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)

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 am very glad to hear you are working on Edmund. I know very little about East Anglian history. Any chance of seeing it at FAC? I aim to get Æthelflæd to FAC soon. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

moved conversation to my talk page more appropiate. Edmund Patrick – confer 14:40, 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)

I’ve added a Wayback Machine URL from a few months before the given access date. More recent captures suggest the site has been unmaintained or abandoned for the last year or two.—Odysseus1479 15:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:37, 16 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)

Why should the BBC documentary have any effect on wikipedia's coverage?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Because more compelling evidence was presented. The BBC is not the same as The National Enquirer or Fox News. JMcC (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

BBC and other news sources are not very reliable sources for science topics, especially not for the scientific standing of controversial theories or hypotheses.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that a broadcast is not a suitable reference for a topic of this type, but it was very useful in pointing to good RS sources, particularly the publications of Richard Wrangham and the 2014 special issue of the Journal of Human Evolution. It was also useful in drawing attention to a far better name, 'waterside ape'. The current name comically exaggerates the claims of the theory, and has always put me off it. It would of course be necessary to check how generally the new name is now used before proposing any move of the article name. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The increase in the number of [visitors] to this page does show that there is a real requirement to bring the article up to date, with for example a name change, which as DM says is a better name and reflects the hypothesis some what better.Edmund Patrick – confer 12:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The name change is impossible, the waterside/wading hypothesis and the AAH are different things - that some former AAH supporters are trying to shift the goalposts to frame their theory in a way that is more acceptable is not reason to change it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It might be possible to have an article that could be titled something like "the role of water in hominin evolution" that discusses both the AAH and the wading hypothesis. But it wouldnt be very different from the current article since none of the water-related adaptation scenarios are commonly accepted·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC).

I think name change is premature and not too important. Sure the theory is changing but it is recognizably the same. To answer an earlier comment, the name of David Attenborough should be enough to add some weight to the Radio 4 programmes. But the article itself is dated and leaves out many lines of argument that have been brought in over the years. Chris55 (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, Chris. The name change is key for me. The "aquatic ape" was supposed to be an ironic term (of the apes, which are most definitely not aquatic, we are the most aquatic) but it would appear that the irony flew over the heads of an entire field. It seems they are determined that it must actually mean something extreme and ridiculous. It is, of course, the worst kind of straw man argument, but if we change the name it shows we are serious about this point. Elaine Morgan and I wrote a chapter in the 2011 book "50 Years after Hardy: Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution" on this very subject where we defined the new label which is, note, in the plural. [Kuliukas, AV , Morgan, E (2011). Aquatic scenarios in the thinking on human evolution: What are they and how do they compare?. In: Vaneechoutte, M , Verhaegen, M , Kuliukas, AV (eds.), (2011). Was Man More Aquatic In The Past? Fifty Years After Alister Hardy: Waterside Hypothesis Of Human Evolution. Bentham (Basel)]

Alice Roberts cites Foley & Lahr as some kind of refutation but it clearly fails to understand this point as it seems to deliberately obfuscate and muddle arguments from different ideas. (See my published reply to that... [Kuliukas, AV Removing the “hermetic seal” from the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis: Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution. Advances in Anthropology 4:164-167, (2014).])

This latest episode in this long running saga - the BBC documentary and the response to it - shows how narrow minded and entrenched anthropology has become on this. More fool them. I think it is turning into a scandal of Piltdown Proportions and egg will be on their collective faces when the truth on all this finally comes out as it inevitably will. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

POV tag

Cmeiqnj, can you please explain why you added a POV tag to the article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

See the section above. Clearly several readers disagree that the tone of the article as it currently stands is consistent with NPOV. The third paragraph of the lead seems obviously problematic: it presents opinions as undisputable fact ("the evolutionary fossil record does not support any such proposal"), throws around words like "simplistic" and "non-experts", and relies entirely on two evidently partial sources.

The AAH is one of many hypotheses attempting to explain human evolution through one single causal mechanism, but the evolutionary fossil record does not support any such proposal. The notion itself has been criticized by experts as being internally inconsistent, having less explanatory power than its proponents claim, and suffering from the feature that alternative terrestrial hypotheses are much better supported. 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. Advocacy for the AAH has been labeled by commentators such as science writer Brian Regal as being more ideological and political rather than scientific and hence, pseudoscientific.

References

Also, the Langdon 1997 reference is cited no less than eighteen times in the text as it stands! That article is not a disinterested review of the evidence for and against the theory; it is a position paper which merely uses the aquatic/waterside ape theory as part of its rhetorical ammunition in pursuit of a broader point. Somebody seems to have given WP:UNDUE weight to sources arguing along a particular line. (A quick Google search turns up a couple of direct rejoinders to Langdon's paper, neither of which is cited in our article [2][3].) Given that there are such problems even in the lead, and given the discussion above, I think it is appropriate to alert the reader that the article may have some issues with neutrality. Cmeiqnj (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The present paragraph re the recent BBC programme is not remotely neutral. Considerations are "being at last given the attention they deserve", uncited. "showed how much new research is increasingly swinging scientific opinion" is someone's opinion of the radio programme. It can't possibly be cited _to_ the programme. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This wasn't neutral either so I've removed the entire paragraph. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thirded, full of editorializing and undue weight to Attenborough who is not an authority or a representative of scientific consensu.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

In describing the theory, the lead says only that it is the "idea that the evolutionary ancestors of modern humans spent a period of time adapting to a semiaquatic existence". The rest is secondary. The lead should contain more about the theory, and leave the rest till later. Arrivisto (talk) 09:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, I'm unsure why somebody who has devoted his life to the study of all life forms in the world should be regarded as "not an authority" on evolution. Attenborough has physically met gorillas, chimps, orangutans, which is more than can be said for most of us. And AAT relies heavily on comparative anatomy between our closest great ape relatives and aquatic mammals. Therefore as it stands, Attenborough seems the best qualified to comment on comparative evolution of humans, but that's just my opinion

Furthermore, the Radio 4 piece was extremely well researched, and cited a number of recent research papers, including ones from Nature. Genuinely curious whether either NeilN or Maunus have listened to both full shows?143.210.74.147 (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Lastly, such heavy reliance on one 20-year old criticism (Langdon's) suggests a weak argument from the anti-AAT camp. There have been no rebuttals to the latest research mentioned in Attenborough's show. Surely the point of science is to progress with new information, not to hang on to old ideas of the past? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.210.74.147 (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

A very hihg quality source that should get a very good amount of weight

This source is extremely good because it gives an assessment of the status of different waterside hypotheses relative to eachother, and to the mainstream land-based scenario. It is a secondary source published in a highly respected journal - one of the best possible kinds of sources for any scientific topic.

Foley, Robert, and Marta Mirazón Lahr. "The role of “the aquatic” in human evolution: constraining the aquatic ape hypothesis." Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 23, no. 2 (2014): 56-59.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Another article from the same issue studies the "sinuses for flotation" hypothesis. Rae, Todd C., and Thomas Koppe. "Sinuses and flotation: Does the aquatic ape theory hold water?." Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 23, no. 2 (2014): 60-64.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The abstract reads "How many fields of science have two entirely parallel communities that essentially are hermetically sealed from each other?" It inevitably reminds me of the situation in Plate tectonics before the 60s. Here was a theory propounded in 1912 as "continental drift" which turned out to be essentially correct but was totally dismissed by most geologists until it was finally shown beyond doubt. Ok he didn't propose a mechanism but that had been filled in by Holmes by 1942. And even Holmes didn't get it precisely right. But the basic issue is that it was dismissed by the vast majority of scientists for more than 50 years. Could happen again you know. Chris55 (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You need to read the rest of the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Restructuring

I've started a new section on paleontological evidence, because it seems that most of this article is back to front. It starts off in the lead claiming a scientific consensus (for what it's actually not clear) by quoting only a contentious opinion book, and mixes up conjectures and evidence and judgments all the way through. Scientists are characterised throughout as "proponents" and thereby implicitly dismissed along with the non-professional Elaine Morgan.

The fact that there are already many peer-refereed papers, some by notable scientists, cited in this article would be easy to miss altogether. It's obvious that real scientific support for the idea has only emerged in the last few decades because ideas are easy, but proving them can be very difficult indeed. I notice that Savannah theory redirects directly to bipedalism even though that article says there are at least 12 explanations for this (others list up to 30).

Some of the supporting evidence such as auditory exotosis and vernix caseosa was never claimed by Elaine Morgan at all and may be better characterised as a test of the theory. It's clear that the central thesis (that humanity was shaped by proximity to water) might be true whilst many of the claimed effects (descended larynx, finger wrinkling?) might have nothing to do with it. Cause and effect may have been muddled in presentations but shouldn't we be trying to steer clear of this? Probably if the hypothesis is eventually accepted, there will be one or two clear reasons for it and all the others will then be re-evaluated. Chris55 (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no "real scientific support" for the theory, and its proponents are just that - proponents. I have removed the section on paleontological evidence. Evidence for exploiting wetlands or lacustrine resources are not evidence for AAH or for the wading hypothesis. The surfer's ear claim is a single primary source and we would need some good secondary sources to claim that it actually supports a wading scenario. Also H. erectus are several million years after the evolution of bipedality, so how H. erectus fossils in anyway can support the AAH is a bit of a mystery to me. The section is giving undue weight to primary sources aand to minority views, and also seem to be misrepresenting the first source - it cannot be included in this form. Please do not reinsert without first having a consensus that the material is in line with policy (NPOV).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

To delete properly published scientific articles because 'There is no "real scientific support" for the theory' sounds to me like pure prejudice. Have you tried reading any of those articles? I've provided an abstract for the second–I've read other stuff by the same author. Chris55 (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I am deleting it because it appears to violate NPOV and misrepresent a source. If there is a consensus that it conforms to policy it can be reinserted. A theory that has real scientific support is not repeatedly rejected by specialists writing in specialist journals. That proponents of a theory claim they have evidence does not mean that that their theory now has scientific support.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing violating NPOV nor do I believe it misrepresents a source. The additions do not try to prove bipedality as you claim and NPOV demands that minority views be represented not censored as you are trying to do. Chris55 (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

You seem to suffer of some misunderstandings of our basic policies. Please read WP:BRD. It matters not whether you believe I am right or wrong - it matters if there is a consensus to include. There is not at this point.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

This looks like synthesis to me. Where are the cites for the opening paragraph? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and the entire paragraph is written from an unabashed "pro-AAH" POV which is of course not acceptable.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The first paragraph is actually rather sceptical of the AAH and is the main reason I have not in the past considered myself a "believer". Interesting idea, yes; what actually happened, who knows? I find the papers mentioned here and a number of other publications some of which have been excluded from this article in a similar way, rather more productive. It's a pity the mind police here have so made up their minds that they ban any positive addition to the article. I expect I can find an appropriate citation given a little time. Chris55 (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

So, no cites for "The absence of supporting evidence from paleontology has probably been the major reason why scientists have given little support to the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. Because the majority of the claimed effects are to soft tissues, evidence has not been forthcoming to either confirm or deny them", just your opinion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• If you have a DOI for the Rhys-Evans and Cameron paper I would appreciate it. I strongly doubt it mentions the AAH or claims to support it, given that it is a paper about Homo erectus a species that lived several millions later than the time period covered by the AAH. This also goes for the Joordens paper. It seems to me that Chris55 is not adequately distinguishing between support for AAH and " any evidence of hominins being in contact with water"·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

You clearly delete things without even looking at them. The abstract that is linked from that paper mentions it explicitly. Let others have a look at it too. Actually you are quite wrong in your claims about the period covered by AAH. H. Erectus is one of the first species to show conclusive encephalization and that is very relevant to a shellfish diet. Chris55 (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't answer my question. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

no, but there's a perfectly good citation. Actually I thought that was Maunus, unless you are the same person. I answered your question above.Chris55 (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

"a perfectly good citation" does not mean that you get to include the material if it is contested by others. Two people have questioned it. I suggest you self revert your ltest reinsertion of the contested material. How can water be responsible for both bipedalism and encephalization which developed several million years apart? That would require that all human ancestors for around four million years have lived in an aquatic environment. Is the hypothesis you are proposing really that unreasonable?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually NeilN only questioned the non-cited part. When you show some inclination to consider the cited articles (I didn't need to go to a library to get them) then it might be worth discussing it. I don't believe that another editor has the right to delete material just because of their preconceived opinions. And if you think you're too busy for that, then maybe you shouldn't be so active here. Chris55 (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the non-cited part is blatantly non-neutral apart from being uncited and most likely uncitable. And I questoined the other parts because you gave them undue weight (both being primary articles) and likely misrepresented because of the chronological discrepancy. And yes all material that is not cited or which is cited but contested can be removed untill there is a consensus to include it. I cannot get the Rhys-Evans article through ebsco-host which is why I asked for the DOI.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Non-permitted material

I tried to post this material on the page but two editors ganging up on me means that it will disappear instantly. I would therefore like to know why it should not be permitted. From the discussion above you will see that none of my basic points have been addressed. The citations include a Nature article which is designed to be read by the general scientific public and papers given in conferences that have been well publicized.

Paleontological evidence

The absence of supporting evidence from paleontology has probably been the major reason why scientists have given little support to the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. Because the majority of the claimed effects are to soft tissues, evidence has not been forthcoming to either confirm or deny them. However there have been more recently several lines of supporting evidence.

1. The preponderance of shells associated with early human sites demonstrates that sea food formed a large part of their diet. Re-examination of these remains has recently led to the discovery of cut marks on the bones of catfish found at the Koobi Fora sites in Africa, as well as evidence of fish procurement in Olduvai Gorge. This had the effect of providing the brain-selective nutrients (DHA and [Arachidonic acid|AA]]) which fuelled encephalization. The food remains of Homo Erectus from the holotype site Trinil, Java have been shown to be largely sea shells and show early signs of engraving.
2. The identification of surfer's ear in remains of homo erectus and neanderthals shows that they spent considerable periods of time in cold water. These bones develop gradually in the ear protecting the ear drum during swimming and diving.

Refs

Chris55 (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete the first two sentences and maybe you'll have a better case for inclusion. The discussion above indicates that you still haven't addressed the WP:SYNTH concern brought up by NeilN. Right now, that is the main reason this text is being challenged. clpo13_(talk) 20:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The second sentence might be more of a point of view, but I don't see why the first sentence is in any way controversial. For maybe 30 years nobody did present any paleontological evidence that these theories were true and why would any scientist worth their salt touch it whilst that was the case? If a Wiki admin won't accept that, they certainly won't consider the possibility that the situation is changing. Chris55 (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)