Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis/Archive 3

message: This web site , and related archaeological reports, while not directly related to this theory, may be worth a note.  See article note #2 regarding use of marine environments.  WBardwin (talk) 04:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible 'See also' 

message: Since we have the new 'pending review' tool, I thought I'd try that rather than fully protecting the article, or blocking people for the latest round of edit warring on this article. You may make your edits, but they won't be visible until a reviewer okays them. 
There is a lot of passion for this idea, but very little evidence either way. That's a dangerous combination, and all the more reason for us to adhere to policy on both sourcing and synthesis: RS for anything that's reasonably challenged, and no use of sources for or against the AAH that do not actually address the AAH. 
P.S. The page protection is only for 24 hrs. If the edit warring picks up again, I will block people this time. And I probably won't wait for 3RR. If you want to collaborate on a contested passage, past it here, and when it's stable it can be returned to the article. — kwami (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This page should not be protected at the moment since it is not listed at WP:PCQ. There is a limit of 2000 articles during the trial and I think the intention was that it be used on rather more contentious pages than this. Johnuniq (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll switch to traditional protection. Thought it would be interesting to see if it would help an active dispute. — kwami (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can tell, the consensus version before the edit war was this one.  However, given the new editors objections I'll review the removed sources to see if they're use is actually justified.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  page protection 

message: Thanks for the new interesting reference (Kempf 2009 - Patterns of water use in primates), but I can't see any text that implies "...but many [primates] do not display the traits posited by AAH suggesting the traits facilitate aquatic behavior rather than evolving as a result of it". Can someone clarify it?
And although the author explicitly states that AAH "has been widely discredited", many of her arguments are actually supporting a moderate influence of water to the evolution of primates and even hominins (e.g. aquatic diet, tool use), and the general nuance of the article is positive on it, encouraging further research. How the paper is cited in the "criticism" section gives a false impression that it provides counter-evidences against the idea, which is the opposite. Is it justified? Chakazul (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a bit of a fusion of two sentences, if you backtrack to my original inclusion of that source.  AAH explicitly states that the traits listed in the page (hairlessness, bipedality, sweat glands, etc) are the product of aquatic adaptations, yet the primates listed in the paper display none of those traits (indeed, most are unique to humans and their immediate extinct relatives).  The author also explicitly states that the traits associated with AAH did not evolve as a result of aquatic behavior, but rather that aquatic behavior evolved because those traits (which evolved due to different pressures) made it advantageous.  The author specifically reverses the "arrow of causality" (her words), which undermines the key contention of AAH - that adaptations to aquatic habitats were a selective force - and is therefore critical. Mokele (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's quite possible that my reword caused the problem, if so then my bad and please fix it.  I do remember trying to include the "traits led to behavior, not behavior led to traits" point, but it could probably be clearer.  Could someone e-mail me a copy of the PDF?  It sounds like an interesting paper, particularly given the apparent building of support for a water-hominid evolutionary link.  I wonder if we'll end up with a general statement that it's acknowledged that water had some impact on evolution, but not to the degree proposed by Morgan et al.  Time will tell...  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my original version was pretty excessively verbose.  I've made a minor tweak, and sent you an email via WP so I can give you the paper. Mokele (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patterns of water use in primates 

message: I've archived; perhaps controversially I've archived the recent section on hairlessness that I divhid a while ago.  If it was premature, dig it out (or, to my preference, restate the most cogent points, accompanied by reliable sources that are explicit in their relationship to the AAH).  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: (In Japan) AAH says that long straight hair of women are useful to grip at the surface of water for babies,and
humans have much subcutaneous fat... These are not African people's features. Does AAH contain racism? Please tell.--仕事中の (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, biological hypotheses aren't really racist, they're either empirically supported or not.  This one isn't, or at least its support is heavily disputed.  Further, any differences in hair texture and body fat that actually exists between two different phenotypes (since "race" isn't a really meaningful term) would have developed well after the alleged aquatic development would have occurred.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If the people who came up with AAH had been African, they might not have come up with the long-hair-for-baby-to-cling-to idea. But I don't know--assuming the adult were more fully immersed, a baby might be able to cling better to curly hair than straight hair, considering how easily straight hair can slip through your fingers. As for subcutaneous fat, Africans have it in abundance too. But as WLU says, any such differences are much more recent than the timeframe of the AAH. — kwami (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.--仕事中の (talk) 08:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  African's feature 

message: Ok, I've gotten sick of the same argument going in circles with the same 5 people.  I've posted a request for others to review this issue on the RS Noticeboard.  Until this issue is resolved, no more editing. Mokele (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't dictate the article, Mokele. Also, please read WP:Vandalism (for what you're accusing others of; I'm not accusing you). — kwami (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that was useless - seems an even split between 'limited inclusion' and 'no'.  Archived at  Mokele (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moore's site as a reliable source - [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Aquatic_Ape_Hypothesis_.26_www.aquaticape.org|RS Noticeboard]] 

message: Can someone get me a copy of ?  It's used in the hypothesis section but I wonder if it actually mentions the AAH or if it just notes that babies are fat.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems doubtful that it does, based on the first page. Sorry, no can help. (Note that the cite has his name wrong: it's 'Boguslaw Pawlowski' w/o the diacritics.) You might email him and ask. — kwami (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the article, it has no mention of anything aquatic but on cold stress instead. We should remove it. Chakazul (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I support that, removed.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: begging pardon if i missed the explanation on the history page (and for the anonymous post; i'm away from my home pc and forgot my password), but why is this article linked under the "Technology" subhead on the AAT disambiguation page? doesn't it more properly belong in say, Biology, Science or one of the other more appropriate categories? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.198.182 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 17 February 2011
:Please use "new section" to add a comment to a talk page.
:I moved "Aquatic Ape Theory" at AAT (a disambiguation page) to the "Science" section which seemed the most relevant, although it could be argued that it ain't science. Johnuniq (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clearly science. The question is whether it's good science. — kwami (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure theres much question about that either. Active Banana  (bananaphone 23:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category Ghetto 

message: The text [bolded] in section 4 Reception is entirely out of place. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for completely unrelated political shout-outs.
Text in question:
The AAH uses negative arguments, pointing to the flaws and gaps in conventional theories; though the criticisms of mainstream science and theories can be legitimate, in this case, as with Creationism and AIDS denialism the flaws in one theory do not automatically prove a proposed alternative is true. 
Thedeepestblue (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it entirely. It may be a legitimate criticism of AAH, but I fail to see how it could explain the appeal of AAH, which is supposedly what it was doing. — kwami (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the point is that one reason for the appeal of AAH (to a non-expert audience) is its proponents pointing out flaws in conventional theories without also explaining the strengths of those conventional theories. (Kind of like how creationists so frequently cite particular gaps that they perceive in the scientific theory as among their first justifications for holding their view. It wasn't appropriate to mention that controversy in the article, but it is the example we're familiar with. Ha, an even more pertinent contentius-example is the anti-vaccine crowd, whose core argument is of this type. Sometimes the perceived gaps are not or no longer scientifically valid. The entire system of argument, investigating the faults of one side without equally scrutinising the other side, is also not a logically valid way of choosing between positions. But regardless, such negative argumentation can apparently be a factor in popular appeal. It is also often a difficult type of argument to refute strongly before a lay-audience because it may still be built on a grain of truth, so that the expert needs the audience to subtly discern between that grain itself and its use in the argument. Picking gaps in the behemoth tends to make more memorable soundbites than the refutations do.) I agree that the wording needed altering. Can someone with access to the cited source clarify? Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, maybe you're right. That wasn't really clear from the wording. I'll put it back in. — kwami (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Neutral POV? 

message: The arguments presented against the diet part of the hypothesis is extremely weak. First off, "the "best" fats found in fish" is completely false. Salmon and eels are oily fish that occur seasonally in rivers. There are others, I believe smelt is another. Also, there may not be oil in the flesh of non oily fish, but there is oil in the guts, especially the liver and the roe. I think shark is somewhat oily no? Often found near coasts. Sharks have traditionally been harvested by different societies for the liver which the oil is extracted from. The way this is written it assumes that fish would be the primary food... What about clams, lobsters, crabs, sea urchins, sea cucumbers... all far easier to catch. Also fish eggs are a great source. All other sea mammals are full of good oils, as are sea fowl and water fowl. All ancient societies either caught their own seafood or traded with other peoples for seafood. Seafood is endemic to humans, it's eaten wherever humans live. 
Also, the "science" behind what fats are essential and how much we need of them is extremely weak. Also, I am not sure but scientists probably couldn't tell a healthy brain from an unhealthy (for instance mentally insane person) by looking at the brain, so making the claim "Humans without access to shoreline foods also develop normal brains." isn't really provable. 
Well, anyways I think that the whole commentary on diet here is unmerited, so I am going to delete it. 
--184.9.88.44 (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about "The requirement of the human brain..." in the "The hypothesis" section? If so, I believe the text is part of the AAH and so can't be removed from an article that seeks to present what the AAH says. Some text later in the article (search for "essential fatty acids") provides another view, and that is all that is required. Johnuniq (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rolled it back, it's sourced.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essential oils, seafood diet. 

message: I've not read the complete article and have no intention of editing it, and only just read the warning at the top of this page. Okay, so where IS the appropriate venue for stuff like this?
*Water’s Edge Ancestors August 13th, 2011
* Fossil Discovery Could Be Our Oldest Human Ancestor Sep. 8, 2011
* Human line 'nearly split in two'  24 April 2008
--Pawyilee (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say nowhere; none of these articles actually mention the AAH or Morgan.  The AAH is a quasi-scientific hypothesis that lacks significant credibility.  Attempting to link those references to this page would require original research and ultimately unduly promote the idea that the AAH is the truth rather than a substantially discredited theory.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New support 

message: The tiny section which attempts to criticise the "bipedalism through wading" idea simply parrots the weakest objections possible from Langdon (1997). This has been done, obviously, because it does actually reflect the "official" critique of the wading hypothesis as it has been reported in the scientific literature but readers should perhaps be alerted to the fact that this very poorly argued paragraph is practically all that has been published to refute probably the best idea on bipedal origins there is. 
What other scenario will induce an extant ape to move (not just pose momentarily) bipedally for as long as the conditions prevailed, would kill it if it switched to quadrupedalism? Note also that no pro-wading papers are cited here. This web page is simply the result of a majority of pseudoskeptics pandering to what they think is orthodoxy. It can be more openly discussed here: http://www.waterside-hypotheses.com/index.php. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.189.114 (talk • contribs) 21:19, November 10, 2011‎
:Moved per WP:TPG.  
:Langdon is a reliable source, one of the few that credibly discusses (and debunks) the AAH.  Since wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, readers should be aware that Morgan and others' theories about the influence of water on human evolution are not taken particularly seriously within the scientific community.  Per WP:FRINGE, this is appropriate.  The AAH is not a credible scientific theory, and the purpose of wikipedia is not to promote a fringe viewpoint.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Langdon's paper has been severely critiqued in the book below. It's an unscholarly 'straw man' portrayal of the idea. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion is insufficient to change the page, and that includes a self-published book.  The AAH is clearly a fringe theory with little to no mainstream support.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bipedalism "criticisms" 

message: What does the "H" in "AAH" stand for??? --Pawyilee (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the third word in the title of this page?  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  AAH is not a credible scientific theory 

message: Because manual archiving is a pain in the ass, I've activated Miszabot set to every 30 days. That'll get rid of most of the current talk page, leaving about five threads behind.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Topics inactive for a week, moved to Archive 4. Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH)  06:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussions to close 

message: For reference for some of the newer editors, the AAH was brought up at ANI recently, the discussion is here.  Not much else, just some context.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ANI discussion archive 

message: Is the  tag still needed?  I don't think so and support its removal.  The lead section now seems to summarize the article and the neutrality seems adequate.  There appears to be a broad consensus from the experienced editors that the current page is OK, and that adding further text to promote the idea or attempt to "prove" it would be undue weight or require original research.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have time to read the whole article, but the lead tag can go. – Maky « talk » 14:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that 20kb of POV text was inserted into the article immediately after this exchange.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag 

message: See User_talk:Jimbo Wales#Suppression of content about fringe ideas where I mentioned this article as the latest of ones like this that have concerned me where articles are gutted of content or deleted because they are not mainline. Dmcq (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raised this at Jimbo's page 

message: I have removed the material reinserted by SamueltheGhost. It gives undue weight to pro-AAH viewpoint relative to the mainstream views. It seems to contain synthesis (such as the section on swimming ability). And it is not neutral in that it seems to be clearly more favorably disposed towards AAH than its general standing within mainstream science warrants. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been reinserted. Please note that I did not write it; it is material that had been in the article for a year or more until arbitrarily deleted, without consensus, recently. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but I don't agree with Maunus's description of it either. The important thing is that the arguments put forward in favour of the AAH need to be made known to the reader in some factually accurate form, however wrong those arguments may be. Otherwise it's censorship. A core principle of wikipedia is NPOV. That means we provide facts, including the main published opinions, but we keep our own opinions out of it. Readers can make ther own minds up, and we should not be trying to control how they do it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a misrepresentation of wikipedia policies that doesn't take into account WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. In articles about fringe topics fringe viewpoints still only get the amount of coverage that they merit relative to the mainstream. This content is ludicrously biased in favor of the fringe theory and only tangentially mentions the mainstream view - sometimes even openly casting it into doubt. Wikipedia is not the medium for providing extended media coverage of fringe science as has been established in multiple arbcom decisions by now - this has absilutely nothing to do with censorship but about writing an encyclopedia and not a laundry list of rejected hypotheses.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said before, my view is solidly based on WP:NPOV. AAH is a credible but perhaps excessively vague hypothesis (which I see as one of the strongest arguments against it), unsupported by direct evidence, which has not won general support from the professionals in the field. The AAH is not mentioned in the human evolution article, but you seem to be saying that "articles about fringe topics", as you describe this one, should not be about this "fringe topic" either. If the AAH is not to be discussed at all, you should be listing this article at wp:AfD. Meanwhile where there are good counter-arguments for the points raised, they can be given. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And removed again.  The length of time that something has been present is not a measure of it's quality.  And it looks like there are several people who outright disagree with its presence.  Making the "arguments for" the AAH so the "reader can make up their mind" is inappropriate advocacy in my opinion.  Those arguments are often presented in nonscholarly sources by nonscholars.  Further, within the anthropological community, they aren't accepted as explanations for those features and the AAH overall has had very little impact.  That is, in my mind, the weight we should be giving and representing.  It's not censorship to remove it, it's soapboxing to include it.  To claim we should include the arguments even knowing they are wrong is a disservice to the reader.  Should we include the minute details on the Apollo moon landing hoax page?  The AAH is not credible, this is quite obvious given the lack of serious discussion beyond a tiny minority of proponents and its absolute lack of presence in anthropology texts and secondary sources except to note that it is not taken seriously.  We have multiple sources that explicitly state it's not a serious theory, that raise it only to dismiss it.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The material removed was a prime example of synthesis and article overload. It was entirely reasonable to remove it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are good arguments for the Apollo moon landing alternative narrative (about which I know nothing), they ought to be in the article, so that I can judge their quality for myself. If there are any such half-way convincing arguments, and they have been deliberately omitted, that's a breach of NPOV and an insult to me as reader. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends who's 'good arguments' they are. If they are nothing but arguments in favour of the conspiracy, backed up by sources that don't actually refer to it at all, they don't. That is synthesis. In any case, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an exhaustive collection of every statement from every 'reliable source' referring (or not actually referring) to article topics. We are here to summarise, not to analyse - and the deleted material seemed to be engaging in far too much of the latter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Maunus says "I think it is OK to give a short description of the arguments". So let's see your proposed text. We could easily achieve consensus if all editors would actually seek it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is having any list invariably invites people to expand it with more and more minor points.  Plus, to adhere to WP:FRINGE we have to give the mainstream explanation for each point, which can lead to original research if the link isn't explicit, or undue weight if the mainstream explanation isn't presented (as in someone can read an unrebutted point and conclude that the AAH has some validity because there's no mainstream rebuttal; it's the tactic used by creationists, to great success among the uneducated).  I would suggest just including the most prominently-listed features, i.e. "...such as lack of body hair, bipedalism and the human distribution of body fat.  Each of these explanations have a more mainstream explanation that is considered more credible by mainstream anthropologists."  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we could have somewhat more than that. Basically I think we can have a lot of detail as long as the presentation is balanced all round, does not include SYNTH or OR, and does not leave the reader with the wrong impression.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please outline these ‘more credible’ explanations. Why are humans bipedal? Why do human infants lack fur? Why are human infants so fat compared to other primates? Then perhaps you can explain the mainstream explanation as to why humans can float on their backs, dive for minutes at a time, and to depths no other primate has ever even got close to.Yloopx (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the place to educate you about the mainstream views of human evolutionary history - you can find that information by reading any textbook on the topic. This talkpage is for discussing how to write the page - not for soapboaxing for your favorite hypothesis.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You earlier wrote, “what matters is that it is clear to the reader what the mainstream view point is.” I’m interested in what you believe the mainstream view of human evolution is. Why are humans bipedal, naked and fat? Quote from a textbook if you like. Yloopx (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Bipedality is generally attributed to the need to carry tools or food and more efficient terrestrial locomotion - there are several commonly cited hypotheses suc as the "sharing hypothesis", another is about thermoregulation etc. the most common ones are summarized here Bipedality#Humans - wading is not among the most commonly cited hypotheses for explaining bipedality. Hairlessness is usually attributed to thermoregulation as well and connected to the development of sweatglands - the most common hypotheses are described here Hair#Human_.22hairlessness.22(this one has a paragraph on AAH - that does not reflect what I have seen in most recent textbooks that do not mention the aquatic hypothesis). I don't remember of any specific hypothesis for subcutaneous fat - but I know that some of the reviews of the AAH deny that this is even a general characteristic of the genus homo. I am not at home right now, but if you insist I will be happy to provide quotes from the textbooks I have that don't mention AAH with as much as a line.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that’s informative. The two links you provided showed a number of possible explanations for bipedalism and nakedness, and both included the AAH. That’s exactly my point. There is no single accepted model, but instead a range of possible alternative explanations, including the AAH. All I, and a number of other editors, are asking is that the AAH be treated on Wikipedia as a possible hypothesis explaining human evolution, which it is. Of course it is not universally accepted, but as your links demonstrate, nor is any other single explanation of human evolution.Yloopx (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a possible hypothesis for sure. Its just not one that most experts consider probable or supported by evidence - to the degree that most serious reviews don't even consider them. That is what the article must make clear.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Evolution can't be explained by single factors. Self-evident, to all but those who  wish to find all-encompassing 'hypothesises', rather than understanding complex processes... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The single factor of natural selection does a pretty good job of explaining the origin of species, but that doesn't mean the evolution of species is not a complex process. That humans were more aquatic in the past (AAH) explains perfectly well why humans are different in so many profound ways to other primates, but it’s far from a simple explanation if one wants to fully understand the mechanisms and processes involved. Yloopx (talk) 05:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

text: I never once said the AAH is right because there are no better alternatives. My point is that this article, and a number of editors here, have continuously claimed that the traits posited by proponents of the AAH, are better explained by alternative models. But when challenged, nobody ssems to be able to articulate those alternative models. This leads me to think this is an assumption rather than a fact, and I think this is a significant point in terms of the tone of the article. Yloopx (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What you think is irrelevant. The scientific position is clear - the AAH has been rejected by mainstream palaeoanthropology, and that is what our article will say.  This isn't a forum for us to 'explain' why, to people who refuse to work within Wikipedia guidelines, and neither is it a place to engage in original research. If you wan't to debate the issue, do it somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypothesis material