Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis

New evidence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Note: John Hawks has backpedalled considereably since his "pseudoscience" blog. That term should certainly be removed from this page, especially considering all the evidence that has accumulated over the intervening decades. The only definition of pseudoscience that I know of is when a proposition "generates no falsifiable hypotheses". While this would be true of the Savannah theory, it is certainly not true of AAT.

I hesitate to edit the page only for it to be reverted. Seems pointless.

Would it be possible to speak to the most active anti-AAT editor for this page?

Here is my evidence supporting the hypothesis: --

It has recently been demonstrated that humans have evolved the ability to absorb fresh water from sea water via our eccrine sweat glands by reverse osmosis. https://www.academia.edu/113806848/Eccrine_Hydration_hydration_via_eccrine_reverse_osmosis_as_a_drought_survival_mechanism

This mechanism could not possibly have evolved anywhere but in a marine environment.

Countless millions of tons of fossil evidence in the form of shell middens also confirm lengthy periods of dependence on marine resources. https://www.academia.edu/40664984/The_Acheulean_hand_axe_a_toolmakers_perspective

The page is therefore outdated and misleading with many errors. I would like to rewrite (most of) it. Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

There are no "anti-AAT editors" that I am aware of. Rather, the article follows reliable sources (i.e. not stuff from academia.edu) and has wide consensus from many previous discussions. Bon courage (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Bon. The paper is actually from a peer reviewed Canadian journal (IEE). I put the Academia link to save you looking through the entire edition for the paper. You have clearly chosen not to read the information presented, so I assume you are indeed anti-AAT.

That's great. You obviously have opinions on all sorts of topics.

Please now read the new evidence and then you can make informed comments.

The "wide consensus from many previous discussions" are 20 years behind the times, by the way. Science (sometimes) moves on, you know. Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see it's in this.[1] No impact backwater journals are likewise of little use here. Bon courage (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, how splendid. A person who can evaluate content without even reading it. You must be very special.

If it's good enough for 7 of the "best scientists", then it's good enough for me.

Any editors out there able to read? This chap doesn't seem able to understand eccrine reverse osmosis. Just judges content by publisher.  :-)

Thanks.. Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

There are more than 14 scientists in the world. Th issue here is that one (minor) source can't be used to overturn 100's of expert opinions. Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

See also WP:FRIND. Wikipedia does not indulge WP:FRINGESUBJECTS. Bon courage (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Are you prepared to read the new evidence or not? I guess not.

Where I choose to publish my work is surely none of your business. You have clearly never published anything, so I'll disregard your opinions on that matter.

No need to bombard me with emails.. I have not edited any part of the AAT page. I do not have a conflict of interest. I am not multiple people. It is not pseudoscience.

I think you have some serious issues, Bon. In fact you are obviously terrified of reading anything that might mean you are wrong about something -- anything.

I was hoping to speak to a scientist. You are obviously not that. If you were, you would have enjoyed demolishing my paper, no?

You are behaving like a Troll. Is that what Wikipedia has come to? That's very sad. Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Your work? Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. My work. Is that a problem? Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

MAybe, read wp:coi. Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Read it. It says "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships."

Again -- what's your point? Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Really? My point is that this raises questions as to your motives for wanting to add this. This is not a case of someone finding this and going "I say what a good point" but rather of someone trying to push their own work, as an academic yo can't see why we might see a problem with this? Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

My motives are of the purest -- the quest for truth. If you have a problem with it, then I suggest you read the paper. If you read the paper then you will be able to evaluate it. If you don't read the paper, you will have no way of knowing if it is valid or not, will you?

Having set yourself up an an arbiter of truth, you should really read ther paper. That's all I'm asking. That's all I have ever asked. Can you explain why you would rather spend days posting links to Wikipedia pages that dopn't apply rather than simple Read the paper?

Are you, in fact, simply a Troll? Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NOTTRUTH. Wikipedia's motives are to follow the mainstream, not to seek the truth, as we have no mechanism to determine what the truth actually is. MrOllie (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Steven.

You're quite wrong of course. You'll remember that the Michelson-Morley experiment overturned the expert opinions of every sinmgle physicist on the planet,.and I think you'll find that my (major) experimental breakthrough does the same for human evolution.

If you refuse to read it though, then you will have to remain in ignorance. Shame.

Anyone here who can read?

Anyone? Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I can read. Can you read Wikipedia's policies, as given in the links folks have been sharing with you? That would explain why your arguments aren't finding any purchase here. You're trying to get Wikipedia to do something counter to what it was designed for. MrOllie (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Are you prepared to read the new evidence or not?

Where I choose to publish my work is surely none of your business. You have clearly never published anything, so I'll disregard your opinions on that matter.

No need to bombard me with emails.. I have not edited any part of the AAT page. I do not have a conflict of interest. I am not multiple people. It is not pseudoscience.

I think you have some serious issues, Bon. Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia determines whether a source is usable in large measure based on how and where it was published. So if you want to include it here, it is very much our business. MrOllie (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Since articles on the AAT have been published in the New Scientist, The British Medical Journal, the Journal of human Evolution and Nature on numerous occasions, then, accoerding to you, the AAT page in Wikipedia is in error in referring to it as as pseudoscience. Or else, your statement is simply untrue.

Now why would you say something that isn't true, Mr. Ollie? I take it you you are also afraid to read the paper. If you read the paper you would have some credibility. As it is, I'm just getting insults, threats and bluster. If you read the paper you might have some cogent arguments against.it without having to make up false statements.

I fear you editors are bringing Wikipedia into disrepute.A great pity. Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The AAT is almost totally ignored by people who actually study human evolution. It's completely undue to present it as a mainstream hypothesis when it is not, and indeed would bring Wikipedia into disrepute to do so. You should cut out your aggressive tone. I would suggest following the advice at WP:IDHT in order to avoid continuing to waste Wikipedia contributors valuable time. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That is why the new evidence is so important, especially now that Raymond Dart's "Savannah" or "killer ape" hypothesis has been completely debunked.

I read your link. It says "The community's rejection of your idea is not because they didn't hear you." In this case it is, (unless you are volunteering to read the paper). That's all I'm doing here is asking that simple question over and over -- Is there anyone there willing to read the paper?

If you too are afraid to read it, then please don't bother replying again. Thank you.

I'm not wasting anyone's time. I'm not forcing anyone to respond with more threats, insults,,misleading and potentially libellous statements. I'm just asking the question. Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I have read the paper, but I don't think it is ready to be included here. We need third-party mention of the paper in serious, thoughtful ways to allow for its proper contextualization. I don't see that yet. jps (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Okeydoke. I've got the third party mentions on websites etc., but I guess you mean papers in top-flight journals by world nenowned silverback anthropologists. Several of those offered to co-author and I have lots of feedback from them, but ieccrine hydration is so new and unexpected that getting papers published will take a while.

The downside of Wikipedia is that it is everybody's go-to first point of reference. If it says "pseudoscience" then it's very hard to get a fair hearing. Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The only thing the paper says is that you are not an impermeable membrane, which is a well known fact already Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

No, Dunk.

REVERSE osmosis. Not OSMOSIS.

Are you seriously an editor here? Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You might check out the archives of this talkpage. It will potentially be very eye-opening and might explain the frosty reactions you have gotten. jps (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem, I hope you can understand, is that it is hard to decide who is the Alfred Wegener and who is the Prosper-René Blondlot. We try to rely on those top-flight journals and world-renowned silverbacks to make that judgement call because, for better or worse, that is all we got. Get them to publish positive reviews that will get noticed by the naysayers and Wikipedia will be happy to report on how the dust settles. jps (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll pass on your words of wisdom and get back to you.

I've got a few world class guys on my team. Where does one publish positive reviews of academic papers I wonder... Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You can try writing letters to top-flight journals (which are often published as "commentary"). If you've got world class guys, they probably will sit up and pay attention. jps (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. (And thanks for the tip about the archives). I have had a couple of letters published in New Scientist. Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a start. New Scientist has a, let's just say, mixed reputation. Their editorial philosophy has sometimes strayed towards platforming fringe theories in ways that mean that we don't always find a good way to establish what they've published as worthy of inclusion. But they are by no means completely excised from our lists of usable sources. I would say, however, that you might want to look for some anthro-heavy, high-impact outfits to make your case. jps (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes. NS has made some rather odd editorial decisions over the years, but the current editor of the Journal of Human Evolution is one of the most vituperative opponents of AAT. I think we'd have to wait for a change of editor. At one point, an early account of the immersion experiment was rejected by him as invalid because none of our participants "remained immersed for the full 20 years that defines a 'megadrought' "...

I have a lot of followers in the US. Probably best to look there.."usable sources" was interesting. I tried to use only the most irreproachable blue-chip sources for my references in the hand-axe thing -- https://www.academia.edu/40664984/The_Acheulean_hand_axe_a_toolmakers_perspective -- but getting things printed in them might not be so easy. I'm getting too old for this.

Thanks again for your interest. Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Data point: The author's Academia.edu page [2]. EEng 05:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

References which are suspect

Hello,

I was reading this part of the article.

"The AAH is considered to be a classic example of pseudoscience among the scholarly community" but the references given do not support the claim.

THe first reference (32) is a book on human evolution but not about pseudoscience or AAH relation to pseudoscience. The third reference (35) is not about pseudoscience at all or even about AAH specifically, instead it is an article about the lakes in africa around the time of human evolution and seems to suppoart the AAH theory. Irrespective of what the article is about, it is not related to pseudoscience in the least. Tdkelley1 (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Another poor reference

I was reading this part of the article. "The AAH is considered to be a classic example of pseudoscience among the scholarly community" but the references given do not support the claim.

ONe Reference 33, is from a 1998 book, that mentions AAH on a few pages. It does not say the theory is pseudoscience, instead it says, "The aquatic-ape theory has surface appeal yet so far scientists have ignored it. It is hard to see how some human features, like babies' ability to survive for an hour underwater could have arisen without a watery environment. Yet, until this theory survives and enfilade of scientific criticism its merit will remain unclear." This is certainly no mention of pseudoscience, instead a statement that the theory needs more evidence. Tdkelley1 (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The pseudoscience label in the first paragraph is not justified by the references

While the hypothesis has some popularity with the lay public, it is generally ignored or classified as pseudoscience by anthropologists.(2,3,4)

Reference number 2 is a critique of the AAH but it does not use the word pseudoscience in the title of the article. Additionally, the article is behind a paywall and not available for examination by the public.

Reference number 3 is a book about pseudoscience in general, but not AAH specifically, instead just a general review of what pseudoscience is as a whole, but not specifically AAH.

Additionally, reference 4 is another general reference about pseudoscience in general, but does not support the assertion that AAH "is generally ignored or classified as pseudoscience by anthropologists". because the book is not specifically even about the topic that is being referenced. Tdkelley1 (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Italic text== Reliance on non-peer reviewed citations ==

There are a number of problems with this paragraph.

Anthropologists do not take the hypothesis seriously: John Langdon characterized it as an umbrella hypothesis (a hypothesis that tries to explain many separate traits of humans as a result of a single adaptive pressure)

In this cause an "umbrella hypothesis" is also called Occam's Razor where one uses the most simple explanation to describe many different pieces of evidence. I am not sure an "umbrella hypothesis", in the sense of Occam's Razor, can be considered a critique of the theory.

...that was not consistent with the fossil record, and said that its claim that it was simpler and therefore more likely to be true than traditional explanations of human evolution was not true. According to anthropologist John Hawkes, the AAH is not consistent with the fossil record.

There are no references to support this assertion. This reference to John Hawkes is from a blog post, not a peer reviewed article with references to support assertions. Additionally, the assertion of the blog post that the AAH "is not consistent with the fossil record" is simply false. And if it is not false, the assertion needs references to support the claim. Additionally, too much weight is being given to this blog post and the pronouncements made in the blog post, when the blog post did not undergo rigorous scientific review.Tdkelley1 (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Just a quick point on ref 3 (Rafferty): the publisher's website, not behind a paywall, includes an abstract of the chapter: This chapter presents a famous example of pseudoscience in physical anthropology. The hypothesis that human evolution involved an aquatic stage is a long-standing belief despite it having been thoroughly debunked. I think that is ample justification for describing it as "pseudoscience". PamD 14:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

If only a part of the paper is available, like the abstract, that is generally considered behind a paywall amongst my colleagues. The public should be able to access any reference, including the entire paper, not just the abstract. The the referenced paper needs to be reviewed and paper references checked, that cannot be done with just the abstract. 2601:140:4100:6900:78BF:B218:14EE:9588 (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia specifically rejects this idea, see WP:PAYWALL. Paywalled sources are usable here. MrOllie (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks for the note to the rules. I think wikipedia has a way to get articles from behind paywalls?? I will try that. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 17:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The theory has not be debunked

This paragraph is misleading.

- The AAH is generally ignored by anthropologists, although it has a following outside academia and conferences on the topic have received celebrity endorsement, for example from David Attenborough. Despite being debunked, it returns periodically, being promoted as recently as 2019.

There are no references given to the assertion that the theory has been "debunked" - The main critique of AAH was written by a single author in a blog post. Theories are not "debunked" in a blog post. A blog post is not considered a scientifically peer reviewed article. IF there are other references to the "debunked" nature of the theory, they need to be referenced. Tdkelley1 (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)