Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis

Suggestion - new subsection - anthropological consensus on human evolution

I'm still trying to do something about this hopeless, negatively biased article. I propose to lead the section about the actual hypothesis/ses by summarizing the contemporary consensus on human evolution, as expressed by the scientific field of anthropology. This is to illustrate the background for Elaine Morgan's AAH, since she based her work on what she perceived as shortcomings to parts of that consensus, straw man arguments and whatnot. Whether we then further detail her challenging of this consensus in the following sections is for a different discussion. If you skeptics really desire an optimal, non-POV article detailing what the hell all this boohah is about, let's start with this, since it should contain the fewest controversies (unless creationists are also hanging out in here, which is not bloody unlikely the way things have been going).

Suggestion

Background - anthropological consensus on human evolution Family tree showing the extant hominoids: humans (genus Homo), chimpanzees and bonobos (genus Pan), gorillas (genus Gorilla), orangutans (genus Pongo), and gibbons (four genera of the family Hylobatidae: Hylobates, Hoolock, Nomascus, and Symphalangus). Great Rift Valley in East Africa, key to human evolution. File:Paranthropus on Plains art.jpg A classic depiction of the consensus on the earliest evolution of hominins in East Africa, here Paranthropus. See also: Human evolution Modern humans, Homo sapiens, developed from earlier forms found as fossils at various locations around the world, seeing an early concentration in East Africa. Other remnants from early humans such as tools, foods, dwellings, etc., have also been detected. Combined, these finds present a partial image of the process, that developed the species Homo sapiens. From the collective work of anthropology, and in later years also genetics, established consensus states, that humans belong in the biological tribe Hominini, this in the family of Hominidae (the great apes), this in the order of primates, this in the class of mammals. Humans are closely related to, in order of closest kinship, the great ape genera chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and further distant the family of gibbons. Hominini includes the subtribe Australopithecina with the genera Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, Ardipithecus, Paranthropus, Australopithecines; and the subtribe Hominina, encompassing the genus Homo, some of its species being Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, the Neanderthals and modern humans, the latter being the only extant species. There is still some uncertainty about the interrelation between the known Hominin fossils; new finds can still drastically rewrite the human family tree, most recently with Sahelanthropus. Contemporary anthropology estimates, that the direct ancestors of modern humans split from a common ancestor to chimpanzees somewhere between 4 and 8 million years ago in Africa; the fossil ape Sahelanthropus tchadensis which lived some 7 million years ago in Chad is considered the earliest possible homininin. Since the breakthrough of Darwin and Wallace's theory of evolution in the 19th century, it has been debated why humans have features that distinguish them from their nearest evolutionary relatives; most notably by being near-furless, employing upright bipedal stance on their hind limbs, and having the perhaps most complex brain in the animal kingdom. A wide range of difficult to corroborate hypotheses have been presented as to the evolutionary background of the unique features of modern humans; for human bipedalism e.g. altered carrying behavior, improved energy efficiency, improved thermal regulation, altered social behavior and increased dominance behavior. The human split from the lineage of the chimpanzees is linked to the geological formation of the East African mountain range Great Rift Valley that extends from Djibouti to Mozambique. In this region are found many of the key fossils of the earliest hominins, leaving it to be considered the cradle of humanity. The most widely considered hypothesis is that woodland dwelling, brachiating hominoids, specifically on the eastern side of the mountain range, gradually lost their habitat to more open areas, for instance grasslands, and that this and other changes forced these hominoids to develop the shapes, that gradually resulted in modern humans. In recent decades, the traditional image of human origin having taken place in grasslands (e.g. the African savannah) has been challenged, since particularly the oldest homininin fossils are found alongside fossilized fauna and flora from traditional woodland habitats, rather than from grasslands, e.g. the some 4.4 million year old fossil Ardi, an Ardipithecus ramidus. References

signing (with falsified date to match the original conclusion of this discussion) for archiver. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:05, 3 November 2013‎ (UTC)

Occam's razor

The attractiveness of believing in simplistic single-cause explanations over the much more complex, but better-supported models with multiple causality has been cited as a primary reason for the popularity of the idea with non-experts.

Er, Occam's razor, anyone? Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The clue here is 'better supported'. An explanation which isn't supported by verifiable evidence may be simple - that doesn't make it right. Maybe the wording could do with tweaking though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The source is also 18 years old. Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Very much enjoy it when anti-AATers say "better supported" and then offer no examples. Yet to find any evidence that "better supports" why humans are the only great apes with deposition of significant subcutaneous fat and loss of hair cover, more common in our aquatic mammal distant cousins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquapess (talk • contribs) 10:11, 9 September 2015 Aquapess (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

On a further note Andy, one of your favourite comments is that AAT can't be true because there's a general consensus at the moment - that doesn't make it wrong either. Copernicus and Heliocentricism anyone? How about Semmelweis and hand washing? It was his own fellow doctors that insisted he was wrong and millions of people died as a result, and he died peniless in a mental assylum. Think how also contentious it was only 20 years ago to believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Revolutions are made by thinking outside the box, not going along with the status quo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquapess (talk • contribs) 9 September 2015‎

Firstly, I have never stated that "AAT can't be true because there's a general consensus", and secondly, comparisons with Copernicus are ten-a-penny on Wikipedia article talk pages. Every other purveyor of snake-oil, perpetual-motion-machines and 'new physics to prove Einstein wrong' claims to be Copernicus reincarnated. They can't all be right, and accordingly Wikipedia has to stick with the tried and tested method of waiting for the revolution, and then reporting what is in orbit around where. And frankly, as 'revolutions' go, one that merely overturns the scientific consensus on how wet our distant ancestors got doesn't seem that revolutionary. Maybe though that is merely a jaded perspective of one who once actually believed in changing the future, rather than the past (not that I succeeded in either). AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there a specific edit to the article someone wishes to propose? Otherwise this appears clearly to be WP:NOTFORUM and should be closed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Do editorial changes have to be specific? Or can the general thrust of the article be discussed? Isn't the discussion about what the point of view of the article should be? Should the article help pooh-pooh the theory? Or strike a more neutral tone?173.173.20.99 (talk) 04:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Another example of revolutionary change in scientific orthodoxy is plate tectonics. lack of an overt statement that AAH must be wrong because the scientific consensus says so, does not alter the fact that that is at least part of the overall thrust of the article as it now stands. The Occam's razor point seems a strong one to me. And being grumpy and disappointed is in itself not an argument ... so my children often tell me, anyway ... 80.17.36.33 (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aquatic ape hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Vaneechoutte%20et%20al.%202012.%20Reply%20to%20Langdon.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Finger wrinkling

Hello,

It's great that we have a picture for finger wrinkling on the page, but I realised that there is actually no text to explain the relevance of this feature to AAT. Normally images accompany text to demonstrate something, but in this case, there's an image just floating in the "other claims" section with no information about this interesting topic, and as a result it looks a bit clumsy and disorganised. Conversely, the Wikipaedia page for fingers actually has a great and balanced section describing this interesting nervous system response. It's not simply just cells swelling in response to water exposure, which would happen all over our bodies if that was the case; and it has been known for some time that damage to nerves eliminates this response. So I propose to add something like this under the physiological and biochemical claims if that is ok?

• Finger wrinkling:

  

  Finger and toe wrinkling is controlled by the sympathetic nervous system in response to water immersion.

  Humans are the only great apes to show finger and toe pad wrinkling in response to exposure to wet conditions. Originally it was assumed that the finger wrinkling was simply the result of the skin swelling in water, but it is now understood that the furrows are caused by the blood vessels constricting due to signalling by the sympathetic nervous system in response to water exposure. One hypothesis that has been put forward is that the wrinkled fingertips are adaptive for grasping in wet conditions in the same way as tyre treads help to avoid slipping on the roads. This adaptation could have evolved at a time when human ancestors spent a predominant amount of time in aquatic or semi-aquatic environments. To investigate this, a study in 2013 found that the wrinkled fingertips provided better handling of wet objects but gave no advantage for handling dry objects. Conversely, a 2014 study attempting to reproduce these results was unable to demonstrate any improvement of handling wet objects with wrinkled fingertips. However, no other theory has yet been put forward to explain this nervous system response, and the authors of the latter paper suggest that this nervous response "does not serve any adaptive function but rather is a byproduct of sympathetic nervous system-induced vasoconstriction". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquapess (talk • contribs)

And do these papers make direct reference to the AAH? I'm guessing not. Removed along with picture. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Neil, so pleased to hear from you again!

1) If the finger wrinkling was really irrelevant to AAT, why was the picture there in the first place? Why was it not removed earlier? Especially since it had no reference at all?

2) You cited "no link to AAT" under your reason for removal of the fingertip wrinkling passage. The fingertip wrinkling has been shown by some research as to permit a gripping advantage, but ONLY in wet environments.

The fingertip wrinkling entry for fingers itself in wikipaedia even spells this out:

"One hypothesis for why this occurs, the “rain tread” hypothesis, posits that the wrinkles may help the fingers grip things when wet, possibly being an adaption from a time when humans dealt with rain and dew in forested primate habitats"

AAT supporters believe that the wet conditions that gave rise to the evolution of this interesting nervous response is actually semi-aquatic environments or the result of littoral living where humans collected molluscs from the water for example.

This is one of the central pieces of evidence in support of AAT. Although you may not agree about the evolutionary cause of the wrinkling, (and I included a reference that opposed the idea, for fairness and balance), it is clearly relevant to the topic of AAT, there is published research on it. I wonder what is the need to delete it now, rather than the many years previous that that picture has been up.Aquapess (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Because all kinds of inappropriate stuff exists in articles until someone notices it. You cannot take studies that have nothing to do with a fringe theory and say, "See, look! These support the fringe theory." That's like taking a rejected vaccine report and using it to support anti-vaxxer theories. What you can do is find sources that discuss these studies within a AAH context and use those. And please remember to sign your posts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm Neil, I would agree with you, except that the finger wrinkling topic has been so embedded in AAT evidence for so many decades. Even the picture has been on the page for years, so it's not like we just thought of it now. The anti-vaxxer movement came from one fraudulent doctor who made a study on a group of less than ten children and then presented the results in such a way to make a quick buck for himself. Conversely, the fingertip wrinkling has been a central tenet of AAT for many decades, and no other alternative has been put forward to explain it except "byproduct of evolution" or "spandrels". We also don't stand to make any profit from this, unlike Andrew Wakefield. We are just interested in the science.

I assume you're quite busy editing a number of pages, so maybe you didn't have time to read any of the links. So I will present a few quotes from the sources demonstrating links to AAT:

"Wrinkled fingers could have helped our ancestors to gather food from wet vegetation or streams" - This is pretty much what AAT is. AAT is commonly misconstrued as being wholly aquatic such as dolphins or whales, but it's not the case.

"This information has piqued the interest of those who subscribe to the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (AAH), which claims that ancestral apes lived in water at least part of the time. Others, however, dismiss the idea, as these adaptations could have come from water being ever present in the environment without spending as much time in it as proponents of AAH would say" - again, a balanced argument, showing both sides. Would be good if Wikipaedia could do the same

Aquapess (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah sorry Neil, there was no response, so I assumed that the above recent, high profile sources had proved the link to AAT.

Actually, it's ok if you delete this section. By clipping away at the article, you're actually reducing key words that lead to traffic on this page, and instead it will push curious people to sites like Nature or IFLS who are not frightened of discussing AAT even if they oppose it. It will also lead people to go to the fingertip page on wiki, which lays out the two studies on whether or not it confers and advantage in wet environments, and allow people to make up their own mind given the evidence, without the aggressively anti-AAT stance.

It would actually be more advantageous for you to keep the section on fingertips and just put greater emphasis on the article that didn't demonstrate an advantage in wet environments. But by removing the words "fingertip wrinkling" Google will lead curious people elsewhere. I feel stupid pointing this out to you, because as a wiki administrator for many years, I'm sure you must be intelligent enough to understand this. Nevertheless, we have to stand by the admin's choices.Aquapess (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

First, I'm not acting as an admin here. With respect to this article, I'm a regular editor just like yourself. Second, I am completely uninterested in "key words". Having key words does not appear in any Wikipedia policy or guideline so your not-so-subtle attempts at reverse psychology fall flat. Third, please acquaint yourself with WP:SYNTH again. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." If you want to say these studies support AAT, then find a source that explicitly says so. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

This WP:SYNTH - on that basis, you could remove the entire content of the page if you held that to account on every paragraph. For example, the Lancet article cited about the medical advantages of water births makes no mention of AAT, but the fact that it is safe and has been shown to be advantageous means that it is mentioned on this page. Will you delete that too? In that case, why not take a fine toothed comb to remove all such sentences and references?

Lastly, reverse psychology or not, you've got to admit that there's something hilarious about a grown man being afraid of a couple of sentences on fingertips (which appear almost word for word, reference for reference already on another wiki page without causing anyone any offense). If you're going to delete my section, at least let me poke a little fun. Aquapess (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Pruny Fingers Are An Evolutionary Advantage is I think okay for inclusion as they draw the connection and it looks like a reliable secondary source. The rest of them are better sources for their topics but including them would I'm afraid constitute OR as they just have not drawn a close enough connection with the topic of this article. It would also be reasonable to link to Finger#Fingertip_wrinkling_in_water for a description of the effect. Dmcq (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking Dmcq, yes, the references used were recent and reliable. Two of them were taken from the Finger wiki entry, so if they are acceptable there, why are they not acceptable here?

I also agree with your second point, best thing would be to link to the Finger page, via a link as I did in the second sentence of the passage, or as a direct quote, I don't mind whichever is deemed more appropriate Aquapess (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The other links about fingertip wrinkling would have to have a more direct reference to the topic to satisfy WP:OR. The source has to draw the connection rather than an editor on Wikipedia. They are about fingertip wrinkling so they are appropriate in an article about fingers. The don't point out a connection to the aquatic ape hypothesis so they can't go here. Dmcq (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for your considered and polite reply Dmcq. So basically, the IFLS reference which DOES specify link to AAT doesn't count I gather, so it wouldn't be possible to paraphrase to something like:

• Finger wrinkling:

  

  Finger and toe wrinkling is controlled by the sympathetic nervous system in response to water immersion.

  A recent study found that the finger wrinkling gave an advantage in handling objects but only in wet conditions, in the same way as tyre treads help to avoid slipping on wet roads.. Supporters of AAH believe this to be further evidence of human feature adapted to living in wet conditions. However, a subsequent study in 2014 attempting to reproduce these results was unable to demonstrate any improvement of handling wet objects with wrinkled fingertips. and there is no current consensus as to the evolutionary purpose for this trait.

I have shortened it, and put both sides forward, with no leaning towards either side. Aquapess (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm very odd Dmcq, I just found a section in the archives where you previously okayed the addition of this topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aquatic_ape_hypothesis/Archive_6#Illustrations_of_finger_and_feet_wrinkling — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquapess (talk • contribs) 21:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I am unable to figure out what you are trying to say. Could you phrase it without things like 'very off' which I could not find on the web thanks. What are you trying to say by 'So basically, the IFLS reference which DOES specify link to AAT doesn't count I gather, so it wouldn't be possible to paraphrase to something like:'. I thought I said that was okay as a source for this article, are there extra not's in there which don't count as a negative? Dmcq (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

So sorry Dmcq, I made a typo in my original reply, and I think when I went to correcting it you were also editing the page, so my corrections were not saved. I meant to say "odd", in the sense that you said it was ok before, I wonder why it got deleted since then?

Also, I got confused when you said "They are not about AAH, so they can't go here" - I thought that meant that you had decided that the passage was not appropriate for adding to this page afterall. So if you are happy to add the section to the main AAH article, please go ahead with whichever format you think is best. I am reluctant to make any changes to the page now in case I get reported for edit warring or something. Aquapess (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dmcq, thanks for the edit, looks great. It's good that you put the link to the fingertip wrinkling as well, as discussed. Personally, I really like this topic, not only because it's physiologically interesting, but it also supports the idea that AAT isn't about being in the water 100% of the time, since our fingers only wrinkle in response to water exposure. If AAT really was about being wholly aquatic like dolphins or whales as is commonly misinterpreted, then our fingers would be wrinkled all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquapess (talk • contribs) 16:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Article outdated in name and content

This article is outdated both in its name and approach. I have just listened to part 1 of a BBC radio 4 programme at [1] by David Attenborough, which states that it is now called the "Waterside ape theory", and is increasingly accepted by mainstream scientists. (Part 2 of the radio program on the latest evidence is tomorrow 15 September.) The subject is outside my field, but is very important in human evolution and badly needs rewriting by someone competent. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I have so looked forward to this programm, remembering the laughter that David Attenborough faced going to a symposium on the subject a couple of years ago. At the moment a redirect would be the first step, one that I will try to do (1st time), and it will be interesting to see what all the blog writers now say about the possibility of the hypothesis being feasible.Edmund Patrick – confer 09:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference to peer reviewed paper in a reputable scholarly journal please? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Waterside ape theory search will give this page as first choice. Not sure redirect necessary? Edmund Patrick – confer 09:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

NeilN No peer papers found yet but [this link] to the programme will have to do at thye moment, if you can listen to it, not sure where you are geographicially! Edmund Patrick – confer 09:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

And does Attenborough refer to peer reviewed papers? Otherwise, he's not qualified to make the determination. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

He does, quite a few times, in relationship to particular parts of the theory alongside those for the theory as a whole. Edmund Patrick – confer 09:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, if you could provide the names of the papers and the journals they appear in then we could probably dig them up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Attenborough has been promoting this for years, nothing new in that. The claim that it is "gaining traction" is unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable because it is not true.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Today's programme was on the history of the controversy, tomorrow's on the latest research. Checking the papers (and maybe books) of the scientists interviewed should provide reliable sources. 10:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I predict it is going to be research by the same little group of scientists who have been pushing the theory on this very page for the past decade or so - Vanechoutte, Kuliakis, Verhaegen.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Just so no one jumps ahead, if you want this article renamed, a requested move discussion will have to occur. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Beginning to collate a list, and great to see that “At the heart of science is an essential tension between two seemingly contradictory attitudes--an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counter-intuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new.” is still relevent! Edmund Patrick – confer 10:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

A start - Episode one papers after one repeat listen on way to work!!! May not be complete and times into programme are in brackets.

• Columbia Earth Institute 2010 (04.30)in reference to percentage of humanity that lives in coastal region.
• Scientific American 2010 (25.22) University of Arizona cover story Early Human Dependence on Shellfish on coast of South Africa in ref to recent - 160,000 years ago - history.
• Scars of Evolution - series 2004 - (39.32) testable predictions in this case Vernix caseosa

is this what you are looking for? Hopefully others will add and it will at least improve the article. Edmund Patrick – confer 10:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

No, those are all popular press coverage, what would be required would be actual peer reviewed academic articles suggesting that any version of the Aquatic hypothesis has serious backing in the paleoanthropological scientific community.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

My limited research on Scientific American was to their website - which may well be lies - "Generally speaking, Scientific American and Scientific American MIND present ideas that have already been published in the peer-reviewed technical literature. We do not publish new theories or results of original research." and of course in this particular case especially so. Columbia Earth Institute is part of Columbia University, hopefully for student numbers they are popular, even so I would like to think they took professional care as to what they and the scientists involved published especially if not peer reviewed. Actually (although I have a form of dylexic so in my case my reading is sometimes open to misinterpretation, so apologies if so, but) the peer review does not have to have serious backing in the paleoanthropological scientific community, what it must do is peer review research into the theory it does not need to back it.Edmund Patrick – confer 12:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

No, those are popular science outlets that publish articles of interest to the general reader. This kind of publication is never a reliable or useful gyuide to the scientific standing of any particular theory. Unless supported by sources published in respected academic journals there is no basis whatsoever for claiming that any kind of aquatic evolutionary scenario is gaining acceptance. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

On an issue such as this there will be peer-reviewed articles on both sides. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences) points out that such articles often report the author's own research, and should be treated with caution as primary sources. The guidance also says that articles in Scientific American are often summaries of a field by a recognised expert; we have to look at each source on its merits, not adopt hard and fast rules. In this case, there are experts on both sides of the argument, so we should be reporting both sides, not taking a POV view that the theory is wrong, as the article does now. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

There really isnt. You are misrepresenting the status of the hypothesis in your comment. There are no major experts of human evolution that support the AAH - this is simply false. The one actual expert who did was the late Philip Tobias. There are hardly any peer reviewed articles on the AAH: Vaneechoutte, Verhaegen and Kuliakis have recently published a few articles in minor peer reviewed journals and organized a conference on the topic that they have promoted very much (but which didnt feature support from any major experts), but these articles and conference do not show that the theory is gaining traction - and there are vastly many more sources that completely ignore the AAH (you will not find AAH mentioned in any textbooks on human evolution for example or in reviews of advances in the field). You need to read some more actual sources about human evolution and paleoanthropology (reliable academic review articles or textbooks rather than popular science articles which are notorious for pushing interestingnew findings and theories and ignoreing more boring mainstream views and established knowledge) before you make claims about the relative scientific support. This is a VERY clear fringe hypothesis with almost zero percent scientific standing. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It is true that the theory is generally ignored in popular books on human evolution. I have read many books by Chris Stringer, Ian Tattersall, Donald Johanson, Spencer Wells etc, and it is rarely referred to. However that does not mean that it lacks heavyweight support. Attenborough's programme had quotes from Richard Wrangham, professor of human evolution at Harvard, saying humans learnt to walk bipedally in water; Michael Crawford, director of the institute of brain chemistry and human nutrition at Imperial College, saying that marine foods were necessary to the expansion of the brain (and a quote from Stringer disagreeing); Will Archer of the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology saying that human ancestors were eating catfish 2 million years ago; Professor Naama Goren-Inbar of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem saying that diet at the 700,000 year old Gesher Benot Ya'aqov site in Israel included marine nuts which required diving several metres. One resarcher had trawled the Journal of Human Evolution for references to marine resources. She found almost nothing up to 2002, then a gradual increase until 2014 when they had a special issue on aquatic resources and their importance for human brain evolution. This special issue should be a good place to look at the state of expert opinion. It is obviously a minority view, but one held by serious scientists. The Wiki article at present reads like a blog by an opponent, not an encyclopedia article. It needs revision by someone with no axe to grind on either side. I do not intend to take it on as I am almost the only editor working on Anglo-Saxon history and there are plenty of people interested in evolution. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes the fact that a theory is ignored by summaries of the mainstream view does mean that a view lacks support. It is indeed the best possible evidence. I have not seen Wrangham argueing that human bidpedality is an adaptation to water - if he believes this then presumably he has published this somewhere in a peer reviewed - which would certainly be a notable proponent. So please bring a source that is actually by Wrangham to the table. Evidence of prehistoric humans eating crustaceans, catfish or other marine foods is not the AAH - which specifically posits adaptations to a watery milieu. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I do not want to divert from working on Anglo-Saxon history. Hopefully someone will do the research to make the article more balanced. Otherwise it will remain a one-sided argument against the theory. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Given the theory's standing it would be hard for it not to read as an argument against the theory and observe WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Also I think it is necessary to separate the AAH hypothesis (which suggests that water has been the origin of a suit of specific adaptations - the umbrella hypothesis) from the idea that water and occasional wading may have been related to one or a couple of specific adaptations. Certainly serious scholars may entertain the second scenario, but not the first.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Dudley Miles for the work in providing a informative description of the second episode. It is true that the article is not neutral in its words and presentation, though like you there is limitations to what I can do, and I would have an axe to grind, mainly the total denial of any possibility of this theory being correct or partly correct and given obviously the number of scientists and/or professors that have just committed a foolish mistake of expressing support for parts of the theory I am not alone. It has and I am sure will continue to lead to wonderful evening conversations with fellow workers especially archaeologists! Once I have finished my work on Mathew Hopkins and Edmund the Martyr I may well take a deep breath and.....Edmund Patrick – confer 12:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• I found this article by Wrangham, Cheney, Seyfarth and Sarmiento in which they do propose that lacustrine wading (in a savannah context!) provided necessary preadaptations for bipedality. "Wrangham, Richard, Dorothy Cheney, Robert Seyfarth, and Esteban Sarmiento. "Shallow‐water habitats as sources of fallback foods for hominins." American Journal of Physical Anthropology 140, no. 4 (2009): 630-642." This is however part of his somewhat theory about underground storage organs (tubers) being an important resource for early hominins - so it is hard to assess how the reception of the idea has been. It has 70 citations on google scholar, but I havent looked through them.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Link to site with malware

The sentence "Conversely, both Morgan and Algis Kuliukas have accused Moore of distorting Morgan and other AAH-proponents presentations from the debate, using only little referencing" is followed by two citations. The first of these needs to be removed. When I clicked on it, my browser left a message stating, "The site ahead contains malware Attackers currently on www.elainemorgan.me.uk might attempt to install dangerous programs on your computer that steal or delete your information (for example, photos, passwords, messages, and credit cards)." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

BBC Radio 4 Documentary 14th/15th September 2016

Having just listened to the two-part mini documentary series from the BBC on this subject, isn't it time this page was updated a little to make it a bit more positive?

Please can impartial readers listen to the documentary and make some appropriate amendments?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07v2ysg#play

AlgisKuliukas (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)