:::::I think there's adequate sourcing for broad-strokes criticisms; it fails to discuss speciation from our chimp common-ancestor, there's no real evidence, current theory supports a mosaic model of human evolution with varying evolutionary pressures at different times in our history rather than a single, massive push to adapt to (and then away from!) aquatic habitats, it's more an exercise in comparative anatomy and a general statement that all the "evidence" provided by Morgan (and other theorists) can also be explained by other adaptations (sometimes better).  But that's a substantial rewrite.  The point-counterpoint gives the sense that there was a detailed review of all claims when it's really more of a dismissive observation that it's a rather poor theory based on minimal evidence.     Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex