it was worth considering. Has he rejected it since? If not, there is still some disagreement in academia and so the assertion it has been rejected cannot be made. We can't therefore use our personal opinions to determine which links we include and which to exclude. JMcC (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I restored the link because there appears to be a consensus to include it. I edited the link to state it was a proponents talk, the neutral description given at the site, and gave an link to the publisher's article; the reader is in no way being misinformed and can ponder or ascertain the veracity of either. It is likely to reinforce any prejudice toward the theory/hypothesis, pro or con, and is 1. a notable external link 2. from a notable source 3. to a speaker whose contribution to science has been notable (she was the recipient of a University honour for that). Removing it was done with apparent good faith, but I gently suggest that it was censorious for the wrong reasons; as noted above, this is a link to a recent talk by an 'expert' on promoting this page's topic. By the way, who is this David Attenborough fella she was going on about? cygnis insignis 17:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I undid the removal of the Groves quote, given above. cygnis insignis 18:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I still think it's inappropriate to include the TED lecture for the same reasons - its a fringe theory with no real mainstream support or acceptance, and the TED lectures themselves are apparently falling into disrepute among serious scientists because of things like this. I can't claim that the latter point is absolutely correct, but I believe this was mentioned in a ScienceBlog entry.

Regarding Groves' book Bones, Stones and Molecules, the discussion is so incredibly minute that it's not even worth including. The AAH is discussed exactly once in the book, and the quote that I removed was everything the book contained about the AAH. Hardly a ringing endorsement, there's barely a summary of the theory and no examination of its precepts. Placing this on the page looks like undue weight to the point of quote mining to me - has there been any actual discussion anywhere by Groves or others? I was considering including the book as a reference, but frankly it's such a short bit of text (again, the quote that was on the page is the only mention that exists in the book!) it's nearly immaterial and certainly doesn't indicate what originally led the paragraph ("However there has since been some acceptance..."). Without further evidence that Groves has published on the subject, this is akin to claiming increased support for a theory because in one book, in one short discussion, one person stated there may be merit to considering it, once. In fact, that's exactly what has happened here. As I discuss above, there is lots of evidence that the theory has no strong factual backing, no strong community backing, no extensive discussion within paleoanthropology, and now that I've read aquaticape.org from beginning to end, that page points out that much of the evidence Morgan amasses doesn't actually support her points. If Groves five sentence blurb is the best that can be mustered to indicate the theory has support, has gained support, and is substantively discussed, then we certainly should't be claiming that it's taken seriously at all.

I sincerely believe it is misleading to readers to claim that there is acceptance of the theory within the scholarly community because of five sentences in a single book. I would like to remove the quote again, but will wait for greater discussion. Please look at the actual quote in the google books preview, and please use the "search inside" feature to look for other mentions - they are not there. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The fact that an academic says, however briefly, that there might something in it cannot be ignored. The quote is not selective; it gives the whole paragraph. Perhaps the problem is in the use of the words 'support' and 'acceptance' in describing Groves's stance. Perhaps wording along the lines of "it has not been dismissed" might remove WLU's disquiet. The problem is not the quote but what we make of it. JMcC (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not that the quote is selective, it's that it is a single paragraph in a whole book. Stating that a theory has found some acceptance based on that single paragraph strikes me as disingenuous.  Where is Groves' discussion of where it has been discussed, the scientific papers that evaluate one aspect or another, the discussion of skeletal changes, gene flows, divergence from our common ancestor with chimpanzees, isotope measurements indicating consumption of seafood (which I'm not sure would work...), etc?  This is a terrible source to base the idea that the theory has gained some acceptance.  Search google books for the phrase (helps if you have a google account by the way, you get more previews than a bare IP address) and there turn up multi-page discussions of the theory, but they all end with "even though it's a conceptually compelling theory, there's no evidence".  I've been looking through google books for an hour now, and I get a lot of idle speculation with no references to actual journal articles.  Scientific articles discussing the theory would certainly indicate discussion and acceptance but there don't seem to be any.  Per WP:UNDUE with a bit of interpretation, if a significant minority of scholars support this theory, then it should be easy to demonstrate this.  If there is nothing but idle speculation and no research, I don't think it's appropriate to claim it has, or has gained any acceptance, nor is it appropriate to portray it as anything but idle speculation with no serious support.  In my opinion the first step to resolving this would certainly be the removal of the leading sentence.
 * I've returned the TED lecture to the EL section by the way. I hope the DMOZ adds it soon.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Another source saying the AAH is not taken seriously - a course syllabus (see section 3) . "While there is a very compelling list of similarities, there is LITTLE OR NO HARD EVIDENCE to support the theory. Read about it and see what you think. This theory is not generally regarded seriously..."  Rather amusingly, the purpose of the assignment is to "write an essay on why the aquatic ape hypothesis is dismissed as pseudoscience."  There is also a common feature in many of the referral sites to state "the theory is dealt with quite thoroughly here."  Ultimately for me, on one side there is one book that, with five sentences and no discussion of the actual evidence and scholarly citations, claims the theory has significant support or is gaining ground.  On the other side, there are the five references I added yesterday (one for every sentence in Groves' book) saying it's not accepted.  I'm also unable to find any real recent substantial discussion on google scholar.  The heyday for the theory seemed to be back in the early 90's where there were numerous discussions, but there's little after the year 2000 that isn't a brief mention or the work of a single proponent (Mark Verhaegen).  What I'd really like to see is the 1996 journal article " Adventures in pseudoscience: The aquatic ape theory" which appears to be published in Science (not sure about that, I couldn't find a copy on google and I would think Science would be so prominent as making an article easy to find).  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A link to the text, "Adventures in Pseudoscience: The Aquatic Ape Theory" is here. cygnis insignis 20:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made a few changes in the hope that anyone reading this article could not be any illusions about the status of this hypothesis in the academic community. Perhaps we can move on to something else now. JMcC (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This claim still does not indicate the theory is accepted, it's literally saying the theory can't be excluded, which is very different. A lengthy quote still placed undue weight on the idea that the AAH has any scholarly merit.  The best that can be said is people find it an intriguing idea with no substantial discussion or evidentiary support.  I've retained the reference but reworded and moved it to the bottom.  There are lots of sources that state the idea has no substantial merit or following, based on pure weight of numbers (not examining evidence) those should be represented as mainstream in the article.  I also dislike the idea of using "opponents claim the facts don't stand up".  If we can cite the aquaticapes.org cite, it makes a series of specific, referenced claims that illustrate the facts do not support the theory.  I'm willing to write up a point-counterpoint if acceptable, but I think it's excessive because first it presents the idea that there is merit to this data, then points out that there's not.  The onus is on the proponents to prove that the theory has merit before it can be taken seriously.  They have failed at this, Morgan herself failing spectacularly.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why should we repress the references to Elaine Morgan (e.g. removing her TED talk link), because she is not a recognized scholar I agree, while retain/encourage the references to Jim Moore for example (e.g. including many of his points in "Criticisms" section), who is also clearly not a recognized scholar. I mean we better be fair. Moreover I see a few editors here try to evaluate whether AAH is a fringe/pseudoscience by his own judgement (which is not a problem), and use this judgement to support his editing (which is a big problem here). If something as big as a TED talk has taken place, why not link to it and let the reader to judge himself whether Elaine Morgan was talking something good or something rubbish? Chakazul (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Parity of sources applies. TED is on the page now, as is Moore.  Moore is the primary reference for criticisms, it's essentially the site that people are referred to for debunking, by many sources.  Everything is referenced, none of the criticisms are editor's opinions, and the reason Moore is used for so many rebuttals is because he has examined the theory thoroughly and found it wanting through references to much primary material, including those used by Morgan herself.
 * The reason the reader won't "judge what is good" is Morgan doesn't present her opponent's point of view. Serious scholars don't pay attention to the theory.  An opposing set of references and the opposing link in the EL section is appropriate per WP:EL.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:Parity applies to a "fringe" theory, which is not the case of AAH any more. You said "Serious scholars don't pay attention to the theory", what's your reason on this claim? Pls see my comments in next section. Chakazul (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been demonstrated that the AAH has recieved any serious scrutiny, and many sources explicitly indicate that it has in fact not received serious scrutiny - see the references in the Criticisms and Receptions sections of the main page. In order to make the claim that the AAH is taken seriously, then good research on the topic must be presented and included; ideally this would include mainstream paleontology sources that discuss it at length, and the truly best indication of this would be review articles, textbooks and other secondary sources.  The problem with fringe theories is that proponents often spend their time publishing in low-calibre journals and on wikipedia can therefore be cited, meanwhile the mainstream community essentially ignores the theory, it doesn't appear in high-calibre journals at all, it isn't investigated or refuted by scientists and scholars because they have better things to do, and the result is an uncomfortable parity.  That's why WP:PARITY, WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG as well as editorial judgement all apply and are important.  Otherwise, orthomolecular medicine would look like real medicine, or creationism would appear a serious challenge to evolution when really they're essentially laughed out of mainstream research.
 * Cherry-picking isolated sources and claiming there is therefore mainstream support is not the way to build the page. Take an actual mainstream theory of human evolution and see how many sources there are discussing it - I would guess they are on the order to ten to a hundred times more, easily.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't mix the opinion of mainstream paleoanthropology/paleontology with the general scientific community. There are many branches deal with human evolution, like genetics, medicine, health science, cognitive science, primatology, even aquatic mammalogy if you consider AAH. AFAIK, there are publication supports and indirect evidences from these fields. You can't compare AAH to e.g. creationism which is not accepted by the whole scientific community.
 * Back to the link issue, quality is more important than quantity. The TED talk is a major event (no matter you agree with Ms Morgan or not), Aquaticape.org is a good extensive refuting site but made by amateur, on the contrary Riverapes.com is made by an academic scientist (with publications e.g. ). If there is a detailed refuting website made by a professional, I'll not hesitate to include it!
 * Now you can't limit the number of proponent links because there's only 1 in opponent side. And it gives a wrong impression that -- ok, Elaine Morgan say these things, and Aquaticape.org is the final conclusion of them all (dispite the existence of another website with supporting arguements). Chakazul (talk) 05:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The TED lectures aren't quality, they're about as useful as Medical Hypotheses as a source - it's meant to present a forum for weird, unusual, interesting and unproven ideas. It's not a reliable source, it's not a good source, and it's certainly not a watershed in acceptance of the AAH.  Morgan is not a researcher, not a published scholar in any peer-reviewed journals, and certainly hasn't garnered the support of the field.  The reason Moore's site is used is because of WP:PARITY - AAH is a fringe theory and the bar for criticism is lower.  Claiming a fringe idea is not supported requires much less rigour than claiming a fringe idea is.  And as I've said before, as soon as Morgan's TED talk is incorporated into the DMOZ, I plan on removing all links except the DMOZ.
 * If any of the disciplines you mentioned have issued sources which explicitly research, support, and publish information that explicitly accepts and supports the AAH, then it should be easy to provide reliable sources in that regard. The fact that no real sources have cropped up is evidence that the AAH isn't well accepted.  I've three books on human origins at home by university press.  None mention Morgan or the AAH.  It's not a real theory.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Fringe theories noticeboard
Note comment. If the AAH is not a fringe theory, then the venue is inappropriate and the discussion here or there should reflect this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, this is a fringe theory alright.Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

well, let's say it is 'marginal' within academia. This is unlike most of the insanely cranky material we tend to see at FTN. Actually one of the theories I tend to regret are probably not true. It's a marginal minority hypothesis, but it's still scholarly. --dab (𒁳) 16:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * AAH used to be considered as a fringe theory or a rejected hypothesis, but it's not true anymore. AFAIK, there are many renowned professionals support/are sympathetic to AAH, like Phillip Tobias, Frans de Waal, Desmond Morris, Michel Odent, Richard Ellis, to name a few, plus numerous researchers working on it. There're several ongoing researches on various human semi-aquatic adaptations (e.g. wading bipedalism, marine nutrition, infant diving reflex), with peer-reviewed papers being published (I could provide a list of reference if needed). So AAH has advanced far from Elaine Morgan's original framework.
 * True that AAH is not accepted by most paleoanthropologist by now, but paleoanthropology is only one of the many disciplines that study human origin and evolution. In the scientific community as a whole, I see there's a balance of supporting and criticizing voices for AAH, not a overwhelming rejection.
 * So if this article is often edited according to WP:FRINGE, i think we should have some adjustment here. Chakazul (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In order for the page to change, you'll have to provide these papers. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are some of the publications implicitly or explicitly supports AAH: wading bipedalism, marine nutrition  , (infant) diving reflex  , kidney structure . (I'll add them into the article when have time) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chakazul (talk • contribs)
 * Medical Hypotheses is explicitly a journal of speculation and can't be used for anything. In fact, it's been through a major controversy recently for its publication of an AIDS denialism article which is making Elsevier re-think the title.  It's written and read with the attitude of "that's neat, too bad it's not actually proven".  It's a journal for kicking around ideas.  At best its speculation but I will add it as a part of the possible adaptations section.
 * The nature article is more than 20 years old and in that time has been cited 4 times. Not to mention, that's appears to be a letter to the editor and not an actual publication. Bipedalism has many possible explanations but the AAH is not a widely accepted one - as far as I know it's seen as a mosaic trait that evolved due to many selective pressures rather than a single one, over millions of years.  Verhaegen and Kuliukas are both strong proponents of the theory who haven't managed to convince with or publish their ideas sufficient to sway mainstream research.
 * The marine nutrition idea is already included and addressed - our DHA requirements are pretty low and easily acquired through a shore diet. Not to mention inland populations hardly suffer from a lack of fish.
 * The infant diving reflex is similarly already there as well, but does need a citation. The Celestial Arts book isn't from a reliable publisher, and the spleen article doesn't mention the AAH or Morgan at all, it merely points out that we share a single common trait with aquatic animals, making it WP:OR to include in the article.  It certainly doesn't state that humans passed through a significant phase of adaptation to the water, in fact it doesn't seem to mention evolution at all.  I'll use the Odent book just for a cheap citation.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Popularity
Regards this edit, one of the frequent complaints or claims about the theory is that it has had a very long life, and refuses to die despite being examined and discarded by scientists. I tried for a better wording, if anyone still objects then remove it again and I'll try to dig up some sources to illustrate my point. If this isn't apparent in the body text already then it should be. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless you have sources that speak to the popularity of the hypothesis directly this would fall under WP:SYNTH.Simonm223 (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it turns out I was wrong - I re-read everything that I could access from here and didn't find anything explicitly supporting the point. There are a couple discussions about how the theory won't die and how it is entrancing in its ability to explain "everything", but little about its popularity among lay and graduate student audiences.  My apologies and obviously I won't be re-adding it unless I find a source that explicitly supports it.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Stating the hypothesis
We now take more space giving the objections to the theory than to the theory itself. Should we add more in the hypothesis section to explain what is being objected to? If we do this, would this attract counter-arguments in the same section, and so make the article balloon? Thoughts, please. JMcC (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is necessary.Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No reason was given in Simonm223's reply. Can you have a valid encyclopaedia article without giving details of the subject? Could this be regarded as censorship? JMcC (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is ample detail on the hypothesis. It is not necessary to "balance" the criticism by putting in more detail about it if that detail is otherwise supurfluous, unencyclopaedic or unnotable.Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, we get it – the AAH is wrong! But there is no need to use POV language, and it is absolutely not ok to add unsourced editorial like "Although some of these differences between Humans and other Great Apes are valid others are disputed." Per WP:NPOV we do not use "claim" instead of "state" for each pro-AAH point, and we have to decide if this article is about the AAH or Morgan. Yes, it is essentially Morgan's theory now, but there is no reason to label each point as "Morgan claims...". Also, just under the "Hypotheses" header the statement "humans exhibit many significant differences..." appears, with a source. If the source is invalid, remove it. But do not say "Morgan claims..." unless that is what the source says. Accordingly, I have removed your recent edits. Johnuniq (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is also incorrect to present Morgan's ludicrous claim that we are hairless like whales as if it were a fact.Simonm223 (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't quite say "like whales", but I'm not objecting to any sourced, NPOV wording pointing out an error in the AAH. I understand the difficulty of finding sources because a relevant scientist who thinks Morgan's statements are wrong is not going to publish a paper pointing that out. At any rate, if you would like to outline why something in the article is a ludicrous claim, your text might serve as the basis for an addition to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I also feel strange that the "criticisms" part is much longer and detailed then the "hypothesis" itself. It's not about bias, but about balance and the article structure. E.g. the point "descended larynx" only has 3 words in the hypothesis, but there's a whole paragraph to counter it. It's utterly unbalanced. And e.g. "bipedalism", the criticism states that "the human fossil record demonstrates ... rather than an abrupt transition to an aquatic environment", but there's no "abrupt transition" mentioned in the hypothesis part. It will make readers really confused. I think we should at least make the two parts balanced. (I also question aquaticape.org as the "source" of many of the criticisms instead of scientific papers) Chakazul (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Undent. It's tough to defend putting in a list of reasons why Morgan (or any other advocate) thinks the AAH holds water (hah) when there's no real substantive scholarly discussion. Even though the page is mostly criticism (which is a problem) we still shouldn't put up a list of evidnece accompanied by a set of point-counterpoints. I would suggest shortening the page considerably and trying to collapse the body into a much more streamlined (hah) organization where it mostly discusses history and reception with no real discussion of evidence (as most sources say, there isn't any - the AAH is primarily an exercise in comparative anatomy). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with WLU that this is likely the best solution.Simonm223 (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am an agnostic on this subject. I really do not know if the theory holds up, but if a respected professor says it has to be taken seriously, who am I to argue? It is therefore a 'real theory', even if it is partly or totally wrong, like Steady State. Consequently I have no objection to the section on its reception being better structured, but do not use this as an excuse to delete the hypothesis itself. It deserves some mention in the article, since that is what it about! JMcC (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We aren't talking about an AfD. We are talking about trimming the article (which is subject to some bloat currently) back to a reasonable length.Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Groves quote may be inconsistent with other scientific views, but it is significant in a section entitled 'Reception'. It takes only a few characters and so cannot be said to be giving undue weight given the length of the the whole section. JMcC (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Rewritten, please review. The biggest change was breaking up the reception section into multiple ares but I've also tried to elaborate on the theory a bit more with some of the "evidence" for the AAH - this could be cautiously expanded, but before doing so I would suggest examining the aquatic apes page first since many of the claims are badly flawed if not outright incorrect.  Obviously I didn't follow my own suggestion regards removing evidence, but I did phrase it as "observations" instead - it's not really evidence, it's just stuff people have noticed (in many cases, spurious correlations).
 * Groves' opinion is fundamentally his opinion, and he's also talking about only one aspect of the AAH (bipedalism), and all he's really saying is that it can't be discarded as a possible scenario. He's also one guy, while we have further up in the paragraph a much better position statement from a body of scholars - his opinion flies in the face of other claims and evidence that the theory isn't that sophisticated, and that it shouldn't be taken seriously.  Quotes stand out, and should be used judiciously.  In this case, the quote would be so short it would look like it's summarizing a longer argument, which it's not, and it's also totally unnecessary.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Un-indent I think WLU has improved the article greatly. The intro now is more concise and the criticisms are better summarised. I thought that some of the history was worth keeping since the article isn't all that big. Hardy's quote is in because it is the statement of the hypothesis, even though there is no QED at the end. The "evidence" in the hypothesis section has been expanded by including a few additional observations in Elaine Morgan's books. Whether you believe them or not, they have been advanced. However I have to admit to dropping the one about predators because there is an element of frying pan and fire if you are chased into water in Africa. It seems very weak to me and I can't remember Morgan even proposing it. JMcC (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Morgan makes multiple claims of safety from predators ; there's a lot of equally weak claims that are included on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are quite correct. Put it in if you like, but it tends to muddy the waters. ( No pun intended) Some of the other claims are more intriguing and need more attention. Answering the point about predators might leave the other points unanswered. JMcC (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the problem - with 6 books by Morgan alone and it being a theory of everything, nearly every single aspect of human physiology can be claimed as evidence. And as other discussions indicate, it's horribly, horribly flawed evidence.  I would again suggest looking at specific claims on the aquaticapes.org page and see how confident you are about including them.  The whole back-and-forth makes it difficult to know what to include in the page.  What about salty tears?  Emotional crying?  Sweat glands?  Finger webbing?  And the list goes on... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree there is a tendency to lob every single difference in physiology into the argument in the hope it might stick. However that is the nature of many academic debates. I would tend to miss out the minor ones, though I recognise this means applying judgement in a field of which I know little. AAH is unfortunate (opponents might say fortunate) in having nothing but anatomical and physiological differences to go on. I wonder even if the skeleton of a shore-dwelling hominid were found, would there be any distinguishing features in the bones anyway. Looking at it another way, it would be very surprising if an intelligent animal that might have been under frequent pressure in its normal habitat over the millennia did not look longingly at the abundance of food in water. The reaction against the possibility that some of these creatures might better at it than others has always struck me as surprising. However I suspect we will never really know the role played by aquatic sources of food. In this light the article is looking good. JMcC (talk) 09:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think "having nothing but anatomical and physiological differences" is a misfortune not only for AAH, but also for the whole investigation of human origin -- there're too few fossils to say anything. I always wonder why only fossil records could be counted as "hard evidences", but not the living soft tissues? Look at the case of elephants, although one can argue that its living features (snorkel-like nose, hairless skin, kidney structure, ability of long distance swimming) suggest an aquatic ancestry, it's not wide accepted until fossil teeth evidence was found. Before our human fossil hunters have any luck, we could only discuss about the anatomical and physiological features, which is already a good mind excercise. Chakazul (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's widely accepted that elephants had an aquatic ancestor, and the kidney morphology changes are seen as explicit and unquestionable evidence of this that is not shared with related species. The AAH is a mind exercise, but one that we do not indulge in - we only cite what others have said.  We aren't allowed to claim or point out changes we think support the theory, only those that others have said support it.  And it's still a fringe theory that per WP:UNDUE can't be portrayed as a mainstream hypothesis within human evolution. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Issues
The article still takes some unnecessary delight in rubishing the AAH, but it is much better than some of the earlier versions. Due to the large changes, there were several instances of broken wording that I believe I have fixed (although I'm not entirely happy with some of my changes: search for "in proximity to water" for one point that might be improved). Attention is needed for: I noted the above issues while working through the article and will return in due course. Johnuniq (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Lead, para 1: "an alternative explanation" is awkward (alternative to what?). Maybe "a proposed explanation"?
 * Lead, para 2 is broken, but I don't quite understand what was intended, so I left it in the hope that reading the misplaced words will remind someone what they wanted to say.
 * In the "Anatomical and physiological claims" section, second point ("Breath control"), the following needs rewording: "because of the increased complexity and use of speech".
 * The "Reception" section needs toning down, although I'm not sure how atm. Sometimes, piling on attacks is counter productive.
 * I don't mind "alternative" since it seems an accurate and adequate description to me - it's not mainstream and it's not considered discredited. Really the theory presents itself as an alternative to the "savanna hypothesis", which is itself a red herring since its charicature of that theory is both outdated and inaccurate.
 * I would say the reception section is the application of due weight - the theory is lovely and compelling in its explanatory power, but lacking in proof and is simply not taken seriously for myriad reasons. If sources can be found to illustrate that the academic community has taken it seriously (Groves' statement is not evidence of this, he's saying that it could be taken seriously) then it can be adjusted.  But I haven't seen anything that indicates most paleontologists really think there's merit to it.  We have to follow the sources, but unless there are sources out there that I've missed out on from mainstream journals and scholarly books that suggest the theory has a lot of merit and acceptance, it's a failed venture.  Before making substantial changes, I would suggest tracking down some high-quality sources to justify the idea that it's got a lot of merit.  Right now, parity of sources seems to apply since it's certainly not competing on an even keel with peer-reviewed articles.
 * Incidentally, this diff is why I was reluctant to put a lot of emphasis on the evidence presented for the AAH - it leads to a long and tedious point-counterpoint over issues and ultimately results in little. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good: you have fixed the above problems, and on re-reading, I find I'm not unhappy about the Reception section. All my objections were based on some previous attempts to inject negative words into the article (an NPOV failure). The current article is much more negative about the AAH than previous versions, but it reads well, is sourced and is NPOV. I still think the "alternative" in the opening sentence is not quite right (purely on general readability grounds; not NPOV). I suppose it makes sense if one thinks of the idiom that an "alternative theory" is a theory that is not accepted by mainstream science. Otherwise, it just sounds odd (is there one "proper" theory for which the AAH is an alternative?). Johnuniq (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, "alternative" is better than "rejected" or "bullshit". Of course there's far more than one theory of human evolution, but they're all actually debated within the scholarly community while this one isn't (as far as I can tell).  I agree it's much better as far as sourcing goes.  If more sources show up that I've missed, then the page can change.  I just didn't see any and there were a lot of sources that stated it wasn't accepted, very explicitly.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"The loss of body hair is also explainable through a lower parasite load" - this is a silly argument. If valid, we would expect all mammals to have a tendency to lose body hair, which we don't. It reminds me of the old argument that we lost body hair so as to not overheat on the savanna, when almost all other savanna mammals retain it. An explanation would have to explain why we're different in this regard. kwami (talk) 10:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's verified by one of the more respected citations, an actual journal article in a high-impact journal. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One common misconception in scientific method is that, one feature could be explained by a valid hypothesis (not a theory) doesn't mean another valid hypothesis cannot try to explain it -- they're on equal grounds until some good evidences come out to prove one of them is true. Chakazul (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And just because something could be explained with a theory doesn't make it true. That's the problem with the AAH - lots of compelling "just-so" explanations with no actual proof.  This point is mentioned explicitly in the article a couple times.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality
This article needs to be edited, because the author does not even try to be neutral, he always gives his own opinion, disguised in terms as "the scientific community" etc. New developments, e.g. the recent excavations in Eritrea (Danakil) are completely ignored. 87.188.242.157 (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is filled with reliable sources. I've also taken out three recent books from the library on human evolution  and none mention the AAH.  If any reliable sources mention the Danakil find as supporting the AAH, they can certainly be sourced.  In addition, there is not one author.  Many editors have contributed to the page and the current version appears to have consensus.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ever heard of Phillip Tobias, Chris Stringer, David Attenborough, Algis Kuliukas or Carsten Niemitz? -- 87.188.247.150 (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See Project Steve - there are tens of thousands of paleontologists who don't publish about the AAH, and even with these authors. It's explicit that there's no proof even if it has theory (which hasn't made a dent on paleontology).  You appear to be asserting truth when wikipedia's standard is verifiability.  It's explicitly verifiable that the theory has no real acceptance.  Wikipedia is not a place to promote a theory or debate an idea.  Until the theory gets mainstream acceptance, it is undue weight to portray it as true, real, or taken seriously.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't get the point. I am critisizing that in this article, only about 30 % of the text is describing the actual theory, whereas twice the space is used to list arguments against the AAH.

I personally think there are great weaknesses in the theory, but it would be appropriate to just say that there are other explanations, then put links to mainstream theories, so the reader can find arguments pro and con and then judge for himself. The article, as it is mow, basically says "This is a short definition of the aquatic ape theory. But the theory is rubbish, as you can see by the multitude of arguments against it." And that definitely is not a neutral point of view.--87.188.213.42 (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like due weight on the prevailing scholarly opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Writer label
In this edit, Cygnis insignis reverted changes by WLU, and statements regarding that action have been made at User talk:Cygnis insignis and briefly at my talk page. I think it best if I state my opinion here. It is true that Morgan is/was a feminist and television writer, and including that statement in Elaine Morgan is fine (and necessary). However, it is WP:OR (or possibly WP:SYNTHESIS) to include the statement here because it is obvious that the purpose of the feminist/television writer label is to denigrate the author, and we have no reliable source which claims that Morgan is only such a person. Introducing the feminist/television label here requires a source that reliably covers the field of AAH and which says that because Morgan was a feminist/television writer her work on AAH should be discounted. I think the article does a pretty good job of pointing out deficiencies in the AAH, and there is no reason to also warn readers that they should ignore Morgan's AAH writing because she has a feminist/television background. Johnuniq (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see it not as a denigration, but as a relevant demonstration of her expertise as a writer is in areas other than paleoanthropology. She is not by training a professional writer of books on human evolution.  She writes professionally for television scripts for which she is well-regarded and award-winning, has a feminist slant and viewpoint, and has written about a theory of human evolution which is not well-accepted.  It is neither original research nor a synthesis to place and source information regarding her qualifications on the page but it may be undue weight.  I do not see it as such.  For instance, Colin Groves is identified as a relevant professional - an anthropologist - when used to support the theory.  This is appropriate attribution which demonstrates due weight on his opinion and professional qualifications.  It is quite notewhorthy that Morgan does not have similar qualifications and is making her statements and publishing her books as an informed amateur with no relevant training or professional experience.  Her work is not ignored, and Morgan is mentioned by name several times on the page (9, including twice in the lead), all of her books on the topic are included in the footnotes and she is further cited six times regarding specific points.  It is obvious that she is a strong proponent, but I really see it as relevant that she is not primarily a scholar of evolution.  Talented amateurs have often made contributions to science, and their ideas stand if supported by data.  It is also already explicitly noted by Regal, 2004 that she believes her theories are not taken seriously due to prejudice.  All of this is relevant to the aquatic ape hypothesis and her role in it.
 * There is also a discussion of talk:Elaine Morgan (writer) for those who are interested, and I've posted a note at the anthropology wikiproject. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Many fine academics are also feminists. Adding the epithet does not help the reader one way or the other, any more than adding 'Labour Party supporter'. I agree that Elaine Morgan starting supporting AAH because the idea of the males losing hair for hunting while the females shivered back home, didn't seem to make sense to her, but if you want to emphasise her credentials, 'playwright' might be better. JMcC (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't consider "feminism" an epithet, but numerous sources do describe her as a writer on feminist topics, such as her BBC entry, as well as the following sources:, , , , , and note this article in which she describes herself as a feminist. There certainly seem to be reliable sources that describe her as a feminist.  I think adding the topic (feminism) adds description, particularly since she apparently composed the AAH in part as a reaction to the male-focussed theories involving hunting and killing that were then extant (an interesting tidbit I wouldn't mind seeing on the page if I can get a sufficiently reliable source).
 * I have no problem with including her most prominent occupation as scriptwriter and playwright at least as a starting point. I just don't see the issue with feminist/femninism being included.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, exactly. She is a feminist, and this is important to her work on the AAH. She wrote Descent of Woman as a direct riposte to anthropologists who only ever talked about "man the hunter". Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Direct quote of Morgan: "I started reading about [human evolution] at the end of the 1960s when Robert Ardrey and Desmond Morris started writing popular science books. I thought, "Not only do I not like the feel of what these people are saying, but I think they've got it wrong." The whole thing was very male centred. It was taken for granted that the important thing was the evolution of "man the hunter". My first book, The Descent of Woman, published in 1972, was a feminist response to that." Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears necessary to justify my above claim that the feminist/television label is intended to denigrate the author (by "denigrate" I only mean that the label is intended to assert that Morgan's work on AAH should be discounted because of her background). In this comment, WLU said "I included the subjects that Morgan wrote on (feminism and television scripts) to demonstrate that her writing is not of a professional scholar, scientist or researcher writing in her area of expertise." It is just not appropriate for us to make that point, whether or not it is true. We do not insert editorial advisories to alert readers that the following opinion is nonsense because it was written by an unqualified person.

In the above comments, the valid point is made that Morgan's feminist background is highly relevant to her initial interest in the field. That is material for Elaine Morgan, and I do not see it as relevant to the AAH article unless we have a reliable source that claims that Morgan's feminist background invalidates her AAH writing. The outlook of one author is not relevant to what the AAH claims or its status. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not denigrate, qualify. She isn't a trained expert in the area, and when asserting that this is a scientific theory, this is important .  This doesn't invalidate her work - scientific work stands on the basis of the evidence that supports it, not on who says it.  But qualifications and expertise are important, much as I say above regards Dr. Groves.  In most sources that mention the AAH, when Morgan comes up, with few exceptions they label her as a feminist and television writer!  If so many sources do so, I fail to see why it's not important here as well.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's simple: Where appropriate, we should quote what a reliable source said (including "feminist television writer not qualified to discuss human evolution" if that's what the source said, and WP:DUE is observed). However, we do not describe an author using terms which are intended to point out the author's lack of qualification. I would be interested to hear the views of others because the matter seems obvious to me, while it appears the opposite is obvious to you. As I said earlier, your major changes to the article fixed a number of problems, made the article sourced and NPOV, and made it much more negative about the AAH – that's good. There is no need to inject POV terminology now. Johnuniq (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's already mentioned that she's an outsider and that may have impacted reception of the theory, but it's quite common to mention someone's occupation, particularly when it impacts the weight of their comments. I simply don't see describing her occupation as POV, particularly when we mention Colin Groves' occupation for the very same reason - to qualify the amount of scholarly weight behind his opinion.  I could be wrong on this, I don't edit BLP pages that much.  I have no objection to the question being posted on WP:BLPN and seeing what others think.
 * I understand you're exaggerating to make your point, but I didn't edit in "unqualified writer" - I put in feminist and television writer with a source. I'd actually much rather have a different qualifier than "feminist" since that does conjour images of bra-burning and encounter groups, but I'm not sure what link I'd use to distinguish between feminism as a topic and feminism as a militant stance.  Any suggestions?  Feminism and television are the two topic areas that are mentioned when her job is brought up.  I wouldn't have used it if I didn't see it so often.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How about 'mainstream feminist'? cygnis insignis 19:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't read any better or worse to me, but if others think it is superior I would certainly endorse it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Another source
, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Related discussion
There is a related discussion at Talk:Elaine Morgan (writer). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

proboscis monkeys
Should have s.t. on proboscis monkeys: mangrove forests, arboreal and aquatic (even marine), forage underwater, observed walking bipedally on land, carrying infants on their hips in the human fashion. Granted that there is no direct evidence for the AAH, and therefore that is must be considered speculation, but a lot of the criticisms (like seals not being bipedal) seem to miss the point. kwami (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Page has become increasingly biased against the AAH
I haven't edited the page for about a year but I've noticed that it's definitely slipped into a state which can only be described as biased against the idea. I am disappointed that wikipedia does not have higher standards than that.

Here are just some comments/examples... The use of the "alternative" is itself a little pejorative. The idea that the "AAH" posits "radical specialization" is a little emotive.
 * The general language of the article sets out, a priori, to give the impression that it is "fringe" at best, pseudosceince at worst.

There are approx. 400 words about the history of the idea, just 340 about the idea itself but over 1,000 words of criticism on it with further 300 words reporting the (negative) reception to it. In my view there should be at least as much about the idea itself as that reporting criticisms of it.
 * The amount of balanced reporting of the idea is far outweighed by that reporting the criticisms of it.

The first sentence in the second paragraph, in my view, illustrates this point completely. "While it is uncontroversial that both H. neanderthalensis and early H. sapiens were better suited to aquatic environments than other great apes,[1][2] the sort of radical specialization posited by the AAH has not been accepted within the scientific community as a valid explanation for human divergence from related primates." To me, and most "AAH" proponents, the first part (that the genus Homo is better adapted than other great apes) is basically all the idea ever was. By agreeing to that, but then chracaterising the AAH as soemthing far more "radical" is simply incorrect, at best, and a gross misrepresntation at worst.
 * The way the idea is portrayed is clearly exaggerating it.

The way the hypothesis is described, by parading an odd-looking list of features as if for ridicule, is not a fair portrayal of the idea or it's strengths. The wading hypothesis of bipedal origins isn't even described properly, but rather it just merely lists a few 'problems' with modern walking. Including rhinos and elephants in the 'nakedness' feature seems to be designed to draw ridicule. The sc fat (especially for infants) doesn't even mention buoyancy. These, including improved voluntary breath control, reduced olfaction and the simultaneous trends of dental reduction, encephalisation and stone tool use should be given greater emphasis and the others less so. Giving webbing between the fingers the same emphasis as the important ones above, again, only seems tobe desgned to draw ridicule.

I think the whole idea should be relabelled "waterside hypotheses of human evolution" to emphasise that the idea is not suggesting anything nearly so extreme as people are being led to believe. I understand that perhaps this is not the place to do it.

The page makes great play on the fact (which I do not contest) that academia has not accepted the idea. Clearly this is true. One only has to look at the literature (as I have done extensively for my masters and PhD over the last ten years) to see that it is not endorsed anywhere and there exist only a few sporadic comments in favour of it. However, it should be stated here that neither has the idea been rejected by the scientific method. The paucity of any proper scientific response to the idea in 50 years is, perhaps, as interesting as the idea itself. And the fact that many people think it's been rejected "by science" is really a myth that should be accurately reported here. What has really happenned is a few key authorities didn't like the idea from day one and since then the idea has either been actively ignored or else openly sneered at. Not much science there, then.
 * "Not accepted" ≠ rejected

Including links to Jim Moore's hostile web site about the idea, when previously links to pro-AAH sites were removed smacks of bias and I have removed them. In my view, either we have a policy that only peer reviewed/published literature is cited or, if we are going to link to web sites hostile to the idea, there should also be links to web sites that promote it too. I actually prefer the later option because it gives the reader more information, rather than less. Whatever state the page is in, it should not be one designed to promote or discredit the idea in an unbalanced way.
 * The citations have become weighted against the idea.

More changes need to be done here to restore the balance and give the public a fair portrayal of this very interesting idea.

AlgisKuliukas (talk) 07:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the links to Moore's site. The theory is fringe.  It is not accepted by mainstream anthropology.  It is therefore appropriate per WP:UNDUE to portray it as such, and not go into your own opinions about what is and is not appropriate.  If you can not get mainstream acceptance for your theories, that is frankly not our problem.  Many people attempt to use wikipedia to promote their own ideas, particularly when they can't do so in a conventional venue.  This is inappropriate.  If you, or any other scholar can get some traction in mainstream journals or scholarly books (that's scholarly, not vanity or popular press) then those sources can be integrated.  But until then, WP:PARITY supports the use of Moore's site to represent the mainstream.  My personal preference would be to remove all claims and counterclaims as inappropriate for each side, but others disagree.  Hence, all must stay.  Please do not remove the links to Moore's site without consensus, though if the same point can be made with a scholarly source (if I ever get around to it I'll try to integrate Langdon some more, which addresses specific claims within a scholarly paper).
 * The AAH is clearly not the mainstream. Irrespective of your opinion that it has merit, and you've been holding that idea for a long time on wikipedia, and know it is inappropriate to push it, the general consensus is that it is not a good explanation for the recent evolutionary changes to humans and is either outright rejected by some scholars or simply ignored.  Until that changes, the page should be biased against the AAH.  That's a fair representation of the scholarly majority.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're biased, WLU. Who do you think you are? You find no problem to censor out pro-AAT sites on the basis that they are not peer reviewed but then you openly support anti-AAH sites by a lay person who has not even demonstrated an 'o' level knowledge of science. What are your qualifications to do this? I have a master's degree in human evolution. My master's thesis was peer reviewed and two of my papers have been published through the peer review process. Jim Moore is just some guy who (like you, apparently) hates this idea. It is one thing to not give credance to what you call is not mainstream theories, it is another to support as "honest" an unsourced, web site, that you clearly have insufficent knowledge of, that is hell bent on discrediting the idea through whatever disreputable means are necessary. If you think it has been "rejected" by scholars maybe we should stick to those scholars (i.e. Langdon, right?) and not a layman who is clearly biased.
 * Whether the idea is in the "mainstream" or not it does not give you the right to butcher it's portrayal in wikipedia. At the end of the day, all I'm doing here is demanding fair play. Take out the pro-AAH sites by all means, but then take out also the anti-AAH sites too. Let's either cite the published literature ONLY or both the pro and the con web sites. Otherwise the page simply becomes biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlgisKuliukas (talk • contribs) 15:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We edit in compliance with our own internal policies. One of those is neutrality, which states that we represent view fairly and proportionately.  The AAH has no strong tradition of mainstream support or acceptance.  Throwing around qualifications won't get you much on wikipedia.  Plus, I have two PhDs in human evolution, so I win.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 10:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Should Jim Moore be cited here?
Notwithstanding the debate about whether the so-called (mislabelled) "aquatic ape hypothesis" (AAH) has been rejected by the scientific method or not (it hasn't, but let's just ignore that for now) the question at issue here is quite specific: Is it ok to cite a layman's web site as a verifiable source for certain criticisms? I think the answer is a definite "no". At least, if the answer is "yes" then pro-AAH web sites should also be included too otherwise the page is biased.

Jim Moore's web site is not peer reviewed literature, it is simply an opinion site. It is very hostile to the idea to the point that he distorts the idea and the writings of proponents. It is grotesque that wikipedia should use his distortions as cited references on this subject.

If we are going to allow citations to hostile web sites (and I am not opposed to that per se) then we must also allow citations to other web sites that promote the idea too.

AlgisKuliukas (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My opinion. Cite peer reviewed books, articles and publications first, then lectures/statements from anthro conferences, then publications by advocates and opponents and finally, any and all web sites.  The web is largely opinion and is often extreme in pov.  WBardwin (talk) 05:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the AAH topic is very difficult to handle because the reliable sources that we would want to cite are (almost always) never going to bother with a topic unless that topic is already compatible with main stream theories. Unlike the many articles on made-up nonsense, the AAH is a serious attempt to apply scientific procedures to examine an interesting hypothesis. The AAH may be irritatingly vague and fundamentally wrong, but it does not involve magic. It seems only rational that if we support WLU's desire to exclude all pro-AAH statements because the sources are not reliable for a scientific article, then we should also support AlgisKuliukas's edits that removed all the anti-AAH sources because they do not meet the standards of peer-reviewed science. WLU will be away for a couple of weeks and I don't expect any meaningful agreements will be made until WLU returns, but my inclination would be to allow the article to use a reasonable amount of space to point out what the supporters say (with their websites as sources), without adding something equivalent to "but that is rubbish because..." before and after each statement. Then, the opposing views can be explained, with Moore's site and any others, as sources. I counsel the anti-AAH people here that their arguments would be much more effective if laid on delicately: let the facts speak (the relevant facts please; omit the editorial warnings to suggest that since Morgan was a feminist TV script writer her statements are wrong). Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a very fair portrayal in my opinion. I would be very happy for the page to contain basically one section indicating the "pro" side with citations allowed to web sites and other sources of further information, followed by a "con" section with all the criticisms listed out, citing Jim Moore's web site because, of course, the subject has almost never been researched by anthropologists. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted again, and want to make something clear - I don't care who gets cited, but someone needs to be. Don't remove a reference for a statement without replacing it with another one. There has to be *some* sort of attribution for as much of the article as is possible. It's rare enough to find a WP article with halfway decent refs, please don't remove refs unless you can replace them with another source. Mokele (talk) 10:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If this information can only be backed up by a layman's web site then both the statements and the citations should be removed. I will do so but something tells me you'll just put them back again. Let's see. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Several sources has been removed on the basis that this is "pseudo-science" (repeat 100 times until it's 'true'), and that reliable sources that actually mention the topic should be excluded by the specious interpretation of WP:PARITY. This wiki-lawyering formula for degrading articles by advocates for a supposed 'mainstream' is appalling: 'Morgan is a pseudo-scientist (ignoring cited credentials), this is her personal freaky theory, therefore extraordinary 'rules' apply and blogs and books on diving are the only appropriate sources'. WLU [description of user withheld] will only be content when this article is an unlinked stub with a priggish screed that asserts 'this is pseudo-science boys and girls', I'm not looking forward to that user's return. Even raising an 'alarm' at the fringe notice board was met with a lukewarm response, and the user's characterisation of the topic was not endorsed (with the exception of an edit-warring SA wannabe). Moore's site is rancourous crap by someone fixated on debunking Morgan and the hypothesis she advocates, it is a less than reliable source. I dropped a citation from E O Wilson (which is RS, of course) into Morgan's article, it shows the beginnings of criticism, and the inspiration she drew from Fox and Tiger to produce an alternate hypothesis to The Imperial Animal. Wilson made more recent comments, I'll dig them up one day. It should also be noted that she took this criticism to heart, attempting to improve the quality of subsequent works. The more scholarly work her first 'popularising' book was intended to accompany was never published. This citation also puts the feminism angle (c.1970s) in context, she dropped this as counter-productive to her advocacy. Any and every theory in this field is likely to be contentious, it is about us, this hypothesis is no exception. cygnis insignis 12:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of your deletions were waranted, as the critiques weren't truly applicable, but in two cases, I've added back the content with Moore as a reference because, upon reading, he adequately summarized the technical literature. While that's not quite the same as citing the journal articles directly, it *is* actually valuable, especially since many non-academic users do not have access to anything beyond the abstracts of most articles. Mokele (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. His OR isn't even reasonable: shaving may not significantly affect swimming ability, but we're already mostly hairless. That doesn't mean that having a full coat of fur wouldn't impede it. We definitely need to make it clear that the AAH is not accepted in mainstream anthro. But that doesn't mean repeating criticisms which seem to sometimes purposefully misrepresent its claims, or raise objections which don't actually address its claims. kwami (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with kwami. Please keep Jim Moore's opinion web site off this page, at least until it is agreed that, for balance, there can be links to pro-sites. It is correct that the "AAH" is not mainstream but it should also be pointed out that almost no scientific investigation has ever been done by the field on the subject. It's just been dismissed out of hand based on a misunderstanding (exaggeration) of what the idea is. Algis Kuliukas
 * I'm not so sure of that. Certainly many anthropologists have dismissed it without any real thought - that unfortunately is the response of most scientists in any field when a bizarre idea comes along. But usually there are a few who are willing to take a rigorous look. Anyway, regardless of whether the rejection is scientifically valid or just emotional and ignorant, we need to stick to RS's, especially when there is so little academic coverage that individual personalities will come through if we're not careful. kwami (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Look, this is all *blatantly* based off personal dislike for Moore and his site. Fine, there's more than a few "amateur academics" in my own field whom I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire. But the fact is that for the two remaining citations, Moore's site adequately summarizes current research. Furthermore, Moore's site is the second site to come up on Google (the first is this one) for "aquatic ape", so ignoring it isn't exactly a great option. And lastly, Hardy's original article/speech on the topic explicitly mentions hair in terms of drag and Morgan explicitly mentions it in her "scars of evolution" book, claiming it as evidence of an aquatic past and that no other terrestrial mammal has it. Both points are valid criticisms. Mokele (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether we like or don't like Jim Moore's web site (and I personally think it stinks) the fact remains it's an opinion web site. It shouldn't matter where it ranks in Google's listings. Since when has science been done by popularity? So, if enough links happen to get pointed to Creationism.org then we should change the page on Charles Darwin too, right? When you say he "adequately" summarises current research, you're immediately being subjective. His site is unbalanced. It distorts evidence and quotes. These points might be valid criticisms but please don't cite opinion web sites to back them up. Hasn't the field of anthropology got ANYTHING to say about this through the peer reviewed literature? I guess not. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop removing the references. Look, the plain fact is that, for the two things I just reverted (hair & swimming and descending larynxes), there isn't a single review paper - any attempt to use the peer review literature would mean citing 3 papers in the former and at least a dozen in the latter and trusting the reader to figure it out, rather than presenting them with a simple summary.  Sorry, but this is NOT and academic journal - it's an encyclopedia.  Moore's article is CORRECT on those two points.  Now take your grudge and go home - any further removal of referenced material from this page will be considered vandalism. Mokele (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is silly. The descended larynx is one of the things distinguishing us from chimps. And shaving minimal body hair is not equivalent to losing a full coat. (But of course competitive swimmers shave anyway.) We stick to RS for st this controversial. kwami (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And the descended larynx has NOTHING to do with an aquatic habitat. Therefore the fact that other, non-aquatic species have it is relevant and important. Mokele (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Then come up with a decent source! Either find a RS that the feature is not associated with aquatic adaptation, or a RS that we don't differ from chimps in this regard. Either one would disprove Morgan's claim. But quoting some blog isn't the way to go. kwami (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Read my prior posts. Moore provides a perfectly good synopsis on these points, and himself cites sources.  Do you *seriously* want a string of a dozen citations for every obscure anatomical paper on descended larynxes in other species.  All you've done is object to this site due to personal bias, as opposed to offering any actual disagreement on *factual content*. Mokele (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I want you to be a serious editor and use RSs. Your opinion of the blog is unimportant, as is mine. We use RSs. Period. kwami (talk) 06:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You say Moore's article is "CORRECT" on those points, Mokele. On what basis do you say this? It's just trust, right? Take the first one that you put in... "Furthermore, the effect of body hair on human swimming speed (versus shaven) is unclear and minimal at best.". That is simply intrue. According to the literature, which Moore actually sites himself, Sharp & Costil, Sharp et al & Kruger, the efefct of shaving body hair on swimming performand (especially in drag reduction during passive "push-off" trials) is unequivocal. It is clear... shaving body hair, even off an already largely denunded male will reduce drag by up to 9% - that is not minimal, that's massive! So your point is wrong and therefore the point and the citation to Moore's web site should be removed. The other criticism in the wikipedia page on the descended larynx is more valid, I accept. There are, apparently a few non-aquatic mammals that do share these trait. But you are wrong to say that it has "NOTHING" to do with an aquatic habitat. It is clear that aquatic mammals are most often associated with the feature.


 * Sharp's papers show an improvement, but Sokolov shows a detriment, and Fish's review paper finds inconclusive results. Sharp's papers also do not show anything *near* 9% reduction in the property that *matters*, coefficient of drag.  The magnitude of drag force reduction only becomes significant at speeds beyond the scope of anyone but elite athletes.  As for the descended larynx, the fact is that it cannot be considered indicative of aquatic origins simply due to the fact that it occurs in non-aquatic species (permanently descended or temporarily) due to vocalization.Mokele (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Clearly this is a controversial subject and I declare my bias for it here. I am just anxious that the subject be treated fairly and that the total lack of interest by the field of anthropology into the idea be recorded somewhere. I think it is grotesquely unscientific to cite amateurish opinion web sites, just because the field haven't been bothered to lift a finger on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlgisKuliukas (talk • contribs) 00:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, 9% from naked to more naked suggests an even larger advantage from fully furred to nearly naked. That makes Moore suspect, and since he's not an RS to begin with, out he goes. (It would be different if what he were saying were uncontroversial.) As for why we didn't go that extra 9%, one could argue that we progressed to good-enough, retaining hair in some places for other, more powerful reasons, or that we've reverted in the eons since then. Most of these shaving tests are presumably done on Europeans (or Euro-Americans), who are particularly hairy. Most other races have much less body hair, in some cases none at all. kwami (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't suggest anything of the sort. You cannot extrapolate beyond the the data.  Mokele (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Much better, Mokele.
 * No, we couldn't extrapolate from the data in the article, but it was legitimate reason to be dubious about Moore's claims. What we needed was evidence that a full coat of fur does not create more drag, which you've now provided.
 * The laryngeal claims are still a bit off base: Morgan herself describes temporary laryngeal lowering for vocalisation; her claim was that a permanently lowered larynx is an aquatic adaptation to allow quick inhalation. So countering her claim with citations of temporary lowering is a non-argument. Which of the species described in your ref have a permanently lowered larynx? Also, it would be nice to have some detail as to what's going on with chimps, since that's our base of comparison. kwami (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The pdf of the chimp paper is online and in the link I put in the ref (I suck at formatting refs on WP); IIRC, it's descended in young chimps, but ascends as they age, and the hyoid doesn't descend with it. As for permanent descent, deer are the only ones I have a ref for, however, Fitch 20002 points out that the pattern of descent during vocalization across species suggests it's primitive for mammals (koalas are on the list too), with various species either fixing the larynx high or low secondarily.  The larynx is descended in many aquatic mammals, but these mammals also tend to be highly vocal (seals, humpbacks, etc.), further confounding things.  In fact, is there an aquatic mammal whose descended larynx can't be explained in terms of vocalization (or modifications for a blow-hole)?  Mokele (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Seals aren't any more vocal than dogs and a lot of other mammals. Yes, it is a trait of mammals in general that the larynx descends for vocalization, but then it returns to prevent having food or water pass into the trachea. Having it fixed in a lowered position (at least in humans) is quite dangerous; yes, it's possible that this was an adaptation for effortless vocalization, but AFAIK we don't see that in other highly vocal mammals. kwami (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Undent. We shouldn't be proving anything on the page. We shouldn't be citing the direct sources regarding drag and swimming in regards to the AAH unless the sources themselves make this connection - otherwise this is a synthesis. It appears that people are using the sense the theory makes to them to decide how to edit the page. That's not how wikipedia is written. We should be representing the AAH as it's accepted in the relevant expert field. That level of acceptance is minimal. There are few review articles (none that I've found bar Langdon's 1997 publication, which is negative). It doesn't seem to find a space in most textbooks on evolution (if they're out there, please present them for review - all my searches on google books turned up specialty books with brief discussions; the Idiot's Guide is a notable exception, and critically, it states the AAH has minimal acceptance). I've said it before - we should not be pointing out where the theory is or is not supported with the references we think are appropriate. We should be stating it's not a serious theory and leave it at that. I'd far rather remove both the "Hypothesis" section and the "Criticisms" section and just leave history and reception. In addition, I would normally be extremely reluctant to cite Moore's page, were it not cited repeatedly by anthropologists as the place to go for debunking. That's the basis of citing it, not the degree to which I feel his science is good. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As an example of the issues that bother me about how this page uses citations - the books cited in the "criticisms" section discussing the descended larynx (the ones by Fitch) don't seem to mention Morgan or the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis at all. Not as background, not as part of the discussion, not at all.  I have similar issues with citations 1 and 2, 16 also, and I'm sure there are others.  This is very close to outright original research and in my mind inappropriate.  It also demonstrates that this is very much a fringe theory and not part of the mainstream discourse.  Which means we shouldn't portray it as part of the debate within human evolution, and Moore's site is allowed per WP:PARITY.  Moore's negative site is also more appropriate a source than Algis' because it is closer to the mainstream opinion and therefore its use is closer to the way WP:NPOV urges us to write.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, we don't need to repeat every criticism we find, especially when it is obviously stupid. I just deleted the one on nose shape. The criticism was that human nose shape is geographically variable, and that this is thought to be an adaptation to local climate. Quite possibly true, but utterly irrelevant: modern variation presumably happened only with the divergence of modern races, which is quite recent. All modern humans have noses substantially different from chimps or gorillas, and fossil evidence shows our common ancestor did as well, which is the point that AAH picked up on. Speculative, of course, but the criticism didn't actually address the claim. (A pertinent criticism would be dating the evolution of nose shape, and showing that this is a mismatch for the dating scenario of the AAH.) kwami (talk) 06:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How do we decide which ones are stupid? Can we remove initial claims when they're stupid?  How about when they're just plain wrong, as several of Morgans' claims are?  That sort of approach seems to use original research to address the truth of a claim, rather than the appropriate content policy of verifiability.  This is why I thought it was a bad idea to have a claim/counterclaim setup.  If a claim is made by supporters, and there's a good source (as Langdon certainly is) that points out it is problematic, it should be included.  The AAH is made up of comparative physiology and examples of features that are supposedly due to the pressure of an aquatic adaptation phase.  It is extremely relevant to point out when these features have different explanation within conventional anthropology.  Langdon specifically addresses a claim made by a proponent of the AAH, in an article criticizing the AAH for being unsupported.  Highly relevant and highly appropriate, far more so than the many references that are used without actually mentioning the AAH anywhere in them.
 * And specifically, Morgan's claim is about nose shape and water entry, not timing and development. Langdon's rebuttal also addresses this point (I've adjusted to make it more specific).  It would be worth reading Langdon, because it is one of the few journal sources to address specific claims.  I can e-mail it if anyone is interested.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'd appreciate a copy. Thanks!
 * Correct, Morgan's claim was not directly about timing, but that's only because it was too obvious to state outright: an aquatic adaptation would of course take place while we were adapting to an aquatic habitat. If you could show the development occurred after we had developed the other features she attributes to an aquatic habitat, that would be a valid criticism. As for "stupid", the way we worded the counterclaim was stupid: it had no connection to the claim. It's stupid to include criticisms that do not address the thing they claim to criticize, unless the criticism or critic is somehow notable. If Langdon specifically states that the human nose is not useful for keeping out water, that's one thing. (Say, diving monkeys that have no problem keeping water out despite not having human or proboscis-monkey type noses. There's an Allen's Swamp Monkey at the San Diego Zoo that hangs out with the otters rather than the other monkeys, and spends amazing amounts of time under water playing with them.) But talking about geographic variation that occurred long after the origin of the human nose completely misses the point, so that is stupid as a criticism. If it explained the origin of the human nose, but it's "related to climate, and the warming and moistening of air before it enters the respiratory tract"--sorry, that's idiotic, as it applies equally to all animals sharing our habitat. (Perhaps it's related to jogging long distances, or something to do with being upright, but AFAIK that's not the counter-claim made by Langdon.) kwami (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's too obvious to state outright, then it's not stated, then it shouldn't be in the article. What diving monkeys do isn't relevant to this article since it is verifiable that most scholars don't believe humans are diving monkeys.  Again, Langdon addresses this point directly in the article, in an article about the AAH.  That's leagues better than the numerous citations to many articles that don't mention the AAH at all, but are still cited here.  Morgan's claim is that nose shape is due to adaptations to allow humans to close off their nostrils while swimming.  Langdon states that's not why anthropologists believe the nose is shaped the way it is.  I've adjusted accordingly, and did not mention the fact that most people can't use their muscular apertures and philtrim to close off their nostrils while diving, even though that's a far more relevant observation, because that would be original research.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 07:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying we should add that stuff to the article. I'm saying that those would have been more convincing criticisms, or at least I wouldn't have objected to them. Some of his criticisms are clearly on-target: the lack of skeletal evidence for aquatic adaptation, for example. But from the way they're described here, some of his arguments appear to be straw men. I think we can use a bit of common sense: if a criticism doesn't actually address the point it's supposedly criticizing, then there's no reason to put it in. The article isn't about Langdon's critique of the AAH, after all. kwami (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Read the Langdon article. Thanks, WLU. It's nicely written and IMO does a good job. (In the specific example of nose shape, the relevant counter-explanation would be compensation for facial shortening, not modern racial differences.) The gist is not that the AAH is ridiculous, which some of the criticisms previously added to this page have asserted, but that it is as speculative as terrestrial models, is not predictive, has timing problems, and has internal inconsistencies, so that it is not obviously superior to them, and in addition requires an aquatic and then secondary terrestrial adaptation, for which there is no evidence, and which makes it less parsimonious despite its claim to single-event elegance. I think that is a very fair critique (and this coming from one long sympathetic to the AAH) and IMO would be an excellent model for us to follow. I haven't read Jim Moore's stuff in ages, but what I remember of it was patently ridiculous. Langdon OTOH is eminently reasonable, and though counter-arguments to him could be made, I expect they would have the air of reasoned debate of a more credible order than Moore's polemics. kwami (talk) 06:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Langdon (1997) is not a good paper. It critiques only an exaggerated (straw man) form of the hypothesis and (surprise, surprise) rejects it on that basis. It lumps it under the same umbrella as creationism and Von Daniken. That Langdon cannot apparently discriminate between the plausibility of moving through water affecting our phenotype and aliens coming down from outer space should not give us much confidence in the credibility of his opinions on the matter. It is unbalanced. Rather than focus on the five/six major features that Morgan has over the years, Langdon parades 26 he's found, as if for ridicule, and dimisses them each with a couple of sentences. The wading hypothesis, for example (a massive subject) is dismissed in two sentences on the basis that he thinks Elaine Morgan incorrectly assessed the size of our ancestors. He makes no direct critiicism of the idea at all. Worst of all, it is not even scholarly. The proceedings of the Valkenberg synposium published in Roede et al (1991) - the fullest and most balanced account in the literature - is cited (showing :angdon was aware of it) but he did not drawn upon it at all. It's unthinkable that a review paper could be accepted in a journal like JHE which was so shoddy as ignoring such a body of work as that, except in such situations as where the current paradigm is being clung to by the field against the evidence. Morgan and I have attenpted to have replies published making these criticisms but, of course, they have been rejected. The reception to this idea has been a scandal of Piltdown proportions and one day it will be seen as such. In the meantime, Jim Moore's (biased) opinion site should not be cited here. That is the minimum we should expect of wikipedia. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Tough. You wanted peer-reviewed sources, well Langdon is one.  You don't like it, then submit an article yourself to JHE, and cite them when (if) it's printed.  And stop removing Moore's reference - it is acceptable by WP guidelines.  Don't like it, go get the guidelines changed.  Until then, stop whining. Mokele (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Langdon is peer reviewed, yes. I don't like it, true. But note how I accept it's place in this page. The same is not true for Moor'e opinion-based web site. You like it so you want to include a citation to that. That is the only change I have made here. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * See WP:PARITY - the AAH is not a mainstream theory, ergo we don't need to use high-quality sources to rebut it. Essentially, since no-one takes it seriously (bar the occasional foray into the literature, which Langdon indicates wasn't particularly good) then we don't need Science to refute specific claims.  The reason sites like Jim Moore's can be used is because most anthropologists don't take it seriously (indicated by the dearth of scholarly sources that discuss it).  Show us some serious anthropology articles that really push for it and demonstrate that it's a serious theory with lots of backing (or even a significant minority) and we can talk.  But the AAH isn't there yet.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Where is it decided what is "mainstream" and what isn't? There is a great deal about it in the literature. Students of anthropology are sometimes taught about it. Just because it isn't de rigeur at the moment to support it does not mean anything. You are using the cover of Wikipedia's "rules" to attempt to further discredit and distort the idea so that it appears to have less credibility than it has. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * But Langdon is pretty decent. Moore, however, is garbage. Why do we need Moore's polemics, when we have Langdon's reasoned critique? I would support deleting all mentions of him; Langdon covers what we need. kwami (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What about claims made that aren't addressed by Langdon? I agree Moore is redundant for those issues covered by Langdon, but should we retain claims and rebuttals that Langdon doesn't deal with?  I've long been in favour of removing those sections outright.  Claims made that are effectively rebutted add nothing (and both can be removed) while those that are not rebutted (save by Moore, who tends to do a point-by-point rebuttal) add a veneer of credibility which doesn't seem appropriate.  The theory is built on "just so stories" that don't seem to convince experts.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Points like that should be ignored. If a claim can't be critiqued through the peer reviewed literature it shouldn't be mentioned. You don't even know what "the theory" is. (There are several.) You are just acting as a beurocrat trying to enforce rules that you imagine are valid here but actually just don't apply. When you repeat mantras like the "just so story" idea you are just demonstrating your bias. Phillip Tobias is an expert who has been pretty supportive of the idea. see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3mu6urkvjM. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't need to rebut every point. We're very clear that this is not accepted in anthropology. Also, judging whether a claim is effective or not is OR, and removing such claims would be synth: we'd be modifying the hypothesis based on our own value judgements. As an example, Moore says that our eyes aren't adapted for seeing under water. This sounds reasonable on the surface, but is just another example of his ignorance: the Moken see quite well under water, and that aquatic adaptation is much more recent than any formative proto-hominid adaption that we would presumably have lost since returning to a mostly terrestrial habitat, where you need to see well out of water. So the fact that most races don't see well under water is utterly irrelevant as evidence, and presenting it strikes me as promoting garbage. Should we get into debates like this to judge whether each claim is debunked? kwami (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * All that can be expected of this page is to give an informed account of the hypothesis, its history, the arguments for it and against it and, in my opinion, some points about why how poorly the field of anthropology has responded to it. It should not be used as a vehicle to bolster the "mainstream" view of anthropology. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Algis, the AAH is clearly not mainstream, pace your comment above. It's not fringe, either, as it's reasonable, just circumstantial. But I agree that amateur polemics like Moore have no place in an encyclopedia: If an aspect of the AAH is not countered in the lit, then it goes unanswered here as well. That is WP policy, and what a bureaucrat should enforce. We should also be careful that when we cite Langdon, we accurately cite his critiques, and do not set up strawmen. kwami (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Undent. I would argue that the theory is pretty clearly fringe. Where are the review articles discussing it as a serious contender within paleontology? Where are the textbooks that discuss it in depth and relate it to the overall field? Algis, you have things backwards - the page should reflect the mainstream viewpoint of the AAH and not judge the field as "responding to it poorly". It shouldn't be used to promote the theory. That is clearly against policy. Again, we edit in accordance with the mainstream and proportionate to it's expert opinion. The back-and-forth on the page gives the impression of a lively debate, when really it's minority fringe scholars publishing books and articles that are generally ignored within mainstream anthropology. I've looked for mention in books on human evolution, they are few, far-between and mostly minor discussions of a theory that was never adopted. It's not quite creationism, but it's not much better than cold fusion. If there's serious discussion, it should be apparent in the sources - review articles, textbooks, symposia, mainstream discussions in mainstream journals. If it's just three people publishing about a pet theory on occasion in Medical Hypotheses, that's not a debate. The fact that it appears in Medical Hypotheses is itself problematic as it is the scientific equivalent of a venue for the tinfoil hat crowd, publishing AIDS denialism, pseudoscience and bizarre ideas that can't find a forum in the appropriate journals. The article should give due weight to the majority opinion - which mostly ignores the AAH. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * First, it isn't fringe. Fringe is saying that we're human because of little green men from Sirius. The AAH is an undemonstrated hypothesis that's attracted a fair amount of lay attention but is widely dismissed by the academic community. That's not what the word "fringe" means. It's much more where Wegener was before plate tectonics: if Wegener had been proven wrong, I still don't think that would have qualified him as fringe. I remember a Scientific American article from the 1950s that seriously proposed that the reason the continents fit together was that the Earth had inflated like a balloon--it seems laughable now, but reflected serious people struggling with something they knew had happened (the continents had split apart) but couldn't explain. Likewise, Lamarkian evolution wasn't fringe even though it was wrong--it might be called fringe if proposed today (??), but wasn't before the concept of natural selection had developed. Human evolution is full of things we can't adequately explain. Perhaps one of the current mainstream hypotheses about bipedalism or hairlessness will prove to be correct, perhaps not, but either way the AAH is like Wegener or the inflating Earth (take your pick), not like Van Daniken. It may be popular because it gives easy answers to tough questions, but that again is simply undemonstrated hypothesis, not fringe.


 * Secondly, you've got the purpose of WP backwards. We aren't here to debunk. If the academic community dismisses it, then we report that. If they've debunked it, we cover that. Take a look at astrology. What you're calling "promotion" is merely reporting what the hypothesis proposes, which is the whole point of an article on the hypothesis. I agree that giving too much of a back and forth might give the false impression of real debate in the community. That's the struggle we face with undue weight. But you can't seriously propose that we shouldn't give full coverage of the AAH in an article about the AAH. Also, if we just say, "Ignore it. It's been dismissed by academia," people are going to want to know why it's been dismissed. Thus we do need the perspective of those like Langdon who dismiss it without prejudice. kwami (talk) 08:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fringe theories are defined broadly as "...ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study...Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations." For me, it's everything from Von Daniken to AIDS denialism to Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency.  I would say this describes the AAH, and I would also say that the AAH has virtually no mainstream support, and citing proponents is undue weight when academics don't even bother to refute the statements.  For me the point is that it's an extreme minority viewpoint with little serious acceptance - that's fringe for me but perhaps not for others.  But by treating all of the explanations proposed as serious contenders to describe why humans became hairless, upright, fatty and with mobile nostrils, when no-one in mainstream paleoanthropology really believes this, really strikes me as inappropriate and giving the impression that these are viable, valid theories (which is again undue weight).  They're not, and it seems pretty clear to me that the academic community has actively and passively rejected the idea - actively through articles like Langdon, and passively by simply ignoring it in favour of other explanations for specific evolutionary skeletal changes and current tissues.  Any time you spend large amounts of time discussing the proponents theory, it's a lot of text and sources on an idea that simply is not generally believed.
 * Perhaps a different alternative would be to find out what actual paleoanthropologists currently think about the topics - if hairlessness is proposed as a proof of the AAH, but current anthropologists believe it's due to decreased parasite loads, then that could be our juxtaposition. I worry about OR and great care would be needed, but it might be a more acceptable way to deal with the "claims" section.  It's not like scientists have actively studied the AAH and said "nope, it's not true", they've looked at different claims and said "well, that's a pretty story but there's actual evidence that humans became bipedal because of adaptation to a mixed woodland-grassland habitat where upright posture was beneficial..."  A lengthy, unopposed treatment of the AAH's specific claims simply reinforces the idea that it's actually a very good theory that has been unjustly ignored, which puts us in soapbox territory.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you think it's fringe, perhaps we should ask the opinion of s.o. who works a lot w fringe articles, such as User:ScienceApologist. I don't deal much with such articles. (Except this one!)


 * I think giving the mainstream explanation for the items the AAH claims to explain is a nice approach, esp. if Morgan set up Man the Hunter as a strawman. If people come here, they're likely to be interested not just in what the AAH proposes, and why those proposals are dismissed, but also what the mainstream account really is--assuming there is one--if Morgan misrepresented it. (Or just if new ideas have been put forward since.)


 * You're right, we need to beware of OR. Your statement "a mixed woodland-grassland habitat where upright posture was beneficial", for example, strikes me as highly unlikely. This was a point Morgan made: if such an environment encouraged bipedalism, then we'd expect dozens of bipedal lineages, not just one. I don't know what a reasonable explanation would be, but perhaps something like the panda's thumb, where it was easier to extend a wristbone into a thumb than to make a bear's digit opposable: Given the odd gait of the great apes, energy efficiency for covering long distances was easier to achieve by going upright than by going on all fours, the way most mammals solve the problem. After all, wolves hunt by tiring down their prey in long chases just as some anthros suggest our ancestors might have, and they never went bipedal, so it has to be s.t. unique either to our environment (an environment that only we experienced, the AAH approach) or to what we had to work with (the panda's thumb approach). If we make the claim of a mixed woodland-grassland habitat as if it were a serious contender, we risk doing just what you oppose: we make the AAH look reasonable because the mainstream account looks ridiculous. kwami (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Woodland-grassland (or the general idea of bipedality with a move to open habitat) *is* the majority view, and a very strong contender. The objections you (and Morgan) raise are entirely incorrect - just because it's *possible* for a lineage to move into a habitat doesn't mean that you should automatically expect multiple occurrences, especially given a species-poor lineage like apes, and evolution is replete with example in which only a single such invasion/innovation has occurred (Rana cancrivora, Chrysopelea, Simosuchus, Archaeopteryx, Therizinosauridae, Gymnophiona, Macropodidae, etc.).  Furthermore, apes are anatomically *bizarre*, in many, many ways, so it's not really surprising they'd take a route rarely seen elsewhere. Mokele (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You're not seriously contending that hominids were the only mammalian lineage to inhabit woodland-grassland habitat! You'd present mainstream anthropology as a farce. Your counter-examples actually belie your argument. Chrysopelea: numerous small arboreal animals have become gliders, so this supports my point. Archaeopteryx: three lineages of vertebrates have taken to flight. Gymnophiona: several burrowing lineages have lost legs and or eyes (if that was your point). Macropodidae: several lineages have taken to bipedal hopping, if not so spectacularly. Simosuchus: what's your point, that carnivores may become omnivores? What about bears? Therizinosauridae: yes, they were bizarre, though perhaps because they became herbivores. Anyway, no-one's saying they're bizarre because the climate changed. Hominids: the only upright bipedal mammal, supposedly because they entered a woodland-grassland habitat that numerous other mammalian lineages also entered, but didn't cause any of them to stand upright.


 * But your final point is exactly the panda's-thumb explanation I postulated above: that hominids had a different locomotive response to woodland-grassland adaptation from other mammals also moving into that habitat because they started with a unique form of locomotion. kwami (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You completely missed the point. I was rebutting your/Morgan's statement that, if open habitats favored bipedalism, we'd see it more, either in more lineages of apes or in other mammals.  I selected examples where there was one invasion out of a highly diverse group (with a few that showed how prior body form could alter resulting appearance) - Rana cancrivora is the only anuran out of 5000+ species to invade saltwater, Chrysopelea is the only snake genus out of hundreds to glide (and, like humans, it glides like no other glider because of its unique prior history), Simosuchus was the only croc (a fantastically diverse group in the past) to adopt herbivory (resulting in a bizarre appearance), Gymnophiona is the only truly fossorial amphibian (a few others come close),  Macropods are the only marsupial hoppers, and Archeopteryx was the only theropod to develop flight (and to do so in a way that's quite different from all other flyers, namely the use of the supracoracoideus as an upstroke muscle).
 * The point, which you *totally* missed, was that it's not even remotely unusual for a lineage, even if highly diverse, to show only a single invasion of a habitat or a single evolution of a 'key innovation' (one of your points), and that (by way of Chrysopelea, Therizinosaurs, Archaeopteryx, and more) it's not in the least surprising that animals which start out with different morphology will invade a a common habitat in a new way. If that's the level of scholarship supporting AAH, no wonder everyone laughs at it.Mokele (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So you actually are arguing that hominids were the only lineage to adapt to a woodland-savanna habitat in what, the entire history of the Mammalia? Just so you can counter one of Morgan's arguments? You don't need such desperate measures to criticise the AAH. Normal, undistorted biology will do just fine.
 * You don't seem to understand your own argument. A marine environment encourages salt tolerance. We've seen that in multiple marine lineages. A fossorial habitat encourages the loss of limbs and eyes. We've seen that in multiple fossorial lineages. A herbivorous diet encourages teeth and jaws adapted to herbivory. We've seen that in multiple herbivorous lineages. Gliding and flight encourage aerodynamic surfaces. We've seen that in multiple gliding and flying lineages. Of course each adaptation makes use of what the ancestral creature had available (bats didn't evolve feathers), that's Biology 101. But adaptation to a similar environment tends to produce similar results. There's even a name for that. Now take your argument for bipedality: a woodland-grassland habitat was the causative factor for human bipedality. But there's no convergent evolution: This factor operated in only one of the multiple lineages to have adapted to the habitat. (Or, to take your apparently backwards take on it, hominids being unique in bipedality means that they were the only mammals in that woodland-grassland habitat, when we know better.) That's what we call a non-argument: it's no better than saying "cuz that's how God wanted it". kwami (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You have completely missed the point, yet again. Allow me to restate in a way you can't strawman.  Open habitats do NOT impose direct selective pressure towards bipedalism, but rather impose direct selective pressure for locomotor economy, endurance and speed.  In NORMAL mammals, this leads to longer legs, particularly by elongation of distal limb elements (as seen in numerous lineages).  Apes, because they are so freakishly abnormal, instead became bipedal.  The same selective pressure (locomotor economy) resulted in different forms for organisms that started with different bodies.  You can even see the same thing in birds - those from open habitats have higher aspect-ratio wings, resulting in better lift-to-drag ratio and improved locomotor economy.  The same pressure applied to a radially different body results in a radically different final form.  That's why apes are the only ones who became bipedal - everyone else had an anatomy more suited to "traditional" forms.  Consider all the numerous times vertebrates have returned to the water: ichthyosaurs, mosasaurs, dolphins, seals, etc.  All those look vaguely similar (streamlined forms, elongate bodies, propulsion by vertebral column movement, etc.) right?  Now look at sea turtles.  We're the sea turtles of the savannah - something that started out so weird, we had no option but to become even weirder. Mokele (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Which was exactly my point. When you disagreed with me, you contradicted the position you now hold. We should not say simply that we became upright because we moved out onto the savannas. We should instead say s.t. to the effect of what you said just now. kwami (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (Sorry, wrong button.) No, I did not, you simply failed to understand because of your pre-existing bias toward AAH.  Saying "Humans became upright as a consequence of moving into more open habitat" is just as valid as saying "Sea turtles developed flippers as a consequence of moving into pelagic, open-water habitats".  Yes, both omit the direct selective pressure, but I don't see you editing the sea turtle page. Mokele (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote under the assumption that anyone you were debating was necessarily wrong. Now, if you care to read what I wrote, I said that adapting to an open habitat is not sufficient to cause bipedality, and suggested that the conditioning factor might have been that, "given the odd gait of the great apes, energy efficiency for covering long distances was easier to achieve by going upright than by going on all fours, the way most mammals solve the problem." You replied that "the general idea of bipedality with a move to open habitat *is* the majority view" and "the objections you raise are entirely incorrect". Which of course means that the idea of locomotor economy is incorrect, since that was part of my objection.
 * You raise another of your strawmen with sea turtles. There are lots of errors and areas of unclear phrasing on WP that I could correct but don't, mainly because there are millions of articles on WP and if I spent my life on it I couldn't review them all. But more than that, it's obvious even to a child that if a tortoise developed flippers, it would end up like a sea turtle: You could make a chimera of a tortoise and a seal's fins and come up with something not unlike one. But it certainly is not obvious why an ape should stand upright to cover long distances, when no other animal on Earth has ever done so. Just look at the lit: No-one is running experiments trying to figure out why sea turtles swim the way they do, rather than like crocodiles, but there are extensive comparative analyses of hominids, chimps, and us in an attempt to work out why we walk the way we do, and the idea of locomotor economy was published as a new theory in human evolution, and although reasonable, I don't know that it's universally accepted. (I could be wrong, but I doubt there are any such doubts re. sea turtle locomotion.) So evidently the reasons for bipedality are no more intuitively obvious to paleoanthropologists than they are to most of us. Given that, to say that the reason for bipedality was merely a move to open habitat is misleading to the point of irresponsibility. kwami (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you quite finished pretending to be a scientist? Finished with your semantic arguement (the lowest form of argument)?  Oh, and by the way, your evaluation of the literature is entirely wrong - there's plenty of work on why sea-turtles switched from the drag-based propulsion of other turtles to lift-based, and the *actual* work (respirometry, EMGs, kinematics, inverse dynamics) on chimp bipedal vs quadrupedal locomotion seems mostly to be the province of folks in my field (comparative biomechanics) and comes at a fairly limited rate (I'd estimate there are more articles published on fish feeding mechanics every year than empirical work on the transition of apes to bipedality, by at least 5:1, probably much more).  Now quit trying to save face in an argument you've already lost on a page about a weird fringe pseudoscience theory.
 * Either bring up something actually relevant to the page, or stop wasting time. Mokele (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can't play nice, get out of the sandbox. Whatever your training, you either lack basic reasoning skills, or you're being obtuse. First of all, I didn't say there's been no work on sea-turtle mechanics, I said no-one's trying to figure out why they don't swim by undulating their bodies like crocodiles. (I'd be interested if I were wrong in my actual statement.) Do you honestly not understand that if the AAH says that the savanna hypothesis does not explain bipedality, it is not an adequate response to simply say that we're bipedal because we moved to the savanna? That we should say why the savanna would result in bipedality? Or do you prefer to make mainstream anthropologists look like idiots? kwami (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Show me where in the article is says that. Show me anything in the actual page that says anything like what you claim. Mokele (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about what's currently in the article, I'm talking about what we're discussing about putting in the article. You have been reading this discussion, haven't you?


 * Anyway, I'm done with this pointless "discussion". If you want to add an account of the savanna hypothesis that accurately reflects the views of those who propose it, i.e., explicitly mentioning the locomotor economy theory / panda's thumb approach, knock yourself out. kwami (talk) 06:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I just killed the discussion. Reboot if we're going to discuss this. This isn't the place to defend the reality of the AAH, it's the place to discuss the article page. Sources, not ideas. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Temporary protection
I have protected this article for two weeks because of the slow motion edit warring that has been going on. Figure out here what should be included in the page. Mokele: a content dispute is not vandalism. Lady of  Shalott  15:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just when I thought this page had died down this starts up! I would have to say that WP:NPOV would support the inclusion of Reliable Sources. These do not have to be academic journals but should not be blogs either.  Is there another source for these (perfectly valid) criticisms Mokole? Simonm223 (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, there's really only one academic source refuting this idea, because everyone considers it too laughable to waste their effort on (it's not mentioned in any textbooks, either). Beyond that, it's just webpages.  Moore's webpage, the point of contention, is well-sourced and accurately represents both the AAH arguments as well as the rest of the scientific literature.  When, in the course of these arguments, something specific on his page has been brought up, it's been trivially easy for me to go to there, find the references, and look them up myself to confirm. Mokele (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest you ask any of those who you say think it "too laughable to waste their effort on it" to tell you even what it was. The idea has been mislabelled, grossly misrepresented and thus misunderstood for almost 50 years. I think it's apalling that some editors want to use this Wikipedia page to continue this misrepresentation. Anyone that cannot see that some slight selection from wading, swimming and diving might have had a differential effect on the human phenotype, as compared to chimps, is entirely plausible doesn't deserve to be listened to. What "they" probably think is laughable is the idea that there was an "aquatic ape" in any real sense of the term. I agree with them. But guess what, that's not what Hardy asked. ("Was Man Mor Aquatic in the Past?" - remember) That's not what Elaine Morgan has been writing about these last 40 odd years. That people don't even get what it is - even today, even with resources such as Wikipedia, is the real tragedy. This wikiepdia page should, at the very least, allow proponents to define it in a modern sense, not in the straw man characature that Langdon and others have done. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So, wait, you explicitly say that anyone who doesn't believe it shouldn't be listened to, yet you think it's me that's forcing a POV? Whatever happened to skepticism - you know, the backbone of all science?  And part of the very problem with AAH is that it's so poorly defined, and/or that multiple authors posit different levels and types of aquatic movement.  You posit wading, but it's very clear from Hardy's paper and Morgan's arguments that they envisioned *substantially* more aquatic movement (Hardy even specifies durations of 'several hours at a stretch'.  Why should we favor your definition over theirs? Mokele (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, so while the page is under protection why not do just that. Find the specific sources for his claim and provide multiple references (his site and the source he drew on for the claim).  That way you proof against WP:RS and WP:SYNTH complaints. Trust me, I feel your pain on the "too stupid for respectable scientists to refute" front.  I experienced that fun for ages with Global Consciousness Project.Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I can replace the swimming reference with Vogel's Life in Moving Fluids, and the sebaceous gland stuff can be referenced to Langdon. However, it feels a bit like knuckling under due to the unjustified personal grudge of a single editor - Moore's site if valuable, and IMHO there's no justification for excluding it, if not in the references, then in the external links. Mokele (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. And I'm not suggesting removing it.  I'm suggesting backing it up with non-website refs.  Certainly keep it in the external links at the very least! Simonm223 (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We had agreement above to exclude blogs like Moore's, which in any case is basic WP policy, and Mokele should respect that. Mokele's personal POV is clouding his judgement: A hypothesis is not pseudoscience merely because it hasn't been accepted. Most hypotheses turn out to be false, but that doesn't make them stupid. Moore's site is garbage--he misrepresents his sources to make the counterclaims seem much more drastic than they are, for one thing, and when we have gone back to the his sources, we've had to substantially change his claims to accommodate what they actually say--but Mokele evidently feels inclusion is justified because he personally agrees with it. We need RS's for any article, and in this case we have a good one in Langdon, which IMO at least is a generally fair, well balanced critique. We don't need to counterpoint every single claim in the AAH, and if Langdon doesn't bother to cover s.t., neither do we need to. We can merely say that the hypothesis has not been accepted in the academic community, here are some examples of why, and list the points that Langdon (or some other RS) does cover. Angry polemics like Moore's have no place here. kwami (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Read the talk page. The sections you just deleted *can* be referenced to other sources (Langdon and Vogel, the latter being the father of all fluid biomechanics).  The sections you so carelessly WILL be re-inserted, with the proper references, as soon as protection is lifted.  Your deletion is a clear attempt to circumvent the protection and ignore the discussions we have been having here. Mokele (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, if you can support the claims with RS's, they should be included. I'd be happy to restore them myself if no-one else does. But we don't keep them in merely because you don't want to bother doing the work of properly referencing them. kwami (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * See above. The sebaceous issue can be completely cited to Langdon (I read the paper, just to be sure).  The drag issue was properly cited except your dislike of Moore, and that reference can be replaced with Vogel's book Life in Moving Fluids.  However, because of the protection, I cannot edit the page. Mokele (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and write it up somewhere then. kwami (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sebaceous gland – many aquatic animals have rudimentary or no sebaceous glands . In humans, sebaceous glands become active during puberty with men having far more than women while women have much better scent receptors.Langdon This suggests the glands are sexually dimorphic for sexual selection rather than waterproofing. In seals that use sebaceous glands for waterproofing, the glands are active from birth and are secreted by hard, keratinized skin that is very different from human skin.Langdon, pmid9361254


 * Swimming – humans are inefficient swimmers, with shapes that are not well suited to rapid travel through water.Vogel Swimming is also a learned trait, and though babies are able to propel themselves inefficiently through water, they are unable to lift their faces to breathe.McGraw, 1939 Human eyes do not see well underwater, and human skin is not waterproof (as demonstrated by the "pruning" of the fingertips when submerged for long periods).Hanna

Copy/paste those in and that's the end of it. Yes, Langon's name is mis-spelled in the "ref name" thingy, but fixing that requires editing the whole page, which, as I've noted, I cannot do at the moment. Mokele (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and show me one instance in which Moore "misrepresents his sources". Lets see this so-called "bias" you claim.  If this is really the case, you should be able to support your argument. Mokele (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We already had this discussion. You were there. kwami (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you failed to point to even a single instance in which Moore was demonstrably wrong. Mokele (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Um, you do read English, don't you? If you can't bother with that (as you've been unwilling up to now to bother with proper citations), then why should I do the work for you? kwami (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The point is not whether Moore can be shown to be demonstrably wrong (although he can), it's that opinion-based web sites cannot be used as citations for scientific theories or critiques of those theories. Wikipedia must be balanced and have a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. Including links to web sites of people who are clearly hostile to the idea but refusing links to correspondingly favourable ones - as well as characterising other editors attempts to correct these issues as "vandalism" simply macks of bias. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Undent. The two points removed in this and similar edits should be replaced if the sole problem is sourcing. The first is sourced to a peer-reviewed journal and the second to The Straight Dope as well as Hanna, 2007. Further, Moore's site is already included both as an EL and as one of the DMOZ links. There was never an agreement to exclude the use of Moore throughout. There was disagreement which obviously was not settled. Those entries have stood for a long time, had not Algis re-appeared to remove them, we wouldn't be discussing it. Algis continues to promote this theory as if it were taken seriously, which is tendentious, non-neutral and promoting the theory unduly. Can we at least agree that this is a fringe page with minimal mainstream support?

I have no problem removing Moore's site as references for these two points, so long as the points themselves remain (sourced appropriately to Langdon and Hanna). If we agree to remove Moore's site there, and leave it in the EL section, can we let this die? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, if we properly source them, the sections should be restored. I'm not so sure about the EL; I don't know if we should be supporting garbage. Not only do we confer a level of legitimacy to Moore, but other editors may be tempted to use his site as a ref for the article again. If he's not a RS, why have him here at all? Though we do have nonsense in the EL sections of other articles, so the criteria for EL inclusion would seem to be lower than that of actual citation.


 * Yes, the AAH has "minimal mainstream support", and we should make that clear. However, it is not "fringe"--it's entirely reasonable, even if, as with most such hypotheses, it proves to be wrong. kwami (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My argument has always been that TED gives Morgan's theory excessive support, Moore works to balance that. I'd happily remove both (DMOZ still doesn't have the TED lecture unfortunately), but with so many articles pointing to Moore's site as the place that debunks the AAH, I persist in thinking it is appropriate.  Moore's site also uses references to support his assertions and criticisms of Morgan, often illustrating that Morgan's use of sources are inappropriate.  I wouldn't call it garbage, and it's only useful because the AAH has been essentially ignored.  Still, no need to use it as a source if we have better ones.  The page has to be monitored for spam, vandalism and other problems, and it's not a big deal to agree that Moore's use as a source is something else to watch for.
 * Also, it is my opinion (acknowledging that our opinions differ on this topic!) being fringe doesn't mean the that it's unreasonable, only that it's not accepted. The criteria isn't "reasonableness" in my mind (an editor's opinion, and always an OR issue) but on criticisms in what sources exist, support, acceptance, etc.  It hasn't been proven wrong because it hasn't been investigated because (as Langdon demonstrates) it's not actually very good at explaining anything - competing explanations exist and are better accepted.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. :-). AlgisKuliukas (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked Mokele for an opinion on this, and I believe everyone else agrees - remove Moore's site as a reference, keep it as an EL, and return the information to the page but source it elsewhere. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, my bad. Looks like we have agreement for replacing the information and sourcing (pending Mokele's approval) but the EL issue is still outstanding (need comments from both Mokele and Kwamikagami).  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think that if a source isn't good enough to use directly, we shouldn't be directing people to it. When we did replace Moore with the Langdon that he was citing, it turned out that Langdon hadn't actually said what Moore claimed he did. The facts were more or less the same, but the inferences he drew from them were not. Why should we expect him to be any more reliable in reporting his other sources? Moore has a very clear "this is idiotic" POV, and uses his sources to support that POV even when they don't share it. Langdon is more nuanced: he has an "this is a simple answer to a complex question" POV, and that, as usual with such hypotheses, it doesn't actually work very well. He doesn't argue that any idiot can see points xyz are stupid, but that the levels of adaptation, timing, and other factors don't mesh--which is what you do in an academic critique. IMO we shouldn't be implying people are crackpots for promoting what at first approach seems a promising idea, but rather explain that it has not fared well over time, has not been well received, and then give the reasons why, as Langdon does. IMO our EL section should be similarly responsible. kwami (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Undent. The EL section is a separate issue in my mind, and probably worth re-discussing in a separate section. If you think so, how 'bout a new section to separate things? I'm OK with doing so.

In the mean time, how do you feel about replacing the information with alternative sources? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If the sources are like Langdon, I have no problem with it. If we can't find RS, then we can just leave them out--we don't need to answer every single point. (If we wanted to, we could dig through Morgan and pull up a bunch of stuff that Moore didn't address either, but that doesn't suddenly make the AAH more likely.) kwami (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Have a look at what the sources removed in this edit and see what you think. The whole reason I've objected to these lists is because they give the appearance of a point-counterpoint (i.e. a debate) when really there isn't one.  I'd happily remove the lot were I my druthers.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The only other ref was Hanna, which is a scuba-diving photography book. Morgan raised some of these points herself: if we left the water, say, 3Ma, that gives us plenty of time to loose aquatic adaptations. Of course, with that kind of argument you could support anything (all missing supporting evidence can be explained away as having been once there but subsequently lost), but it's still a valid point: Hanna mentions us lacking an ability to see underwater, for example, but that would be detrimental to life on land and of course would be selected against since then. So it strikes me as a bunch of essentially idle speculation used to counter opposing speculation, hardly the kind of argument we want in an encyclopedia article. kwami (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've modified the references in the text above so we can see which ones are used. Hanna is used once, in regards to underwater vision and the pruning of the skin.  Pruning hardly needs a reference, my fingers wrinkled in the shower this morning - the only advantage of using Hanna is that it's an explicit link to the AAH.  I'm totally willing to do without the "seeing poorly underwater" statement.  The others are sourced to peer-reviewed literature - Langdon, Vogel (actually a book) and McGraw (though it's from 1939 but the point made is simple and timeless - babies drown).  There are several references for these points, not just Hanna.
 * I agree with your points about 3Ma giving plenty of time for reversing virtually any adaptation that could have occurred between LCA and that point, but that the theory can use special pleading for virtually any lack of evidence is itself a criticism made of the theory. Idle speculation also describes the AAH in general - there's no conclusive proof that it happened, it's speculation and comparative anatomy.  That's pretty much Langdon's whole thesis.  Again, this sort of discussion is why I thought the list of claim/evidence versus counterclaim was a bad idea.  It gives the impression that first, there's a lot of support for the idea, then that there's not, in addition to the idea that the AAH is a serious theory with substantial support.  My preference has always been for a shorter article that doesn't describe the theory in detial but spends more time discussing the controversy around it.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was my point, both that the 3My gives plenty of time for reversal, but also that it allows special pleading for almost anything. Still, things like Hanna don't belong (he evidently doesn't know what he's talking about, since there are people such as the Moklen who can see well under water); I'm happy with the rest of it. I'm sympathetic to your preference for just covering the controversy, but I don't see how we could do that very well without covering what the controversy is about, which is the claims made by the AAH. Also, an article on a hypothesis that doesn't actually describe the hypothesis wouldn't be very useful IMO. Unless you have something that would illustrate what you mean? kwami (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and reverted myself, substituting in your refs, except for the last part from Hannon. The finger-pruning bit is notable, but I have no idea how meaningful it actually is. kwami (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If the Moklen are notable for being uniquely able to see underwater, that suggests local adaptation by a specific population rather than a holdover of a period of aquatic adaptation for the whole species, n'est pas?  For me, pruning means our skin is not waterproof, and immersion in water is in fact terribly bad for us because it can strip the skin of protective oils, dry it out and render it susceptible to cracking leading to infection.  In addition, pruny skin is far softer than nonpruny skin; considering one of the primary uses of the skin is to separate everything inside the skin from everything outside the skin, that's a pretty strong argument against the skin having any sort of adaptation to water-dwelling IMHO.  And this shows the point - it's possible to argue nearly anything and by doing so we're drubbing each other about the head with original research rather than trying to figure out what properly verifies the information in a way that is neutral and representative of experts.  But that's neither here nor there, if we all agree to leave it out, let's just leave it out.
 * Wearing my druthers as a hat, my preference would be removing the claims and leaving the basics of the hypothesis without the "proof". That'd essentially be a description (protohumans underwent adaptation to water-dwelling, then re-adapted to land-dwelling) and very general discussion of the sources of the evidence ("Evidence for the AAH is primarily drawn from comparative anatomy with fully aquatic mammals and contrasts with other primates" or something similar) rather than the evidence itself.  The current page is OK because it pairs evidence with counter-evidence (dodging the issue of a fringe theory - according to my definition of what a fringe theory is - with no serious scrutiny and therefore no rebuttal) and at least is comprehensive in both identifying possible evidence, and the flaws with this possible evidence.  If most others want to keep it this way, fine by me (though I still think it gives too much appearance of debate that never really occurred).  I think we've all agreed that the current page is acceptable so I'm willing to accept (and add my voice to) the consensus.
 * Incidentally, there's a space between a sentence and a reference in the Habitat sub-section. Reference 8 (Langdon) just after "...by default." as well as between two references in the Anatomical and physiological claims subsection after "... very different from human skin."
 * Here's a thought though, ScienceBlogs paleoanthropologist Greg Laden has a specific rebuttal to Morgan's TED talk; any thoughts of appending this link to the TED talk video? It's a different web link than the one used as a citation in the article.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course the Moklen would be a separate adaptation, not a holdover. I didn't even think that anyone would think I was arguing that. My point was that if the Moklen could develop superior underwater vision in the mere X millennia of their current environment, then such adaptations are evidently quite easy to come by, and we could not only have achieved it with relatively little other aquatic adaptation per the AAH, but also have lost it in the 3My since (with the Moklen, and perhaps many other populations over time, coincidentally reachieving it). In other words, I think they put the lie to the claim that our ancestors couldn't have been aquatic because we today aren't adapted to seeing underwater. Of course, they do not constitute evidence that the species as a whole ever had such an adaptation, only that it's plausible given an aquatic environment, which would need to be demonstrated otherwise.
 * And yes, pruning certainly means that our skins are currently not waterproof. Again, that goes without saying. I just don't know what it means - would there have been selective pressure against waterproof skin in a terrestrial environment? Is it an easy adaptation to achieve and loose? Do the Moklen prune up the way the rest of us do? (That would be a very interesting investigation, actually, regardless of the merits of the AAH.) I object to the argument because it's not made by s.o. who knows what he's talking about. I mean, Hanna could've said that our ancestors couldn't have been aquatic because his aunt Ethel is afraid of the water, and she shouldn't be if we have some kind of "genetic memory" of being aquatic - would that have any legitimate bearing on the debate?


 * I like Laden's critique. Again, it's balanced: "[she has] an interesting point but there are some pretty serious competing hypotheses." In other words, it's not fringe, just not demonstrated, and in his estimation unlikely, and Morgan's paranoic approach is unhelpful, but who knows, shaking things up a bit may prove beneficial. But then Moore comes along with his comment and shows that some of us still have the brain capacity of an Australopithecine. If I wasn't convinced he was a moron before, I am now: I mean really, he's still arguing that we're not really hairless, and therefore there's nothing to explain? That shaving our beards (for those human populations that even have beards -- not a common thing to see in the modern-day Rift Valley) means that we're as hairy as chimps? Robin William's chest is as much evidence that we never lost our body hair as the Moklen are evidence that our ancestors were adapted to underwater vision. kwami (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrangham, 2009
Wrangham, 2009 paper has some points to be made that could be used to support the aquatic ape hypothesis, but it doesn't refer to the theory explicitly and a (very) quick scan of the references doesn't turn up a lot of the literature cited here. With great caution I could see it being used here (possibly in "the hypothesis") but it's probably good to discuss it first. The article basically says that a single population of baboons eat underwater roots when they can't get the food they want, and this could have supported or driven bipedalism in hominins. I read it as very speculative. I've already cited it in bipedalism but am a bit more leery of citing it here without running into original research and undue weight issues. It is a short bit of research with a lot of speculation, but potentially useful. Thoughts? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * IMHO, it's interesting and relevant in that it gives a motive for going into the water in the first place, but I'd agree with your cautionary note - the paper itself confines this idea to the discussion section, and has strong caveats about inferring behavior and selection of fossil organisms. Mokele (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I can certainly see the need for caution on their part: Morgan's paranoia has made the AAH seem faintly ridiculous. They're certainly worth a note as one of very few professional treatments of the idea. kwami (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Does anyone see merit to citing it? And any ideas on how?  It's a little hard given it doesn't mention the AAH by name and barely cites the previous literature that's used to support it.  I could see leaving it out.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I could go either way, but I favor including it, albeit extremely breifly ("blah blah entering the water, possibly to acquire food (Wrangham et al, 2009), or find new territory blah blah"). Since WP has the unique trait of not being limited by printing costs like a "real" review paper, and citations are pretty inconspicuous, I tend to favor citing the crap out of things, partially to improve WP's reputation, but also as a resource for students, giving them direct links to as much of the literature as possible. Mokele (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems a reasonable approach to me, much more than that and we're past my personal limit for OR-type issues. Failing to mention the AAH kinda cripples the ability of the paper to be used on the page.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Not mainstream, but why is everyone so adamant about AAH being fringe?
I've read and re-read WP's definition of fringe and I have a very hard time placing AAH in that category. We're not talking about aliens building faces on Mars, or Creationism, or demonstrably wrong scientific claims. I'm certainly not qualified as a paleoanthropologist so I have to defer to expert opinions. However, I can comment on the TONE of the argument here which I find disturbing. Absolutely, AAH is NOT mainstream. The criticism is completely valid on this point. I have read several of Morgan's books and while I find them somewhat less than hard science I find at least some of the points credible. If only one of AAH claims is credible, perhaps discounting all the individual claims on account of the general theory is "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". The article unfortunately does very little to defend the most credible point, namely that wading (NOT swimming as seems to be stressed in the criticism) appears to be the prima facie single best intermediary stage for bipedalism. While the other theories for the origins of bipedalism (freeing the hands for carrying food and tools, looking over tall grass, better heat control, greater energy efficiency in locomotion...did I miss any?) none of the accepted theories are very good in the intermediary transition states, i.e. they offer a severe penalty until they are relatively well developed. I'd really like to see all the separate claims of AAH properly defended by proponents and equally picked apart by critics so long as they are fully explained. These brief snippets of claim v. criticism are so devoid of information as to be unhelpful for a general reader. The criticisms smack of an a priori assumption of guilt. I'm not even asking for the assumption of innocence, though I am asking for a reasonable doubt. I probably cannot understand the sources without considerably more background in paleoanthropology, so I'm asking that the experts to please offer detailed synopses in their criticisms to allow an intelligent reader to judge whether they are indeed not credible. Pmarshal (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC) pmarshal


 * Firstly, this has all been discussed before. Read the archives.  Second, organisms are not arguements - if only one point is right, then the argument is wrong, because organisms do not evolve piecemeal, but all at once.  Third, all of the other theories have valid intermediates, while AAH actually lacks them - it has never demonstrated an advantage at all to either substantial enough aquatic locomotion to generate their proposed adaptions *or* the move out of the water following.  Fourth, no matter how well-reasoned anything posted here may be, it would violate WP:OR (no original research).  We have to wait for real anthropologists to say something we can quote, and all of them consider AAH too laughable to even bother writing about. --Mokele (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Pardon me Mokele, but you have obviously misread what I wrote. I was not saying AAH was correct as a theory, I was saying that the INDIVIDUAL premise of wading as a precursor to bipedalism may be a STANDALONE valid point which is arbitrarily being discarded.  Again, you speak of "aquatic locomotion" when I did not.  I am strictly concerned with terrestial locomotion in the boundaries of bodies of shallow water.  Pmarshal (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)pmarshal


 * I pointed out that no, it's not being arbitrarily discarded. It's being discarded for exactly the same reasons as the rest of AAH - lack of any evidence.  Also, locomotion in any depth of water sufficient to support the center of mass is aquatic locomotion, as viscous forces become more important than gravitational fores, and normal modes of terrestrial limbed locomotion (walking and running, as defined properly by their kinetic and potential energy signatures) cease to be relevant. Mokele (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Clearly labelled as not accepted within the scholarly community. It's unlikely that water-dwelling was a primary evolutionary driver, particularly given the paucity of evidence.  The theory appears to have a lot of explanatory powers, but fails on the evidence.  I would suggest getting your hands on Langdon's 1997 paper and reading through it - the theory tells a wonderful story, but lacks evidence or parsimony (and many of the anatomical comparisons end up being rather spurious).  Wading may have more of a role (a paper by Niemitz may signal a change, but he's a bit of a long-term convert and not really an indication of widespread renewed acceptance) but it's a bit early to claim victory.  Wrangham's new paper touches on bipedalism, but only tangentially and straying wildly from the data.  What's needed is a shiny new review article, consensus statement or textbook that clearly lays out the best evidence for bipedalism.  That would help us conclude on whether it's the tickle of a paradigm shift or just Niemitz continuing to be a lone voice.  But overall, lots of sources still point to the theory lacking acceptance. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, for instance, the lack of aquatic adaptation in Haviland, 2007, Jurmain 2008 , Ishida 2006 - and note its discussion of the AAH on page 175), Dunsworth 2007  and note the discussion of the AAH on page 121).  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 03:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly willing to accept that aquatic behaviour was not the norm for hominids at the appearance of bipedalism 6MYA, but the climate data for Kenya does indicate rapidly fluctuating climate regimes, including very wet time periods. Nothing seems to dispel at least the possibility of intermittent wading bipedalism as a behaviour modifier.  It does seem to offer a plausible (if not verifiable) mode of transition to an upright posture and as such should not be removed from consideration even with a lack of evidence.  I would have to ask, what would prove to be convincing fossil evidence either proving or disproving the hypothesis?  I find predation by crocodiles to be a weak argument, since predation almost always exists with any population which thins rather than decimates any given group. Pmarshal (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)pmarshal
 * Sure, but would intermittent wading bipedalism really be sufficient to drive evolution? Particularly since our ancestors were tree-dwellers, and thus already adapted towards upright posture (albeit suspended from branches rather than from walking).  And keep in mind that if the fluctuations were that rapid, we would have to adapt and de-adapt to watery dwelling and locomotion repeatedly - all without leaving any trace of it.  Not very parsimonious, and the reason the AAH is considered mostly an exercise in comparative anatomy rather than a viable theory for human evolution.  There are lots of theories on why humans became bipedal, but others have proof behind them.  And overall, the anthropological community just doesn't believe it's a convincing argument.  I really urge you to get your hands on Langdon's paper - it alone deals with much of the evidence and demonstrates that there are better explanations for most of Morgan's "proofs".  Theorizing is easy, proof is hard; Morgan has done a lot of theorizing, but she never managed to get to "proof".  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "but others have proof behind them". No, they have no "proof" either (which in any case is impossible in science), which is why the issue is still open. I agree that the AAH is not demonstrated, but that wasn't the question: the question is why a reasonable if undemonstrated hypothesis dismissed as fringe, which is a rather strong aspersion. Langdon does not dismiss it as fringe, though he does dismiss it; the one source which did has been removed as being clearly ignorant (or perhaps dishonest) about the topic. I think this is probably the right approach. kwami (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Undent. I agree theorizing is easy while proof is difficult, even sometimes impossible. Since AAH holds such a low esteem with the paleontological community, it's not very likely some researcher is going to stake his or her grant on trying to prove the hypothesis. More likely any evidence would have to be uncovered as an incidental side benefit from a more conventional study. For example, if hominid coprolites were uncovered which were loaded with aquatic food remains, there would be an immediate debate as to whether they were from "hominids" at all and whether this just proved aquatic foraging, but not any significant aquatic habitation. As has been pointed out, behaviour does not fossilize. As to intermittent wading behaviour having to turn on and off with rapid changes in climate. Consider the savannah models predicating bipedalism from looking over tall grass. When climate switched and there was no longer any tall grass in the habitat, did they "unlearn" or "unevolve" bipedal traits? Bipedalism from ANY stimulus could have been retained because in each of the rapidly changing environments there was some utility in being upright. It is quite possible that ALL the postulated modes are correct, each during a PARTICULAR climate regime. If being upright meant that you could develop an intracranial venous network for disposing of heat in a hot dry plain, why would you presume that the trait would breed itself out in a following wet and cool climate? If there's one thing the genetic scientists have taught us is that our DNA tenaciously retains traits even if they have no immediate use and readily switches them on and off with a little bit of help from sexual selection. We still retain the genetic ability to grow a pelt (the so-called wolf boys of Mexico) from our vestigal vellus hair, though natural selection has deeply buried the trait in Homo Sapiens. We probably have quite a few hidden genetic traits which would re-emerge given the right circumstances. Again, while I don't necessarily think AAH is correct, I would caution against dismissing it's more likely premises as entirely fringe. I have to remind my scientific colleagues of the embarrassingly long reign of Piltdown Man as "mainstream" before it was proven a fraud, even to the exclusion of legitimate finds which contradicted this view. Or plate tectonics which was almost universally ridiculed until it became entirely mainstream itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmarshal (talk • contribs) 10:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Most scholars don't believe in the savannah model anymore, and haven't for a while. The wolf boys of Mexico probably have hypertrichosis, which is considered a disease (and there's an obvious comparison to syndactyly, already addressed in the anatomical claims section - birth defects aren't necessarily proofs).  Plate tectonics united and explained a massive number of phenomenon in the field of geology, and was demonstrated through evidence.  Right now, there's not much evidence for the AAH, and it doesn't really unite since it requires a less parsimonious explanation of why humans adapted, then de-adapted to the environment.
 * But all this is more or less irrelevant - without sources demonstrating significant mainstream acceptance of the theory in the paleontologist community, we're not justified in portraying it as a powerful theory on the origins of modern humans. All the original research in the world isn't enough to get the article rewritten, we need reliable sources that verify the idea has mainstream acceptance; otherwise it is fringe.  It's not von Danniken fringe, but it is a popular theory with minimal scientific acceptance - thus a fringe theory.  Wikipedia is also not a forum for discussing the topic - unless you can present recent sources demonstrating acceptance, the page shouldn't really change.  And until a lot of them accumulate, it starts to appear in textbooks and be taught and researched as a serious contender for a driver of human evolution, the page should retain it's sceptical position.  It may be true, but our threshold is verifiability, not truth.  Frankly, we've been through this many, many times before - until there is a significant shift in the mainstream scholarly community and it can be demonstrated with significant numbers of high-quality sources, discussions of how it is unfairly maligned are wasting time on the talk page and inappropriate for the main page.  That has been the longstanding consensus on the page.  You're not alone in thinking the AAH is unfairly dismissed, but that is the reality and there are a variety of sources that are explicit in saying this.  Sources always trump opinion.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. BTW, the only reason I brought up the wolf boys example is that it's a form of multi-generational hypertrichosis passed through a genetic defect.  The emphasis was on latent traits.  I wasn't suggesting that traits adapt then un-adapt, far from it, I was suggesting that the same trait may have had utility in multivariate environments and was thus retained throughout.  Also, for expression of a trait to be lost, it would generally have some negative benefit to the species, i.e. losing your pelt without benefit of artificial covering in a colder climate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmarshal (talk • contribs) 01:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

3 problems in the discussions
Although maybe not related to the wiki page editing, I've noticed 3 points in the discussions:

(1) It's often claimed that "AAH has no evidence". If you mean fossil/genetic evidences, it's unfortunately true for all kinds of theories on human evolution, not specially AAH. If you mean general evidences like soft tissues or behaviours, AAH does have many evidences (e.g. omega-3 and iodine dependency, which is reasonable for a marine diet but impossible for a terrestrial one). Even Langdon himself (I regard him as a "honourable enemy") has admitted there're direct albeit debatable evidences for AAH (in his opinion -- voluntary breath control, enlarged pharynx, thermoragulatory strategy i.e. hair reduction + fat + sweat)


 * 1)a Actually, there is plenty of evidence for terrestrial transition - every single fossil we have has come from a terrestrial deposit, proving that, at the very least, they were on land long enough to die there. We have a fossil trackway, proving terrestrial locomotion.  This means at the very least, that terrestrial locomotion *happened*, and therefore is a plausible selective pressure.  There is *no* direct (fossil) evidence that aquatic locomotion even happened at all.
 * 1)b Also, you need to seriously check your sources. The omega-3 and iodine issue is a red-herring, and has been show to not be the case (see refs on page).  Your claim about Langdon's "admission" is dubious in the extreme, as every single one of those is easily and handily refuted, and he knows this. (Mokele)


 * Almost all of the Homo and Australopith fossils were found in river banks and lakes margins (correspond to a fresh-water wading stage proposed by AAH). So I'd say fossil records are compatible with AAH, though neither proving nor disproving it. And wait... what's supposed to be a fossil evidence for aquatic locomotion? Fossilized waves?


 * An early hominid fossilized in marine/freshwater deposits that *aren't* shoreline, but rather open water. Mokele (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Langdon put those claims clearly in the category of "primary evidence" in his 1997 paper table 1, and his critiques for each of them are only providing alternative explanations but not direct refusal. Other categories are like "traits consistent with the AAH" or "parallelisms inadequately explained". I think he did a balanced review.


 * Are you sure omega-3/iodine is a red-herring? See iodine deficiency: "In areas where there is little iodine in the diet—typically remote inland areas where no marine foods are eaten—iodine deficiency gives rise to goiter... as well as cretinism". The criticisms on AAH page also completely miss the point, they're talking about evolutionary pressure and modern variation, but AAH proposes a prerequisite for brain enlargement in our common ancestors. (I'm not going to change them since they're published opinions) (Chakazul)


 * By that logic, deer have an aquatic ancestor, because they require iodine. As do anteaters.  And bats.  Iodine is a general vertebrate requirement, and humans are in no way special either in requiring it, the amounts needed for our body mass, or the consequences (*fish* can get goiter in iodine-poor water). Mokele (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, all vertebrates could have goiter, and that's why most of them can't develop brains as large as humans and cetaceans. Iodine and omega-3 are prerequisites for significant brain enlargement, and "big brain under iodine/omega-3 abundance" is an evidence for AAH. Chakazul (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

(2) Existence of alternative explanations doesn't constitute a counter-argument. It is often used in Langdon(1997) and the "criticisms" part in this wiki page (e.g. hair loss could be adapted to avoid parasite, descended larynx could be adapted for speech). This may refute the claim that "AAH is the only plausible theory", but does nothing to its credibility.


 * 2) Yes, actually, it does. AAH claims (to the extent it can be nailed down the claiming anything before shifting the goalposts) that these traits represent a suite of correlated adaptations which either defy alternative explanations or at least are explained better by AAH.  The existence of alternative explanations at the very least rules out the former of those two.  To not present alternative explanations would be WP:UNDUE, as it would make these arguments appear stronger than they actually are. (Mokele)


 * Theories themselves cannot defy alternatives, only evidences can. AAH provides a set of explanation, although tightly linked, doesn't mean we've to accepted/rejected it as a whole. E.g. I found sweating and foot arches better explained by endurance running hypothesis as later adaptations (Langdon expressed similar point), while other explanations are better in AAH. Theories can be merged BTW.
 * I don't mean to remove the alternatives, they may be placed in a "Alternative theories" section, but treating as counter-arguments is misleading. (Chakazul)


 * You have it backwards. Humans have a set of characters A,B,C, & D.  If I invent theory 1, but theory 1 is flatly contradicted by anatomical trait B, theory 1 is wrong, plain and simple.  If you invent theory 2, and it's compatible with all 4 traits, that's a plausible theory.  If nobody else can come up with a theory which also explains all 4, that bolsters your theory.  If, however, I come up with theory 3, which also explains all 4, then theory 2 both can't claim to be the only game in town *and* cannot use the mere existence of these traits as a hypothesis test - they are evidence, but not distinguishing evidence.  What needs to be done is to predict a new trait from your theory (trait E) and one from mine (trait F) and see which actually exists.   The point is that you cannot simply present something as evidence without acknowledging the possibility of alternative explanation. Mokele (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I think you're right here. Alternative explanations are counter-arguments, if they're more reasonable or more widely accepted. Chakazul (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

(3) As Langdon said: "anthropologists have regarded the ideas as not worth the trouble of a rebuttal", but there's another possibility: Most of them couldn't find strong counter-arguments or counter-evidences against it (note: "unable to falsify" and "unfalsifiable" are different things), hence are not confident enough to make a rebuttal and remain silence. I believe it's the later case. Also, scientists should have the responsibility to publicly rebut any unscientific or false theories, like how Richard Dawkins does to creationism, to defend the truth and to educate the public. Why would scientists leave a popular but (supposedly) erroneous theory like AAH unchecked? If you say "all of them consider AAH too laughable to even bother writing about", it's like accusing them as irresponsible and arrogant, but I believe most of them are not. Chakazul (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 3) Pure speculation, and it shows you ignorance of how science actually works. I can think of *several* papers in my own field that are flat-out wrong (some badly so), but I don't rebutt them.  Why?  It would be a waste of my time.  Actual, working scientists do not do science all day.  Hell, most are lucky to even get in 10 hours of science a week.  Between teaching, serving on committees, university bureaucracy, applying for grants, reviewing papers for journals, finding reviews for journals you're an editor of, grading, planning exams, supervising grad students, reading papers, reviewing grant applications, conferences, seminars, managing grant budgets, and more bureaucracy, its' surprisingly difficult to actually find time to plan experiments, get preliminary results, deal with MORE bureaucracy, run the replications, do analysis, do statistics, write up the paper, edit the paper, submit the paper, fight with peer-reviewers, *re-edit* the paper, fight more with peer-reviewers, and check the final proofs.  The average junior faculty member puts in between 60-70 hours per week.  Once you becomes a senior faculty member, well, then the Department head realizes you're here for good and they can *really* load up on the bureaucratic BS you have to deal with.


 * So are you *seriously* saying that, with ALL of this to do, with mountains of work to do and even greater mountains piling up in the background because nobody has either invented time machines or safe legal amphetamines, someone should set aside actual, valuable, interesting work and invest well over 3 week's worth of work (in person-hours) necessary to publish an article rebutting a theory that nobody takes seriously? Would you like us to take the time to prove that the moon is not made of green cheese, too?


 * Look at who fights creationism and the such. Dawkins isn't a research faculty member.  Eugenie Scott isn't either.  They're employed to deal with this issue because a huge number of people believe in such idiocy.  They don't have to deal with all of the stuff listed above.  AFAIK, Miller and Padian are some of the few voices in the debate that actually hold research posts, and they usually only get called on to give expert testimony, nowhere near the person-hours Dawkins or Scott put in, for exactly these reasons.


 * Nobody's accusing scientists of being "irresponsible and arrogant". We *KNOW* they're overworked, over committed, and barely have any time for anything.  Go ask any group of faculty.  And while you're there, ask for a show of hands of how many have been divorced due to spending too much time at work.  It'll be a sobering experience for you. Mokele (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what I want to talk about too. Scientific research is a mundane career, researchers have to secure funds and keep reputations, so they won't do anything in high risk (e.g. attack a competing theory without confidence), or won't be too far away from the mainstream while showing enough innovation. That's what I experienced when in the academics and heard from friends doing research (true that he's too busy in duties and not much time to do research).


 * Provided AAH's popularity and notoriety but scientific nature (strictly using evolutionary concepts), I don't believe there's no attempt of any basic research to verify its claims. It's actually quite easy -- e.g. only one feature that make humans not suitable for swimming/diving will render AAH untenable, but we can't find any. Researchers may avoid to do something because of no time, not related to their field, not enough confidence (a wise consideration indeed), or something apparently unscientific like astrology or creationism, but not because of superficial absurdity (this would be unscientific). Chakazul (talk) 06:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You really have no clue how actual science works, do you? Plenty of folks will do very innovative and "out-there" research.  There's a very well-respect prof in my own field who has explicitly said "I'd rather be interesting than right."  Nobody is "afraid to take the big leaps" - we all desperately want to, because those are the things that get you tenure, get you boatloads of grant money, etc.  AAH does not have *nearly* the following you think it does.  I can think of a LOT more primatologists who care deeply about the use of diagonal sequence gaits in arboreal locomotion than about AAH.  If I have some time, will I spend it on a subject I actually care about, or will I waste it rebutting a concept that has very little actual presence in the scientific community?  Which of these will increase my citation count?  Which will advance my career, or fulfill grant requirements (yes, requirements, there are strings attached to every cent)?


 * It seems you're a researcher in biology (may I show my respect to you and all hard-working researchers...)
 * Frans de Waal (a renowned primatologist) in earlier years expressed his support to AAH, even wrote a chapter about it in his book. Later, obviously noticing the unpopularity of AAH in paleoanthropology (PA), he now seldom mention it and only sporadically express his sympathy. I believe there're many "underground supporters/sympathizers" like de Waals in various fields, they won't publicly challenge PA's conclusion (AAH is rubbish) because PA is the authority of human evolution.
 * Anyway, only the public opinion by mainstream PA counts, right? Chakazul (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As for a single feature, I can name one here and now - the ability to mechanically seal our airway. EVERY aquatic vertebrate (and plenty of aquatic invertebrates) that breathes air has a method of doing this, whether it's sealing the pneumostome via a muscular sphincter (air-breathing fish), sealing the glottis (adult amphibians, lizards, snakes, turtles, birds), or sealing the nostrils (crocodilians and ALL aquatic mammals).  There is, to my knowledge, not a single habitually aquatic vertebrate which lacks the ability to seal off its lungs in some manner.  Humans totally lack any mechanism to do so, and in fact possess nasal cartilages which keep the nose *open*.  At the very least, this flatly contradicts claims of a diving ancestry.  Wading is, frankly, an extremely weak hypothesis, hanging on an extremely rare behavior of dubious selective pressure (and, frankly, given strong selection on wading, I'd expect a hypothetical wading ape to evolve into a swimmer complete with sealing nostrils). Mokele (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We do have airway closure, albeit not external -- "The human soft palate, unlike that of other primates, can elevate and close off the nasopharynx. This is a necessary feature of aquatic mammals that must be able to keep water out of the respiratory passage." (Langdon 1997 quoting Morgan). That's how human free-divers reach up to 200m underwater in one breath. Chakazul (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

However, all of this is completely beside the point. This is not a debate forum on the topic of AAH, this is a talk page about improving the article. So far, in all of this text, there was only one suggestion that fit this profile (#2), which cannot be implemented without violating WP:UNDUE. Mokele (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK we've gone too far, let's stop here. But I've some more to discuss on #3, actually on the "fringe" status of AAH, which is easy to define in hard sciences like general biology or physics, but a little problematic in paleoanthropology. Later. Chakazul (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To adjust the page, you need reliable sources that explicitly support your points in relation to the AAH. Without those sources, no changes should be made.  I don't see any in this discussion, it read a lot like original research.  Please present sources that explicitly support the AAH in a way that does not violate WP:UNDUE and demonstrate why the many sources indicating the AAH is not, and should not, be taken seriously, should be ignored.  Flatly, there are multiple sources explicitly stating the AAH is not a serious contender within paleoanthropology, and no real indication that this opinion is wrong (ie. extensive discussion in textbooks and review articles indicating support for the theory).  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)