Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aquatic ape hypothesis article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
Charles Darwin This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology.
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
Low rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4


Contents

[edit] removed "arguments against" // Restored

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

[1], potential source. WLU 12:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Good. Not very specific, but something we should use. kwami 18:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Removed in the reversion. The reason counter claims are in line is to keep the article neutral. The arguments need to be presented as AAH proponents present their arguments while remaining factually accurate. This requires a bit of a balancing act. Previously the structure had the counterclaims at the end with the criticisms which was far more confusing and could leave people with the impression that the arguments are themselves factual.
For example:
Humans are the only land animals with a dive reflex. Most land mammals have no conscious control over their breathing. The voluntary control humans have over their respiratory system can be compared to that of (semi)aquatic mammals which inhale as much air as they need for a dive, then return to the surface for air. Morgan argued that this voluntary breathing capacity was one of the preadaptations to human voluntary speech.
This is an argument for AAH, it is an argument used by AAH proponents. However, it is factually inaccurate as all vertebrates have a dive reflex, to the point where thinking that animals would start inhaling water when dumped in is rather odd. Morgan and other have claimed that AAH explains voluntary control of speech even though most mammals easily make voluntary noises. And that actual aquatic mammals store oxygen completely different than humans and other terrestrial mammals. There's no other way to do this. You cannot present the argument promoted by AAH while remaining factually accurate. You could do it completely in-line but that would completely butcher the statements. Humans are not the only land animal with a dive reflex, in fact, all land animals seem to have one... but never the less the AAH proponents say that it's false and that only AAH explains it well enough. And you can't shove it down in criticism because (as noted above in the talk) it isn't criticism of the theory itself it's a set of corrections to factually inaccurate statements made.
Also the issue of strawmen is worth noting and should be noted, but that's mostly due to the vagueness of the theory and the multiple proponents without any formal education or peer-reviewed studies, or without any formalized definition of the theory itself. Certainly some supporters have claimed that AAH explains mermaids as race-memory of aquatic stages of man. Limiting to just the arguments of some limited selection of AAH theorists would at least make it practical to present the article without "strawmen" -- but the article is concerning the entire theory and there are some people who suggest that "aquatic stage of man" functions as a "preadaptation" to human speech (Morgan specifically). If the theory were more formalized and less scattered it would help in this respect, but the best that can be done is to present the arguments for AAH given by the proponents and correcting any counterfactual data. Tat 06:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem I have is that they're unreferenced, and often misrepresent the arguments. Let's take breath control. Morgan specifically uses the dog as an example of an animal without voluntary breath control, describing how difficult it is to teach a dog to "speak" compared to training them to follow other commands. Perhaps she's wrong, but to say that her claim is invalid because dogs bark strikes me as dishonest.
Also, this isn't an article about human evolution, it's about a particular hypothesis, and we don't present other hypotheses with in-line critiques this way. For example, there are no in-line counter-claims in astrology, despite the fact that its claims are full of factual errors; rather, a note on how the scientific community views it is included in the introduction, and a section on research is found at the end. With the way you restored the article, it seems that the editors of Wikipedia are doing their best to ensure that our readers do not believe in AAH, surely not our role. kwami 08:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The whole page needs sources, for both for and against. That's the biggest problem. There are some, but they're not really used - citations, footnotes, inline links, everything. The whole page needs a re-work and it needs to be made clear that the theory is NOT accepted as good science. The page, and the savanna theory both need to be re-done so they don't look like a soapbox for the AAH. WLU 15:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hold on a minute! Why does it need to be made clear that 'the theory' is not accepted as good science? Who are you to make that claim? Just one paper has even addressed the subject in 50 years in a first class anthropological journal (Langdon 1997) and that paper is clearly givingg a straw man argument. It is fair enough to state somewhere that mainstream anthropology has ignored the idea or that almost no primary research has been to to test its various hypotheses but in no way can anyone asssert that it is not good science. If it is defined carefully I would argue that not only is it very good science but it actually explains ape-human divergence very well indeed. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Although I tend to agree with you that pro-AAT theorists tend to rattle on too much about the savannah theory, it is equally inaccurate to portray this as a straw man argument. Pick up any text book about human evolution written in the last 75 years, or look at any peice of literature which discusses the subject broadly, and you'll find implitly if not explictly the basic idea that it was climate shift and an increase in aridity that was the root cause of ape-human divergence. Langdon (1997) said that the savannah theory was a straw man invented by Elaine Morgan but this is almost exactly the opposite of the truth. Langdon, in fact, published a classic straw man against this 'more aquatic' idea. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
There are no in-line counter-claims for astrology because astrology doesn't consist almost exclusively of vague pseudo-science arguments. I checked the astrology article and no, it doesn't and can't be seen to suggest astrology actually works. It talks about the history, traditions, beliefs, branches. All the things a good article about astrology should talk about. It doesn't say: Astrology tells something meaningful about a person, requiring a claim to clarify that there is every reason to believe that isn't so. Your example of the dog is quite noteworthy, in that, of course she's wrong, arguing that a dog doesn't have voluntary breath control is absurd. And the only reason she does it is to argue that humans are different. The biggest problem with AAH is that it isn't scientific. Morgan just pulled out this theory and went around making up arguments to support it, even if the data didn't support it, she literally went about picking out the differences between humans and chimps and making up water-based arguments for them. Conclusion first, then data: while science is done the other way around, data first, get a theory and as more data comes in, your theory gets to live or die with it. The progression of AAH was conclusion, make up a bunch of arguments how everything was related to water, as data comes in make the theory more and more vague. Still, to this day the only thing it has is a bunch of arguments for some vague association with water. Those are presented and the problems with them are explained. You can't simply omit the argument because it's flawed because without the arguments the only thing which is left is a claim that AAH is a theory that man went through some water stage sometime, somewhere, in the past. No anthropologists support this theory and when addressed it is addressed by peer-reviewed scholarship (which isn't often) it is usually soundly rebutted. It would certainly be less soapboxy, and might be a better article. If you omitted all the non-evidence from AAH you are left with: "humans tended to live near water and eat fish", which isn't even a theory, it's just a statement of fact and doesn't have any of the bizarre claims like water made humans evolve bipedal locomotion, or the ability to hold your breath (which every chordate has by the way). Without the arguments, I don't think it gives a proper overview of AAH. And without the counterclaims it would be seen as giving factually false statements. Yeah, it isn't perfect, but it's better than the counter claims being given way at the bottom. This is a marked step up from that format, and I would be happy to hear any suggestions for improvement. Other than removing all the arguments (and counterarguments) and noting that there are some arguments composed by finding differences between humans and apes and suggesting they are water related differences none of which have been supported by anthropology... I don't know what could be done to fix it. Tat (talk) 10:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are showing your bias against this idea quite clearly here: "The biggest problem with the AAH is that it isn't scientific." Actually, it is as scientific as any other idea about evolution. The hypothetico-deductive method suggests we make an observation, then we try to come up with an explanation for that observation and then we test the explanation iteratively. Hardy and Morgan were basically doing steps 1 and 2 in that list. It should be pointed out that most 'orthodox' theories of human evolution do not even do that, when it comes to the traits being considered here. (How many texts on human evolution attempt to explain increased adipocity or nakedness? they tend to just to ignore it.) Hardy was a fellow of the royal society, the very elite of the British scientific establishment and carefully considered the idea for 30 years before going public on it. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
What is true and fair to say is that mainstream anthropology has almost completely ignored the idea for almost 50 years. Therefore no research has been done. Because no research has been done, nothing much has been published in peer reviewed journals. Because nothing has been published few students are encouraged to study it and so it goes on. Catch 22. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Sources can still be provided for both articles based on what people believe about both, and there are extensive possible sources for of both (in astrology, I would assume popular books, still sources even if not scientific; for this article, there's an extensive reference list to draw from). The problems with this article are both stylistic and with the references. Better than a bunch of uncited claims would be a series of citations on 'arguments for' and citations for 'arguments against', all written in summary style, with good tone and organized according to the MOS. WLU (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference links

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

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

  • Pagel M., Bodmer, W., "A naked ape would have fewer parasites" Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 270 (2003) S117 - S119, DOI 10.1098/rsbl.2003.0041, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2003.0041
  • Seedhouse, E., The Spleen in the Spotlight, January 2003, Deeper blue [2].

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

I embedded a bunch of the references as inline citations where I could, removing them from the references section. The page is still disgustingly full of original research and syntheses for both claims and counter-claims. We should not be citing 'video of a monkey wading through water' as a source in either direction - that is a primary source and not eligible to prove anything on the page. All editors should remember that wikipedia reports verifiability, not truth - wikipedia does not prove or disprove that the AAH is true, we merely report what the most reliable sources have to say about the subject. I'd like to remove the remaining 'references' as they are not linked to any statements in the main body, but I'd like other comments, and to give people time to link them to statements if they know where they should go. WLU (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you, WLU. The wikipedia page should indeed report what is verifiable about the so-called 'aquatic ape hypothesis'. So, what is verifiable? Not much. Basically all we have are the published books and other literature about the subject. The majority of that literature, about 55 pieces in all (Roede et al 1991 includes 11 for and 11 against) is in favour and about 16 pieces are against. So the Wikipedia page should reflect that, right? However, the only paper published in a first class anthropological journal (JHE, Langdon 1997) was against and that should be weighted accordingly but not used as an excuse to rubbish the idea.
The published material then should clearly provide the core, verifiable, source for the article. However, this alone would not make for a very accessible or intereting page for the reader. What is clearly required is some kind of general statement as to what the idea actually is and that is where we get into difficulties. The biggest problem with this idea is that is has not yet been very carefully defined in the literature and therefore there has been a great deal of misunderstanding about it. Even its name 'The aquatic ape hypothesis' was not used by its original author but applied later, almost for journalistic reasons. The very label has caused confusion because the idea is not suggesting there ever was an an aquatic ape. Hardy (1960) asked "was man MORE (my emphasis) aquatic in the past?" - this is not saying that man was aquatic in any sense, just more aquatic than we are now and, by implication, more aquatic than the ancestors of the apes. I have attempted to relabel and define the idea accordingly - [[3]]. Although this has not yet been peer reviewed, Elaine Morgan has publicly voiced her endorsment.
I think that any meaningful, useful page about the so-called "aquatic ape hypothesis" (far better labelled 'waterside hypotheses of human evolution') should treat this problem in some way. It should also provide a launching pad to other web sites (both critical and favourable) which deal with aspects of the subject in more detail.

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

[edit] Gutting the page

I'm thinking about gutting the page of everything that doesn't have a citaiton. The page is still a huge mess of claims and counter-claims, none of which are sourced, or those that are sourced are synthesis and evaluations of what research summaries exist. Any claims and counter-claims that could be sourced could be re-added gradually, with the citation. As is, the page reads like a web fora debating on the truth of the AAH, and that is not what we are here for. What do other editors think? WLU (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I did something along those lines once, but it all got added back in again. kwami (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I've a revert button. WP:PROVEIT says it's up to the add-ee to source, not the remover to justify. WLU (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The page has been gutted. I've removed everything without a citation, as well as all the citations I found that were worthless (i.e. weblinks to nowhere or dead pages) or OR if included(i.e. didn't mention the AAH at all, but still used to support or counter things). I may have been somewhat overzealous, but anything I've removed that was supported is easy enough to pull out of the history and paste back in rather than a blanket revert. WP:PROVIT supports removing unsourced information, and the page was a hideous mess of OR and unsupported 'nuh-uh' claims and counter-claims. WLU (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
...and it's been reverted. I'm talking to User:StephenBuxton to see if it is just a reflex at the loss of massive amounts of text, or if he's got a particular interest in the page itself. WLU (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It was a reflex action to large amount of text going with no valid edit summary. I've reverted my revert. Consider the article now vert. :-) StephenBuxton (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
...and it's back to its gutless self, thanks Stephen. And my edit summary was totally valid! As long as the editor read the talk page. Ok, so maybe it wasn't. I'll be leaving comments on a couple editor's talk pages to let them know and request help in re-populating. WLU (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's certainly for the best. The majority of the article was AAH proponents say X, counter claims: X is categorically false. -- How many times can you read the same crap. I honestly think there needs to be some overview, perhaps the intro should be expanded a bit (certainly not the arguments back). And some of the "mix" receptions needs really to be fixed. It hasn't been mixed. Mainstream paleontology has rejected it and the "supporting" links are excruciatingly weak. I wish there was something to simply tag a page as pseudoscience. The last 40 years of paleontology and the AAH reply *STILL* 'poppycock! It has something vaguely to do with water!'. This is a good step in the right direction. Tat (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I actually agree that the page was very badly written and needed "gutting". Unless there is a verifiable source, it should not contain a list of claims and/or counter claims. But to argue (as Tatarize does) that this is only what proponents do is a gross misrepresentation. Opponents of the idea seem to do it even more in my opinion. To say that "mainstream anthropology has rejected it" is an exaggeration. The fact is only one paper has even looked it in a mainstream anthropological journal in 50 years and that paper (Langdon 1997) only critiques a straw man argument. It would be more accurate to say that "mainstream anthropology has ignored the idea". When people use terms like "pseudoscience", "poppycock", "vaguely to do with water" etc I think it just shows their bias and ignorance. But anyway, I agree that it this is a step forward. I say good riddance to all that unsubstantiated argument. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
However, now that chunks of the page have been culled it's clear (e.g. comment below) that some seriois content is now missing and that the general reader would not be greatly enlightened from using Wikipedia. I think the defition of the idea needs much more stucture and it should make it clear that there is not just one single idea but a cluster of them. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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

What you're asking for is basically a rewrite. The "toothy" version is written from an inappropriate point-counterpoint perspective, so we can't just add it back in; lots of work to be done in any case. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
We seem to have gone from one extreme to another, from TMI to TLI. Overall I think the slimline version is better but I might change the emphasis a bit. And, yes, lots of work still to do on this article. SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 11:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I've absolutely no problem with what's been said so far about the page, the only thing I would like to see happen is that when information is added, it be sourced, even just to the Morgan books. Ideally though, if sourcing the books the page where the specific information is taken from the page number should be cited as well to allow verification and discussion of how to represent the source text (if challenged). There are enough sources in the lead alone to write the skeleton of the theory, and with three sources justifying the statement of 'criticism', there should be enough to flesh out the mainstream opposition. WLU (talk) 12:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarify, how?

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

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

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

[edit] support[4][5][6] in mainstream paleoanthropology?

I think the support line needs to be removed. All of the sources are wrong.

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

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

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

Lots of ideas in science are "laughed out of the room" when they are first announced but, years later, it's the people that did the laughing that have egg on their faces. I think you are showing a clear bias here. It's only a hypothesis. Why are you so determined to censor it out of existance? Hardy's idea is a very interesting one that deserves some serious scientific attention. The fact that so little science has been done since 1960 has more to do with the power of peer pressure and authtority than any scietific rejeection. Hardy was a very well respected scientist and wrotee several books about evolution generally. Why do you have to try to discredit him?
The Crawford et al work says more than "man ate fish". They make a strong case that the marine food chain contains many nutrients essential to brain growth and as this is a key characteristic of human evolution it is logical that this diet was a major contributory factor in that evolution.
Tobias (1998) actively supported Elaine Morgan's work and encouraged his peers to look at the idea seriously.
I think you're clutching at straws - anything to try to censor this idea out of existance. We should also cite Cameron and Groves comment on this - from two mainstream paleoanthropologists -
“... Nor can we exclude the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (AAH). Elaine Morgan has long argued that many aspects of human anatomy are best explained as a legacy of a semiaquatic phase in the proto-human trajectory, and this includes upright posture to cope with increased water depth as our ancestors foraged farther and further from the lake or seashore. At first, this idea was simply ignored as grotesque, and perhaps as unworthy of discussion because proposed by an amateur. But Morgan's latest arguments have reached a sophistication that simply demands to be taken seriously (Morgan 1990, 1997). And although the authors shy away from more speculative reconstructions in favor of phylogenetic scenarios, we insist that the AAH take its place in the battery of possible functional scenarios for hominin divergence.” Groves and Cameron (2004:68) Cameron, D., Groves, C. (2004). Bones, Stones and Molecules ("Out of Africa" and Human Origins). Elsevier (Sydney)


[edit] Since the 1960s, the theory has not changed much

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] AlgisKuliukas and Marc Verhaegen

I know this topic isn't specifically about either Kuliukas or Verhaegen but aren't there guidelines on Wikipedia which say something along the lines of, if this is something that you're basically the only person around still propping up you don't get to edit the wikipedia page on it? Verhaegen readded his tiny unpopular yahoo group as a link (replacing Aquaticapes.org -- actually a great site), and Algis Kuliukas's Riverapes.com is listed there in the links too. I could see some biologists editing biology pages, but adding links to their own yahoo groups or webpages? Tat (talk) 09:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Tat (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Most important is if the links are OK per WP:EL (I like to include WP:RS - if they're not a reliable source, why are they a link? If it's just some guy's website, why should it be linked to? Unless that 'some guy' is really notable, in which case it should be easy to source their work rather than their website, why do they have a website on the page?). WLU (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Tatarize has shown him/her self to be consistently biased against this idea. Marc and I are not the only people propping up this idea. There are many of us, including some creditable scientists. The link to my web site was originally entered here by someone I do not know, not me. Recently my link was taken down again because "the problem with riverapes is reliability and lack of demonstrated expertise, not what it supports" - interesting as 'www.aquaticape.org' was developed by Jim Moore's someone who admits on his first page that he has no expertise on the subject at all. I'm no expert either but I do have a masters degree and I'm currently doing a PhD in the subject.
Despite Jim Moore's "lack of reliability and demonstraated expertise" his site not only continues to get listed but also included (until I removed it) his own marketing angle "scientific critique". It is NOT a great site. It is nothing more than a sleazy attempt at a character assisination of Elaine Morgan. If anyone doubts that, they should at least see my critique of it "Sink of Swim?" Note that I have not removed the link to Jim Moore's web site or re-inserted the ref to mine, even though I think someone who is impartial should do something to restore some balance.
There is a clear bias against this idea by many people, for reasons which I do not really understand. People seem to be too keen to assign this idea to the "crazy box" along with creationism and Von Daniken, but when they do so they just show how ignorant they are about it. Can they not discriminate between the likelihood that wading through shallow water might have been a factor in the origin of hominid bipedalism and the idea that aliens came down from outer space to inseminate our ancestors. Really? Is it so hard to see that one is actually very likely and the other is all but impossible?
If you are going to remove links to Marc's web pages and mine then, if you are at all consistent, you must remove the links to Jim Moore's too.
I prefer to see more links here than fewer, otherwise what on earth is this page meant to be informing people about? We can't agree on what content to go in, so at least it should provide links to other web sites, both for and against, so people can at least be a little more informed and make their own minds up. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The pages do not appear to be reliable sources and therefore in my mind their removal is completely appropriate per WP:EL. The ones that are present seem fine to me. WLU (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not a bias against the idea it's that the entire idea isn't scientific. AAH was created to explain a bunch of facts, in fact, Morgan had the theory already and went through a painstaking process of looking up things and making up how they relate. Finding facts to fit the theory rather than making a theory to explain the facts is pretty much the hallmark of pseudoscience. It is quite likely that some several hundred thousand years ago our ancestors ate a large amount of fish and probably caught them too, and probably swam. There may be some evolutionary effects, as it true with many things. However, all of the traits typically mentioned are better explained with the mainstream theories, which, have actually changed and progress with the data. A good understanding of modern understanding of anthropology pretty well explains all the traits (with the exception of why massively larger brains, which intelligence explains but isn't very satisfying). I am not very favorable to the idea, and I do find Jim Moore's critique to be the best critique available anywhere. I highly recommend reading it [4] and the explanations of the claims made by proponents and how they are wrong. Saying that it is "nothing more than a sleazy attempt at a character assassination" is reprehensible. The fact remains that you and Marc are established enough as the community to warrant your links to be on the page as well as having a vested interest in the theory and thus a Conflict of Interest. Tat (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that it is the idea or hypothesis that is unscientific. In fact is is a perfectly viable hypothesis. However, the real issue is how the main proponents have conducted themselves and how they have conducted their research; ideas should not talk the blame for people who use them.
This is neither here nor there though as we should only be presenting what reliable sources have to say about the topic. As of now this article is a much better representation of this than it has been in the past and I think that the three external links are also representative of this and see no reason to add more. --Woland (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
How, exactly, can an idea be unscientific anyway? The original proponents (Westernhōfer & Hardy) were well respected scientists who raised questions to their peers expecting others to follow with proper scientific investigations. Hardy was retired when he fisrt published his ideas. The astonishing thing is that no anthropologist took any interest in the idea at all. Any criticism that should be dished out, therefore, it seems to me should be to directed at the field of paleoanthropology as much as to the proponents. What, exactly, is it proposed Elaine Morgan (a playwrite at the age of 50) should have done? Start her own anthropology department? For thirty years she has bravely campaigned to try to get this idea taken mores seriously but even today the main response is sneering, gossip and ignorance - hardly the hallmark of science.
Finally, I want to address Tatarize's reply to my comments about Jim Moore's site. You say it's the "best" critique of the AAH "available anywhere." What do you mean by "best?" Most damning? Most vitriolic? It's certainly not the most scientific. That title would have to go to Roede et al (1991) which at least gives a balance account with 11 proponentss and 11 opponents contributing. Each paper, unlike Jim Moore's web site, is properly referenced. The conclusion of Roede et al (1991) by the way, although rejecting a strong form of the AAH clearly endorsed a weaker form. Anyone who has been recommended Moore's site should also know there is a severe critique of it ("Sink of Swim?").
However, I do actually agree with you about the conflict of interest criticism. It is right that main article should not have links to web sites put there by any author. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ideas about the role of aquatic environments on human evolution

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

[edit] individuate per author

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

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

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

I'm not sure if such a format would be useful. Also, an article about a particular theory or hypothesis does not usually have sections devoted to particular people and their ideas (excluding articles about the history of a particular theory). The reason that this article, as of now, doesn't have very much to say is because all unsourced material has been removed. I think it is a good idea to add more relevant sourced material but I don't think it would be a particularly good idea to break that material down into sections by particular author/researcher.
Criticisms that don't address the issue they claim to (such as arguing that humans aren't really hairless), or which are unsupported or factually wrong, don't belong in an article on the AAH itself. This isn't a debate where anything goes.
Please keep in mind that this isn't a debate at all. What this is is an article on the AAH using sourced material which includes sourced criticisms, it is not up to us to decide which criticisms are valid and which are not, we should report what sources say and let them speak for themselves. --Woland (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The page needs, more than anything else, an expansion based on reliable sources that discuss the actual hypothesis itself, support for the hypothesis, and criticism of the hypothesis. Structure isn't the problem, it's the lack of digging for sources. WLU (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Some of the criticisms have in the past been clearly unreliable, and it is our job as editors not to use unreliable sources. However, the hypothesis is the hypothesis, regardless of the reliability of its claims. — kwami (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, my comment about reliable sources applies to hypothesis, support and criticism. Though as a fringe topic, parity of sources may apply. WLU (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree 100%.--Woland (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I also agree 100%. I do not think the article needs to be split by authors, as such, but a historical narrative of those publications that have been written about it is the very minimum this page should have. At the moment it has been gutted down to less than its bare bones. Anyone using Wikipedia to find out about this hypothesis would almost be none the wiser. i propose to start the ball rolling by creating a historical section which describes the way the idea has been developed over the years. May I suggest that those who are just opposed to this idea refrain from trying to censor this historical aspect out of existance but, instead, perhaps build a section entitled "Published Criticisms". Please note that these criticisms should also be sourced and not just taken from vociferous opponents' web sites. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, there's now enough pubmed sources for criticisms that there's no need to resort to less reliable sources. WLU (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New, properly sourced, version

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looks good, I've wikified a bit. The number of sources alone gives a large amount of material to work with to expand the page in a sourced, reliable manner for a good long while. Excellent work! WLU (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Outstanding. This is a big improvement. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Now we're getting somewhere! My only quibble is with the last paragraph of 'history', which is confusing enough that I don't want to try and fix it myself. Now, if we can just get a referenced section covering the major pieces of proposed circumstantial evidence and their criticisms, we'd have a truly informative article. I'm mostly only familiar with Morgan's work, so I'm probably not the one to do it. — kwami (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
What does assessing if there was an "aquatic ape" mean? Also the last line of that paragraph. — kwami (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps that needs a little elaboration. My point is that that anthropologists have rejected is an interpretation of the "aquatic ape hypothesis" that is quite literal... "was there an aquatic ape?" in the sense that a seal is an aquatic mammal. This is quite clear from the wording of Vernon Reynolds in his summary in Roede et al. It's also clear in Langdon's paper that he thinks the idea is quite extreme (bracketting it alongside Von Daniken's alies from spoace idea and creationism. Other important critiques also compare humans with aquatic mammals as if Hardy had suggested human became truly aquatic. Zihlman and Lowenstein, for example, argued that limb size reduction is predicted in aquatic animals and early hominids didn't exhibit that. Like most people, they have rejected the idea based on an interpretation of what *they think* it is proposing when, really, it wasn't.
In the 'hypotheses' section, I'm going to add a sentence elaborating on this potential to interpret the idea in different ways so that this point is made clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.189.114 (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)