Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis

Tears and Sweat

Tears and excessive sweating are considered further evidence to support the theory.

Details? --Brion

'Theory' v. 'Hypothesis'

Why the hell is the word "theory" used for this page title? This idea is at best a well developed yet largely untested hypothesis and at worst a weak one. Unless there is a good objection otherwise I will move this page. --mav

A cursory google search seems to indicate that fans of the hypothesis call it the "aquatic ape theory", while critics are more likely to call it the "aquatic ape hypothesis". --Brion

Well if the word "theory" is to have any meaning here we should move the page. --mav

Fine by me. Don't be shy about adding a link to pseudoscience neither. :) --Brion

In my experience as a student of physical anthropology, both supporters and critics of aquatic ape theory refer to that subject by the name aquatic ape theory, just as supporters and critics of creation science and the theory of evolution refer to those subjects by those names. In any event, renaming an article based upon your personal objections to the use of a word like theory would be a confusing mistake as well as a clear violation of the NPOV policy. Simply put, Wikipedia is not the right place to carry on a debate about the merits of a particular theory/hypothesis/pseudoscience.--NetEsq

True; that's why we have the meta wikipedia! --Brion

You misunderstand NetEsq. I actually like the idea and think it has merit -- however it does have an ambiguous title as is. When something is scientific in nature and purports to be a theory one can automatically assume theory to mean scientific theory. Here in wikiland we have a specific definition of the term theory in the same way that we have a specific definition of the word terrorist. We tend to be consistent with our definition of that word and we should also be consistent in the use of the word theory. --mav

I think I understand quite well. First of all, I have a background in both the "hard sciences" (i.e., upper division college level courses in chemistry, physics, and calculus) as well as the more contentious social and behavioral sciences (i.e., Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology, Cum Laude) , where both cultural and physical anthropology are often (inappropriately) classified along with pscyhology and sociology, and I disagree with your unfounded and unsupported assertions about the nature of science, theories, and hypotheses. Second of all, you are purporting to speak on behalf of the entirety of wikiland -- i.e., "we do this; we do that" -- and you have no authority to do so. As for the appropriate use of the word terrorist, what does that have to do with the price of oil in Iraq?

The appropriate way to voice your concerns about the use of the word theory in the title of the aquatic ape theory article is by including those concerns in the body of article. To wit, "some critics of AAT believe that it should be referred to as the aquatic ape hypothesis."--NetEsq

NetEsq, I also happen to think that this is an interesting hypothesis and one which deserves attention. However, given, as mav says, we have certain particular definitions (which are not unalterable, it just helps to have some solid ground on which to stand) and theory is a key one, I do not believe this article deserves a theory tag just yet. It does not conform to the key precepts of theory and is at best at present hypothesis. user:sjc

Did I not read, somewhere authoritative in the wikipedia guidelines, that when there's a dispute in the name of an article like this, it's the more common and expected format which is to be used, not the more technical one? Since the aquatic ape premise is almost universally referred to as a theory, I would guess that this is the name it should therefore receive, even though it (like the plains ape theory of bipedalism) is, indeed, a hypothesis.

In fact, I'm pretty sure wherever the guideline was, it specifically said of the "but this has a specific, technical reason to have a different name", something along the lines of "tough cookies, people being able to find the name they expect is more important".

Anyone know the rule I'm talking about? I haven't time to dig it up now, I came across it a few weeks ago. Kaz 23:55, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

FWIW Elaine Morgan refers to all of this as the aquatic ape hypothesis in "Scars of Evolution and goes on to articulate why she does not use theory.

Science & Fairness

From the NPOV page:

If we're going to represent the sum total of "human knowledge"--of what we believe we know, essentially--then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. . . . The task before us is not to describe disputes fairly, on some bogus view of fairness that would have us describe pseudoscience as if were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view, and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. . . .

There is a minority of Wikipedians who feel so strongly about this problem, however, that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." What these people have failed to establish, however, is that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to those who might be misled by pseudoscience.

The NPOV policy statement later goes on to address the specific problem of discussing the topic of the theory of evolution from a scientific point of view:

There are virtually no topics that could not proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also philosophy, history, physics, etc.

In sum, the editorial decision to change the title of a Wikipedia article from one which uses the word theory to one which uses the word hypothesis in an attempt to reflect the scientific point of view is a clear violation of the NPOV policy. The proper way to address such concerns is in the body of the article itself, as I pointed out earlier. If you disagree with the NPOV policy, and wish to ignore it, then go right ahead, but do not attempt to speak on behalf of Wikipedians such as myself who believe in the NPOV's correctness.--NetEsq

NPOV vs POV isn't really the point (as I've already said my POV is that I like the idea). The point is that the common use of the word "theory" is nothing more than a dictionary defintion but in the context of an encyclopedia the word "theory" means "scientific theory" so any use of that word must consider this context (otherwise ambiguity is the result). See "Be precise when necessary" of of our naming conventions. --mav

As I stated earlier, what I see here is a conflict between NPOV and what often passes for the Scientific Point of View (SPOV). That is why I cited the relevant sections of the NPOV in re the problems one encounters when attempting to conform Wikipedia to the SPOV. And, once again, I disagree with your unfounded and unsupported assertions about the nature of theories and hypotheses in re scientific inquiry. To wit: It is often argued by scientists, that the theory of evolution is not falsifiable, and (therefore) is not scientific. This view can be attributed to the philosophy of science of Karl Popper, which is not at all universally accepted. Rather, according to the scientific philosophy of Thomas Kuhn, you can't even compare when one theory is better than another scientifically. Underlying all of this is the problem of conceptual bias, an intractable problem one encounters when dealing with scientists, not unlike the problem which anthropologists encounter with ethnocentrism among their informants.

When Charles Darwin first posited the theory of evolution, he attempted to present it as a Newtonian science like physics or chemistry. This backfired when his mentor William Whewell dismissed his theory as unscientific. Whewell's conceptual bias is not unlike the conceptual bias that you have demonstrated toward the semantic conception of theories, i.e. what you might refer to as the "Scientific Point of View." However, the nature of science, theories, and hypotheses is still the subject of considerable debate, as set forth above.

'Theory' v. 'Hypothesis' 2

Back to the Aquatic Ape Theory. Most scientists refer to the "aquatic ape hypothesis" by the name "aquatic ape theory," as evidenced by the "aquatic ape theory" categories at both ODP and Yahoo! and the 4 to 1 ratio of Google results for "aquatic ape theory" as compared to "aquatic ape hypothesis." If you disagree with the purportedly "unscientific" nature of this nomenclature, then state so in the aquatic ape theory article, but do not make a totally irrational appeal to authority by making an irrelevant reference to Wikipedia naming conventions.--NetEsq

Tears & Sweat 2

I had never heard of this theory until today's debate, and I am very curious what it has to say on one point. Our body fluids are much less saline than sea-water, but much more saline than fresh water. Living in either hypoosmotic or hyperosmotic conditions is a severe environmental stress. The aquatic adaptations of various mammals to the two environments are different and in some cases totally opposite. In which environment are humans purported to have evolved according to the Aquatic Ape Theory? --Karl Juhnke

The idea as I understand it (and this may be the weaker view) is that early humans spent a large amount of their time in and around water -- which included inland seas, lakes, rivers and also coastal environments. This does make sense from a caloric intake stance -- human babies need a lot of calories in a very consistent supply in order for their brains to develop properly. The savannas have severe seasonal differences in the amount, quality and regularity in food supplies - and yet we are fertile (and interested) in the opposite sex year-round (well most of us are). In aquatic evrions, however, the food supply is far more apt to be constant and plentiful. Of course we may have simply used tools such as spears and crude boats instead of actually spending so much time in the water but since the end of the last glacial maximum ~13,000 years ago all previous coastlines and nearly all of these early human settlements are now under a 100 or so meters of water -- thus it is very difficult to test this interesting hypothesis in order to elevate it into a theory. --mav

Opps! I forgot to answer your physiology question. This simple answer is this; if this idea does hold water (needless pun, I know) then the time in which these adaptations took place would probably not have been long enough to change our base physiology too much. Therefore the salinity of our body fluids would be pretty much the same as other primates (which it is). And there is also the issue that under many forms of this hypothesis humans lived in both aquatic and marine environments (as stated above). The idea of tears and excess sweating is used by some to suggest that these human body functions are a way to get rid of excess salt (however I think this argument is a bit weak). --mav

Well, then the tears and sweat theory would mean we lived in saltwater. Freshwater vertebrates don't have trouble with excess salt because they can always drink; on the contrary, they have a need to retain dissolved ions while eliminating the water. Only marine vertebrates benefit from effecient salt excretion. However, I agree with you that the argument is weak, because our salt-excretion capabilities do not enable us to have a net gain of water from drinking ocean water. It costs us more water to eliminate the salt than we get from drinking saltwater, no mattter whether we cry, sweat, or urinate. The adaptive salty tears of, say, marine turtles and birds are very concentrated, i.e. they eliminate lots of salt for a little water. If we were a marine species we ought to be able to do that too. --Karl Juhnke

This is a good objection to the form of AAH (there are several) that argues for a singular, coastal 'phase'. Of course, it could have been fresh water, or (as is my view) a combination of the two. --Algis Kuliukas 06:57, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Timescale

Some dates would be useful: when is this proposed to have happened, either in rough time or what species? (I read about this back in the early 1980s, and don't have the books. I can google if nobody else knows.) Vicki Rosenzweig 13:56 Aug 26, 2002 (PDT)

That's one of the problems with calling this a theory - I've rarely heard of a time period in which this took place. And when I have it has been from people who know little about this (like me) guessing. However I've never read any books on the subject as you have (it's just something one of my biology professors mentioned as an unsubstantiated and highly flawed yet interesting idea during a lecture on human evolution). Most vague ideas about the time period that this may have occurred are within the last 3 million years. --mav

A long, long time to wait for an answer to the query about dates (but then I've only just discovered Wikipedia - and what's 22 months compared with 3 million years? :-) ) I have understood the AAT/AAH scenario to be the event that led to the separation of hominid evolution from that of chimpanzees (humans' closest ape relative). This figures if you consider the suggestion that the semi-aquatic lifestyle was what led to full-time bipedalism; the earliest bipedal human ancestors can be identified by their remains - so this puts the putative aquatic period as between 5 and 8 million years ago. --Tiffer 21:14, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The biggest problem with the AAH is that it's never really been unambiguously defined. The definition here on Wikipedia is probably accurate in that it reflects most people's idea of what it is, but it's interesting that there is no citation to back it up. Hardy (1960) described his ideas, sure, but it was very tentative - a request for comments, really. It was written in 1960 when there was a huge gap in the fossil record. A gap that has long since closed. Morgan's books followed in Hardy's footsteps and she deliberately avoided being too definitive about what it actually was. Therefore people have been left to interpret it in whatever way they want. People that have understood it to mean some kind of 'primate seal' or 'merman' phase, understandably, have sneered at the thought. People who have understood it to be proposing that human ancestors merely swam a lot more in the past can't see what all the fuss is about.

This is why the timescale question is difficult to resolve. Hardy proposed a singular, distinct 'full-on' littoral phase between 10 and 2 Mya. It was a reasonable guess, considering the fossil evidence available to him at the time, but it's clearly wrong. Morgan followed that basic idea but when La Lumiere suggested Danakil as a possible locoation she got a little more specific and suggested that the flooding and dessication of that inland sea corresponded to the dates. (Apparently the flooding occurred around 4ma and the dessication happenned very recently ca 80ka.)

People should understand, however, that these ideas on timescale do not make or break the AAH. It could be that human ancestors lived in fresh water wetlands (gallery forest floodplains, swamps, marshes, laes etc). This would completely destroy the argument that the fossil evidence contradicts the AAH. (This notion is based purely on the idea that it backs a marine coastal phase. Actually the fresh-water version is strongly supported by the fossil evidence as thousands of individual hominins have been found in fresh water depositional substrates but zero chimp or gorilla fosills have.)

I'm a PhD student at UWA working to try to add some scientific rigour to this idea. I've critiqued Roede et al (1991), Langdon (1997) and Moore's web site and I've tried to define it simply and unambiguously AAH Proposed Definition --Algis Kuliukas 07:17, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

'Theory' v. 'Hypothesis' 3

This article needs to go to "hypothesis", because that's what it is objectively, no matter the POV. AxelBoldt 15:04 Aug 26, 2002 (PDT)

Axel has spoken. That is enough for me. The move will commence. --mav

In other words, you've decided to ignore all rules and ignore my objections. That works fine for me. My objections are here for the record.--NetEsq

Sometimes I think the most recent entry should be at the top instead of the bottom, so that one wouldn't be tempted to reply to the first instance of a discussion as I just did. See the first Theory v. Hypothesis...

Anyway, they are indeed ignoring the rule, and I object as well, even though I agree that it is technically a hypothesis. So is the plains ape "theory".

But don't credit them with the perfectly respectable ignore all rules technique, because they're...strangly...citing ONE rule in order to justify their violation of another rule which is more relevent to this scenario. I'm a real hater of poor science passing itself off as the real thing, as with so many "facts" presented even by the scientific establishment based upon uncontrolled studies and inductive reasoning...but the title of this entry should be considered from the perspective of what people call it, and the first LINE of the article is where it should say "a hypothesis". Kaz 00:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Teleological

It struck me, in reading The Descent of Woman, that there's a very teleological view of natural selection; Elaine Morgan frequently makes statements along the lines of "humankind needed X, and evolution provided it." I wanted to add a mention of this to the article as an argument against the AAH, but I'm not sure if this teleological viewpoint is that book's, Morgan's, or the hypothesis's. If it's only Morgan who thinks that way, never mind -- especially if she herself was ultimately disabused of the notion. --Calieber 20:31, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)

I had to look up 'teleological' in the dictionary after reading the above. It's not clear to me why this should be an objection; if I understand natural selection correctly, it's that individuals who possess features better suited to the environment come to dominate within a population; and these favourable features tend to spread throughout the population as a result. IOW, the environment creates evolutionary pressures, and evolution 'responds' by promoting characteristics that provide for a need. What other way is there of viewing natural selection? --Tiffer 22:33, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Objections included on page

I've just become aware of Wikipedia and as AAT/AAH is an interest of mine I had to find out what has been said about it. While I think there is a fair summary here, at least of some the main themes of AAT, it seems rather odd to me that it should be interspersed with arguments for non-aquatic evolution.

Firstly, is this really necessary to satisfy NPOV? I don't see atheist objections or Muslim teaching being floated on the pages for Christianity. Surely it should be sufficient that the AAH themes are presented dispassionately, making it clear that they are a minority opinion (the 2nd paragraph does this), and allowing the reader to make a judgement for himself or herself.

Secondly, in my opinion the non-aquatic arguments themselves run counter to the principle of NPOV. The language is confrontational and subjective ("Sceptics counter ...", "... highly flawed ..."); and contentious assertions are stated as fact in more than one place ("... particularly effective at remaining active during the heat of the day", "... kangaroos ... use their upright state ..." - kangaroos are not upright at all, but balanced body and tail over the hind legs in a way quite unlike the human situation). The article reads like 2 different people having an argument.

Can I suggest (if it is felt necessary to include them) that the land-based evolution arguments be moved to a paragraph headed "Objections to AAH" or similar, that the confrontational language be removed, and that the points of contention be re-worded to indicate that they are an alternative opinion rather than fact?

9 June 2004 Tiffer

Hmmm ... nobody seems to be monitoring this ATM. I have now prepared a new version of the page with the objections and alternative land-based explanations collected together in 2 new paragraphs towards the end. If nobody comments within a week or so, I shall upload it then. --Tiffer 21:15, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• OK, how ironic...I was going to commend everyone on their surprisingly objective presentation, but apparently it's just you. Perhaps you should move the name back to Theory, too, since nobody seems to care... Kaz

• • <Grin> - actually I've spent a lot of time on an online debate on AAT/AAH, and become sensitised to what sort of arguments cut any ice. As for "theory" v. "hypothesis" I note that someone (not me) has now moved the name back to "theory". For myself, I'm quite comfortable with "hypothesis" which I don't consider pejorative, and seems to be more accurate scientifically. --Tiffer 19:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you are still watching: There is a difference between science and religion. (Withing rather wide limits) you may believe into anything, but there narrow limits of what can be considered a scientific theory. So, if the Aquatic Ape theory/hypothesis should be handled as a religion, we can concentrate on the belief and the believers, but if it should be handled as scientific theory, some context about its current standings and reputation in science is needed.

Not that I want to criticize the article as it is now, only regarding comparisons with "Christianity".

OTHO I fully agree, that Pro/Con lists are often the worst method to achieve NPOV.

Pjacobi 19:10, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

• My reference to Christianity in the discussion was purely as an analogy. I certainly didn't want to imply that the AAH argument is a religious one. --Tiffer 19:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the current format is a bit uncomfortable. On the other hand, I'm surprised at how much objectivity the article has managed to settle upon, considering the religious fanaticism displayed (outside Wikipedia) on both sides. Some of the establishment dismissals of AAH arguments are rube goldberg, reverse-engineered refute-at-all-costs responses, but some AAH advocates cling adamantly to even the weakest, most unlikely claims. Kaz 20:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the acrimony associated with the debate is really quite startling, sometimes. The question why some find the idea so threatening is a mystery, but when someone is ideologically committed to "defeating" a heresy, it can be an effective strategy to turn any discussion into something unpleasant, so as to discourage the idea from being considered. --Tiffer 19:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As for "weak and unlikely claims", I have to confess to committing that tactical error in my early debating with sceptics. But look at it this way: were AAT to be generally accepted, then a number of mysterious physical features unique to humans could be made to make sense, when they don't make sense if you cling to a terrestrial story of evolution. It is these aquatic explanations which seem "weak and unlikely" to the sceptic, because you have to be convinced by AAT generally before you can give them credence. Think about it. --Tiffer 19:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I started to do some editing on this page; I've only before made changes to links. I'm afraid much of what seems to be objectivity in this entry is simply no one making informed changes on a number of errors. For instance, a quick look reveals that the info about the diving relex is wrong, the "10 times as much fat" bit is wrong (a common error which could be an honest misreading of reserch although it's been corrected online so often I'm not sure it's unwitting); the false "bipedalism is inefficient" idea; false info about cutaneous muscle; false info about DHA and LNA (the fatty acids that are involved in the discussion about "Omega-3" oils); false, and long discredited, info about tears and sweat; false info about mating positions; incomplete info about webbing between fingers; false info about hairless mammals; false info about the larynx. It really seems a bit much to correct it all, and I'm afraid, given my long experience with this subject, any changes toward a more accurate page may well be shortlived. (Just as I note that Tiffer has several times added an editorial comment to my outside link -- something I, for instancxe, did not do when I added back several pro-AAT links which had been removed in late Jan (apparently due to someone's sloppy edit).

Besides the number of things that need correcting, I have a problem with how to do these changes. The problem is that these statements and false info are often made and repeated by proponents of the AAT/H and I think this should be pointed out, yet -- again from my long experience with this subject -- this would probably be taken as being harsh or improper. But it seems to me that pointing out that proponents often make false claims is valid. But doing so tends to make for convoluted sentences, or the need to completely rewrite entire paragraphs and sections. I'll have to think about how best to do this. - Jim Moore 17 April 2005

Jim - please excuse my modifying your external link again. You are right that some external links got deleted apparently by mistake by another contributor. They were replaced to what they had been at an earlier date, losing my comment and some links added in the meantime. This is why I put back the missing links and my comments. I hope you will agree that this doesn't constitute "several times".

The link now simply includes the title (without the POV description "scientific critique") and a link to your user page. I can understand that you might not like the pejorative "(his description)" rider, and I'm sure you will accept the compromise of removing the POV description it refers to. --Tiffer 10:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS. I await your contributions with interest, and I hope that with other contributors we can find a form of wording that is acceptable to both sides of the discussion. --Tiffer 10:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation of how the links got changed. I assumed, having had quite a lot of experience with the subject and seeing animosity at the mere mention of my name all too often, that I was dealing with that here. My apologies.

I still have a bit of a problem with how to correct all the stuff that needs correcting (and some time and laziness problems :) but I'll have to give it a whirl and see how it comes out. -- Jim Moore 27 April 2005

Wikipedia update

To keep you current: The german parallel article de:Wasseraffen-Theorie is now at "Review" stage, the stage before "Exzellente Artikel", which is the equivalent of "Featured article candidate". There is a possibility that an author and expert in the field of Hominisation will take part in the review. After all that done, I'll try to merge some enhancements into this article. --Pjacobi 19:57, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

That's intriguing news. If only it was the English-language version. Of course, being a "featured article" is only a transitory honour, and to achieve that we'd need to have some graphics, at least. Can you say whether the German article was independently-posted? --Tiffer 20:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The german article started April 2004 completely indepedendent (IMHO), from someone mostly re-phrasing the exposition in "Langdon, John H. - Umbrella hypotheses and parsimony in human evolution: a critique of the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis". Then mostly de:User:Plattmaster worked for some time on the article, include some syncing with the en.wikipedia, I assume. Then the article surfaced during review and more people did have a look. --Pjacobi 22:47, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Yeah - after I replied previously, I had a look at the German-language article. I'm afraid my German is completely inadequate to understand it - although I could interpret enough to see it was set out quite differently from ours. Can you say whether it is positive or not towards AAT? --Tiffer 16:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's rather friendly towards theory, presenting in "Grundprobleme von Hominisations-Hypothesen" general problems of theories of hominisation and just barely transports that it is a minority view. According to my tastes it could have been a bit more critical, but as our field experts are satisfied, who am I to object? --Pjacobi 20:49, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

Thanks for that - it's a deep question whether an article like this should be sympathetic or "neutral". It perhaps depends on how much merit you consider the hypothesis has in the first place, I suppose. --Tiffer 13:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just a note: In the "breathing" paragraph it is said the diving reflex is unique to humans and marine mammals. The Wikipedia "Mammalian Diving Reflex" page notes that the reflex is present in all mammals, not only marine mammals and humans. There should be no contradictions within Wikipedia; Who knows the truth regarding this and could fix the contradiction? --Guest writer, 23:00 (GMT+2), 25.3.2005 .

The other Wiki page has the correct information. The diving reflex is present in all animals which have been tested -- it's apparently an ancestral holdover in all vertebrates, for instance. And it has been known to be so for more than 50 years, well before any published accounts of the AAT. - Jim Moore 16 April 2005

"Naked/Hairless"

Isn't it worth finding an alternative phrase to use instead of naked or hairless, seeing as humans have just as much hair as other primates, but it is much shorter and thinner. -samaraphile 27 March 2005

I really don't see any need for other words, here. In the strictest sense, humans are not hairless (although I don't agree that we have "just as much" body hair, or anything like it); but we are naked, in the sense that our skin is exposed over almost all the body (apart from a few unusual individuals). I have seen this point made ad nauseam in the AAT/AAH 'debate', AFAICS in order to take up time and avoid discussion of one of the main unexplained differences between apes and humans. The main protagonist even posted an image file of his own wispy chest in order to "prove" the point! Needless to say, he regarded this as an "argument" against AAT.

(please excuse me adding the date to your previous contribution for future reference) --Tiffer 10:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reason that it's good to have an accurate description of the differences between body hair in apes and humans is that using inaccurate descriptions, such as "hairless", are guaranteed to lead to inaccurate conclusions about how and why this change occurred. If you want to look for an accurate answer, you have to have an accurate question. - Jim Moore 16 April 2005

"References and outside links"

I find that someone has several times changed the description accompanying my link (Jim Moore's site) to include the editorialising "his description" in parens. I find this rather petty and think it should be stopped. Putting the whole description as a clickable link (as I did when I restored that and several other links that had been eliminated earlier this year) quite clearly shows that the phrase that someone objects to is part of my site's title. I notice that such editorialising does not go on with pro-AAT sites in this article. - Jim Moore 16 April 2005

Omitted evidence?

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Article quality

Latest comment: 20 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply