Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis/Archive 2

message: The lead section does not summarize the article without a mention, ideally more thorough than what is there right now, of the AAH being generally not accepted by mainstream science.  Criticisms are about a third of the article and must appear in the lead.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The impression I'm getting is not that the AAH has indeed "been criticized by biologists, and has found little acceptance in mainstream science" - but that it's irrelevant. AAH simply doesn't make predictions and hence cannot currently be proved or disproved. Nina Jablonski's 2008 criticism doesn't appear to deliver any knockout blows, whereas Morgan and Todaro's claim about the "baboon marker" do lead somewhere. They suggest that the "Savannah theory" should be dead - that's something that should be difficult to ignore. Is Morgan correct, her theory is definitely more likely than what went before? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read through the section again, calling it criticism and rejection is a bit strong actually, but I've an inkling many of the criticisms have been swept from the article.  Jablonski's criticisms are only one part, there must be more on google books.  Anyway, it's not up to us to choose if it's right or not, just to source criticisms.  Right now on a read-through it seems like the page is saying "The AAH has been unjustly rejected by science", which is POV in my mind, rather than "The AAH is a fringe science" (in a nonpejorative sense).  Anyway, perhaps I'm wrong, I'll start on some research.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since some mainstream scientists actually support AAH, then it's not a fringe theory.  Desmond Morris, one of the pioneers in evolutionary psychology is certainly a mainstream scientist and he is sympathetic to AAH. In order to dismiss AAH, one issue that would need to be determined relates to why our closest relatives, chimpanzees and Gorillas, who live near lakes and rivers do not swim, but humans do swim. Somewhere in the primate lineage, after the divergence from the chimpanzee, our ancestors learn't how to swim. Most apes don't swim, and the few that do swim, do so mainly to cross rivers, such as the proboscis monkey, and orangutans have been observed to swim in captivity. But no primate swims for pleasure or to hunt for food in the way that humans do, indicating that human swimming most likely occurred recently during the evolution of homo. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rejection by mainstream science 

message: Rather than a lump of "AAH has been criticized by some people", the specific criticisms should be spelled out.  I'll try to do so when I have the time, but right now I don't.  Here's the ones I haven't had time to embed yet.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific criticisms 

message: I removersed two edits.  The first was to remove an external link that was out of keeping with guidelines on external links - no indication it was a reliable source, it looked like a personal web page.  The second added criticisms to the lead that were rather extreme and not sourced in the body.  The AAH does appear to be a pseudoscience, make no predictions and is not testable, but those are strong claims that need to be made in a reliable source before they should be included.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no way this article should be claiming that the AAH is fringe or pseudo-science. In it's weak form (ie not "aquatic ape") it seems to be accepted. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two edits 

message: I don't have access to the work cited in this link. Is the sentence in Academic reception strongly supported by this textbook on Pediatric ENT therapies? 
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.  
:Yup.  "Alistair Hardy put forward the aquatic ape hypothesis to answer these and many other question,and Elaine Morgan has been a forceful resuscitant of it (Morgan, 1997).  But the theory is still met with profound skepticism, and needs much more evidence to be thoroughly accepted."  There's a soupcon of interpretation (whose skepticism?  Paleoanthropology makes sense since they're the relevant experts) but I think it's reasonable.  Try the page forward button, google books jammed on me but forward/back brought them up.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again. I tried the forward back w/o success. A soupçon for one part, maybe, but turning up in a medical specialist's textbook doesn't support "ignored". cygnis insignis 20:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Perhaps the absence of fossil evidence should be mentioned in the lead?   cygnis insignis 20:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The fossil evidence (as I understand it) all points to water-side existence. All through the Rift Valley and the location of the Taung baby when it was revisited in 1985. Lucy was found amongst crocodile and turtle eggs and crab-claws. All that evidence can be discounted on the basis that only in such places would fossils survive - but you can't claim it's absent! The impression I'm getting is that debating AAH has a very low priority (except amongst students, where it's a favourite). Its predictions are the kind of thing that researchers are doing anyway. There's a BBC linked prediction about the baby-wax which is interesting and better than nothing but doesn't rate for much. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference 

message: The second paragraph of the lead ends "... and was popularized and promoted over the next 30 years by ex-script writer Elaine Morgan." It used to say "...popular writer Elaine Morgan". I tried just "writer Elaine Morgan" (because "popular" repeats "popularized"), but it's now back to "ex-script".
It is desirable to find some words to make it clear that Morgan is not a scientist, but describing what Morgan is not ("ex-script writer") doesn't seem reasonable. In my edit summary, I described those words as POV because it is abundantly clear that Morgan is a writer in addition to having written scripts many years ago (see Elaine Morgan (writer) for a list of books). I can't think of an WP:NPOV way of saying "not qualified to have written a book with a hypothesis on human evolution", so can someone explain why "popular writer" or just "writer" is not adequate? Johnuniq (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I may have just been inspired. What about this: "The aquatic ape hypothesis was discussed by Desmond Morris in his 1960 book The Naked Ape, and was promoted over the next 30 years by popular writer Elaine Morgan"? Johnuniq (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Writer" and "popular writer" are perfectly acceptable but fail to note that she was a professional presentation writer before turning those powerful skills onto other topics. There is some indication that these skills have caused resentment in the wider scientific community, causing more outspoken resistance than seems justified according to other sources. Anyway, I've tried something different and much more specific again, tell me what you think. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I think there is some value in implying that Morgan cut her teeth as a specialist in "entertainment" writing. It's a fairly trivial matter compared with the distortions of AAH that come later, but it's an attempt to NPOV a statement of something significant, viz that the supporters of AAH are championed by a professional communicator, just as are its opponents. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morgan's profession 

message: The article can contain only a small number of the arguments for/against AAH, so it's important that we deal with them in an NPOV fashion. That's not what's happening. Langdon and Jablonski (references #23 and #256 respectively) have the most cites (4 each) but our use of their work is dubious, allowing them to make arguments that don't relate to Morgan's, and in at least one case to address something different. Vanstrum's (#27) arguments may be better or worse, but they do little to undermine AAH. In the New Scientist, 1991 (#29) Zihlman says "Morgan ... ignores the fossil record altogether" - so? None of his arguments suggest Morgan is in conflict with the fossil evidence, only that he's irritated because his speciality is treated as irrelevant on this point.
The current state of the article claims that AAH is undermined by "the failure of the fossil record to support the claims" (this is referenced to both Langdon and Jablonski) - an argument that Morgan elegantly dealt with at the beginning. At p.18 of one of her earlier AAH books, Scars of Evolution 1990, Morgan argues that the fossil record supports AAH, Lucy's "almost complete skeleton was discovered in East Africa among the remains of crocodile and turtle eggs and crab claws" and that all the known remains are water-side, or at least, in regions more humid than they are now. Scars p.174 points out that "it is hard to conceive of any fossil evidence that would be regarded as conclusive one way or the other. To take a parallel situation, if fossil hunters in five million years' time unearthed the fossilised skeletons of an otter and a stoat, they would be able to deduce that two closely related mustelids co-existed in Scotland in the twentieth century. They would find it very difficult to establish whether one of them was aquatic." 
I propose taking out all the arguments that are presented in this POV fashion, starting with "the failure of the fossil record to support the claims". If there's anything valid in the references that deal with the actual AAH case, then they needs presenting properly. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the including information on the other arguments for hairlessness such as the need to sweat, sexual selection, and fewer parasites. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree there's a problem over the number of arguments the article can cover, and I presume we cannot include all of them. I'm concerned to choose representative examples. However, I'm more concerned that those we do include are treated properly. And I think the fossil argument is treated carefully and convincingly by Morgan and quite poorly in this article. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

text: NPOV doesn't mean we don't have criticisms.  Morgan's work is not all that the hypothesis is, and further, since she didn't publish in academic circles, her work is far from the most reliable sources that can be used.  When dealing with fringe topics like this one, the failure of academics to take it seriously doesn't mean we give full play to the people who presented the theory to popular attention.  Morgan didn't "deal with" the lack of fossils, in fact the criticism that MacLarnon uses is supported by fossils.  Jablonski and Vansrum are both published by academic press, something Morgan never managed, and accordingly are extremely reliable.  New Scientist is also popular scientific press, and the article is written by a relevant expert.  Discarding it because Zihlman is piqued is inappropriate, particluarly when he is actually dismissing Morgan's work because "australopithecines show none of the streamlining and reduction of limbs that is characteristic of many different species of acquatic mammals. Rather, the oldest hominids, Lucy and her kin from the Afar in Ethiopia, have curved hand and foot bones that bespeak a recent descent from the trees rather than an ascent for the depths" - in other words, Zihlman is saying the AAH is contradicted by the fossil record. Jablonski doesn't, and I've replaced Jablonski with Zihlman accordingly.  Failure of the fossil record to support the claims is well supported and should remain.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure any of them, including Zihlman, is saying that AAH is contradicted by the fossil record. "Failure of the fossil record to support AAH" is something different and totally unremarkable (and completely untrue, according to supporters). We do the reader a dis-service treating it as a valid objection. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need better treatment of the arguments. 

message: Morgan deals extensively with the strengths and limitations of fossils. She seems to do this fairly - very differently from the way her critics deal with AAH (or at least, her critics as we quote them).
The 2nd chapter of the 1990 book "Scars" is entitled "Fossil-hunters", and she demonstrates a good understanding of what can be, and what cannot be, discovered eg: "There are two ways of trying to reconstruct the evolutionary history of a living species. One way is to examine extant specimens, studying their behaviour when they are alive and their anatomy when they are dead. The other way is to hunt for the fossilised bones of their distant ancestors ... Hunting for pre-human fossils calls for a rare combination of physical and mental abilities ... those who succeed in it tend to be energetic, eloquent and extrovert ... the claims they make about their discoveries result in noisy disputations - which further endears them to the media."
Morgan is not rude to anthropologists, but provides damning evidence of how little they care about soft tissue. She reports (p.70) the only television debate ever held on AAH, in the course of which a professor of anthropology was asked why man had less hair than the apes. Unprepared for the question, he "earnestly assured viewers that there was no mystery about it: the answer had been found - the matter was well understood - the solution was there, on record, somewhere in the literature - but unfortunately it had slipped his mind". Morgan spends the whole of Chapter 6 examining all options for hair-lessness - in 1989 she bought the latest editions of two textbooks on anthropology "both comprehensive, highly commended and frequently updated ... devoted three words to the topic ... humans 'have less hair' ... avoided any mention of the subject whatsoever ... neither the people who set the papers nor the people who mark them know what the answer is". Another telling example provided by Desmond Morris - a "foremost authority" on television telling us that man has not lost his hair - "the numerous quaint theories that have been put forward to account for the imagined loss of hair are, mercifully, not needed".
Now, if we include criticism of AAH from anthropologist Zihlman then we need to include some mention of how the supporters of AAH charge the anthropologists with wrongly (and repeatedly) rejecting the evidence of anatomical research. Morgan tells us that naturalist Charles Darwin correctly "predicted that the birthplace of our species would be found in Africa" - the anthropologists ignored him. Morgan continues: "... within Darwin's lifetime ... began digging in Europe, and their hopes were high ... By the 1920s the prevalent belief was that man had emerged in Asia ... experts came down firmly on the side of Asia ... [in 1947] abandoned their dreams of visiting China and focused on Africa instead" In actual fact, the anthropologists were now wrong for the third time, since the Taung baby (that they'd studiously ignored for 22 years) sent them to South Africa instead (p.13). If the supporters of AAH believe anthropologists have been wrong (and on other occasions been hoaxed), and have evidence like this, then it should go in.
This is not original research on my part, it's an important, hard-hitting argument from a major supporter of AAH and we're ignoring it, while giving space to feeble or mis-stated or even false arguments from its opponents. Zihlman's "Failure of the fossil record to support AAH" is not the same as saying that "AAH is contradicted by the fossil record". MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fossil-hunters treated properly by Morgan

message: Now for another major fault in the way we treat AAH - Morgan claims "Savannah explanations were advanced to account for hairlessness, bipedalism, sexual bonding, tool using, and a whole spectrum of other human features ... if the Ethiopian discoveries had been made before the South African ones, it is probable that none of that would have happened. The Hadar site, in the Afar peninsula, is now arid, but there are geological deposits there which prove that it was once a lakeside or riverine habitat. The same thing is true of the Olduvai Gorge". (I've already quoted what Morgan says about Lucy found "among the remains of crocodile and turtle eggs and crab claws").
Now, if knocking down the "savannah hypothesis" is a major part of the AAH (and I think it is, from all sources) then we should include it. Instead of which, we quote Zihlman effectively calling Morgan a liar: "Morgan sets up a false dichotomy between the AAH and the 'savanna hypothesis' ... code name for other prevailing reconstructions of human evolution". We need to do much better than this - AAH at least deserves a fair crack of the whip in its own article. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: ... whereas AAH's "Savannah hypothesis" is not treated properly

message: I've combined archives 1-4 into a single one - as is they were anywhere from 30-100K each, which will produce a lot of unnecessary archive pages.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the recent sections. cygnis insignis 18:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, no problem.  I had no qualms about removing the ones you replaced since they dated back three months with no real traffic since. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: Regards this edit, one of the frequent complaints or claims about the theory is that it has had a very long life, and refuses to die despite being examined and discarded by scientists.  I tried for a better wording, if anyone still objects then remove it again and I'll try to dig up some sources to illustrate my point.  If this isn't apparent in the body text already then it should be.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you have sources that speak to the popularity of the hypothesis directly this would fall under WP:SYNTH.Simonm223 (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it turns out I was wrong - I re-read everything that I could access from here and didn't find anything explicitly supporting the point.  There are a couple discussions about how the theory won't die and how it is entrancing in its ability to explain "everything", but little about its popularity among lay and graduate student audiences.  My apologies and obviously I won't be re-adding it unless I find a source that explicitly supports it.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity 

message: This article needs to be edited, because the author does not even try to be neutral, he always gives his own opinion, disguised in terms as "the scientific community" etc. New developments, e.g. the recent excavations in Eritrea (Danakil) are completely ignored. 87.188.242.157 (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is filled with reliable sources.  I've also taken out three recent books from the library on human evolution (, , ) and none mention the AAH.  If any reliable sources mention the Danakil find as supporting the AAH, they can certainly be sourced.  In addition, there is not one author.  Many editors have contributed to the page and the current version appears to have consensus.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ever heard of Phillip Tobias, Chris Stringer, David Attenborough, Algis Kuliukas or Carsten Niemitz? -- 87.188.247.150 (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See Project Steve - there are tens of thousands of paleontologists who don't publish about the AAH, and even with these authors.  It's explicit that there's no proof even if it has theory (which hasn't made a dent on paleontology).  You appear to be asserting truth when wikipedia's standard is verifiability.  It's explicitly verifiable that the theory has no real acceptance.  Wikipedia is not a place to promote a theory or debate an idea.  Until the theory gets mainstream acceptance, it is undue weight to portray it as true, real, or taken seriously.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

text: You don't get the point. I am critisizing that in this article, only about 30 % of the text is describing the actual theory, whereas twice the space is used to list arguments against the AAH. 
I personally think there are great weaknesses in the theory, but it would be appropriate to just say that there are other explanations, then put links to mainstream theories, so the reader can find arguments pro and con and then judge for himself.
The article, as it is mow , basically says "This is a short definition of the aquatic ape theory. But the theory is rubbish, as you can see by the multitude of arguments against it." And that definitely is not a neutral point of view.--87.188.213.42 (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like due weight on the prevailing scholarly opinion.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality 

message: ,  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Another source

message: There is a related discussion at Talk:Elaine Morgan (writer)#Aquatic ape hypothesis.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related discussion 

message: Should have s.t. on proboscis monkeys: mangrove forests, arboreal and aquatic (even marine), forage underwater, observed walking bipedally on land, carrying infants on their hips in the human fashion. Granted that there is no direct evidence for the AAH, and therefore that is must be considered speculation, but a lot of the criticisms (like seals not being bipedal) seem to miss the point.  kwami (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  proboscis monkeys 

message: Wrangham, 2009 paper  has some points to be made that could be used to support the aquatic ape hypothesis, but it doesn't refer to the theory explicitly and a (very) quick scan of the references doesn't turn up a lot of the literature cited here.  With great caution I could see it being used here (possibly in "the hypothesis") but it's probably good to discuss it first.  The article basically says that a single population of baboons eat underwater roots when they can't get the food they want, and this could have supported or driven bipedalism in hominins.  I read it as very speculative.  I've already cited it in bipedalism but am a bit more leery of citing it here without running into original research and undue weight issues.  It is a short bit of research with a lot of speculation, but potentially useful.  Thoughts?  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, it's interesting and relevant in that it gives a motive for going into the water in the first place, but I'd agree with your cautionary note - the paper itself confines this idea to the discussion section, and has strong caveats about inferring behavior and selection of fossil organisms. Mokele (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can certainly see the need for caution on their part: Morgan's paranoia has made the AAH seem faintly ridiculous. They're certainly worth a note as one of very few professional treatments of the idea. kwami (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone see merit to citing it?  And any ideas on how?  It's a little hard given it doesn't mention the AAH by name and barely cites the previous literature that's used to support it.  I could see leaving it out.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I could go either way, but I favor including it, albeit extremely breifly ("blah blah entering the water, possibly to acquire food (Wrangham et al, 2009), or find new territory blah blah").  Since WP has the unique trait of not being limited by printing costs like a "real" review paper, and citations are pretty inconspicuous, I tend to favor citing the crap out of things, partially to improve WP's reputation, but also as a resource for students, giving them direct links to as much of the literature as possible. Mokele (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems a reasonable approach to me, much more than that and we're past my personal limit for OR-type issues.  Failing to mention the AAH kinda cripples the ability of the paper to be used on the page.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrangham, 2009