Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::Well, what ''is'' the sentence? The closest to it is John Langdon's 1997 attitude, that it's because "It's an umbrella hypothesis, that's not parsimonous." If that's the final word on the matter, bam, there goes the Theory of Evolution right there. Congrats, palaeoanthropology, you have handed the creationists their biggest victory. And for what? Just because ''you'' didn't come up with human beings being two million year old beach apes? ] (]) 15:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
:::Well, what ''is'' the sentence? The closest to it is John Langdon's 1997 attitude, that it's because "It's an umbrella hypothesis, that's not parsimonous." If that's the final word on the matter, bam, there goes the Theory of Evolution right there. Congrats, palaeoanthropology, you have handed the creationists their biggest victory. And for what? Just because ''you'' didn't come up with human beings being two million year old beach apes? ] (]) 15:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
::::I have found the answer, based on the multiply use of primary rather than secondary sources in this article the example I used above ] only exists because her theory is explained under an article "about" her. So an article about AAH listed under the author would solve this. ] and others are you happy that I start the process to transfer the article to ] and this one can concentrate on the quackery of it all. I am asking as I am not a dragon nor St George. ] –<small> ]</small> 15:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
::::I have found the answer, based on the multiply use of primary rather than secondary sources in this article the example I used above ] only exists because her theory is explained under an article "about" her. So an article about AAH listed under the author would solve this. ] and others are you happy that I start the process to transfer the article to ] and this one can concentrate on the quackery of it all. I am asking as I am not a dragon nor St George. ] –<small> ]</small> 15:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::It's really uncomfortable looking through Galileo's telescope, innit? ] (]) 16:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Misplaced Pages. 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
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 Misplaced Pages. 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Suggestion - new subsection - anthropological consensus on human evolution
I'm still trying to do something about this hopeless, negatively biased article. I propose to lead the section about the actual hypothesis/ses by summarizing the contemporary consensus on human evolution, as expressed by the scientific field of anthropology. This is to illustrate the background for Elaine Morgan's AAH, since she based her work on what she perceived as shortcomings to parts of that consensus, straw man arguments and whatnot. Whether we then further detail her challenging of this consensus in the following sections is for a different discussion. If you skeptics really desire an optimal, non-POV article detailing what the hell all this boohah is about, let's start with this, since it should contain the fewest controversies (unless creationists are also hanging out in here, which is not bloody unlikely the way things have been going).
Modern humans, Homo sapiens, developed from earlier forms found as fossils at various locations around the world, seeing an early concentration in East Africa. Other remnants from early humans such as tools, foods, dwellings, etc., have also been detected. Combined, these finds present a partial image of the process, that developed the species Homo sapiens.
From the collective work of anthropology, and in later years also genetics, established consensus states, that humans belong in the biological tribeHominini, this in the family of Hominidae (the great apes), this in the order of primates, this in the class of mammals. Humans are closely related to, in order of closest kinship, the great ape genera chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and further distant the family of gibbons. Hominini includes the subtribeAustralopithecina with the genera Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, Ardipithecus, Paranthropus, Australopithecines; and the subtribe Hominina, encompassing the genus Homo, some of its species being Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, the Neanderthals and modern humans, the latter being the only extant species. There is still some uncertainty about the interrelation between the known Hominin fossils; new finds can still drastically rewrite the human family tree, most recently with Sahelanthropus. Contemporary anthropology estimates, that the direct ancestors of modern humans split from a common ancestor to chimpanzees somewhere between 4 and 8 million years ago in Africa; the fossil ape Sahelanthropus tchadensis which lived some 7 million years ago in Chad is considered the earliest possible homininin.
Since the breakthrough of Darwin and Wallace's theory of evolution in the 19th century, it has been debated why humans have features that distinguish them from their nearest evolutionary relatives; most notably by being near-furless, employing upright bipedal stance on their hind limbs, and having the perhaps most complex brain in the animal kingdom. A wide range of difficult to corroborate hypotheses have been presented as to the evolutionary background of the unique features of modern humans; for human bipedalism e.g. altered carrying behavior, improved energy efficiency, improved thermal regulation, altered social behavior and increased dominance behavior.
The human split from the lineage of the chimpanzees is linked to the geological formation of the East African mountain range Great Rift Valley that extends from Djibouti to Mozambique. In this region are found many of the key fossils of the earliest hominins, leaving it to be considered the cradle of humanity. The most widely considered hypothesis is that woodland dwelling, brachiatinghominoids, specifically on the eastern side of the mountain range, gradually lost their habitat to more open areas, for instance grasslands, and that this and other changes forced these hominoids to develop the shapes, that gradually resulted in modern humans.
In recent decades, the traditional image of human origin having taken place in grasslands (e.g. the African savannah) has been challenged, since particularly the oldest homininin fossils are found alongside fossilized fauna and flora from traditional woodland habitats, rather than from grasslands, e.g. the some 4.4 million year old fossil Ardi, an Ardipithecus ramidus.
References
Leakey, Richard E. (1994). The Origin Of Humankind. Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN978-0297815037.
Stringer, C.B. (1994). "Evolution of Early Humans". The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 242. ISBN978-0-521-32370-3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help) Also ISBN 978-0-521-46786-5 (paperback)
Klages, Arthur (2008) "Sahelanthropus tchadensis: An Examination of its Hominin Affinities and Possible Phylogenetic Placement," Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology: Vol. 16: Iss. 1, Article 5. ir.lib.uwo.ca
Huxley T.H. 1863. Evidence as to Man's place in nature. Williams & Norgate, London. p114–115
Lovejoy, C.O. (1988). "Evolution of Human walking". Scientific American. 259 (5): 82–89.
signing (with falsified date to match the original conclusion of this discussion) for archiver. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Redraft of AAH
Though the Rfc above is still open, Maunus has effectively closed it by acceding to the requests for removal of the Regal quote. So I’d like to ask what next.
This article is a mess, the typical result of warring factions on Misplaced Pages who can’t agree about anything and lay their stakes on something that can’t be instantly deleted. And it doesn’t properly represent the topic that it is supposed to be about. As an example, the largest part in the Proposals section is about Encephalization. Whilst this is the most important area of current research, it was a topic about which Elaine Morgan was consistently ambivalent about, initially preferring to credit it to neotony and never including it in the main chapter sequences in her books.
Since this article is about Morgan’s hypothesis, which remained relatively constant over the years, I think it should start with summarising what she actually said. The basic thesis is that water played an important part in human evolution, but it is argued by a series of plausible consequences, that Daniel Dennett has called adaptionist Just So stories. (Dennett ’95 p243-245 penguin edn) They may or may not be true and many of them will never be able to be independently verified or refuted. Langdon 97 compiled a list of 24 features but even his list has notable gaps: he never mentions babies for example; and such a list is unsuitable for the article.
There is still a place for modern water-related research in the article but it should be separated from Morgan’s claims since researchers unsurprisingly have varying reactions to Morgan. Many are apprehensive of being tainted with the AAH brush and it is only the old men whose positions are impregnable (sorry to be sexist) who have boldly come out in support.
If there is support for a redraft, how do we proceed? Bold editing will probably lead to endless edit wars, drafts on the talk page would be unmanageable. I suspect the only possible way is the sandbox, which can then be discussed on this page. I’m not sure which section of WP should be used. The only suitable place I can suggest is a subpage of my user area and I’d be happy for people to make non-contentious changes to that (with others taking place here).
I think that the subject of the article breaks down into three reasonably separate sections: 1) Morgan's hypothesis, 2) the reaction to her ideas within academia and by the press and other non-academic agencies, and 3) more recent evidence that has some testable basis, which support a water/waterside phase in human evolution. In 1) and 2), it should be emphasised that hotly contested discussions were largely made without any real evidence, the furore being based largely on "gut-instinct" (scientists are not without bias in their views). However, 3) reflects scientifically valid evidence and a beginning in the objective testing of the theory and its predictions. Urselius (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Chris55 a good idea which hopefully will result in a real development and improvement of this article. I will start to re-read the book this week and assist where I can. One thing instantly springs to mind, a result of this may well lead to the necessity of the creation of the waterside ape theory page which is different from the AAT. In terms of a subpage this has worked for a few editors when we took a deep breath and restructured Matthew Hopkins transferring the whole article to a sandbox with <nowiki >at the beginning and obviously </nowiki> at the end. We found it useful as all wikilinks etc do not link (teaching grandmothers to suck eggs!) Edmund Patrick – confer13:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks you both for those suggestions. Separating the academic reaction from popular media is probably important so that discussion of mermaids isn't mixed with theoretical issues! I'm not so sure about the <nowiki> idea. When I tried it (easy to preview on the article without pressing the save button) I found the loss of sections and paragraphs more offputting than the inclusion of references which wasn't as distracting as I feared. This article is nearly 3 x the length of the current Matthew Hopkins article which shows it's a big job. Chris55 (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Good it was cumbersome, we had self appointed "protectors" of the Witchfinder General and all he stood for, that I doubt will occure here. Let the journey begin. Edmund Patrick – confer05:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I don't see myself getting involved in this (only here for the RFC) but I think the proposals sound good. Personally I have severe reservations on unconstructively anal application of OR and SYN strictures, so good luck in avoiding them as snares for your feet, because a worthwhile and balanced article would need a lot of evaluatory explanation and narration. JonRichfield (talk) 07:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Starting: I'm finally ready with the start of a redraft which can be found at User:Chris55/AAH2. Sorry it's taken so long. I have in fact only just managed to get a copy of The Descent of Woman from my local library, still more popular than the followups, but that's not the reason. Partly the delay came from trying to get a transcript of the Attenborough Radio 4 series online which seemed to me important as it's not easy to make references to a radio programme. I'm glad to say this is now available here. So those who have been unable to receive it can scan it rather more quickly.
I've also put the text of the current article at User:Chris55/AAH to act as a resource from which one can transfer text easily to the redraft. Please follow the instructions at the top of each page. Discussions relating to details of the redraft can be made at User talk:Chris55/AAH2.
Chris55 (talk) 08:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Article redrafted
This article has had a POV headnote on it for 4 months. Following the discussions earlier on this page, I've now redrafted the article completely and it's available for inspection here. It's been entirely restructured and follows more closely normal Misplaced Pages style for this sort of article. Sorry it's taken so long but it involved reading quite a few books and many more scientific articles. I propose that it should replace the current article. Please read it carefully and indicate whether or not you agree with this. Chris55 (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Edmund. Maybe I should suggest to others to skip the first two sections (History and Hardy/Morgan hypothesis) which don't say much new, and look at the last two sections: Reactions and Waterside research, which is where the rewrite most differs from the current version, following others' suggestions on structuring. And of course there will be plenty of opportunity to improve the details. I've tried to be as neutral as I can. Chris55 (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Looking very promising, indeed, and I agree it should go up as the article. I've made some small tweaks. Refs 8, 20, 21, 23, 24, 61, 68, and 70 do not point to any (Harvard) citation. Books and journals don't need accessdates. It looks as if initials are punctuated (Bloggs, J.) not (Bloggs J), by the way, I fixed quite a few. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks for those corrections. A great help. I've fixed the Harvard citations. The fill-in boxes for citations are a great help but need tweaking in 2 places (ref=harv and removing unnecessary dates). Chris55 (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I've left it a week to give time for comments and there are no disagreements so I've posted the redrafted article. Enjoy. Chris55 (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello Chris,
Thank you for your very interesting redraft. Just a few comments:
1) The image you have chosen for the header, whilst it is cute, it is not actually of the Aquatic Ape Theory. I think it's highly unusual, if against Wikipaedia rules. to have a page with the main image as something not of the topic that the page is covering. For example, if you go to the theory of evolution page, you don't expect to see a picture of what it is NOT, like Lamarckism for example. A more appropriate image would be someone free diving, without any breathing equipment, such as this: ]
2) There has been some further removals of supportive evidence-based research from the list of biological features that support an aquatic era in human development. These include:
i) Sympathetic nervous control of finger wrinkling leading to improved grip in aquatic environments, much discussed on this page on a number of occasions, and also mentioned on the wikipaedia fingertip wrikling page. Please reinstate this passage which was actually previously approved by an anti-AAT wiki editor:
Finger wrinkling:Finger and toe wrinkling is a response to wet conditions.Humans are the only great apes to show finger and toe pad wrinkling in response to exposure to wet conditions. One hypothesis that has been put forward is that wrinkled fingers are adaptive for grasping in wet conditions in the same way as tyre treads help to avoid slipping on the roads. However if it is such an adaption it could have evolved to cope with water in the environment rather than from having to spend time in it.
ii) The use of water birth is incorrectly mentioned as "recently rediscovered" - it has been in practice for many years and all major NHS maternity wards have birthing pools, and since 2007 have been part of the NICE guidelines (National Institute of Clinical Excellence https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg190/chapter/recommendations ; https://www.rcm.org.uk/sites/default/files/Immersion%20in%20Water%20%20for%20Labour%20and%20Birth_0.pdf) The benefits of water birth have been proven in pain reduction and diminished risk of perineal tears in the mother. The previous reference for this was replaced with one of Morgan in the early 1980s, I'm not sure why and it seems unusual and unscientific.
Aquapess, thanks for your comments. As Chiswick Chap has noted, I didn't put the picture at the top of the article and agree it was a bit odd there. I hope the new one doesn't give to rise to more misapprehensions about humans being related to dolphins :) But the real problem is that I couldn't find any more appropriate picture in Wikimedia Commons. I haven't even been able to obtain a copyright-free picture of chimpanzees wading, though there are plenty of (copyright) pictures on the web.
About finger-wrinkling: I realise that this and other plausible physiological effects have been omitted from the redraft, but it wasn't something that Hardy or Morgan picked up on and there wasn't a suitable place to include it. There may be a place for another section covering other hypotheses. But at the moment it falls between two stools (Morgan's ideas and that for which there is scientific testing). The problem with plausible ideas for which there was no scientific evidence relating to the past was that they became targets for skeptics to knock the whole notion. Chris55 (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
About water birth: in the 1980s, water birth was more novel for most people. Certainly it's becoming normal now, but we are dealing with an idea that was presented a long time ago. Chris55 (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Cite error: The named reference pmid9361254 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
The scientific article on which this news item is based is called "Are Wet-Induced Wrinkled Fingers Primate Rain Treads?" and includes a picture of the wrinkled fingers of a macaque monkey. So it's unclear to me that this is something distinctly human. Chris55 (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure why there is a picture of a macaque monkey also, when the studies were done on humans, and the lack of information is unhelpful. However, in an interview with one of the lead authors (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110628/full/news.2011.388.html) it suggests that the macaques in question were likely to be hot-spring dwelling japanese macaques, which is interesting from an AAT point of view, because their lifestyle may have some parallels with the waterside ape hypothesis (ie. they are not full-time inhabitants of water-based environments, but nevertheless rely heavily on it).
The original fingertip section that was in the AAH page was a shortened version of what is on the fingertip page, and I think that the section there which has more references to more recent scientific research articles shows that the issue is relevant to humans that merits a mention on the AAH page. I think if it is paraphrased, it could be added to the "Evidence for a waterside context" section. I've copied and included it below for your convenience:
Fingertip wrinkling in water
Although a common phenomenon, the underlying functions and mechanism of fingertip wrinkling following immersion in water are relatively unexplored. Originally it was assumed that the wrinkles were simply the result of the skin swelling in water, but it is now understood that the furrows are caused by the blood vessels constricting due to signalling by the sympathetic nervous system in response to water exposure. One hypothesis for why this occurs, the “rain tread” hypothesis, posits that the wrinkles may help the fingers grip things when wet, possibly being an adaption from a time when humans dealt with rain and dew in forested primate habitats. A 2013 study supporting this hypothesis found that the wrinkled fingertips provided better handling of wet objects but gave no advantage for handling dry objects. However, a 2014 study attempting to reproduce these results was unable to demonstrate any improvement of handling wet objects with wrinkled fingertips.
I also think that in between "swimming" and "fat babies" there could be a section mentioning the infant swimming reflex. Whilst many mammals have a basic "dive reflex" involving bradycardia and vasoconstriction, as far as I'm aware, only human babies have a reflex where the glottis spontaneously closes, to reduce the risk of drowning. This reflex is usually lost at six months, but can be prolonged by training. Would it be possible to include something about this unique feature?Aquapess (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Chris, thanks for your reply. I read through your comments and also your previous thread explaining about why you wanted to redraft the page. I agree with a lot of your points, and I think that the previous page was a mish mash of arguments here and there which is not helpful or informative.
I understand your point that you felt that AAH was largely Morgan's theory, and that you've tried to make this page an illustration of her ideas, which I think you've done competently (and explains why you put her as a reference for the water birth, rather than NICE or RCCOG, and the fingertip wrinkling, as you've said above).
HOWEVER, the AAT hasn't remained static since Morgan, and there have been a lot of developments in terms of research since her books, not only the finger wrinkling research, but many mentioned by David Attenborough in his second BBC Radio 4 show recently. Many AAT supporters now believe a slightly modified version of Morgan's ideas, which are a result of a synthesis of new evidence since her initial works, including those mentioned above and by others on these threads. Some people jokingly/affectionately call this a "watered-down" view of the AAT, and is more like a water-side ape, since it is unlikely that humans ever had a 100 % solely water-based life. Some people call this the "Waterside Ape" theory, as was the title of Attenborough's show. The theory undoubtedly builds on Morgan's ideas, but as with all scientific theories, has responded to emerging evidence over the past 40 - 50 years when Morgan first started publicising the idea.
Therefore, my question is, if you would like to keep this page solely to describe ONLY Morgan's ideas, then does this mean that AAT/Waterside Ape supporters should/would be able to start a new wikipaedia page describing the current Waterside Ape theory? My feeling is that since the two topics are quite intertwined, there would be a lot of repetition between the two pages. However, this would free up the second page to summarise recent research, including those mentioned. What is the general consensus on this? Aquapess (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The article is already not limited to Morgan, and must not be. As you say, the Waterside ape version is closely intertwined with the older version, and is not really separable (we call that a FORK, and it's strongly deprecated), so I'd certainly agree that we must not create any "second article" on the same topic. The article is quite short and there are plenty of bits and bytes available, so if we need to say more on the Waterside ape, suitably sourced, we can and will do that in this article. We have however already relied heavily on fairly weak sources (Morgan, the BBC) for a scientific article: further detail should come from scientific sources, preferably review papers not primary research. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Aquapess, I don't really understand your request. The final section (now called Evidence for a waterside context) is very much based on recent research which supports the basic ideas. If you look carefully at the references you'll see that it includes a transcription of the Attenborough series, as the original radio version is not available outside UK (it took me a little time!) In particular it is my (unconfirmed) understanding that it was David Attenborough who made the running on demonstrating that vernix caseosa is seen in other aquatic mammals. The name (AAT/AAH) has been questioned since 1998 when Tobias asked for an alternative, and "waterside" seems the only common factor: "waterside ape" & "waterside hypotheses" have both been used. I don't think it's the job of Misplaced Pages to decide, and it's not just about a radio programme. If there was a second article, why would anyone look for it? It would certainly be good if the supporters could make up their minds! Chris55 (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Chiswick Chap, so sorry, I didn't get time to have a thorough read of all the changes you made, but I've had a look through now and I see that you have included a fair amount of the research mentioned in Attenborough's show. I appreciate that this must have taken some time, and the overall article is a vast improvement on the previous version. I've made another comment regarding the fingertip wrinkling above however.Aquapess (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The finger wrinkling is an odd case; it's been in and out of the article, and as Chris says it doesn't fit in easily. We must remain neutral - we can't put in every bit of possibly suggestive evidence to try to "prove" AAH, that would certainly be taking sides (WP:POV), and we don't have one: our position is simply that here is a theory that people stated different positions over, and here is what they argued. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
References
^ Changizi, M.; Weber, R.; Kotecha, R.; Palazzo, J. (2011). "Are Wet-Induced Wrinkled Fingers Primate Rain Treads?". Brain, Behavior and Evolution. 77 (4): 286–90. doi:10.1159/000328223. PMID21701145.
^ Haseleu, Julia; Omerbašić, Damir; Frenzel, Henning; Gross, Manfred; Lewin, Gary R. (2014). Goldreich, Daniel (ed.). "Water-Induced Finger Wrinkles Do Not Affect Touch Acuity or Dexterity in Handling Wet Objects". PLoS ONE. 9: e84949. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0084949.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
Aquapess, I find it rather confusing when you invent new sections retrospectively and don't place comments in sequence. Please consider other users.
You've now added several other references for wrinkled fingers but they seem to cancel each other out and don't add any historical insights. (And references don't really work on talk pages.) You also refer to fat babies. You should be aware that Cunnane & Crawford have an entirely different explanation of fat babies to Morgan, although both of them relate to AAH. Morgan thinks it's to help them float: Cunnane & Crawford start from the staggering fact that 74% of the newborn's energy is taken by their brain to argue that the baby needs fat as an emergency energy supply. I find that rather compelling but it shows how difficult it is to relate physiological effects to evolutionary advantage. That's the main reason I've downplayed such arguments in the article. Chris55 (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Chris, some fair points, I agree with the confusing format, but I was just following the interruptions as others had done to me - see comments arising between points 1 and 2 of my original comment above for example.
Also, very interesting comments about the baby fat, but I don't wish to debate the issue - what I was interested in adding is the glottis closure reflex in babies under 6 months after the baby fat sectionAquapess (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
You're right. I agree it should be there in the Fat Babies section. Please add it with citations. The problem is with your "as far as I know". To go beyond being a guess or a hypothesis you have to eliminate the other possibilities. All mammals start in an aqueous environment and it's not until the amniotic sac (or equivalent) breaks that they start to use their lungs. Are humans different in the way they make that transition? I don't know and it would presumably take some tests on other species to establish it. It would be a brave experimenter that risks drowning baby chimps to find out! So whilst it's fine in the 'hypothesis' section it would take better citations to have it in the research section. Chris55 (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Chris, yes it makes sense that you would have this reflex in the womb, the interesting thing about humans is that this persists for up to six months, much longer than any other infant reflexes, and with regular use, can be maintained beyond the six months, whereas if the reflex was solely to keep out amniotic fluid, one would imagine that it would disappear very quickly once outside the womb. However, I agree as well that it needs careful research with solid citations, so I will look into this and then suggest a passage later with reputable sources of information.Aquapess (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Summary graphic
Arguments proposed by Hardy/Morgan and other related works (reference list at bottom)
Great thanks to @Chris55: for the redraft, the current version looks much better and up to date.
I propose to add this summary graphic, perhaps near the section "Hardy/Morgan hypothesis". It includes more points than those listed, but all of the points can be traced back to the original proposal and other related published works (peer reviewed papers or edited volumes, see the reference list at the bottom of image). It could provide a clearer picture of the complex set of ideas, and surely we should emphasize in some way that, among these points only a minor subset have produced testable hypothesis (e.g. those mentioned in the "waterside context" section) while most others are either unsupported or remain to be tested as of today. Chakazul (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
It's a fine wall poster, but it is perhaps markedly less suitable as a graphic in an article, where a single message needs to be conveyed in a small space (a single section or paragraph with a relevant illustration) rather than a complex message in a large space (not available on mobile devices, for example). Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Right, I was trying to make an encyclopedic summary of the model, but maybe it's not the best format for use in wikipedia. One possibility is to chop it into several diagrams, but that will overwhelm the page Chakazul (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
An excellent piece of work, informative if a bit overwhelming! I love it and would happily use it in talks as a wall poster, not sure if it can transfer to a graphic on a computer screen, which is a shame, but chopping (seperating a better word) it would work if presented as image / text of image / reference to text. Just a thought. Edmund Patrick – confer08:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with others in liking the graphics. But maybe it could be split up into small sections. One thing I find odd is the reference to the man's bald head. Alister Hardy has a lovely graphic in his original article (p643) suggesting why hair on the head is the major place left and it would be nice to see that (the original is copyright of course: I did approach New Scientist without any response. You could also annotate the swimming woman.) Also a picture of a chimp wading would be great. I haven't been able to find a free photo of one. Chris55 (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
If we are to use any of it, we'd need individual graphics elements with no text, or almost no text (generally best to have none, as other language Wikis don't specially want English; and text works very poorly on thumbnail images, best keep it to captions separate from the image). But not sure any of these images will work like that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for all the comments and I agree that separating it into several graphs with no text would better fit the wiki format. The text would be in the caption but that will make it very, very long. Or the points (as well as the references) could be added to the text proper, even better, listed/tabulated in a new section "Arguments from other proponents", but would it violate WP:DUEWEIGHT by presenting too much arguments (most are speculations)?
@Chris55: Yes there are different arguments about the scalp hair, one that it remained for blocking sunlight according to Hardy (see the left side of "head & upper body"), one that the long hair in females for infants to cling on according to Morgan, and that the bald head in males for further streamlining as argued by Verhaegen. These lead to some proponents think that males would have engaged more in diving and females more in floating/swimming. Chakazul (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Censoring the topic
This article has a very weird history. Every time some one dares to describe what it's talking about, it will be a matter of days, before someone will remove everything pertinent, under random false pretences. Somehow, with this particular "pseudoscientific" idea, people are not supposed to be told, what it's actually suggesting. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
To describe "what it's talking about", the article must use reliable, independent secondary sources. Misplaced Pages is a tertiary work meant to reflect accepted knowledge about a topic. It is not an ersatz secondary work giving an exposition of fringe theories based on primary sources from their proponents. Alexbrn (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Like I said, false pretences. That's not what this is about. It's a very weird phenomenon to observe. A lot of people have been told for decades that this entire topic is pseudoscience, so that's what they expect to read at a place like this. But if you would make a balanced encyclopedic presentation on what all the hubbub is about, you just can't get that point across. And instead of thinking that maybe they misunderstood the whole thing, people go into a state panic. "This can't be right! I know this is pseudo!" And the only outcome is that people start hacking away at random, still desperately trying to censor the topic away, if not only subconsciously.
It's so dreadful to anticipate the worst of human psychology, and be proven right. You look at a rewrite and go, "Well, this is at least a bit closer to what's been talked about all along. I wonder how long it will take this time, before the book burning starts?" And in this case... a fortnight. This has been going on for years now on this article. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Remember to WP:FOC. Commenting on other editors is disruptive. This article is subject to discretionary sanctions and disruptive behaviour is likely to attract editing restrictions. Alexbrn (talk) 12:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Before I get thrown back into the dungeon by people who doesn't care what the truth is, let me quote P. K. Dick: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." So we would be an old beach ape, so what? CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
As soon as you have reliable sources supporting your claims (and I can't really see what they are, here) you have good grounds to update the article. If you have no sources describing this hypothesis as a mainstream scientific opinion, your rambling above is moot. I strongly suggest you adhere to WP:AGF (and WP:FOC) and refrain from personal attacks. Kleuske (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleting Dan Dennett? A specialized natural scientific philosopher? "He doesn't say what I want to hear! I need an excuse for burning his book! He's a philosopher, it's perfect! Begone!"
You all know what's going on here. Do take note as to how long it will take for every notion of Phillip Tobias stating this isn't an unreasonable idea is censored away, too. We are being dictated the truth on this topic. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
"Darwin's Dangerous Idea"??? How 'bout that? I quote Dennett:
"During the last few years, when I have found myself in the company of distinguished biologists, evolutionary theorists, paleo-anthropologists, and other experts, I have often asked them just to tell me, please, exactly why Elaine Morgan must be wrong about the aquatic ape theory. I haven't yet had a reply worth mentioning, aside from those who admit, with a twinkle in their eyes, that they have often wondered the same thing." (ISBN 0-684-82471-X, p. 244)
Of course, this extremely relevant quote was censored out of this article yesterday, so how could you know of its existence? You're not supposed to know. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, mate, I've spend all my patience for human stupidity a long time ago. I still fail to see how in the hell this perfectly reasonable splash-splash idea can be so brutalized by people claiming to adhere to Darwinian consensus. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
That's not WP's problem. You want to promote this theory? Get a degree in biology and start working on finding evidence for it. But arguing here is just going to get you banned from editing. Also, complaining about human stupidity when you don't get your way is an even quicker way to get blocked. You want to know something? I think this is a wonderfully nifty theory. I find it fascinating, with broad explanatory power. But I'm not going to use my own personal beliefs to inform the way I edit this project because I'm smart enough to know I will quickly get blocked if I do. I suggest you try to be that smart, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.22:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Then there's no issue with the sources currently being censored out of the article. Except for one little problem: They don't say what is being expected of them to say — That. The. Aquatic. Ape. Hypothesis. Is. Nuts. Thrasymachus was right. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Just tell me, how and when this article will stop being sabotaged with Wiki's tacit. Why on Wiki is it so much easier for a fringe theory that's blatantly wrong to be allowed to list what it's actually suggesting than one of the rare ones, that are on to something? That is so bloody ridiculous. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm surprised that the whole "Hardy/Morgan hypothesis" section was deleted. Even if AAH is totally wrong, surely it has to be properly described so the readers could know what's wrong? I don't see why secondary sources are required for such a plain description of the original thesis. Compare to "Gaia hypothesis" and "Cold fusion", they have been described as fringe/pseudoscience as well, if no original source is allowed then most of their contents (e.g. "Details" section) would be removed? Chakazul (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Because Misplaced Pages reflects "accepted knowledge" about topics. Digging up the original text and presenting here is an undue reflection of a fringe theory based on wikipedia editors' selections. If Morgan's notions have any weight at all, it should be easy to find commentary & description in secondary sources -- the kind of sources which should form the basis of all our articles. Alexbrn (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
So should we remove the "Detail" section of Gaia hypothesis and the "History" section of Cold fusion because they are not "accepted knowledge"?
As for secondary source, there're planty of them (e.g. Langdon's 1997 critique, BBC's 1998 TV program, David Attenborough's 2005 and 2016 BBC radio programmes), which have described and discussed the original thesis in details. Chakazul (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Also please do not remove that section (a significant change to the article that hasn't happened before in its history) before a proper discussion here. Chakazul (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
If other articles have problems, it is not a good reason to make this one poor too. If there are secondary sources on the AAH, it may be possible to have a sensible section. Scholarly independent sources would be best (so ideally not popular media). There is no policy that requires discussion before removing bad content: quite the opposite. Alexbrn (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Bad content being anything that doesn't state what you have been indoctrinated to know to be true: That. The. Aquatic. Ape. Hypothesis. Is. Nuts. That is what people are supposed to read in here. You get that point across easily listing the core arguments of the likes of Gaia or cold fusion or Bigfoot or Holy Blood Holy Grail, but doing exactly the same with them beach apes, suddenly that doesn't come across. Suddenly, it doesn't look nuts. So, there the core arguments have to go. 'Cause the indoctrination of the fraternities comes long before the scientific method. 'Cause we haven't moved a single step since Copernicus. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The theory has very little support in anything like its original form and it I think is quite rightly listed as pseudoscience. But I agree the section should not have been removed. Misplaced Pages is supposed to describe things whether they are nuts or not providing thee topic is notable and there are reliable sources. The topic is notable with lots of secondary sources writing about it. Those people are considered experts in the field whether they are considered nuts or not. Dmcq (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, it's not its original form anymore, is it? Continental drift is no longer continental drift, but plate tectonics, and the aquatic ape is no longer the aquatic ape, but the waterside ape. Keep up. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
So that's the dilemma here, the original Aquatic Ape is nuts, the Waterside Ape is legitimate science but not notable enough to have its own article, and the boundary between the two is not always obvious. Chakazul (talk) 02:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Label it a Fringe (please lets use the word quack more honest less scientific) theory, and because of that, information which in the first place led to that informed decission can then be removed because, well because it is a quack theory. What cannot be allowed to happen is that the ideas are presented so that readers can arrive at their own opinion. In this case it was weeks of hard thoughtful work mainly by one editor ended up giving the readers far far too much information, not what wikipedia is here for! A couple of us have the timer running on when the quack cleansing will get round to this one. “At the heart of science is an essential tension between two seemingly contradictory attitudes--an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counter-intuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new.” and for scrutiny you need information. Edmund Patrick – confer08:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to update the "WP:FRINGE" or "pseudoscience" status of the AAH in light of one recent secondary review -- David Attenborough's BBC 4 radio documentary "The Waterside Ape" (episodestranscript). It presented new evidence supporting some aspects of the AAH, namely:
Diving physiology in modern humans
Aquatic diet and brain evolution
Diving signs in human fossils (auditory exostosis)
Wading bipedalism.
and this acts as a basis of the article's "Evidence for a waterside context" section.
There's one critic article and a response from the scientists . According to the scientists' response, the critic article is actually critizing the original AAH while ignored all the evidence presented in the documentary.
Since the scope of the original AAH is so large that different aspects would have varying degrees of verification / falsification. For example, the original Hardy/Morgan timeline that "one semi-aquatic phase occured in the fossil gap" has been thoroughly disproved by the discovery of hominin species like Ardipithecus, while at the other extreme, the utilization of aquatic resources by human ancestors has been widely accepted in archaeology and paleoanthropology. Therefore, I suggest to treat the topic per WP:FRINGE/PS:
Those aspects enjoying evidence support and/or academic acceptance (now called the Waterside model) should be considered alternative theoretical formulations with potentials of becoming mainstream.
Other untested aspects (e.g. hooded nose, hairlessness, and most part of the original AAH) should be considered questionable science and not giving undue weight.
The AAH as a whole should NOT be considered "pseudoscience" due to point 1 and also the RfC result that rejected such a notion.
Well it is classified as pseudoscience by a number of people and there is precious little evidence for the original idea to such an extent that it has morphed into a waterside hypothesis and moved to millions of years ago.
What I would like to see happen though is less people coming around trying to remove sections of the article as pseudoscience. As far as I can see currently the article is well structured and fairly describes the theory and the reasons it has not gained acceptance. Going around removing a summary of what the theory is about is simply vandalism. There are books and articles discussing the various points, we don't need big long lists of citations to everyone who has dismissed a point in the section outlining the main points just so the main thing being discussed can be listed. Dmcq (talk) 11:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Please see WP:NOTVAND. It is fine for Misplaced Pages to describe fringe theories from a mainstream perspective. It is not fine for Misplaced Pages to be expounding those theories at length from its proponents writings. If there is no mainstream perspective on a fringe notion, Misplaced Pages must be silent on that notion. Alexbrn (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Translated: "Keep silencing it to death!" Well, that's not working anymore, darling. 'Cause we most likely are them ol' beach apes. Even if you do keep adding on conditions to keep with the program dictated by aristocracy refusing to be proven wrong. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
"If there is no mainstream perspective on a fringe notion, Misplaced Pages must be silent on that notion."? I'll take it then that you removed the content in good faith because you misunderstand Misplaced Pages's core content policies. Please see WP:WEIGHT "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". This is reiterated in the lead of WP:FRINGE. The article size is fine. The listing the main points in the Hardy/Morgan hypothesis did not expound at length and is immediately followed by a reactions section which is larger and mainly consists of the scientific criticism. Just having the criticism without listing what thy are criticizing is against the whole business of what an encyclopaedia is about. Misplaced Pages is not about only saying the mainstream accepted truth and removing anything else. Fringe should be shown with due weight. Dmcq (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
We are dealing with a fringe theory here and the relevant policy is given in WP:VALID
Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.
With respect to describing the features of the theory: primary sources are fine so long as they don't contradict secondary sources (which generally won't happen with the postulates of the theory, but happen quite often with the implications of those postulates). When it comes to evidence of the theory, or any judgement of the theory (such as statements about its explanatory power) or anything about the reception the theory has had, we need to use reliable secondary sources for it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.14:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
It does not say "If we can't state aspects of the AAH through the lens of mainstream RS, we shall not state them at all". What it says is "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Misplaced Pages policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity", and it leads with "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic". You are taking a subsidiary point about subsidiary claims and trying to remove everything on that basis. Dmcq (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: A few primary sources may be okay to fill in round the edges, but we need secondary sources as the basis of the article. Currently much of the foundation is primary sources. Misplaced Pages shouldn't be the only publication on the planet elevating this stuff beyond its origin -- we are meant to be reflecting accepted knowledge about the topic and we need secondary sources for that, so we can know the weight to give these fringe ideas. Alexbrn (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@Dmcq: But you are not inserting "significant viewpoints" on the topic; you are inserting the views themselves, sourced to the proponents. Alexbrn (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
If the basis of the article is just an outlining of the theory, then the article needs to be deleted. Instead, the basis of this article seems to be on the details surrounding this particular fringe theory, which is just fine, as they're rather interesting and unique details. For instance, we use The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity as a source to describe the features of the theory at General relativity. Of course, we don't use it as a source for the evidence presented therein, but that was because Einstein didn't write with a focus on evidence that supported his theory, but with the proper focus on how other scientists might find evidence to disprove it. With the main primary source in this case being pop-sci books, that's not the case and so we need to look out for that. But we can't remove all description of the theory on the basis that no reliable secondary source has repeated that description. Why would they, when the audience those sources were written for can easily get a copy of the primary source to see for themselves? I thin kyou would be very hard pressed to find an article on a scientific theory that uses predominantly secondary sources to support the description of it. If a theory is pseudoscientific or fringe or just has a lot of problems, that information belongs in the lead and in the reception or reaction or evidence sections: not in the description. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.15:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we need to create "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding subject" (WP:NOTEVERYTHING). The danger here has become this article in tending towards an exposition of the subject itself in a way, it seems, that RS has avoided. Is Misplaced Pages to be the only independent publication on the planet which indulges the detail of AAH? WP:NPOV tells us not to legitimize fringe theories by including them outside a mainstream context. Alexbrn (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Most of the Morgan/hardy hypothesis section is sourced to ... Morgan and Hardy. This is not "accepted knowledge regarding" their ideas; it is their ideas themselves. Alexbrn (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
All of this is still only about one thing: That people are not supposed to know, what the aquatic arguments are. 'Cause that's when the laughter stops. And we can't have that, can we? 'Cause then you'd be on the losing side. And in Academia, serving the fraternity reigns far beyond serving science, like politicians serving Skull & Bones long before this democracy stuff.
Quoting: "One of the reasons, I think, for an early hostility to it, was purely a feeling that, “Well, why didn’t one of us come up with that? If it was true, one of us would have come up with it first.” It was a kind of incredulity almost, that this outsider could produce this theory which seemed to pull so many threads together. But there was also a feeling that they were all glancing around the room, feeling, “Well, I can’t personally think of the knock down argument, but surely one of you can.” And there was the thing that, “Which one of us is it that has got the knock down argument?” And it gradually became apparent that none of them had the knock down argument! And so they resorted to this kind of rhetoric about, “Oh, she’s cobbled together a kind of collage of different facts and figures...” Which is exactly what scientific theory’s supposed to do. Why was Newton’s theory of gravity so important? Because it integrated everything from why the moon went round the earth to why apples fall. That is the key thing of a good scientific theory, that it does this linking job on a lot of phenomena, that were hitherto thought to be totally unrelated. And whatever the long term merits of the theory are judged to be, it certainly did that." - Graham Richards, unquote.
For those watching, this screed makes the case well why we don't expound fringe theories at length: it's using Misplaced Pages as a platform for nonsense that serious RS has swerved. Alexbrn (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I didn't ask for an ad hominem attack, nor did I ask for who devised the theory, I asked which bits were not discussed in reliable sources or to make it easier, which bits are not talked about in the reception section? Dmcq (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Suddenly, Graham Richards isn't serious RS. How dare he speak against the fraternity? Why don't you just use the word heretic already? CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@Dmcq: Let's take the first bullet point, bipedalism - there is no mainstream context for this but there is reinforcement in the "Evidence for a waterside context" section, from sources which have little or nothing to do with AAH. More SYN and OR giving us a fringe-fest. This article should just summarize the AAH from decent secondary sources which discuss the AAH. What we have is fundamentally non-encyclopedic. Alexbrn (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
You are getting rather obscure here. Are you saying the bipedalism in the waterside hypothesis has nothing to do with AAH? That would be saying that the waterside hypothesis is not a watered down (!) version of AAH. Dmcq (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
You asked which bits of the hypothesis weren't discussed in the Reception section. I gave an instance. You've ignored this. Please stick to the point. Alexbrn (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
So you are taking a literal view and restricting to the precise section rather than dealing with mentions in the article by commentators. Could you cut out the crap rhetoric thanks. Dmcq (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
No. My complaint was that "The danger here has become this article in tending towards an exposition of the subject itself in a way, it seems, that RS has avoided". You are asking me for instances (if you're not playing games). The article says "The possible consequences of Hardy's hypothesis, discussed by Hardy and Morgan, include .." and gives the bidealism exammple. What RS talks about these "possible consequences" of Hardy's and Morgan's ideas? Isn't the footnote in pure editorializing? Alexbrn (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@Alexbrn:Most of the Morgan/hardy hypothesis section is sourced to ... Morgan and Hardy. This is not "accepted knowledge regarding" their ideas; it is their ideas themselves. If we don't describe what the theory is, then how will any reception, analysis or criticism of it make any sense? WP:PRIMARY is quite clear that it's appropriate to use primary sources for statements of fact which are verifiable. So unless you're suggesting that Morgan and Hardy have misrepresented their own theory in their publications about it (I"m not sure how that's even possible), then they are acceptable for making statements of fact such as "This theory alleges that X is a result of Y." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not "quite clear". Policy says this: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." . The relevant policy here is NPOV which states: "currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship". This article is doing almost nothing but comparing the AAH to accepted theories. It is a fringe fest. Alexbrn (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Current header: "This article may present fringe theories, without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view." Okay, let's get that straight at least, the mainstream view is still, half a century in, that the whole topic of water and human evolution is beneath discussion, that it's obvious nonsense. And that's when all the problems emerge, 'cause as we can clearly see just this last week, it has proven impossible to get across why it's nonsense if you are to give any discription at all about what it's about. And what is the solution, then? Aparently to not relay at all what it's talking about. "Okay, we all know this is wrong and stupid, but why is it that it's wrong?" "Well... They don't really say why. And I'm not supposed to ask. Just me asking about one or two of the arguments, my professor starts talking about me ruining my academic career." (True anecdote, BTW.) That's what's so weird, no other fringe or pseudoscientific topic has this problem. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Just need to apply Hitchens's razor. But that is beside the point. All we should be doing is reflecting what mainstream relilable sources say about the AAH so as to provide a summary of accepted knowledge on the topic. The current article is far from that goal. Alexbrn (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Exactly, 'cause you started to hack it to pieces, mate. And Hitchens's razor doesn't apply to your point, 'cause the aquatic mongers have no problem what so ever supplying that burden of proof. Which aparently is their biggest crime. Hitchen's "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence," that only works after you censor away the evidence. And that's the only weapon you have, 'cause when presented with the evidence at hand, it's impossible to hand over the aquatic idea as this load of rubbish you've been indoctrinated to believe it is. Arguing human beings as a ~2 million year old beach ape doesn't have these massive scientific problems, you desperately need it to have, all it has is a sociological problem. Because the idea's chief proponent for forty years Elaine Floyd Morgan was not a member of a fraternity, she's to be regarded as a peasant speaking up in proper company. Human sociology is at the core of all this controversy, nothing else. That's what's nonsense, this Academia pissing on one of its own giants! CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Alexbrn Check out the sourcing at such disparate fringe theories as Flat Earth, Creationism and Loop quantum gravity where primary sources are used extensively to describe the theory. I'm a little surprised here, because there's no real question of notability to this, and there's no undue weight coming from using primary sources to describe it, but you seem to think that using the primary sources will somehow legitimize this theory. I don't see how describing the beliefs of creationists, or the mathematics of LQG or the thoughtless lip-flappery of flat earthers legitimizes them, or how that compares them to legitimate (or in the case of LQG, more widely accepted) theories. I'm not suggesting we create "strengths and weaknesses" section, which would absolutely be legitimizing this theory by comparing it to the mainstream view. I'm simply suggesting that two paragraphs of description (less than what's there now, with those bullet points completely wiped) sourced to primary sources isn't going to violate WP:FRINGE at all. So yes, it is clear to me that WP:PRIMARY applies here. I'm confused as to why it isn't clear to you. Don't mistake my earlier admissions to being rather fond of this theory get you wrong: I fully intend for this article to paint this as a fringe theory which has been described by reliable sources as pseudoscience and which isn't taken seriously by the mainstream of science. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.23:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, the problem is the disonance between that we're expected to laugh at this idea versus that that becomes impossible after having been presented with the core arguments. That's why a basic description of what the aquatic idea is actually suggesting can't be included, otherwise it can't relay the mainstream story of the aquatic idea being nuts. Anything you don't understand? CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree. There might be some basis for not mentioning bits that others did not comment on but the basic theory and those bits that others thought worthwhile commenting on should definitely be outlined. The idea of just put in comments about something without outlining what they are commenting on is just surreal. Dmcq (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
"If there is no mainstream perspective on a fringe notion, Misplaced Pages must be silent on that notion." Surely this is not true for the whole Misplaced Pages (if so we need to delete every single article about fringe science?), but may be applicable to an article of a more general topic. See Human evolution or Aquatic mammal, they rightfully don't mention AAH at all because AAH is not within the accepted knowledge in those regards. But saying that AAH should not be mentioned in the AAH article itself is totally absurd. Chakazul (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Nobody is saying flat out it shouldn't be mentioned - but it must only be mentioned to the extent that mainstream RS mentions it. There appears to be good RS summarizing the AAH: we should be mirroring that, not giving a detailed exposition from primary sources in ways that serious scholarly works don't. Misplaced Pages is meant to be an encyclopedia: a tertiary source built mainly on secondary sources. We are not meant to be an ersatz secondary source on the AAH. Alexbrn (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: I am generally loathe to look at other articles for guidance rather than the WP:PAGs, but as it happens Flat Earth seems to have good examples of fringe done right. Taking the first "Ancient Near East" section it discusses those flat earth ideas using secondary scholarly sources which gives us weight and context. It does not (in the style of this AAH article) state in an editorial voice that Ancient Near East texts are pertinent and then quote them at length. Alexbrn (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Let me elaborate on my point that AAH should not be considered pseudoscience, both in Misplaced Pages standard and in principle. It has been ruled out in the RfC in Oct 2016 for describing AAH as pseudoscience, main reasons being that the sources are unreliable, or merely criticizing the methodology, not the thesis itself. I would add that none of the accounts took the recent developments into consideration, so they are out-dated or incomplete.
The definition of "pseudoscience" is something that is unfalsifiable, i.e. cannot be proven wrong. The majority of the claims in AAH haven't generated falsifiable hypotheses, and it's hard to tell whether it is not possible or not attempted to test them, but the responsibility is on the advocates' side. On the other hand, a couple of claims (notibly around diet, diving reflex, bipedalism, and where to find the fossils) have successfully generated their own hypotheses / theories, leading to more fruitful results than the original scope. Saying AAH is pseudoscience is contradictory to the fact that at least part of it could be (and have been) taken to test. Chakazul (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
If we just follow RS we'll be fine. We need sources from people who consider the type-of-science categorisation question. Skeptics in the field of anthropolgy would be ideal. Alexbrn (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
It's a single sentence opinion recorded in a conference report, no detailed rationale is given. Okay to include it in the Reception. Chakazul (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Evidence section
I'm at work, which means I'm editing about 5 minutes at a time. But, given the paucity of scientific responses to this theory, this section at its current length seems very likely to contain quite a bit of SYNTH. I think it needs more eyes. I've verified the citations in the first sentence of the "Wading and bipedalism" section as directly addressing the AAH, but there's still quite a bit to go. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.14:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
You could refer to Attenborough 2016 documentary which reviewed most of the evidence in this section. As for bipedalism, Niemitz 2010 is a recent review of various bipedalism hypotheses including wading as a possible factor. Chakazul (talk) 12:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The description section was based on a tertiary source and doesn't adding a useful description or adding to the scientific objections. Its sole purpose seems to be to say it is pseudoscience and that is a meta description not a description. I think the bit in the lead should be changed to just refer to the waterside hypothesis instead and what is there moved down to the waterside hypothesis section. I don't rush around removing proper descriptions like some people, I try and consider what I'm doing and how best to do it. You removed that section just a ahort while ago, stop complaining so quickly or else per BRD justify in full why it should be removed and nothing put in its place and nothing said about the waterside hypothesis. Dmcq (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Except it didn't say "pseudoscience". It was one of the few independent descriptions of the AAH we had and you junked it (and the article now has no "Description" section). Alexbrn (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The title was "Pseudoscience: A Critical Encyclopedia". Might I also point out to you that the encyclopaedia was happy to use the sources you removed. I am happy for it to be used in conjunction with a proper description but not instead of one. Dmcq (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure you can object to a source because its title (accurately) contains the word "pseudoscience". The whole point of using such sources is that they "launder" the primary sources we we are not engaging in original research by sifting the field ourselves. Alexbrn (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
That comes from Machiavelli does it? Thanks. It's something I've noticed a lot in different areas and it has always struck me as rather strange. I wonder if there is an article on it. Dmcq (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Alexbrn you have repeatedly reinserted a quotation labelling the idea as pseudoscience that was agreed after a long discussion and Rfc to be unreliable (see here). Before doing so again, please explain why you believe it must be included on the page.
You have also put a tag on the page which says "This article may present fringe theories, without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view". We've taken a lot of trouble to represent the opposition to the idea fairly so please explain why this tag is justified. The aim of Misplaced Pages is to represent all sorts of issues from a neutral point of view and your edits are simply representing the typical student distortions. There's been a lot of new research published in the last ten years which may not yet have reached all parts of the scientific community but which is nevertheless worthwhile to be represented here. Brandishing slogans does not help this. Chris55 (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting the RfC, and my edits. The question posed by the RfC was "Should the lead and reception section mention that the theory has been described as pseudoscience." I haven't made it do so. Alexbrn (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The lede includes the citations and much of the discussion in the Rfc concerned that very text. It's riddled with contradictions and evidence that the writer didn't know what he was talking about. Chris55 (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Right, so not what the RfC concluded. And do you find anything to worry about for the unexceptional content it is used to support. Better than having it unsourced, surely? Alexbrn (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
No, exactly what the Rfc concluded. Let me quote you the introductory statement: "Should the lead and reception section mention that the theory has been described as pseudoscience, based on the inclusion in Regal's Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, Williams' Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, and John Hawks' blogpost in which he labels it such?" The conclusion was "There seems to be a clear decision here per WP:SNOW to OPPOSE this proposal." Chris55 (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
So we don't mention it's pseudoscience based on that source. That hasn't happened. You misrepresented the RfC and my edit. Glad all is clear. Alexbrn (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
In general this article is suffused with much original research and advocacy. I would like editors to consider just one claim:
Awareness of the possibilities in the medical community led to positive reviews of Scars of Evolution in the British Medical Journal as well as one in Nature.
I have checked the source given and it confirms what is stated. There isn't a source for the Nature claim and you would be justified in adding a citation needed tag. Though it's attested in several sources I haven't managed to dig up the relevant reference and doing so involves some travel to a library which still has some paper copies (becoming rare these days :( ) Chris55 (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
So what words in that source back the claim that "Awareness of the possibilities in the medical community led to positive reviews" ? Alexbrn (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually I'm being serious. It's quite a claim that a whole community was energized to the extent that positive reviews started appearing as a result. What's the source? If it's true, should be easy to find one. Alexbrn (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
It makes no claim about the whole community. The editor of a journal is easily able to block a review that they consider is outlandish. Chris55 (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Core policy: "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." So, Misplaced Pages editors are constructing a narrative about the influence of this theory on "the medical community", and mis-using sources to support it. Are you really okay with this or do we need to go to WP:NORN? Alexbrn (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I stand by my assertion that the publications described by the previous paragraph justify the use of the phrase. The arguments about the AAH stem from the fact that most of them are about soft tissue issues which are very hard to distinguish in the fossil record. It's hardly surprising that medical community has much more interest in these and their attitude is different from the paleontological community. This section doesn't suggest there is widespread acceptance but it does show what they've been doing with the ideas. You seem to think that because in your opinion the whole idea is rubbish then it is impermissible to record these views. They may be right, they may be wrong but they are published views by established professionals and therefore merit inclusion. Chris55 (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I gave you the policy: "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." If this is backed by one of the previous publications, which is it? At the very least there is a WP:V and WP:INTEGRITY problem here, no? Please WP:FOC rather than trying to personalize things. Please also remember this topic is covered by discretionary sanctions: we can't just ignore the WP:PAGs on a whim. Alexbrn (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I and others have taken a lot of trouble to try to construct a WP:NPOV article on this topic to replace the hopeless battleground that existed before. This tag says "This article may present fringe theories, without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view". I don't believe that to be true. There is an extensive section of reaction from different areas although one critical section has been deleted for some reason (presumably because it was not wholly critical). Before this it had a WP:POV tag because many editors thought that it was hopelessly negative. As it stands it attempts to present both sides fairly.
It seems to produce gut-level responses from some Skeptics who align it with the anti-evolution and similar movements despite the fact that it has been at least partically supported by notable scientists such as Philip Tobias and naturalists like David Attenborough. The article strictly limits itself to the presentations by Alister Hardy and Elaine Morgan for this reason and tries to avoid the many fanciful extensions that seem to swirl around American campuses. But it also seeks to present more modern research on what some have called the "weak" version–the waterside environments for which evidence is growing stronger.
So I'd welcome the feedback of other editors as to whether the current article gives appropriate weight to mainstream views. Chris55 (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
"without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view" but which mainstream view? Human evolution is highly multidesciplinary that involves paleoanthropology, paleontology, genetics, medical science, nutritional science, archaeology, pathology, primatology, etc. Paleoanthropology has more authority, but it cannot dictate the views in other fields. The article already gave appropriate weights according to the reception and development in those fields: paleoanthropology -- widely rejected, nothing happening; other biological sciences -- moderately welcomed, some evidence. Chakazul (talk) 11:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
As we probe the sources we're finding a lot of puffery, original research and misrepesentation though -- see below. Alexbrn (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Original research - "the scientific community"?
In the lede we are told:
In the last thirty years, one aspect of the hypothesis has received growing support within the scientific community ...
The lede is supposed to summarise what occurs later in the article, which it does. You could also add quotes from Henry Gee, Curtis Marean, Kathy Stewart etc. Chris55 (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay so which source(s) are being summarized to get us to "the scientific community". And how do the citations used in the lede support this? Alexbrn (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The reason for 30 years is 3 scientific conferences that have been held around issues relating to AAH: the Valkenburg conference (1987), the Human Brain Evolution conference (AAAS 2008), and the Human Evolution: Past, Present and Future symposium (2013). (The publication of these is of course several years later.) Chris55 (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Crawford and Marsh's "substantial contribution" - OR and WP:PROFRINGE
We learn:
But the substantial contribution at this point was by the director of the Institute of Brain Chemistry in London, Michael Crawford, in his 1989 book The Driving Force. This explored the contribution of nutrition to human evolution, and in particular the importance of Omega-3 fatty acids for the development of the brain.
This glowing assessment is sourced to the book itself (huh?) And then we have a few sentences of this "substantial contrubution" given, yet again, using the primary source. But isn't this book junk? The review in the New Scientist (a secondary source for Crawford and Marsh's views, so the sort of source we should be using) calls the book's argument "totally unconvicning" and finishes by saying "Most alternative theories of evolution, including this one, place undue emphasis on a few topics and fail to address large areas of biological knowledge. A few anecdotes and some wishful thinking do not make a convincing theory." This is symptomatic of the problems this article now has because editors appear to have taken it upon themselves to play scholar and build a piece from primary materials, inserting their own personal assessments into the text in Misplaced Pages's voice. Alexbrn (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
'Substantial' is true of its length compared with the other contributions. The very negative review by Pond is consistent with her long-time opposition to aquatic ape ideas and is indicative of a very different approach to fats. However the omega-3 approach does appear to be being vindicated in nutrition advice the world over. In one earlier discussion on this page someone produced the idea that vegans have children with normal brains as the ultimate disproof of these ideas. However omega-3 supplements are now recommended by most authorities particularly for this group (there are plenty based on algae). I'm not saying it's a brilliant book, I think it's quite muddled. But some of the ideas are imo important. The alternative to marine PUFAs accepted by many paleontologists seems to be an exclusive diet of animal brains and marrow and that seems to me far less likely. And Crawford is not alone in his views. Chris55 (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
So there is no source for "the substantial contribution at this point ..." You've selected this book as pertinent because it's in your opinion "important". The only secondary source we have disagrees but that's okay because you can judge that source's bias. Are you aren't seeing a problem with this? seriously? Alexbrn (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree a cite to New Scientist review should be used in the article to give a secondary source view on this. The book should just be cited for the views in it, if a source talks about itself as a substantial contribution then that should be attributed to the author or just left out rather than put in as a general opinion. Dmcq (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
As to whether Omega-3 is as important as the book says I'm afraid WP:OR is pretty clear we've got to use sources that show a relevance to the broad area of AAH rather than just to Omega-3. Overriding that in specific instances can be done with a widely publicized RfC but it's not something that is at all usual and I'm not sure the case for Omega-3 is strong enough for that. Dmcq (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The reason for citing it is its continuity with later contributions with Broadhurst, Cunnane, Muskiet, etc. But if you think the description is too effulgent, I'd be happy to tone it down. (done) Chris55 (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
It's just not our job to be sitting in judgement like this, selecting and sifting primary sources, and providing assessments of them in whatever tone. This is like Misplaced Pages 101: assessments of primary sources absolutely require secondary sources. In general we should build articles from secondary sources and in the fields of science and biomedicine primary sources should not be used at all (see WP:SCIRS and WP:MEDRS). This is meant to be an encyclopedia article, not a literature review. Alexbrn (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Primary sources are fine in science and mathematics. They have some special rules in medicine that don't correspond with anything in the rest of Misplaced Pages, but then again they should have plenty of secondary sources too for anything worthwhile so it doesn't matter too much except editors sometimes try calling things medicine which have precious little to do with it to try and make Misplaced Pages a doctrine of the one true truth rather than doing things by weight in reliable sources. Dmcq (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
They're allowed for careful and occasional use, but articles must be based on secondary sources. What we've got here is content based on primary sources, with the secondary source being ignored -- which is arse-about-face. Alexbrn (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Give us one sentence. One sentence as to why the aquatic ideas are being rejected by the mainstream. If that sentence can't be, "Because an arrogant academic field'll be damned if they'll ever be proven wrong by a sniveling amateur," what is it? "Because I said so!" is not enough. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
That's not the job of editors of Misplaced Pages and it doesn't fit in with WP:NPOV. You need a source that says something like that.That sort of question belong at best on the science reference desk or some outside discussion forum. Dmcq (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, what is the sentence? The closest to it is John Langdon's 1997 attitude, that it's because "It's an umbrella hypothesis, that's not parsimonous." If that's the final word on the matter, bam, there goes the Theory of Evolution right there. Congrats, palaeoanthropology, you have handed the creationists their biggest victory. And for what? Just because you didn't come up with human beings being two million year old beach apes? CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I have found the answer, based on the multiply use of primary rather than secondary sources in this article the example I used above Lynne Kelly (science writer) only exists because her theory is explained under an article "about" her. So an article about AAH listed under the author would solve this. user:Chris55 and others are you happy that I start the process to transfer the article to Elaine Morgan and this one can concentrate on the quackery of it all. I am asking as I am not a dragon nor St George. Edmund Patrick – confer15:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
