Original sentence: "  The results of the conference were reported in the anthropological press as having rejected the hypothesis.. The arguments for AAH in this book are generally accepted to be scientifically weak compared with those arguing against the hypothesis.For example, AAH claims often involve pointing out that humans have features not shared by other land-dwelling mammals.However, AAH proponents then ignore the fact that many of these features are also not shared by aquatic mammals (such as bipedalism).However, Hardy was wrong and human fat deposits are like other primates and very unlike fatty aquatic mammals, both in pattern and life history.The aquatic ape hypothesis (AAH), sometimes referred to as the aquatic ape theory, is a controversial hypothesis of Human evolution.The hypothesis and its variations attempts to explain a number of unique features of humans compared to their ancestors but has largely been ignored by mainstream paleoanthropology or met with significant skepticism because of the unscientific approach of its proponents picking and choosing data which supports the hypothesis while ignoring opposing data.The hypothesis has been heavily criticised for being self-contradictory and ignoring significant criticism.The theory has great popular appeal, some supporting publications in scientific journals though little support within paleoanthropology, at least for a weak version that doesn't accept there was an actual "aquatic ape"
Edited sentence: "  The results of the conference were reported in the anthropological press as having rejected the hypothesis.Criticisms include that the human dietary needs are not necessarily a result of eating seafood and that human skin and shape are not well adapted to swimming.The aquatic ape hypothesis (AAH), sometimes referred to as the aquatic ape theory, is a hypothesis about the Human evolution.The hypothesis and its variations explains a number of unique features of humans compared to their ancestors but has largely been ignored by mainstream paleoanthropology or met with significant skepticism.The theory has great popular appeal, some supporting publications in scientific journals and some support within paleoanthropology, at least for a weak version that doesn't accept there was an actual "aquatic ape"