Evolutionary biology B‑class Low‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Primates B‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Start to May, 2009 Empty Empty Empty

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Lowenstein, J.M. (1980). "The Wading Ape-A Watered-Down Version of Human Evolution". Oceans. 17: 3–6. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) This 2007 source (Cardiff University) weights it differently, as you would expect when they are awarding an honorary fellowship "for her contribution to scientific knowledge".[reply]

This [AAH] was received by the scientific community with a large amount of resistance that her later publications sought to overcome, latterly with a greater degree of success.

Perhaps the absence of fossil evidence should be mentioned in the lead? cygnis insignis 20:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

The article now reads "... and was popularized and promoted over the next 30 years by television screenwriter Elaine Morgan." We can clean out the overlinking later, but why are people wanting to avoid plain "writer" when describing Morgan? Is it an attempt to accurately describe Morgan (with the suggestion that "writer" is not sufficiently precise)? Is it an attempt to pigeon hole Morgan as something less than, or more than, a writer?

Surely Cardiff University's fellowship award can be regarded as a reliable source. They declare "Ms Elaine Morgan is a writer". Yes, she was also a television scriptwriter, but she wrote her first book in 1972 (a long time ago). Elaine Morgan (writer) describes Morgan as "a Welsh feminist writer", and says she has written 8 books. The title of her latest book (Pinker’s List: The New Darwinists and the Left) makes me cringe, but "writer" is accurate.

Re MalcolmMcDonald's comment above about the possibility of resentment regarding Morgan's presentation skills, that is interesting and should be in her article if we can find a source. However, I don't think we can or should convey that information in a quick description.

Is there a reason to not change the sentence to "...by writer Elaine Morgan". Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Humans are possibly the worst swimmers in the animal kingdom. Very few other animals are likely to drown in a brief encounter with water. Even sloths and bats swim better than humans. The reason is presumably that our bipedal posture has produced a forward rotation of the muzzle, so that the breathing orifices face downwards (and are plunged in thw water) when swimming. Is this not odd for an aquatic animal? So why is this not mentioned among the objections to the theory?86.159.143.195 (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because its our job to repeat what others have said in reliable references, not to make inferences of our own.--Woland (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humans are bad swimmers, but not compared to other great apes. Chimps literally sink like stones in water. Of course this doesn't change the fact that the AAH is preposterous.Simonm223 (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've restored the recent sections. cygnis insignis 18:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The aquatic ape hypothesis (AAH), sometimes referred to as the aquatic ape theory, attempts to explain some unique characteristics of humans through a period of time spent evolving in an aquatic environment. These characteristics include subcutaneous fat, hairlessness and bipedalism. The hypothesis has antecedents in Ancient Greece but was first published with an evolutionary explanation by Max Westenhöfer in 1942. The hypothesis was proposed again in 1960 by a marine biologist, Sir Alister Hardy, and popularized and promoted by the writer Elaine Morgan.

Though the theory has great popular appeal, it has been criticised by the scientific community for a variety of reasons, including susceptibility to parasites found in water, a lack of innate swimming reflex or adaptations, the characteristics of human subcutaneous fat, the failure of the fossil record to support the idea and human's inability to cope with water-dwelling predators. However, there has been some supporting publications in scientific journals and some support within paleoanthropology, at least for a weak version that doesn't accept there was an actual "aquatic ape".

This is not an neutral introduction; whatever its intentions, it will only succeed in getting up the readers nose.

• popularized, great 'popular appeal', consider how this term is used. A convenient example: search=popular+appeal.
• 'criticised by the scientific community', 'some support', 'weak version', actual "aquatic ape"; this selection from sources are operating as weasel terms.

The lead of the article attempts to frame and resolve a debate, when the fact is that AAT/AAH continues to be mentioned in a number of research areas. Authors, reliable sources, and results (and maybe books on diving photography [1]), may refute or support any of this evidence for what Langdon terms "Umbrella hypotheses". I personally find sympathy with the latter's view (in the cited abstract),

"Finally, the mosaic pattern of hominid evolution demonstrated by the fossil record will not support this or any single cause theory.",

but the fact is

"Evolutionary science must wrestle with this problem both in its own community and in the education of the public.";

This is not the purpose of our article. Co-opting a philosophical view on scientific discovery and theory, to support or dispel a proposed set of characteristics, is as inappropriate as the methodology of a pseudo-scientist. If a morphological characteristic, for example, has been utterly dispelled as evidence, it is merely a historical footnote here. If a user thinks this theory is nearly pseudoscience, they would serve it better by not dignifying it with an edit; downgrading facts, like Morris's association, will not serve that cause. Clearly, if someone wanted to weight the facts in support, they are also at the wrong site.

However, as a summary of the article, perhaps the lead quickly reveals to the reader that it is going to be a lump of contentious factoids vying to assert false\true, and can look elsewhere for an encyclopaedic article. cygnis insignis 20:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that some recent edits had the side effect of introducing a large POV in the lead, but I'm not sure what to do about it. However, it is clear (see WP:LEAD) that even POVs in the lead must be sourced. The AAH seems harmless enough, and I don't think it needs to be dismissed in the lead, although I can't point to any particular issue that I think "must" be changed (except that each POV needs to be sourced). I suppose I would be happy if the second para was drastically shortened: essentially it needs to stop fairly soon after "has been criticised by the scientific community". I also noticed the ref to "The Art of Diving" and wondered if it was a scholarly attempt to investigate an aspect of the AAH (if not, it is WP:OR to put it here). In addition, while not particularly a problem, I wonder why "Ancient Greece" features in the lead. Surely it would be absurd to think that Ancient Greece is sufficiently relevant that it needs mention in the lead (but not in the article!). Johnuniq (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding, and I'm not an anthropologist so this must be a very qualified opinion, is that the AAH has little to no mainstream support, and isn't investigated much by anthropologists. This would make it a fringe theory, and therefore the art of diving book would be suitable per WP:PARITY as a source to debunk claims. If attention is primarily popular, with minimal scholarly interest, we shouldn't be portraying it as a mainstream, going concern and serious contender within the anthropological community. Ideally what is needed is a recent scholarly publication in a respected, high-impact scholarly journal that reviews and summarizes both the recent evidence. I would also like a winning lottery ticket, and if it truly is a fringe theory, the chances seem equally probable. Some sources suggest that it's a significant, if minority opinion:

• [2] though this uses the term "savanna hypothesis", which as far as I know is only used by AAH proponents much like "Darwinism" is used by creationists and it doesn't seem to be published in a reliable source

Other sources portray it as popularly appealing but scientifically ignored:

• this book has a chapter on it, and is relatively enthusiastic, until it gets to the evidence and points out that there is none - the AAH is a theory only, with tremendous explanatory power and no real evidence. This makes it rather unproveable in my mind, but that's my opinion
• this book says much the same thing, lots of potential and little evidence
• this book is a bit too conspiracy theory for my tastes, but does restate the evidence and also point out that the theory has minimal attention in mainstream anthropology
• from the Greenwood Publishing Group comes this discussion, which points out the same things - AAH has some compelling explanatory power, minimal mainstream support, frequent popular appearances and little serious attention
• the Darwin Awards has an essay on the topic and says much the same thing - popular appeal, little evidence or serious scrutiny.

Overall, my opinion woud be these sources suggest steering the page more towards the idea that it is a popular theory, with little mainstream anthropological support or evidence (which can be verified with near-verbatim quotes in many of these sources). For me the NPOV nature of the page is striking the right balance between the claimed evidence for the theory, avoiding undue weight on the idea that it is a serious contender within the mainstream scientific circles, problems with the evidence available and avoiding the conspiracy-mongering "it's because it was presented by a woman/outsider/in a popular magazine/they're all snobs" that seems to be found in many "pro" articles and books.

Incidentally, it's my understanding of OR that it only applies if editors attempt to put forward their own arguments. If it's a source, then the questions are regarding reliability, weight and parity. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing what a little google will come up with - something from Discover, [3], a ScienceBlogs post [4]. One thing that I may see as a problem is the use of various unreliable webpages that float about, like riverapes, that if given too much oomph will overwhelm the page with "evidence" that's not subject to peer review or the oversight required of reliable sources. I like where the intro page of aquaticape.org is going, but would rather mine it for sources than actually use it. Interestingly, it is cited positively twice thrice on ScienceBlogs, once in the above url, a second time by PZ Myers (here) and a third time below. ScienceBlogs in my experience is like Talk.origins - good as a source to refute pseudoscience or fringe claims, but not good as an outright source for hard-core science. This many positive comments about Moore's aquaticape site suggests it might be a good choice as an external link and inline citation. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another two ScienceBlogs posts [5] and [6], this time by a paleoanthropologist, and again critical of AAH. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WLU: Thanks for the info which I will digest later. Above, you say that if the AAH is a fringe theory then WP:PARITY allows use of the "The Art of Diving" as a suitable source. In general, yes, but do you know if that source mentions AAH? I think it would be WP:OR to effectively say "AAH makes a claim about the diving reflex, but the claim is not required because of what this source says about hypothermia". That is, we should only use a source that has considered what the AAH actually claims, and that has then made an assertion about the claim. I agree that it is frustrating to combat a hypothesis with many vague claims, but I think that an attempt is required. Johnuniq (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source is actually linked to a google books preview - click on the linked page number and it'll take you directly to the discussion. Per WP:SYNTH, I would oppose any discussion where the source wasn't explicit about the link to the wikipedia page. Here's the link, [7], it is missing some of the lead-in to the section, but that is mostly about the history of the theory. The points cited on the main page are there. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I click that link, I see a "Brief overview" (with no mention of AAH), and "No preview available". I cannot work out whether "The Art of Diving" mentions the AAH or whether it is just used as a source for information about the diving reflex. Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The art of diving mentions the AAH specifically and explicitly on page 192. If you don't have a gmail or other google account, it's possible you may miss out on previews for google books because others on the same IP address have already seen their preview limit. I've never had a problem with previews on google books, and I'm guessing my gmail account is why. The section that discusses the aquatic ape idea is called "Back to the Sea" and is about 2/3 of a page, discussing the waterlogging of human skin, the positioning of the nostrils and the mammalian diving reflex as specific reasons why the idea doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny. If you still can't see it, you may have to track down a paper copy. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely recommend linking to Jim Moore's page from this article until further progress is made on it. I have carefully read through http://www.aquaticape.org: the site is a very honest dissection of a majority of the AAH arguments of its primary proponents and a goldmine of diligently tracked references, corrected mis-quotes etc. Moore gives much more (varifiable) information than present here. It is a major AAH reference source (though not a primary source).85.70.228.57 (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note on possible external links - there is a DMOZ page already appended, and it contains riverapes and Moore's aquaticape site, so there's no need or reason to link to them specifically. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth setting out the arguments for and against the link to the TED lecture[8] by Elaine Morgan appearing here. It is a brief exposition of the theory by its main proponent, so some of the editors who have added the link only to find it removed may still be puzzled. Some advice would also be welcome on a name that can be given to the alternative theory on what caused the divergence of humans from the other apes. JMcC (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general I support all efforts to prune external links, and to avoid unreliable sources. However, when I noticed the lecture had been added again, I did not remove it because I'm not as convinced about the need to remove it as some others. I tried to watch the video a few days ago, but gave up after several minutes because it looked pretty waffly and unhelpful. OTOH it's doubtful that we would even have an article on this topic if Morgan had not written her books, so I don't see any harm in including it, although I would not want that to be a precedent for links to every other statement by Morgan available on the net. One argument against the link is that it should be added to the {{dmoz}} page, and this article already links to dmoz. However, that argument could be used to exclude nearly all links on all articles, so I don't find it totally convincing. I guess I'm sitting on the fence, with an inclination to accept the link (exactly what harm would it do?). Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan isn't a recognized scholar, and plays the conspiracy card far too often in defending her theory while not addressing the substantive points of her critics. The theory has no mainstream support despite decades of history, and I would consider it undue weight to portray it as either a serious theory within paleoanthropology or any other studies of human evolution. Without a "countering" source, the most accessible link we have in the EL section is one that is unabashedly positive of a theory that has in fact been considered and rejected. Even in general, a popular presentation by a popular source is not the best and most encyclopedic link for a page. I don't really have a problem with the lecture being on Elaine Morgan, but not here. I would even suggest removing the BBC series for the same reason. It's ultimately a brief interview on a theory that has minimal mainstream support that will have no impact on actual studies of human evolution.

As for alternative theories for human evolution, there are many, but none include a lengthy period by and in water. This is not a viable alternative theory of evolution, it's a popularized caricature of a theory that has no substantive mainstream support. In the mainstream sources that cover human evolution, scientific journals and the like, these claims are not covered. It also conflicts with the prevailing view within the relevant scientific community, and proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them. These are two of the three tripwires found in WP:REDFLAG. I can dig up some sources to substantiate these points if anyone is interested, but it'll take a bit of time. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the theory: ie what is in it, who proposed it and its status in academia, but it does not try to come to any conclusion about it. I think there is a subtle difference between a reference and an external link. The inclusion of the TED lecture as an external link would not add to the evidence for AAT, which a reference would be attempting to do. A reference provides support for an assertion of a fact, whereas an external link can be included if the site's content is proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.) I even think it meets the criteria as factual because it gives a reliable statement of the theory and its status, without necessarily confirming the reliability of the theory. If there was a similar external link in the article about the Flying Spaghetti Monster that showed its proponents extolling its virtues, I would include it. If there is a link to a source summarising the scientifically accepted factors that drove human evolution and caused our unique anatomical characteristics, I would include that also. JMcC (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a theory though, and would be like including a similar link on the creation-evolution controversy. It gives undue weight to the idea that the hypothesis has serious attention (though not as extreme - NOBODY serious believes in creationism, some people are willing to entertain AAH). I wouldn't consider the link meeting the "factual" criteria because Morgan's claims aren't reliable, she's not reliable, and she's not a relevant expert. FSM isn't a fair comparison in my mind because FSM is a deliberate and known satire, and is expressed as such in all its venues. This is described by proponents as a "real" theory but described by experts as flawed, discarded and not worth serious attention. As far as your final sentence, that sort of link would be found in human evolution, not here. A comparable external link would be a discussion by a reliable critic or expert pointing out the myriad flaws of the theory, which won't happen because as far as the scientists are concerned, they've thought about it and discarded it. I still consider it undue weight on a minority opinion. Portraying it as a serious but neglected theory, as this link does, misrepresents the reality of things - a considered and rejected theory. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In 2004 Colin Groves, an Australian professor, said it was worth considering. Has he rejected it since? If not, there is still some disagreement in academia and so the assertion it has been rejected cannot be made. We can't therefore use our personal opinions to determine which links we include and which to exclude. JMcC (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the link because there appears to be a consensus to include it. I edited the link to state it was a proponents talk, the neutral description given at the site, and gave an link to the publisher's article; the reader is in no way being misinformed and can ponder or ascertain the veracity of either. It is likely to reinforce any prejudice toward the theory/hypothesis, pro or con, and is 1. a notable external link 2. from a notable source 3. to a speaker whose contribution to science has been notable (she was the recipient of a University honour for that). Removing it was done with apparent good faith, but I gently suggest that it was censorious for the wrong reasons; as noted above, this is a link to a recent talk by an 'expert' on promoting this page's topic. By the way, who is this David Attenborough fella she was going on about? cygnis insignis 17:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the removal of the Groves quote, given above. cygnis insignis 18:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it's inappropriate to include the TED lecture for the same reasons - its a fringe theory with no real mainstream support or acceptance, and the TED lectures themselves are apparently falling into disrepute among serious scientists because of things like this. I can't claim that the latter point is absolutely correct, but I believe this was mentioned in a ScienceBlog entry.

Regarding Groves' book Bones, Stones and Molecules, the discussion is so incredibly minute that it's not even worth including. The AAH is discussed exactly once in the book, and the quote that I removed was everything the book contained about the AAH. Hardly a ringing endorsement, there's barely a summary of the theory and no examination of its precepts. Placing this on the page looks like undue weight to the point of quote mining to me - has there been any actual discussion anywhere by Groves or others? I was considering including the book as a reference, but frankly it's such a short bit of text (again, the quote that was on the page is the only mention that exists in the book!) it's nearly immaterial and certainly doesn't indicate what originally led the paragraph ("However there has since been some acceptance..."). Without further evidence that Groves has published on the subject, this is akin to claiming increased support for a theory because in one book, in one short discussion, one person stated there may be merit to considering it, once. In fact, that's exactly what has happened here. As I discuss above, there is lots of evidence that the theory has no strong factual backing, no strong community backing, no extensive discussion within paleoanthropology, and now that I've read aquaticape.org from beginning to end, that page points out that much of the evidence Morgan amasses doesn't actually support her points. If Groves five sentence blurb is the best that can be mustered to indicate the theory has support, has gained support, and is substantively discussed, then we certainly should't be claiming that it's taken seriously at all.

I sincerely believe it is misleading to readers to claim that there is acceptance of the theory within the scholarly community because of five sentences in a single book. I would like to remove the quote again, but will wait for greater discussion. Please look at the actual quote in the google books preview, and please use the "search inside" feature to look for other mentions - they are not there [9]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The fact that an academic says, however briefly, that there might something in it cannot be ignored. The quote is not selective; it gives the whole paragraph. Perhaps the problem is in the use of the words 'support' and 'acceptance' in describing Groves's stance. Perhaps wording along the lines of "it has not been dismissed" might remove WLU's disquiet. The problem is not the quote but what we make of it. JMcC (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that the quote is selective, it's that it is a single paragraph in a whole book. Stating that a theory has found some acceptance based on that single paragraph strikes me as disingenuous. Where is Groves' discussion of where it has been discussed, the scientific papers that evaluate one aspect or another, the discussion of skeletal changes, gene flows, divergence from our common ancestor with chimpanzees, isotope measurements indicating consumption of seafood (which I'm not sure would work...), etc? This is a terrible source to base the idea that the theory has gained some acceptance. Search google books for the phrase (helps if you have a google account by the way, you get more previews than a bare IP address) and there turn up multi-page discussions of the theory, but they all end with "even though it's a conceptually compelling theory, there's no evidence". I've been looking through google books for an hour now, and I get a lot of idle speculation with no references to actual journal articles. Scientific articles discussing the theory would certainly indicate discussion and acceptance but there don't seem to be any. Per WP:UNDUE with a bit of interpretation, if a significant minority of scholars support this theory, then it should be easy to demonstrate this. If there is nothing but idle speculation and no research, I don't think it's appropriate to claim it has, or has gained any acceptance, nor is it appropriate to portray it as anything but idle speculation with no serious support. In my opinion the first step to resolving this would certainly be the removal of the leading sentence.

I've returned the TED lecture to the EL section by the way. I hope the DMOZ adds it soon. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another source saying the AAH is not taken seriously - a course syllabus (see section 3) [10]. "While there is a very compelling list of similarities, there is LITTLE OR NO HARD EVIDENCE to support the theory. Read about it and see what you think. This theory is not generally regarded seriously..." Rather amusingly, the purpose of the assignment is to "write an essay on why the aquatic ape hypothesis is dismissed as pseudoscience." There is also a common feature in many of the referral sites to state "the theory is dealt with quite thoroughly here." Ultimately for me, on one side there is one book that, with five sentences and no discussion of the actual evidence and scholarly citations, claims the theory has significant support or is gaining ground. On the other side, there are the five references I added yesterday (one for every sentence in Groves' book) saying it's not accepted. I'm also unable to find any real recent substantial discussion on google scholar. The heyday for the theory seemed to be back in the early 90's where there were numerous discussions, but there's little after the year 2000 that isn't a brief mention or the work of a single proponent (Mark Verhaegen). What I'd really like to see is the 1996 journal article " Adventures in pseudoscience: The aquatic ape theory" which appears to be published in Science (not sure about that, I couldn't find a copy on google and I would think Science would be so prominent as making an article easy to find). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A link to the text, "Adventures in Pseudoscience: The Aquatic Ape Theory" is here. cygnis insignis 20:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a few changes in the hope that anyone reading this article could not be any illusions about the status of this hypothesis in the academic community. Perhaps we can move on to something else now. JMcC (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This claim still does not indicate the theory is accepted, it's literally saying the theory can't be excluded, which is very different. A lengthy quote still placed undue weight on the idea that the AAH has any scholarly merit. The best that can be said is people find it an intriguing idea with no substantial discussion or evidentiary support. I've retained the reference but reworded and moved it to the bottom. There are lots of sources that state the idea has no substantial merit or following, based on pure weight of numbers (not examining evidence) those should be represented as mainstream in the article. I also dislike the idea of using "opponents claim the facts don't stand up". If we can cite the aquaticapes.org cite, it makes a series of specific, referenced claims that illustrate the facts do not support the theory. I'm willing to write up a point-counterpoint if acceptable, but I think it's excessive because first it presents the idea that there is merit to this data, then points out that there's not. The onus is on the proponents to prove that the theory has merit before it can be taken seriously. They have failed at this, Morgan herself failing spectacularly. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note comment. If the AAH is not a fringe theory, then the venue is inappropriate and the discussion here or there should reflect this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this is a fringe theory alright.Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, let's say it is 'marginal' within academia. This is unlike most of the insanely cranky material we tend to see at FTN. Actually one of the theories I tend to regret are probably not true. It's a marginal minority hypothesis, but it's still scholarly. --dab (𒁳) 16:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

We now take more space giving the objections to the theory than to the theory itself. Should we add more in the hypothesis section to explain what is being objected to? If we do this, would this attract counter-arguments in the same section, and so make the article balloon? Thoughts, please. JMcC (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is necessary.Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reason was given in Simonm223's reply. Can you have a valid encyclopaedia article without giving details of the subject? Could this be regarded as censorship? JMcC (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is ample detail on the hypothesis. It is not necessary to "balance" the criticism by putting in more detail about it if that detail is otherwise supurfluous, unencyclopaedic or unnotable.Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we get it – the AAH is wrong! But there is no need to use POV language, and it is absolutely not ok to add unsourced editorial like "Although some of these differences between Humans and other Great Apes are valid others are disputed." Per WP:NPOV we do not use "claim" instead of "state" for each pro-AAH point, and we have to decide if this article is about the AAH or Morgan. Yes, it is essentially Morgan's theory now, but there is no reason to label each point as "Morgan claims...". Also, just under the "Hypotheses" header the statement "humans exhibit many significant differences..." appears, with a source. If the source is invalid, remove it. But do not say "Morgan claims..." unless that is what the source says. Accordingly, I have removed your recent edits. Johnuniq (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is also incorrect to present Morgan's ludicrous claim that we are hairless like whales as if it were a fact.Simonm223 (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't quite say "like whales", but I'm not objecting to any sourced, NPOV wording pointing out an error in the AAH. I understand the difficulty of finding sources because a relevant scientist who thinks Morgan's statements are wrong is not going to publish a paper pointing that out. At any rate, if you would like to outline why something in the article is a ludicrous claim, your text might serve as the basis for an addition to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undent. It's tough to defend putting in a list of reasons why Morgan (or any other advocate) thinks the AAH holds water (hah) when there's no real substantive scholarly discussion. Even though the page is mostly criticism (which is a problem) we still shouldn't put up a list of evidnece accompanied by a set of point-counterpoints. I would suggest shortening the page considerably and trying to collapse the body into a much more streamlined (hah) organization where it mostly discusses history and reception with no real discussion of evidence (as most sources say, there isn't any - the AAH is primarily an exercise in comparative anatomy). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]