Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Childbirth 2 Flubber? 3 Illogic in Criticism 4 Newbie impressions 5 Article quality 6 Unrelated to overall quality 7 Most paleoanthropologists 8 Restructuring 9 Love It 10 The article is too strong for the weakness of the theory 11 Removed section: Some should be reincorporated without pov 12 Criticism 13 Swimming and other semi-objections 14 Falsification 15 Objections section 16 Semi-aquatic babirusa? 17 Rewrite Needed 18 Nutrition 19 Finger and Toe Webbing 20 Objection by comparison to hairy aquatics 21 Nevermind child-birth, whatabout child-rearing? 22 Criticisms of the criticism 22.1 Nakedness 22.2 Breathing 22.3 Fat 22.4 Childbirth 22.5 Nutrition 22.6 Swimming 22.7 Traits atypical of aquatic and semi-aquatic mammals 22.8 Recent Fossil Finds 22.9 Vagueness 23 both hypothysis

[edit] Childbirth

There is a section that states that childbirth before hospitals was generally done standing up or leaning, I think this need a citation!

I have seen this before but can't give a citation.

[edit] Flubber?

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)

[edit] Illogic in Criticism

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)

[edit] Newbie impressions

Forgive my top posting, but I wanted to make a point separate from the argument below; please feel free to edit it and put the comments at the bottom if the top posting is offensive. I recently heard a documentary about this theory on BBC Radio 4. The arguments were very cogent, and well-proposed with as good substantiation as any theory can hope. It makes a lot of sense to me personally. I was disappointed at the dismissive tone this article takes; one might believe it was written by an outright opponent to the theory in hopes of casting doubts on its validity.--leica 18:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this is it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/scarsofevolution.shtml --Landwalker 04:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm listening to Attenborough's take on AAH and I'm genuinely surprised. The BBC's presentation makes the hypothesis sound much more believable than I thought. In fact, it implies that it's making slow headway into the mainstream. Attenborough says "Then, in the early 90s, the consensus has begun to fall apart." This is too cool. British accents make everything more respectable! Ooh, he's getting ready to review the evidence.

• “And there’s another persuasive aspect to the theory—it’s predictive. It predicts that because iodine & other nutrients in the marine food chain are essential to the evolution of the human brain, then if we switch to a new land based diet that is poor in those nutrients, brain function will suffer. And that’s exactly what has happened According to the World Health Organization report of 2004, iodine deficiencies amongst inland populations affects around 740 million people worldwide.” --David Attenborough

• They say humans swam to Flores!

• Apparently, AAT predicted the existence of Vernix caseosa or a similar substance on newborn aquatic mammals. It was unknown prior to the production of the BBC series above!

• Note: National Geographic, in an article on seals, mentioned the presence of vernix on newborns. DD

• Sir David says that the evidence seems to be tilting in its favor...the tide is turning. Wow. Time to rethink things guys.

Aelffin 19:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article quality

i looked up this theory today and was fairly shocked at the article. From reading the article and discussion, it seems that POV should not be the complaint... instead, a lot of it should be disputed. For instance, the article claims that the dive reflex is and is not present in other mamals. Well, which is it? Article claims humans have 10x the fat of other mamals. Discussion claims otherwise. So is the article talking about overweight humans? How is that at all related? Forget if the hypothesis is accurate or not for a moment -- can't this article at least be consistent with the facts it mentions? I really think this needs to be started over. --Steven Fisher 02:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you the same poster as 63.183.161.115, who put up the NPOV banner yesterday (not at the same time as your comments above)? You say your comments are more about consistency and clarity than POV. If not, then this person hasn't seen fit to post any justification in the discussion page, and I'd like to ask what the recognised procedure is for putting up such tags.

As for your comments, don't forget that this isn't an article written at one time by one person. Also, it's a subject on which people have published complete books - it's not something where all the questions are going to be answered in a single Wikipedia article. The contradictory statements about the diving reflex need to be resolved; and in answer to your question about human fat: no we are not talking about overweight humans - although I understand that to be more accurate, the article should refer to the number of fat cells, rather than just the amount of fat. --Tiffer 20:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not that user. I just dropped in looking for an explanation of this theory and was surprised at the contradictions I found and thought I'd comment on them. With apologies if you're an AAT proponent, the more I investigated this theory the less sense it made... and the more I felt like the article is not just factually contradictory, but incorrect in other ways and has the NPOV problems mentioned as well. --Steven Fisher 09:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

What NPOV problems mentioned? Whoever placed the NPOV banner did so anonymously and without explanation.

Yes, I am an AAT proponent, but I don't wish to start a discussion here on whether or not it makes sense. If you come fresh to the subject, a lot depends on what sources you read. There are a number of sources in the web devoted to scotching AAT, sometimes misrepresenting it and generally not making a proper comparison with possible non-aquatic hypotheses.

I think this article has suffered from too many cooks. When I first came across it, it read like an argument between 2 people (or even 2 groups of people) - the original article had evidently been editted by someone who didn't like AAT, and had interspersed the text with what he saw as a rebuttal of each point. It was me who moved these objections to their own section, and added a section making a comparison between AAT and the land-based alternatives. Since then, several people have added snippets of evidence here and there; and whether or not individually they are valid, it doesn't make for a very coherent setting-out of the hypothesis.

You may be right that the article could be started again; alternatively, it could be rewritten using the existing material organised more coherently and with some more attributions where appropriate. I don't know if I have time to do that. --Tiffer 21:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Right now, it makes a whole lot of false claims and states a lot of pseudo-science under "The aquatic ape hypothesis puts forward these main arguments:". This is not an adequate warning that nearly everything that follows is pseudo-science and for the most part proven incorrect. It also claims that support for AAT is growing amongst the scientific community. In fact, so far as I can see, no one in the scinetific community supports AAT. 0->0 is not growing. See Time Cube for a way of handling a fringe theory that does not make any sense. --Steven Fisher 22:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I've reworded the introduction a bit, putting the note that this is a minority viewpoint sooner. I've also put in more adquate warning that the bullet points may not be factual, and I've removed the bit about growing support, since there's no proof of that. This is not to say I now agree with the article or even feel it is now neutral, but simply that I feel these changes are mostly non-objectionable and make it more neutral. I plan to investigate neutrality procedure on wikipedia and try to do whatever the person who applied the template missed. And sorry about the TimeCube link -- AAH is not nearly that crazy. ;) --Steven Fisher 23:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Steven, you'll have to do better than this. Before going any further, I think we need to agree on what "neutrality" means, and what is the proper level of exposure to be accorded to a minority view. Some of your comments above and on the main page make me think that you are not yourself coming to this discussion from a position of neutrality. In particular, statements like "should be viewed with a certain degree of suspicion" are no more than value judgements; and your comments about "pseudo-science" and claims that the basis for AAT has been "proven incorrect", I think are also inappropriate.

You refer me to Time Cube; let's both refer to Neutral_point_of_view, particularly the paragraph on Fairness and sympathetic tone. I highlight that particular paragraph, because I interpret it to mean that even minority viewpoints are entitled to be treated sympathetically, and not have a page devoted to them laced with warnings and challenges. There is (and was) already a section in the page for "Objections to AAH", which I think is the appropriate place for most of your concerns. For example, I see no need to place the comment about AAH being a minority position in the the first sentence; it makes sense to place it where it was: alongside the statement about the conventional ("savannah" or "mosaic") view of pre-human genesis - which AFAICS is no more scientifically sound than AAH.

I haven't at this stage attempted to improve on your contribution. I have no wish to do anything to precipitate an edit war - let's not reduce the AAH page to the situation of the Time Cube one! --Tiffer 17:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Tiffer, do whatever you want to the article. I don't really care. I'm not interested in an edit war, either. I tried to make the article more encyclopedic. If you are determined to keep it promotional and full of incorrect information stated as fact, that;'s your choice.

However, I feel the most important fact about AAH is this: It is a minority position. In fact, it is a zero position, not held by any serious scientists.

I have a very strong objection to labelling something "Arguments for" and then stating a lot of stuff as if it was fact. Interpretations of facts there are fine, but this does not even slightly excuse putting incorrect information in there. You agreed here that the diving reflex is present in all mamals, but it is stated there as if it was fact. The alternative to putting a note that the arguments (including facts) are all under objection is to use the dubious statement for every point there. That doesn't really make sense, since those are the arguments being put forward. It's just some of them are known false. Thus, it needs an introduction that states that not only are the interpretations following in question, so are the "facts." In fact, that facts aren't in question, they're known by everyone to be outright wrong.

So I not only agree with the NPOV tag, I think it also needs a request for deletion in its current state. Better to have nothing than have incorrect information stated as fact. I plan to watch the article out of the corner of my eye for a while, and nominate it for deletion if it remains at this quality and factual level. Better to not say anything that to have this article promote a crazy hypothesis with incorrect information.

To address your other "point" (that being the personal attack on me), Yous seem to have decided that my objecting to the article or arguments therein means I object to AAH, but such is not the case. In fact, maybe I do dislike AAH, but it is only as a result of reading this article and researching the facts stated therein which are wrong. And regardless of whether AAH is true or not (and it may be true), it certainly deserves a place in wikipedia.

What I object to most strenuously is the level of dishonesty present in the article. I object to statements of fact that are untrue. I object to the article misleading people about the popularity of AAH. I object to, in short, pretty much this entire article. Someone wrote this without respecting the neutrality guidelines, and in particular "write for your enemy." In fact, not only did they fail to write for their enemy, they failed to write for someone new to the subject -- me. Statements of fact on wikipedia must be true as far as I am concerned. This is why I'd rather have this article deleted than continue to exist in its present form. Saying you don't have time to fix it does not make it fixed, nor make it less objectionable.

Perhaps instead we should be discussing how to reduce this article to a point where it can be entirely true. Three or four accurate paragraphs would be much more acceptable to me.

--Steven Fisher 23:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, how do you feel about the first two paragraphs now? I think the first paragraph neds a little more on what the actual disagreement is, like the time frame. Got any data on that? To clarify, I think a better introduction would include something like as a final sentence to the first paragraph:

That life initially evolved in the water is not in dispute. Where the AAH and conventional viewpoint diverge is at what point day-to-day life spending significant amounts of time in water stopped having a direct influence on the evolution of man.

It would then give some dates.

--Steven Fisher 03:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Steven, the first paragraphs are better than your original edit - although on an uncontentious point I would remove the duplicates of the 2 words "theory" and "hypothesis". I am sorry you have taken offence at my comments on your neutrality, although I would add that your use of language like "fringe theory" and "crazy hypothesis" says more than I can on the subject.

I think there are other places where you have misunderstood my position. I am not, after all, the author of this article - all I have done is reorganise it and added some material, as have others. I agree that the article needs some dates - at least approximate ones. Most people I think understand that the hypothesis relates to the divergence of the human ancestral line from the apes - but for one reason or another even that isn't made clear in the first paragraphs. --Tiffer 09:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Tiffer, I think we've both insulted each other. Sorry. I can be an ass at times. I forgive you, and it seems you forgive me, and we're working well together despite some initial problems so let's not blow it! Well, I think anyway. The reason for the doubling of the "(or theory)" is that I didn't really know how to smoothy handle the wording, based on the proximity to it being called a hypothesis (or theory). It sounds like you're okay with just calling it a hypothesis, so I'll go ahead and do that.

Moving down, I'm wondering if an overview less detail is the answer. For instance, if the arguments were laid out plainly without supporting facts or statements up front, I'd be much less concerned with a AAH perspective later in the article. In short, we'd have three sections where we have two now: A simple bullet list without comment one way or the other, the AAH perspective, then the response, then the links. I'm not sure what to do about the response to the response, it seems to bog things down a bit, but we won't get there for a while anyway. I don't plan on making these changes right now, so let me know what you think asap. --Steven Fisher 09:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I also want to just quickly add that I'm a lot more fair sympathetic in articles than in discussions. I think you'll agree with that based on what I've done so far. :) I think it's a little natural that I'm swinging the article a little anti-AAH at times, since the first few paragraphs started out a bit pro AAH. We'll just work together on this for a while and see if we can find a nice middle ground.

Anyway, I found a better tweak to the first paragraph than what I'd planned on using. That good with you?

Also, since we seem to be the only people commenting here and this is more of a dialogue than a thread (and we haven't been indenting consistently anyway) I propose we dispense with indenting our discussion and quote when it is unclear what we're replying to. Should that become difficult to follow, we can always switch back. --Steven Fisher 09:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Hang on, let's not talk about anyone being insulted. I've suggested that you weren't entirely neutral on the subject, that's all. It's no more than you were suggesting about everyone who'd put anything into this article - it's certainly not a personal attack. And I don't feel insulted either; I've engaged in this debate online for some years up to now; there's nothing you could say that I haven't read in that time.

And let's have some proportion - this isn't about some terrible injustice, it's not capital punishment, it's not the Iraq war. Nobody is going to die, just because a few more people get taken in (since that's how you see it) by AAH. After the Wiki page on neutrality, can I suggest you also have a look at the page on staying cool?

Back to the questions you raise. Seabhcan (see below) is quite right IMO - the article shouldn't be either about promoting or rebutting AAH, but about reflecting accurately what it says. So in a sense it's not the scientific truth of the claims that matters; it's whether or not, as Seabhcan points out, they are in the AAH literature. Whether this can be achieved in a Wiki environment is a good question - certainly all the time I've been on Wikipedia this article has been loaded with the AAH pro-anti debate. I take on board your concerns about including suspect facts; but in the absence of a point-by-point assessment, you haven't convinced me that there are serious issues of that sort here - other than the point about the diving reflex. It is not AIUI now claimed by AAH sources, and is an inaccuracy in the current Wiki article. Having said that, it was never something on which AAH depended, and my experience of the AAH controversy is that it is more about interpretation of facts than agreeing what they are. Certainly I have seen at least as many false claims of fact by anti-AAH debaters as pro - for example that sweat-cooling requires naked skin.

So, rather than have safety warnings about the facts in the article, more important perhaps is a statement at the beginning, addressed to potential future contributors, that the purpose of the article is to state objectively and verifiably what is in AAH, not to argue the case for or against, and certainly not to make any judgements about its value as a scientific hypothesis. Perhaps then we can get away from debating, and back to being a reference source. --Tiffer 23:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. In that case, I think we'd want to trim some of both the pro- and anti- arguments out of this article. It's bald statements like the diving reflex being only present in humans in the arguments that bother me. Yes, that's what the AAH theory says (well, let's be honest, it's really what some of the AAH theories say), but it's known to be untrue. I don't know that I want to try to go through and verify every statement in here, and even if it obviously false I can't apply the dubious template since it is what AAH argues, it's just wrong. This is a really sticky situation. --Steven Fisher 23:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

---

As an outside observer of this dialog, I'd just like to make a few points:

• AAH is a minority theory but cannot be described as a 'fringe' theory. Google Scholar lists 76 scientific papers on "Aquatic Ape", Amazon has books and the BBC recently did two radio documentaries on the subject, narrated by the anthropologist Sir David Attenborough.
• This theory is scientific, as in, the Scientific method has been applied. See above 76 papers for examples.
• It is the nature of Scientific theories that a theory is valid until it is proven false. A theory is never proven 'true', as there is always the possibility of some falsifing evidence arising in future. See Karl Popper. It is apparent that this article refers to a theory. There is no need to keep repeating that it is unproven. All theories are unproven.
• If there are points in this article that have been "proven incorrect", they should be discussed specifically. What are they? Where have they been proven incorrect? All the points made in this article are (or should be) taken from the Aquatic Ape literature. Thus if a wikipedian believes a point has been proven incorrect elsewhere the burden is on them to provide the references, while keeping in mind that Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

Finally, remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If you disagree with theory or belief, this is not the place to fight it out. Go do some science, write a paper or a book. Only then your beliefs or ideas can be added here. Seabhcán 16:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Read previous discussions, please. There's quite a few fact claims by AAH that are, in fact, false. That is why this article is do difficult to edit in a way that makes both sides happy. I actually would argue it is a fringe theory, since the people supporting it seem to have little to no link to real science. However, I'm certainly not proposing putting that phrase in the article. :) --Steven Fisher 23:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Steven, you are confusing AAH with what every supporter of AAH says. The claim about the diving reflex was introduced by one contributor, presumably on a misunderstanding of what AAH actually says. In her 1997 book, Elaine Morgan specifically states that all mammals display the reflex, although it is more highly developed in aquatic mammals. This, I think, is a correction of early statements she made, when she was still developing the hypothesis.

I have now removed the sentence on the diving reflex (although left it in the "Objections to AAH" section) because it is evidently both wrong scientifically and not part of AAH. It was worth you drawing attention to it, but not worth the amount of time that has been spent on it. Given the contentious way in which the article has been developed, there may well be similar instances in the article; and a review of it, based upon sources that reliably reflect AAH, is required. This is not going to happen instantly, and the more time we all spend on this discussion, the less time there will be available to correct the main article.

I reject your suggestion that AAH is based on scientific falsehoods. Serious authors, particularly Elaine Morgan, have taken considerable pains to ensure that the facts on which they base their arguments are sound. That is no guarantee that AAH supporters who are less well-informed will not make unsound claims, but that does not reflect upon the general soundness of AAH. It is also clearly the case that some anti-AAH debaters make untrue claims, as well as misrepresenting AAH. --Tiffer 09:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Tiffer, I think you're confusing my point of view. I couldn't really care less what AAH says, or what AAH proponents say, or what AAH opponents say about what AAH proponents say, or whatever. What I care about is that this article supports AAH proponents statements with some falsehoods stated as facts. That needs to be corrected. --Steven Fisher 01:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed you removed that bit about the diving reflex. Thank you. That makes the article less objectionable to me. In fact, I can at least turn away from this now since I can't immediately spot more problems. (I'm fairly sure there are more, somewhere, but as I've noted before I'm by no means an expert on this subject, and I have desire to become one.) See you around. :) --Steven Fisher 02:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm not pro-AAH so much as I recognize that the hypothesis of terrestrial origin for hominid traits lacks even the circumstantial evidence the AAH can summon. Essentially, it got the majority position by default. People said, more or less, "well, great apes live entirely on land and mostly in forests, so I guess eventually they moved out on the plains and stood upright".

Faced with this alternative, I don't see any harm in a neutral-sympathetic tone in even a hypothesis that the clearly bureaucratic and anti-change anthropological establishment hasn't yet embraced. There is nothing pseudo-scientific about this hypothesis, only about those few people who insist that it clearly is hard fact, not (at best) a perfectly valid theory.

Note that it was pretty clear two decades ago that birds evolved from theropods, but it was a "fringe theory" until the last decade or so, and is really only a majority position very recently. There is overwhelming evidence of human inhabitation of the Americas up to 20,000 years ago, yet the establishment still rejects the premise of pre-clovis habitation utterly and without examination. I'm not sure the idea that Europeans and Australo-Africans lived in the Americas before the amerindians showed up from Asia 12,000 years ago is even accepted enough to quality as "fringe theory", yet it is supported by hard evidence, like genetics and a plethora of archeological sites. Even the Mayo Clinic has, through unfairly heavy peer review, managed to publish serious evidence that cellular life as small as 10% of the 200nm limit exists...in fact, it's starting to seem likely that "nanobes" are the most common life form on the planet, comprising the largest segment of its biomass...and yet most microbiologists won't even discuss the possibility, they're so dogmatic about the meaningless, arbitrary 200nm limit.

All of those things, unlike AAH (which is very hard to either falsify or verify), will probably be the widely accepted establishment position, in a generation. But...either now or until recently...they all are "fringe theories". They all are or were called pseudoscience, mainly because they're rejected out of hand by the establishment, through knee-jerk defense of popular preconceptions.

Remember, continental drift was universally laughed at or completely ignored for decades, then suddenly turned out to be probably true, with the previous lack of proof/evidence simply being a result of knee-jerk refusal to give it a chance. Now it's opposition to continental drift which is a nearly nonexistent fringe.

But all of them deserve articles treating them as seriously as any other theory.

Including the semi-aquatic origin of various key hominid traits.

If anything, I'd suggest that the article is sometimes not presenting the circumstantial evidence firmly enough. Oreopithecus is a strong sign of the possibility of a semi-aquatic origin to walking erect, for example, as well as moving the possible benchmark for bipedalism much earlier, along with Sahelanthropus...yet it's only cited as "another animal" with an aquatic bipedalism origin.

Kaz 20:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

It isn't that AAH doesn't deserve an article. It's that that AAH article has a bunch of falsehoods stated as facts. The diving reflex being present in only humans is one of those (it's in all mammals), but not the only one. How do you handle a situation where some of the arguments are outright lies but people will not accept a statement like "Not only are these interpretations in dispute, but so are the facts"? This is a serious question, btw. --Steven Fisher 23:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

If you can give some references for your assertion that the diving reflex point is false then you can add that. If you can show using references that "people supporting (AAH) seem to have little to no link to real science" then you can certainly add that too. There is no point endlessly repeating yourself in this talk page if you can't produce the references. Seabhcán 08:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

With the greatest respect, do your own searching. The Earth has been proved to not be flat, and mamals have the dive reflex. Neither of those are in ANY serious question anywhere but on this page. This is in no way a controversial claim, it's an outright false one. --Steven Fisher 01:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

No, YOU do YOUR research...you're the one wanting to change the article. Instead of a false claim that the facts themselves are in question (and it's false, because it's too general, encompassing the true facts as well as the ostensibly false ones), identify each fact in error, and cite some proof of that error we can check.

One doesn't generally just attack whole articles, one does (should) identify and fix specific parts of it, WITH references and citations on the Talk page (or, as in a case already under discussion like this, by posting it here first in case someone has counter-arguments). Also keep in mind (not accusing you of anything, just have seen it happen too often) that a good editor fixes, instead of censoring. Some guy defending Robert Byrd kept trying to simply delete all mention of that senator's long history of racism, instead of changing the statement of those facts to be more objective/neutral. Similar stuff happens on the global warming page, George W Bush page, et cetera, spawning long delete wars where neither side seems to give a rat's ass for the actual truth, just spinning the article for their own personal agenda.Kaz 00:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unrelated to overall quality

"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)

I can do this too. I cannot completely shut them when out of water, but under water, the pressure seals them. Also, Steve would be VERY useful to this article if he could at come half way and at least highlight all these falsehoods so that interested parties can research and verify/disprove them instead of talking generally about "a bunch of falsehoods stated as facts"

 "Valid criticism does you a favor" Carl Sagan, page 32 of The Demon-Haunted World (1995).

-greg

I am extremely interested in this ability, but can't seem to find any reference to it on wikipedia or elsewhere on the net. Can somebody find me a reference? - DJsunkid

[edit] Most paleoanthropologists

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)

[edit] Restructuring

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)

[edit] Love It

I like this hypothesis. It raises interesting questions and it is simple 1:24 AM MYTime

[edit] The article is too strong for the weakness of the theory

It's not a bad theory mind you, it's just wrong. At some point speculation isn't enough. More than 30 years without finding any evidence and just adding more speculation. Whereas the "orthodox" theories have found more and more evidence. Humans fish a bit. Living near the water is a bit easier than living in a fairly lifeless desert. Plenty of non-aquatic mammals grab some stuff from the ocean when they can, this doesn't make them aquatic. Tat 06:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No, AAT isn't wrong, and is based on anatomic and physiological evidence, not speculation. The limited amount of fossil evidence we have is entirely consistent with a scenario of hominids first developing in the Red Sea area, then extending their range along the waterways and forests of the Rift Valley. As for the "orthodox" theories - what "orthodox theories"? All they have to offer is assertions that human features such as bipedalism developed as a continuation of ape bipedalism, with no particular driver for natural selection required. There is absolutely no evidence for "orthodox" alternatives to AAT/AAH. --Tiffer 23:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Humans bipedalism is easily a continuation of ape bipedalism. Most apes are at least temporarily bipedal. Brachiation is a bit faster, so it is used. But, such apes are still able to use bipedalism. There are a number of major advantages of bipedalism due to the freeing of the arms and hands. Walking around bipedal has huge numbers of advantages such as seeing over grass, carrying tools, walking and running. Also, if the species wasn't a knuckle-walker when Africa dried out there wouldn't have been any real choice. These advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. That's more than enough of a "driver" for evolution. As for evidence, what more do you need? We can show the progression from tree to walking ape (tree apes walk without trees), advantages for walking bipedal, and a pretty solid line from then on out. The period of time you seem intent on focusing on was long long after hominids were fully bipedal. I mean, we have fossil evidence of bipedalism from the miocene! Apes walk bipedal. Humans walk bipedal. Humans just do it more. This isn't a big leap from some to more. And it certainly didn't require water. Tat 03:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, all of that is just wrong. Evolution does not proceed by picking up momentum; it reaches an optimum position and stays there until conditions change. To talk about the advantages of bipedalism to us is the teleological fallacy; there had to be an advantage to the first creatures that adopted full-time bipedalism - and for that creature, on land, the balance of advantages and disadvantages would be the same as for the apes. Apes walk bipedally only if they have a particular reason to do so; humans do it because we have lost the ability to go quadrupedally - that is a qualitative difference.

You appear to be trying to apply a scientific basis for your criticisms, yet you show these errors of thinking. --Antony Rawlinson 08:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse evolution doesn't pick up momentum. Nor does it tend to hit reach an optimum position, or stay there (it's a constant process). The advatages of bipedalism to us is deeply important. We are the results of our ancestors. It's an anthropic argument to be sure. If it wasn't useful to us, we certainly wouldn't have it. But the fact that we use it and use it to our advatage is very important to the question of how we got the ability. Some apes walk bipedally because they don't have a better way to move around, such as trees. It's not that "there had to be an advantage to the first creatures that adopted full-time bipedalism" there had to be an advantage for increased bipedalism. It's all done gradually. One of the best reasons for increased bipedalism is carrying stuff and not having a tree around (after the forests were replaced by savanna), increased tool use, sentry ability (lesser so). Each of these present a good reason to become increasingly bipedal. Evolution is gradual. It's not you walk bipedal, you don't. Our ancestors would need to become more and more bipedal. There isn't a jump to full-time bipedalism... there aren't jumps in evolution. Tat 00:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You say that the article is "too strong" for the theory, but today I find it full of POV debating points from AAT doubters. The purpose of this article is to provide information on what AAT/AAH has to say, not to act as a platform for sceptics to try to knock it down. --Tiffer 23:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I filled it with facts from modern antropologists. I suppose these could be considered AAT doubters, as they don't accept the hypothesis as such. Human traits are pretty standard. We aren't that fat. We can't swim without a good amount of training (unlike all other mammals). Apes are bipedal to a degree, humans to a greater degree. Hairloss is probably due to a neoteny. I mean, sure humans live by lakes and rivers because they are a great place to get food. Some of this has probably contributed to selection (if somebody drowns, that's selection for you), but the degree which is argued and the traits which are argued for are just wrong. The modern explanations are better. I mean, even in the 1960s these arguments had to stink. Women have more fat because they hang out in the water more to dodge the magical predators. If women hang out in deeper water why aren't they taller than men? Also, head hair is camouflage? Since when? A black spot of hair popping out of a blue ocean, that totally blends in. And camouflage from what? The predators are going to swim out and eat these ocean apes if only they could find something that looked like a black ball floating on the ocean. Because, there are so many grass covered beach balls out there. Hair keeps in heat (as everybody who has shaved their head will tell you), if you want to to be active more hours in the day you need less of it. In colder regions humans have more hair, lighter skin and hair, and more fat. Just as humans in warmer regions have less hair, darker skin and hair, and less fat. Tat 03:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Head hair as camouflage? I've never heard of that before. If it's in the article then it's been put in without justification. The reason for retention of head hair in AAT is much more obvious - the top and the back of the head are the areas least in contact with water. Ocean apes? Where did you get that from? The aquatic apes were (putatively) shallow-water creatures.

Look, I'll say it again - the purpose of this article isn't to provide a platform for anyone to knock down AAT, or to put in their own subjective judgement about whether land alternatives are "better". It's to set out what AAT says so that readers can make their own judgement - no more and no less. The only criterion for inclusion in the article is whether a particular point is in AAT sources - and that's the case even if the point is a contentious one. Even the "Objections" section is a huge concession to AAT sceptics. What you are doing is equivalent to going through the article on Islam and interspersing it with Christian doctrines. --Antony Rawlinson 08:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Tatarize, you'll have to do better than this. I have reverted your changes (keeping your earliest additions, to the "Objections" section), because I see very little other than your own POV in them. You also removed one section wholesale ("Comparison with Land-based theories") which is rather important to understanding what AAH is all about. After this, I'll check through and put back any non-POV bits. --Tiffer 23:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed section: Some should be reincorporated without pov

See above. If you think this section needs trimming down, then please state which bits of it need taking out. After reverting your previous changes, I have now gone to the trouble of putting back some possibly valid points of yours in the "Objections" section, so please don't take this as an incitement to an edit war. As I said earlier, a Wikipedia article is not a suitable location for the pro/anti debate, but is intended to inform on what the hypothesis has to say. --Antony 00:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Reincorporated the comparison section properly. Although, most of the comparison is pretty weak and based as largely on speculation as straw man of the position of terrestrial theories. Tat 01:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see what problems you think were in the original version of this section, which I have put back, with some inaccuracies and repetitions removed. I can see that you are unhappy about some of the statements in this section which you regard as contentious; however, they are intended to reflect what AAH says, without implying any value judgement about it. As to whether it is based on straw man versions of the terrestrial theories, I'm afraid that since the terrestrial alternatives are even vaguer than AAH (IMHO), there's always going to be an element of that.

Your version of this section begins: "Proponents of AAH contend ..." With respect, I don't think it's down to you to say what AAH stands for, and you have IAC included a number of misconceptions about it which I have taken out from other parts of the whole article.

I have also put back and renamed the "Conclusions" section, which was there to outline the contentious nature of the AAT debate, without stating a viewpoint on the correctness of AAT. Please respect this.

The "Objections" section exists to reflect the sceptical viewpoints - there is no need for you to rewrite the rest of the article, including a sceptic's rejoinder in every paragraph. The article is not going to reflect your opinion on every aspect of AAH - that's not what Wikipedia is for.

--Antony 10:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

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)

[edit] Swimming and other semi-objections

In the "Swimming" objection, the current revision states: However an ape and human without training would typically drown. How is this a criticism of AAH? If humans can swim better than all other apes, doesn't that show that we have good aquatic abilities... for apes? If we first evolved into apes, and later moved into an aquatic environment; then we would be bad swimmers because of our ape nature, but better swimmers than other apes, just as this "objection" states? More generally, many of the criticisms of AAH seem to assume that AAH posits that humans were fully aquatic. If humans started to evolve to fit an aquatic or semi-aquatic environment, then moved to another environment... one would not assume that they would exhibit all aquatic characteristics. One would expect to see various aquatic characteristics implemented to varying degrees, no?

-One would like to see more information on the exact theory. The critisism and the theory holders both fail to specify if it was fresh water aquatics, salt water, marsh, swamp, river and the text seems to swing wildly too and fro. For example, what's the point of the argument that humans cannot drink sea water if they developed on a delta hunting in the salt water but living near the fresh? I know it's just a wiki article, but clarifications of the specifics of the thoery, and a consistant set of objections to specific versions of the theory would be helpful.

[edit] Falsification

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)

[edit] Objections section

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)

[edit] Semi-aquatic babirusa?

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 [[1]] and/or [[2]]. 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 [[3]] 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)

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)

[edit] Rewrite Needed

My overall impression of this article is that it is not written from a neutral POV. Whilst some effort has been made to show the pro and anti sides of the argument, the layout and haphazard writing quality gives far too much prominence to the pro argument. (I'm not saying that was intentional. I just think that far more effort and quality control has been put into one side than into the other.) I think an expanded summary section is needed up front, before the for/against sections, to summarise briefly what the arguments are. This prepares the reader to look for both sides of the debate.

The section on comparison with terrestrial models is a pure propoganda job. Why is it needed in the first place? AAH , like any other theory, stands or falls on how it alone measures against the evidence. Any relevant points in this section ought to be merged in with the relevant subheadings of the for and against sections. If people want to know about other theories, they can read it for themselves if the links are put in. Whilst on the subject, the bee-in-the-bonnet thing about the savannah theory needs to go. Fossil evidence has blown that out of the water a long time ago. Rabbiting on about ST just makes the article look out-of-date.

How one deals with the large number of factual innaccuracies is an interesting question. Yes, there are a large number of things stated to be true, at one time or another, in AAH which are demonstrably false. Does one let these statements stand, as they accurately reflect the nature of the hypothesis, or does one strike out those which (for example) contradict another wiki entry or were later withdrawn by (for example) Elaine Morgan. As a minimum, I would like to see an expanded history section showing how the theory has evolved and the changes made by the main protagonists where these are a matter of record.

I also think the writing throughout is suffering from too much entropy. It doesn't flow. It's full of non-sequiturs. It's very obviously the work of too many people, and there are too many obvious 1-line edits.

Overall, I think this article would benefit from a total rewrite. Steve 20:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nutrition

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)

[edit] Finger and Toe Webbing

I could be wrong, but I believe that the webbing between fingers and toes in humans has been ascribed to the AAT. Shouldn't it have it's own section?

Three noteworthy issues about finger and toe webbing immediately spring to mind:

• One, only animals who have spent a significant part of their evolution near or on water develop them, in order to improve their ability to swim.
• Two, chimpanzees and other evolutionarily proximate primates do not have any sort of webbing, whereas water-based primates do, which indicates that primates can develop webbing under the right circumstances, but that humans' closest relatives did not.
• Three, traditional, land-based evolutionary theories cannot explain how humans developed webbing, since if we had developed on dry savannahs, there would have been no evolutionary advantage in having webbing between the fingers and toes.

Any thoughts?--TallulahBelle 17:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a couple. What webbing are you referring to? JPotter 17:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The obvious kind: The flaps of skin between fingers, close to the knuckles, that do not exist in most other primates. --TB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TallulahBelle (talk • contribs) 18:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

I've heard of syndactylism but that is a birth defect that occurs in both humans and non-human apes. But if you can cite a reliable source that indicates the hand's web spaces are evidence of an aquatic past, or that syndactylism is, go for it. JPotter 19:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That's my point: I read somewhere about webbing as a possible indicator of an aquatic past, but I don't recall where I read it or in what context. Hence I can't cite it in the article, though from what I understood, webbing was considered a major piece of evidence for the theory. The webbing refered to the normal webbing humans have, not syndactylism, which is a birth defect. --TallulahBelle 22:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objection by comparison to hairy aquatics

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)

[edit] Nevermind child-birth, whatabout child-rearing?

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)

[edit] Criticisms of the criticism

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:

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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[4], Nigeria[5], Tunisia[6], India[7], Canada[www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/21-006-XIE/21-006-XIE2003003.pdf]), with the exception of the United States [8]. However some countries, including Japan, find rural dwellers are also affected by more variables[9].

[edit] 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 [10]. 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] Traits atypical of aquatic and semi-aquatic mammals

This is a fallacial argument. The theory never proposes that humans are are aquatic mammals, but that they were land mammals living in a semi-aquatic environment and developed some traits similar to those of aquatic animals. That being said, large ears, long limbs, and long cranial hair are all good examples of criticisms in this vein. They do not disprove, but they do raise a good question.

Broad, rounded shoulders is a function of the limbs and is akin to saying “and elbows, fingers, wrists and fingernails.” It is not a separate proof.

Large breasts is also not acceptable, because while it is not shared with aquatic mammals, it is also not shared with land mammals. The nearest animal to this is probably the gorilla whose breasts grow postpartum, but then disappear when done breastfeeding. Most land mammals have small teats.

Current lack of aquatic behavior is also not valid as much as saying birds never evolved through a stage shared with lizards because they no longer have teeth and eat meat. There are other land mammals, like the Elephant, who no longer have aquatic behavior either. Or don't we? Humans still build up major cities around waterways and bodies of water.

[edit] Recent Fossil Finds

Hominid evolution did not occur in a straight line, and in fact there were often several hominid species living at the same time at different points, and no evidence for other gaps. Orrorin tugenensis does not “fill a gap” and disprove that humans never lived in a semi-aquatic environment, espcially because according to the wiki article, researchers are still trying to determine whether O. tugenensis or Australopithecus afarensis is the most direct ancestor to modern man, and also as such, does not actually fill missing gaps in a timeline, but proposes an additional brach in hominids.

[edit] Vagueness

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)

[edit] both hypothysis

could parts from both hypothesis' be true, humans do like to move around abit, we could have learned a few bits in the water and a few in the savannah, maybe savannah man and water man bred together