Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis/Archive 1

message: I had never heard of this theory until today's debate, and I am very curious what it has to say on one point.  Our body fluids are much less saline than sea-water, but much more saline than fresh water.  Living in either hypoosmotic or hyperosmotic conditions is a severe environmental stress.  The aquatic adaptations of various mammals to the two environments are different and in some cases totally opposite.  In which environment are humans purported to have evolved according to the Aquatic Ape Theory?  --Karl Juhnke
:The idea as I understand it (and this may be the weaker view) is that early humans spent a large amount of their time in and around water -- which included inland seas, lakes, rivers and also coastal environments. This does make sense from a caloric intake stance -- human babies need a lot of calories in a very consistent supply in order for their brains to develop properly. The savannas have severe seasonal differences in the amount, quality and regularity in food supplies - and yet we are fertile (and interested) in the opposite sex year-round (well most of us are). In aquatic evrions, however, the food supply is far more apt to be constant and plentiful. Of course we may have simply used tools such as spears and crude boats instead of actually spending so much time in the water but since the end of the last glacial maximum ~13,000 years ago all previous coastlines and nearly all of these early human settlements are now under a 100 or so meters of water -- thus it is very difficult to test this interesting hypothesis in order to elevate it into a theory. --mav
:Opps! I forgot to answer your physiology question. This simple answer is this; if this idea does hold water (needless pun, I know) then the time in which these adaptations took place would probably not have been long enough to change our base physiology too much. Therefore the salinity of our body fluids would be pretty much the same as other primates (which it is). And there is also the issue that under many forms of this hypothesis humans lived in both aquatic and marine environments (as stated above). The idea of tears and excess sweating is used by some to suggest that these human body functions are a way to get rid of excess salt (however I think this argument is a bit weak). --mav
::Well, then the tears and sweat theory would mean we lived in saltwater.  Freshwater vertebrates don't have trouble with excess salt because they can always drink; on the contrary, they have a need to retain dissolved ions while eliminating the water.  Only marine vertebrates benefit from effecient salt excretion.  However, I agree with you that the argument is weak, because our salt-excretion capabilities do not enable us to have a net gain of water from drinking ocean water.  It costs us more water to eliminate the salt than we get from drinking saltwater, no mattter whether we cry, sweat, or urinate.  The adaptive salty tears of, say, marine turtles and birds are very concentrated, i.e. they eliminate lots of salt for a little water.  If we were a marine species we ought to be able to do that too. --Karl Juhnke
:: This is a good objection to the form of AAH (there are several) that argues for a singular, coastal 'phase'. Of course, it could have been fresh water, or (as is my view) a combination of the two. --Algis Kuliukas 06:57, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tears & Sweat 2 

message: :This article needs to go to "hypothesis", because that's what it is objectively, no matter the POV. AxelBoldt 15:04 Aug 26, 2002 (PDT)
::Axel has spoken. That is enough for me. The move will commence. --mav
:::In other words, you've decided to ignore all rules and ignore my objections.  That works fine for me.  My objections are here for the record.--NetEsq
::::Sometimes I think the most recent entry should be at the top instead of the bottom, so that one wouldn't be tempted to reply to the first instance of a discussion as I just did. See the first Theory v. Hypothesis...
::::Anyway, they are indeed ignoring the rule, and I object as well, even though I agree that it is technically a hypothesis. So is the plains ape "theory". 
::::But don't credit them with the perfectly respectable ignore all rules technique, because they're...strangly...citing ONE rule in order to justify their violation of another rule which is more relevent to this scenario. I'm a real hater of poor science passing itself off as the real thing, as with so many "facts" presented even by the scientific establishment based upon uncontrolled studies and inductive reasoning...but the title of this entry should be considered from the perspective of what people call it, and the first LINE of the article is where it should say "a hypothesis". Kaz 00:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Theory' v. 'Hypothesis' 3 

message: It struck me, in reading The Descent of Woman, that there's a very teleological view of natural selection; Elaine Morgan frequently makes statements along the lines of "humankind needed X, and evolution provided it." I wanted to add a mention of this to the article as an argument against the AAH, but I'm not sure if this teleological viewpoint is that book's, Morgan's, or the hypothesis's. If it's only Morgan who thinks that way, never mind -- especially if she herself was ultimately disabused of the notion. --Calieber 20:31, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)
:I had to look up 'teleological' in the dictionary after reading the above.  It's not clear to me why this should be an objection; if I understand natural selection correctly, it's that individuals who possess features better suited to the environment come to dominate within a population; and these favourable features tend to spread throughout the population as a result.  IOW, the environment creates evolutionary pressures, and evolution 'responds' by promoting characteristics that provide for a need.  What other way is there of viewing natural selection?  --Tiffer 22:33, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teleological 

message: I've just become aware of Wikipedia and as AAT/AAH is an interest of mine I had to find out what has been said about it.  While I think there is a fair summary here, at least of some the main themes of AAT, it seems rather odd to me that it should be interspersed with arguments for non-aquatic evolution.
Firstly, is this really necessary to satisfy NPOV?  I don't see atheist objections or Muslim teaching being floated on the pages for Christianity.  Surely it should be sufficient that the AAH themes are presented dispassionately, making it clear that they are a minority opinion (the 2nd paragraph does this), and allowing the reader to make a judgement for himself or herself.
Secondly, in my opinion the non-aquatic arguments themselves run counter to the principle of NPOV.  The language is confrontational and subjective ("Sceptics counter ...", "... highly flawed ..."); and contentious assertions are stated as fact in more than one place ("... particularly effective at remaining active during the heat of the day", "... kangaroos ... use their upright state ..." - kangaroos are not upright at all, but balanced body and tail over the hind legs in a way quite unlike the human situation).  The article reads like 2 different people having an argument.
Can I suggest (if it is felt necessary to include them) that the land-based evolution arguments be moved to a paragraph headed "Objections to AAH" or similar, that the confrontational language be removed, and that the points of contention be re-worded to indicate that they are an alternative opinion rather than fact?
9 June 2004 Tiffer
Hmmm ... nobody seems to be monitoring this ATM.  I have now prepared a new version of the page with the objections and alternative land-based explanations collected together in 2 new paragraphs towards the end.  If nobody comments within a week or so, I shall upload it then. --Tiffer 21:15, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objections included on page 

message: To keep you current: The german parallel article :de:Wasseraffen-Theorie is now at "Review" stage, the stage before "Exzellente Artikel", which is the equivalent of "Featured article candidate". There is a possibility that an author and expert in the field of Hominisation will take part in the review. After all that done, I'll try to merge some enhancements into this article. --Pjacobi 19:57, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
That's intriguing news.  If only it was the English-language version.  Of course, being a "featured article" is only a transitory honour, and to achieve that we'd need to have some graphics, at least.  Can you say whether the German article was independently-posted? --Tiffer 20:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia update 

message: Isn't it worth finding an alternative phrase to use instead of naked or hairless, seeing as humans have just as much hair as other primates, but it is much shorter and thinner.  
-samaraphile 27 March 2005
I really don't see any need for other words, here.  In the strictest sense, humans are not hairless (although I don't agree that we have "just as much" body hair, or anything like it); but we are naked, in the sense that our skin is exposed over almost all the body (apart from a few unusual individuals).  I have seen this point made ad nauseam in the AAT/AAH 'debate', AFAICS in order to take up time and avoid discussion of one of the main unexplained differences between apes and humans.  The main protagonist even posted an image file of his own wispy chest in order to "prove" the point!  Needless to say, he regarded this as an "argument" against AAT.
(please excuse me adding the date to your previous contribution for future reference) --Tiffer 10:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Naked/Hairless" 

message: I can't remember where I heard/read it (which is a pity, because that means I can't add it to the page), but somewhere I heard/read that additional evidence in favor of the AAH is the relatively high water content of human urine and feces. Other savannah animals apparently have much more concentrated urine and much drier feces than humans do, because they need to retain water. If humans were once aquatic, that would explain why we could survive excreting so much water in our waste. Has anyone else heard this? Can anyone provide a source so it can be added? --Angr/comhrá 23:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omitted evidence? 

message: "Some young children also have the ability to close their nostrils at will like an aquatic mammal." Now, I'm 19 and maintain this ability. Is this rare, or was the orignal author simply mistaken, which affects how the corrected version should read. Thoughts? 68.60.221.121
:Interesting. An old friend of mine (whom I've since lost contact with) was able to do so as well (the last time he demonstrated it, he must have been in his early twenties), and he claimed his sister had the same ability. I've no idea whether it's fairly common or not, though. --Twid 00:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unrelated to overall quality

message: :Few paleoanthropologists accept the hypothesis. Most adhere to the Savanna Theory, the dominant school of thought among scientists for the past 20 years, which holds that human ancestors evolved in savanna environments.
Most paleoanthropologists may reject AAH, but do they really support the savanna theory ?
For example take this quote from the proceedings from the Valkenburg Conference:
:"But at the same time there does seem to be evidence that not only did they take to water from time to time but that the water and by this I mean inland lakes and rivers) was a habitat that provided enough extra food to count as an agency for selection. As a result, we humans today have the ability to learn to swim without too much difficulty, to dive, and to enjoy occasional recourse to the water."
It seems that support for the "wet" environment, even if not completely aquatic, is pretty broad. Taw 06:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most paleoanthropologists 

message: I restructured the page to make full use of Wikipedias sub-heading ability. I thought the article was a bit chaotic (perhaps due to the great amount of changes made, and the disputed ideas contained in the article). I hope this hasn't degraded the article quality. These changes will probably make the article both easier to read and easier to navigate. Shandolad 14:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructuring 

message: Under Breathing:
"if AAT was correct, infants would be born with a descended larynx to prevent them from drowning in an aquatic environment."
This is akin to saying that if the Savannah theory were correct, infants would be able to walk within minutes of birth (like other animals) to prevent them from being eaten by predators.  There are many human capabilities that are not present in infancy (e.g. use of verbal speech/language), which does nothing to invalidate a theory of why non-infants have those abilities.  I will remove that sentence. --Landwalker 04:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illogic in Criticism 

message: There should not be a separate section for criticism, it should be spread througout the article alongside the arguments for. As per Wikipedia policy.
Thanks JPotter 03:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Curious, what do AAH researchers say about falsification of the hypothesis? Specifically, how, or what evidence, could falsify it? JPotter 22:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about this: Unequivocal evidence that chimpanzee or bonobo infants can be trained to swim as well as or better than human infants. If I read such a study I'd drop my support of waterside hypotheses of human evolution (a better label than "the aquatic ape hypothesis") in in instance. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falsification 

message: Almost every statement made in the Objections... section is unsourced and unattributed. Many points that are disputed are asserted without any evidence. This needs to be fixed. Ashmoo 06:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Objections section

message: Please be aware that there are 3 species of babirusa. 2 of these species are hairy and the third, albeit the most common, is described as having either a sparse coat or absent coat.  See [] and/or []. Clearly, nakedness cannot be looked on as a general feature of the babirusa family. Moreover, I can find no corroborating evidence that these animals are semi-aqautic and, indeed, no reference to it outside of wiki nor before December 2005 when it was added anonymously here. For reasons that I wan't go into, I suspect this information is a deliberate plant. If it cannot be substantiated then I would suggest that references to the babirusa be completely withdrawn.
:A sparse or absent coat sounds like nakedness to me. Humans could also be described as having a sparse or absent coat, and babirusa look as or more naked than humans in the photographs I have seen. Regarding the statement that they are semi-aquatic, your link [] says that their natural habitat is "on the banks of rivers and lakes" and that they are "good swimmers, being able to swim to off-shore islands", so they certainly appear to be a creature with ties to the water. Exactly what qualifies as semi-aquatic is a partly semantic argument, however I think that littoral (dwelling on the lake or seashore) might be a better description of a babiruas habitat, I have added this to the text. I take your point that there are 3 species of babyrusa, thanks for bringing it up, however as you point out, the most common species, the one typically thought of as a babirusa, fits with the description in the text. I shall edit the article to add "Babyrousa celebensis" to clarify which species is being talked about. Might I also suggest that you try to take other peoples edits in good faith, rather than using offensive terms like "deliberate plant." All the best, Nicolharper 15:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, but what should be said is that one of the three species is naked. Failing to mention that 2 others are not gives a biased view of the situation, albeit unintentionally so. As to being semi-aquatic, I would ask what aspect of their lifestyles requires an aquatic environment? Almost all animals can swim. Many animals are also very good swimmers. I don't think it is reasonable to maintain that an animal is semi-aquatic merely because it swims well. What aspect of its life is carried out in water? What aspects of its life is it unable to carry out if deprived of an aquatic setting? Without an answer to those questions it is unreasonable to say that the animal is semi-aquatic. As to the use of "deliberate plant", I have chosen that term after a great deal of consideration. Wiki is not the only place where AAH is debated and I find it highly suspicious that there is no reference to babirusa being semi-aquatic outside of wiki, and that the first mention of this occurs at the same time as the debate began elsewhere. It may just be co-incidence, and if it is then there will be independent corroboration of the claim. As to good faith, I'm afraid I cannot approach wiki in that way. This is a great concern of mine and should also be a concern for you too. As the Siegenthaler affair has shown, the wiki authoring process is deeply flawed and easy for partisan opinions to manipulate, particularly in an area where emotions can run high like this one - and I remind you that it is an anonymous posting that made the claim. I hope I am wrong in this case, but only the referencing of independent corroboration would allay my fears.    Steve 17:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-aquatic babirusa?

message: To whoever amended the nutrition section: this smacks of OR. It should have appropriate references or should be clearly labelled as "proponents believe" rather than be presebted as fact. It seems to contradict the wiki article on omega-3s which mention several common sources. Steve 17:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutrition 

message: forgive me, i may not be the smartest person in the world but who quotes the insulating properties of flubber?
the fictional substance that bounces a lot...
pwapwap 02:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flubber? 

message: In the section on objections to the theory, specifically regarding the nakedness, there's a comparison to hairy aquatic mammals. Does anyone have a timeframe to compare when the aquatic ape was suppose to have existed, and when these other furry animals first took to the water? I really have no idea, but I feel like polar bears, for instance, are relatively recent arrivals to the water. Similar with beavers, otters, etc., which seem so close to fully land based rodents that I feel like maybe they haven't been in the water long enough for nakedness to catch up with them. But i really have no idea. Any input? B.Mearns*, KSC 03:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection by comparison to hairy aquatics 

message: Anybody who's ever been a parent should try to ask themselves the question of how the heck we as a species could possibly have developed in the same environment as large predators.  Let me tell you, wherever we evolved it was loud. -- MarkJaroski 16:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nevermind child-birth, whatabout child-rearing? 

message: Don't get me wrong, I love people offering alternate points of view, and considering I had never heard of this theory before yesterday, when I read the criticisms as a scientist, they were very weak and fallacious. I'm going to change a lot of them, and here's why:
===Nakedness===
Differences is human hair is somewhat trivial. Human hair has more in common with land mammals than aquatic animals, but this does not disprove the theory as the contention is that humans were land animals living in a semi-aquatic environment, not that they were aquatic animals themselves. Be mindful that there are also land mammals that have varying purposes for “hair”, or keratin, which include hooves and horns. 
===Breathing===
The length of time an animal can hold its breath is usually related to the amount of time would have been optimal to secure the underwater food or avoid predators based on principles of evolution. Had humans been in a semi-aquatic environment, it may not have been necessary to dive deeply to locate a food source and thus not being able to hold one's breath for 40 minutes is hardly proof that they didn't have to hold their breath for food. 
The use of “dog” as a non-aquatic example is flawed, as dogs do swim and have been known to dive underwater for various reasons and would then have a similar reason to control their breathing. 
===Fat===
It should be important to distinguish that fat has different forms and purposes. Brown fat and white fat are the two main types that animals possess. Human babies have large amounts of brown fat to generate heat, but adults have larger amounts of white fat which insulates and produces energy for the muscles. High amounts of white fat is more common among aquatic mammals than land mammals.  Blubber is another fat entirely. This criticism needs to articulate itself a lot better to be considered legitimate.
Additionally, rural people generally have more fat than urban people (France, Nigeria, Tunisia, India, Canada[www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/21-006-XIE/21-006-XIE2003003.pdf]), with the exception of the United States . However some countries, including Japan, find rural dwellers are also affected by more variables.
===Childbirth===
This is a problematic argument as it is nearly impossible to comment on the problems associated with size of the infants head due to brain size as we don’t have anything to compare it to. Compared to early hominids or other animals? It’s not a sensical argument. Also, the narrowing of the hips is a bit of a misnomer. In some ways, the pelvis did become slimmer to contain the internal organs much like a bucket, but the main and most life threatening problem is that a baby’s head must pass the pelvic opening and the tailbone at the same time in humans as a result of being bipedal, while quadripedal animals give birth first by passing the pelvic opening, and then the tailbone at different stages. Oh, and what did this have to do with proving or disproving the theory at all?
As for a “typical method of childbirth”, different cultures all over the world birth in different ways. I have not read any studies which have examined the ways in which these positions are advantageous to the birthing process. Many websites cite squatting, sitting, and on hands and knees as being advantageous positions, but delivering a baby while standing upright is not one of them. There is some interesting information on labour positions . The position for birthing may not be a good argument for or against, as the advantage of being a semi-aquatic creature is that just because a hominid ancestor spent large amounts of time in the water, doesn't mean they would necessarily birth there. Salmon are known to leave their usual habitat in saltwater to go spawn in freshwater. Animals are versatile.
That being said, water births appear to be the most beneficial to a mother, and a lesser extent, the baby. Increased buouyancy helps mothers produce additional hormones like oxytocin which aid in birthing and breastfeeding. Babies are in little danger of drowning and do not take their first breath until they make contact with air and continue receive oxygen through the umbilical cord for several minutes until this happens. 
===Nutrition===
Omega-3 is actually a difficult fatty acid to obtain in proper quantities when balanced with Omega-6, since terrestrial Omega-3 is found in few plants and in grass-fed, not grain-fed, animals (which is not how we typically feed our livestock in North America). The criticism is additionally flawed as the theory is about how humans developed, not how humans are able to survive now. The Omega-3 article attributes the need for Omega-3 to humans living in coastal areas. 
===Swimming===
Swimming well is not a completely necessary trait for an animal in a semi-aquatic environment. Being able to paddle and hold one’s breath from a young age is a good indicator that it was needed at some point in evolution. Stating that children will drown unattended is a fallacial argument because young of current tree-dwelling animals fall out of trees when unattended. Expecting young to have all of the skills as an adult is not a good argument. 
In modern humans, many people drown as a result of panic and not paying intention to instincts. This is also why humans who are great swimmers also find themselves drowning in 4 feet of water when they could easily stand up. Natural abilities for most humans include floating and paddling and this is actually indicative of having evolved to spend some significant time around water.
   
*An Error in counterclaims: One pro for swimming is that it is the easiest excercise on the joints, as compared to walking, running, jumping, etc... yet, the con is "Water-based exercise results in greater levels of body fat" which has nothing to do with the original pro, and is simply there (I assume) because of seeing the word "excercise". 
This also brings up a second problem, that the word "excercise" in the pro should be changed to "physical activity" Nnnudibranch (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The bigger problem is that the entire claim is unsourced and original research.  WLU (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms of the criticism

message: Swimming well is not a completely necessary trait for an animal in a semi-aquatic environment. Being able to paddle and hold one’s breath from a young age is a good indicator that it was needed at some point in evolution. Stating that children will drown unattended is a fallacial argument because young of current tree-dwelling animals fall out of trees when unattended. Expecting young to have all of the skills as an adult is not a good argument. 
In modern humans, many people drown as a result of panic and not paying intention to instincts. This is also why humans who are great swimmers also find themselves drowning in 4 feet of water when they could easily stand up. Natural abilities for most humans include floating and paddling and this is actually indicative of having evolved to spend some significant time around water.
   
*An Error in counterclaims: One pro for swimming is that it is the easiest excercise on the joints, as compared to walking, running, jumping, etc... yet, the con is "Water-based exercise results in greater levels of body fat" which has nothing to do with the original pro, and is simply there (I assume) because of seeing the word "excercise". 
This also brings up a second problem, that the word "excercise" in the pro should be changed to "physical activity" Nnnudibranch (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The bigger problem is that the entire claim is unsourced and original research.  WLU (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Swimming

message: This is a great example of criticism.
So, honestly, most of these criticisms are not very good, though some are valid. I encourage everyone to examine things with a critical mind. In many cases, what was said made sense, but had no basis to refute the theory presented because in many cases as it was arguing the wrong point.
As an aside, humans in utero have tails and gills at different points of their development (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny), but these is just a function of developing our most recent adaptations last. For reference, this does not support the theory. --Waterspyder 19:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vagueness

message: I created this section. I had to create the Wiki entry on the Sea Of Afar to do it. It that becomes deleted it will become meaningless but see the Afar Depression which was once flooded and underwater. SmokeyTheCat 14:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section didn't have any actual evidence in it, or citations - it looks like WP:OR to me.  Also, even logically it doesn't make sense - early humans or protohumans were not locked into specific geographic locations.  If an area got wet, they would move and therefore not evolve to suit the environment.  If it dried, they would follow the water.  Anyway, a citation would be useful.  WLU 22:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the section needs evidence before being included. But I do want to point out that emigration was not necessarily an option. If the Red Sea suddenly burst into the Afar Depression, then the lucky few who didn't drown may have found themselves on an island. They could have tried to get off the island... or they could have found that suddenly they have an abundant seafood source and no competition for resources, so... why leave? — Epastore 15:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: A definite possibility, but without a source, is original research.  Also, it would have to be a very large island, would dramatically reduce the breeding population, tremendous inbreeding; I'm guessing there would be some genetic evidence of such a powerful population bottleneck.  Anyway, once someone puts in a reference, it could be replaced but right now it's too dodgy in my mind.  We'll see what Smokey has to say as it is his section.  WLU 16:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No argument on the OR... though I do think there is a cite out there somewhere. But to the point of the stranded-on-an-island idea... it could be a large island, containing a significant population of the primates in question. And if the event were 7 million years ago, it wouldn't be a population bottleneck in homo sapiens, it would be an event in primates overall. Our first ancestor to diverge from the chimps is believed to have originated... around 7 million years ago: orrorin tugenensis. See also: Timeline of human evolution. — Epastore 17:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It'll have to wait until the source then.  Note that I changed the indent on the talk page - I use the second system discussed in layout.  WLU 21:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A link is :- http://www.exn.ca/Stories/2000/06/29/58.asp You can find several more by searching under 'Sea of Afar'. Definitely not OR at least not by me. Apes *can* swim if forced to so our ancestors wouldn't have drowned. I don't like to revert if I am in a minority of one but this seems like persuasive evidence to me.SmokeyTheCat 10:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Feel free to re-ad it with a citation, though that one doesn't seem appropriate for the page. If you've got a better one with references, I'd be happier.  WLU 15:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Sea of Afar" produces exactly 66 Google hits. Not exactly what I would call persuasive. JPotter 22:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sea of Afar 

message: Under "Childbirth" the article staes the children can "swim" from birth.  The use of quotes suggests some doubt on this, so where is the source of the information?  If it is undisputed, why is it quoted?  Or is this swimming different from what we recognise as swimming?  Can we have a reference, please?!
:Children tend to hold their breath and go through some vaguely crawl like motions while underwater. This isn't swimming and could never keep the infants head above water. Calling it swimming makes it seem like there's some there there. You can check youtube for a number of videos, they move their arms and legs, we move our arms and legs when we swim, therefore, babies must swim. Yeah, the quotes are there because without them you need to say that they babies when shoved underwater tend to move their limbs. Tat 21:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swimming children 

message: Unlike most apes human feet do not have an opposable toe. A primate that treads water would have no need for an opposable toe. Apes often sit when they use their feet to hold things; this would not work in water. Also the arched shape of the feet makes humans more suitable for walking in mud or the sandy bottoms of rivers, lakes, and the ocean. The skin on human feet is very soft and vulnerable to sharp rocks and sticks that might litter the ground in a forest or savannah.
...
Any evidence that AAH proponents have made this silly argument? Tat 05:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Morgan at least suspects that our feet are adapted primarily for a terrestrial environment, not an aquatic one. If we did go from arboreal to aquatic to terrestrial, you'd expect adaptations to all three environments, with the earlier ones coopted by the latter ones. kwami 07:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Feet

message: To address the problems with the old format, giving the arguments and then way later establishing the counter claims where there were better terrestrial theories or falsehoods in the argument presented. This format allows the counter claims to be quickly and easy presented. This gives a reader a clear view of the arguments used by proponents of AAH without providing false information. Arguments do not need to be removed because they are false or dishonest, simply addressing those points which are misrepresented. Also, the counter claims to the arguments weren't properly "criticisms". Tat 07:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newer Format 

message: If you look at a human hand you can see that vestigal webbing still exists between our fingers. Indeed to this day one in hundred humans are born with partially webbed toes. How to explain this without a period in our evolutionary past spent in water? Anyone mind if I add this to the article?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 16:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're going to cite it as evidence, make sure there's an actual citation.  Speaking of citations, I've went through the intro and added actual inline citations rather than author/year, and attached it to specific statements.  I then removed the citations from the references section.  Also changed section title capitalizations and removed a couple entries that looked like pure OR and had no citations.  This is not the place to debate the theory, so any criticisms and counterclaims need to be referenced.  I trimmed the citations in the intro somewhat so only a representative sample remain, rather than have 15 citations in the first paragraph alone for criticism/support/neutral.  Looks cleaner.  WLU 17:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finger and toe webbing 

message: The 'arguments' section, and I use that term loosely, has virtually no citations.  I realize that there is a long references section, but it's much better to deal with if there's citations for specific statements.  I'm going through the page now, if anyone can review the page later and attach specific citations to specific statements, you'd be doing the page a huge favour.  WLU 20:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-written some sections, but I'm out of time.  I'll try to continue later on.  Unfortunately this leaves the article as somewhat of a hybrid, so if anyone else wishes to continue, feel free.  WLU 21:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments section 

message: Allen's Swamp Monkeys, as their name suggests, are somewhat aquatic. Saw a young one at the San Diego Zoo, where they're raised in an enclosure with otters, play chase an otter about 10m, tumble with it a couple times, then swim the 10m back, all under water, only to be pulled out by an older monkey. It looked like it could do at least 30m underwater on one breath if it wanted to. There used to be a troop of guenons in the enclosure, and I never saw any of them swimming. Suggests that perhaps breath control is an adaptation to an aquatic environment. kwami 23:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately without a discussion in a reliable source, it's primary source and not a published one.  Though it's a good idea if you can find a discussion of said species.  WLU 23:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't planning on adding it to the article, just thought I'd mention it here for those who are interested. There is some stuff about them in back issues of ZooNooz, since I think the SD Zoo staff were surprised at how well the two species got on together, but I don't know if anything is ever mentioned about swimming underwater. kwami 05:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  monkeys swimming underwater 

message: I'm thinking about gutting the page of everything that doesn't have a citaiton.  The page is still a huge mess of claims and counter-claims, none of which are sourced, or those that are sourced are synthesis and evaluations of what research summaries exist.  Any claims and counter-claims that could be sourced could be re-added gradually, with the citation.  As is, the page reads like a web fora debating on the truth of the AAH, and that is not what we are here for.  What do other editors think?  WLU (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did something along those lines once, but it all got added back in again. kwami (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've a revert button.  WP:PROVEIT says it's up to the add-ee to source, not the remover to justify.  WLU (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The page has been gutted.  I've removed everything without a citation, as well as all the citations I found that were worthless (i.e. weblinks to nowhere or dead pages) or OR if included(i.e. didn't mention the AAH at all, but still used to support or counter things).  I may have been somewhat overzealous, but anything I've removed that was supported is easy enough to pull out of the history and paste back in rather than a blanket revert.  WP:PROVIT supports removing unsourced information, and the page was a hideous mess of OR and unsupported 'nuh-uh' claims and counter-claims.  WLU (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and it's been reverted.  I'm talking to User:StephenBuxton to see if it is just a reflex at the loss of massive amounts of text, or if he's got a particular interest in the page itself.  WLU (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a reflex action to large amount of text going with no valid edit summary.  I've reverted my revert. Consider the article now vert. :-) StephenBuxton (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and it's back to its gutless self, thanks Stephen.  And my edit summary was totally valid!  As long as the editor read the talk page.  Ok, so maybe it wasn't.  I'll be leaving comments on a couple editor's talk pages to let them know and request help in re-populating.  WLU (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's certainly for the best. The majority of the article was AAH proponents say X, counter claims: X is categorically false. -- How many times can you read the same crap. I honestly think there needs to be some overview, perhaps the intro should be expanded a bit (certainly not the arguments back). And some of the "mix" receptions needs really to be fixed. It hasn't been mixed. Mainstream paleontology has rejected it and the "supporting" links are excruciatingly weak. I wish there was something to simply tag a page as pseudoscience. The last 40 years of paleontology and the AAH reply *STILL* 'poppycock! It has something vaguely to do with water!'. This is a good step in the right direction. Tat (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually agree that the page was very badly written and needed "gutting". Unless there is a verifiable source, it should not contain a list of claims and/or counter claims. But to argue (as Tatarize does) that this is only what proponents do is a gross misrepresentation. Opponents of the idea seem to do it even more in my opinion. To say that "mainstream anthropology has rejected it" is an exaggeration. The fact is only one paper has even looked it in a mainstream anthropological journal in 50 years and that paper (Langdon 1997) only critiques a straw man argument. It would be more accurate to say that "mainstream anthropology has ignored the idea". When people use terms like "pseudoscience", "poppycock", "vaguely to do with water" etc I think it just shows their bias and ignorance. But anyway, I agree that it this is a step forward. I say good riddance to all that unsubstantiated argument. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: However, now that chunks of the page have been culled it's clear (e.g. comment below) that some seriois content is now missing and that the general reader would not be greatly enlightened from using Wikipedia. I think the defition of the idea needs much more stucture and it should make it clear that there is not just one single idea but a cluster of them.  AlgisKuliukas (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: What you're asking for is basically a rewrite. The "toothy" version is written from an inappropriate point-counterpoint perspective, so we can't just add it back in; lots of work to be done in any case. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  We seem to have gone from one extreme to another, from TMI to TLI. Overall I think the slimline version is better but I might change the emphasis a bit. And, yes, lots of work still to do on this article. SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 11:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've absolutely no problem with what's been said so far about the page, the only thing I would like to see happen is that when information is added, it be sourced, even just to the Morgan books.  Ideally though, if sourcing the books the page where the specific information is taken from the page number should be cited as well to allow verification and discussion of how to represent the source text (if challenged).  There are enough sources in the lead alone to write the skeleton of the theory, and with three sources justifying the statement of 'criticism', there should be enough to flesh out the mainstream opposition.  WLU (talk) 12:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gutting the page 

message: The concluding sentence "Since the 1960s, the theory has not changed much nor increased its testable predictions; in most respects it has become less specific as objections have been proposed" is both contradictory and incorrect. If it hasn't changed much, how can it simultaneously be argued that "it has become less specific" as objections have been proposed"? Also the citations listed at the end of the sentence did not verify it, they were just citations showing some of the diverse ideas surrounding the idea.
The fact is that the scientific process is all about ideas being modified as new evidence arises. The so-called "aquatic ape hypothesis" as originally formulated by Sir Alister Hardy in 1960 was clearly incorrect in its timescale. At the time there was a 'gap' in the fossil record between Procinsul and the later australopithecines and so 6Mya or so was a logical slot in which to place a putative "more aquatic" phase for human ancestry. The MacLarnon & Hewitt (1999) paper rejects the idea largely on this basis. As more evidence has arisen, (e.g. A. afarensis 3.5-3.0mya, A. ramidus 4my, Orrorin 6mya, Sahelanthropus 7mya) the original timescale proposed for coastal (but not waterside generally) life has increasingly seemed less plausible but this does not mean the the whole idea was wrong, just the original idea of when a purely coastal phase may have happenned.
The point that needs to be stressed somewhere on this page, I think, is that there is not one single "aquatic ape hypothesis" (so-called) but several, disparate waterside hypotheses of human evolution that vary in proposed timescales, modes of selection and supporting evidence offered. It's not that proponents have dodged and twisted the hypothesis in order to somehow keep it going, as seems to be implied by this statement, but that there always were several proponents with differing ideas. Terms like "the theory", "its" and "it" are just inappropriate to describe a cluster of ideas such as this.
At the end of the day, since 1960 the ideas under the banner "waterside hypotheses" have changed quite a lot, some of them have testable predictions and most of them have become very specific largely in response to emerging evidence and criticisms. The statement is just plain wrong and so I am going to remove it.
AlgisKuliukas (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Since the 1960s, the theory has not changed much 

message: Minotaur500's post
Minotaur500's post</span>''
I was discussing this particular remark on the 'Sea of Afar' article, and I made certain points about human evolution that I thought were relevant here. There are certain points that need more detailed discussion, but in general, there are certain reasons for evolutionary traits to become a survival requirement, otherwise it would not be exclusively present in the population.
"According to proponents of the aquatic ape hypothesis, the depression formed a small sea roughly 8 million years ago. The theory proposes to explain certain human characteristics (e.g. hairlessness, bipedality) in terms of adaptation to this semi-aquatic environment."
This could only be significant if the sea existed until as recently as less than a million years ago, and two million years ago at the absolute maximum earliest. This is because the Homo Erectus began to appear from 2 million years ago, which is when hominid brain expansion began to occur. Additional evolutionary traits such as hairlessness quite likely occurred much later, after the appearance of Neanderthals, which had extensive bodily hair, partly as an adaptation to the climate during the ice age. Having such common ancestors, it is likely that hairless humans evolved after this time. It is also possible that the climate has led evolution to favour hairlessness in interglacial periods and hairyness during glacial periods. It is also widely believed that the initial humans, due primarily to the climate in which they evolved had dark skin. Personally, I am unsure of the general nature of skin pigmentation in Neanderthals, however it is likely that the ice age climate would have favoured lighter skins. It is quite possible that Neanderthals and humans evolved lighter skin pigmentations independently of each other. It is also quite possible that different species evolved hairlessness independently of one another. It is likely that humans evolved hairlessness in the East African Afar region, due to the fact that all humans now are hairless, irrespective of ethnic background. It is unclear why certain human evolutionary traits have evolved, such as brain size, hairlessness, and a larynx that allows speech. It should be noted that evolution would favour these traits due to environmental factors of some sort, otherwise they would not appear in the population without at least a significant number of hairy humans. It could have been something such as mating preference, however modern humans do not seem to have an innate automatic sense of repulsion from any degree of excessive body hair. There are suggestions that brain expansion occurred as a consequence of diet change and food abundance. Dietry requirements for large brains are generally understood to include omega-3 fatty acids, and greater energy requirements, the latter of which require more effective foraging of food or a greater abundance of easily available high energy food. Hominid evolution including that of humans has included a diet rich in fruit. One consequence of this has been that humans need a diet rich in Vitamin C, humans having lost the ability to synthesise it themselves from within. It is therefore required for humans to have a diet that is high in Vitamin C. The human body is able to compensate to some extent for a diet that is low in Vitamin C by increasing production of Uric Acid, however health consequences do result, and would not have been evolutionarily favourable. Most other animal species synthesise their own vitamin C, making humans relatively rare in having this as a dietary requirement. Such a diet is high in energy from the fructose sugars, and as such is able to supply humans with sufficient energy to fuel a large brain. Certain fruits also contain other dietry fatty acids in addition to and including fatty acids such as omega-3 fatty acids that can only be obtained from a dietry sources. A fruit or vegetative source is possible, however humans are not naturally vegetarian, and fish may have provided the omega-3 fatty acid source. However, a fatty acid, omega-3 or otherwise could have just as easily have been obtained from a plant source to a meat source. Neanderthals had cranial cavaties that appear to accommodate brains that were 30% larger than humans. This expansion in brain size and abundance of the necessary fatty acids is therefore likely to precede human evolution. The dietry source of the required fatty acids must have been present from around 2 million years ago, to allow Homo Erectus, Neanderthals, and humans to evolve. The need for a diet rich in Vitamin C also began to evolve before rapid brain expansion began to occur, suggesting that a significant diet change away from fruits is less likely. It is understood that Neanderthals had not evolved the evolutionary traits to allow speech, both the necessary changes to the larynx and also the areas of the brain that it is necessary to have evolved sufficiently to allow vocal languages to be composed and understood. It is likely that this occurred more recently, however, due to the common traits that all humans have today that enable speech, it is likely that speech occurred in East Africa, and did not occur independently among different disparate groups of humans around the world. It is possible that more effective communication among a species was evolutionarily favourable. What factors influenced this is unclear, however better cooperation could have provided greater and more effective means to obtain food. A modified larynx may have evolved as a means to enable more effective foraging of food from aquatic sources, and had the coincidental consequence that this enabled speech. A lower larynx could have been an evolutionary response that prevented disease, such as throat infections, or an ilness transmitted via an airborne route, similar to blue tongue virus or foot and mouth disease in cattle. The aquatic ape hypothesis suggests a lower larynx would have aided swimming ability, but does not provide a benefit for why speech is advantageous, merely that it is coincidental. It does not provide a reason for the evolved human brain regions that are associated with speech, suggesting that speech mush have had significant evolutionary advantages.
It is unclear what hairlessness would have favoured. It is worth remembering that the environment and climate of the region is likely to have been significantly different, and is likely have changed and varied throughout eras and epochs. There could have been periods, caused by climatic cycles or other factors such as large volcanic events like Toba in South East Asia for example, when El Nino events and a disruption of the monsoon climate may have led to extensive rainfall and even hurricanes, or possibly extensive periods of drought which would have allowed early human species to only be able to survive if they could forage for food in from an aquatic environment, with food not being available beyond the local vicinity of the great lakes. A climate with extensive rainfall may have brought a greater degree of tropical ilnesses, and required early humans to have certain traits in order to be relatively resistant to certain diseases that would prevent successful rearing of decendants. It is usually assumed that the supply of omega-3 fatty acids is obrained from fish and other aquatic sources. It has also been noted that certain algae, including those found in the waters of the East African East Lakes, have significan quantities of algae that synthesise omega-3 fatty acids. There may have been a time when the only food available was from the East African Lakes. This period of time may have also been associated with an epidemic of some sort of tropical disease that wiped out other food sources that up until that time early human species has partially depended on. This could have been transmitted by parasitic insects such as fleas. Evolution could have favoured hairlessness, because the hairs prevented extensive infestations of fleas in the fur of early humans. The culprit could have been in the form of a bacteria or virus similar to that that leads to endometriosis that is transmitted by fleas or flea bites, preventing successful births without misscarriages and infant deaths. Therefore the only surviving decendents would have had the mechanisms necessary to prevent transmission of the virus or bacteria, which would have been a way to prevent fleas to act as a vector. Hairlessness could have acted as an evolutionary defence against this.
--Minotaur500 (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Talk pages are generally reserved for commenting on the article not as a forum for generating discussion about the topic. If you have edits you would like to make, please do so as long as they are properly sourced. If you go through the history of this page you'll notice that it was gutted not too long ago for many valid reasons, so I would suggest going through that before making any additions. --Woland (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that Minotaur's post appeared to be original research, I've collapsed it into a box per WP:NOT#FORUM.  It's there if people wnat to read it.  WLU (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideas about the role of aquatic environments on human evolution 

message: Jmcc150 has added a list of circumstantial evidence from Morgan. I'm in favor of something along these lines, to give the reader the flavor of the argument. However, other editors have deleted this, and I can sympathize. I see two problems with it:
#This is not the AAH as a whole, but only Morgan's take on it. However, as Morgan is the primary proponent of the AAH, this might not be undue weight. That's an issue for discussion. 
#The list will get clogged with counter arguments and then counter–counter arguments. I don't think this will be a problem as long as we demand that each counter argument be sourced. 
kwami (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In a message to User:Woland37 I said that there is no denying that evidence has been put forward, and therefore his deletion of my referenced material was unwarranted. It seems to me that an article on a hypothesis must say why some people believe in it, even if they are misguided. That is what a hypothesis is all about. In answer to kwami's first misgiving, I have no problem if the evidence advanced by people other than Morgan is added. As ever if all additional material such as the counter arguments are also referenced, it will give a balanced view. Incidentally, at what point does circumstantial evidence become evidence? JMcC (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Woland37 has again deleted the section on evidence in favour of the hypothesis. An eminent zoologist has stated in public that evidence has been advanced and this cannot be denied. I have asked User:Woland37 on his talk page to explain how you can have an article on a hypothesis without stating why people have advanced it. Listing the evidence does not imply acceptance of the hypothesis. I have asked if Sir David Attenborough is not a reliable source that evidence has been proposed. I have also asked that if I provide scientific references for every one of the items of evidence that has been deleted, whether they will be allowed to remain. JMcC (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did indeed have a bit of a knee-jerk reaction. My issue is that this article was previously a bloated sack of unreferenced claims/original research and what I saw was you essentially adding the same type of stuff back in. This has nothing to do with what I personally think about the AAH. Also, what I meant by references was in text citations for each claim; I may be wrong but I don't think that they were there. I would hate to see this article spin out of control and became what it once was with claims and counter-counter claims and counter-counterclaims ad infinitum. I appreciate your position. I have no problem with a section similar to what you added, it just needs to be sourced better. --Woland (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I would have to add that as a third concern to my list above, and it is by far the most serious. Jmcc, it should be easy enough to do. The problem is not so much with your list (though I don't recognize a couple of the claims), but with the near certainty that other people will add their favorite tidbits to it, and many of these will not be from your global reference. If we insist that each bullet point have its own reference, then we can keep the list under control, and there shouldn't be any serious problems with it (though we will probably get into POV battles over individual points). kwami (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing circumstantial evidence 

message: Sorry to stir things up a little (especially as I am doing a bit of a "drive-by")... but I have added a link to Moore's site and to Kuliakis' rebuttal. I agree that Moore overdoes his criticism of Morgan, but he does address issues that sometimes arise on this topic and some that are relevant to the supporting facts raised in the Hypotheses section. I have however also added the rebuttal. I think that people who are really interested would read both. Incidentally, from the discussions above, it looks as though the article has been cleaned up quite nicely. --Muchado (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me, so long as it doesn't turn into link madness. --Woland (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: I wish we could find a better website for a rebuttal though, that format is horrible. I guess its par for the course though.--Woland (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've long opposed those two sites I believe, on the basis of them being non-reliable, essentially opinions from random people (somewhat tongue-in-cheek since they have done some research).  I've removed them, which no-one will agree with, but used the DMOZ link instead.  To everyone's satisfaction I believe, it's got links to both sites (acutally looks like the old EL section when it was a linkfarm).  Any objections?  WLU (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that much better. It is inclusive, comprehensive and a better resource altogether. I hate having a bunch of EL's.--Woland (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Moore's site