Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis

References which are suspect

OP was page-blocked, continued their personal attacks & disruption, is now site-blocked. Nothing more to see here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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)

These references have not been taken out yet as of Feb 17. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 13:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Given that you do not appear to have read these citations and your assumptions about another ref below were incorrect, I checked one and it did support the content in question. These references should not be removed. MrOllie (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

What? How do you know I didn't read the references? What is incorrect about my assumption of the other ref?. Which ref? There are three. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 14:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Also ref 35 actually supports the theory it claims to not support. It is not a correct reference at all. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 14:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Ref 35 expressly explains what it supports in its closing paragraph, and it is not the AAH. MrOllie (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Because I checked the references and they do in fact support the claims they are attached to. Since there was a similar issue discussed below where you subsequently admitted you could not read a paywalled reference you had critiqued, I assumed the same here. The other option is that you did read the reference but inaccurately summarized its content - either way, the article should not be changed on that basis. MrOllie (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

ref 35 is about lakes in Africa, thus supporting the AAT, not disproving it. Did you read that article? If so, please tell me in detail how it supports the savanna theory? Additionally, how do you know I did not pay for the article or get it another way - yes I was complaining it was behind a paywall, but couldnt that motivate me to buy it? I would also be interested in hearing your summarization of the content in the article, because you apparently think that I inaccurately summarized it. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 14:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Ref 35 expressly explains what it supports in its closing paragraph, and it is not the AAH. You stated below that you could not access it. Were you being dishonest when you said so? MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I may have had my reference number incorrect. I was unable to reference article 3.

This is the last paragraph of reference 35. I do not see the word aquatic ape anywhere in this paragraph. Do you? The varaiblilty hyopothesis supports aquatic ape. Do you understand what this theory is about?

The periods of deep lakes correlate withimportant global climatic changes. The periodbetween 2.7 and 2.5 Ma corresponds to in-tensification of the Northern Hemisphere Glaci-ation (29), 1.9 to 1.7 Ma to an importantintensification and shift in the east-west zonalatmospheric circulation referred to as theWalker circulation (30), and the interval from1.1 to 0.9 Ma to the initiation of the Mid-Pleistocene Revolution: the shift from glacial/interglacial cycles every 41,000 years to everyÈ100,000 years (31). If these lakes areephermal features of the landscape forced byprecession, that strongly supports the Variabil-ity Hypothesis of human evolution (16), be-cause the environment inside the East AfricanRift Valley would have varied rapidly betweensustained humid and arid periods, providing thestress required to initiate speciation.

(PDF) Late Cenozoic Moisture History of East Africa. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234204290_Late_Cenozoic_Moisture_History_of_East_Africa [accessed Feb 17 2025]. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 14:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Temporary lakes would be incompatible with the AAH. And they explicitly state their results support the Variability Hypothesis of human evolution, which is again not the AAH. MrOllie (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

What? Do you even understand what AAH is about? It states that humans would need lakes, rivers, shorelines, to evolve things like the diving reflex, the hooded nose and streamlined body hair. Temporary lakes and the uncertainty of the changing environment would increase speciation which is what AAH would predict! Are you an anthropologist? You don't seem to understand the theory. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 15:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I understand that the source is not saying what you claimed it says above - in fact it supports the opposite. MrOllie (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Can you be more specific?

I will try and answer your questions, even with your lack of specificity.

The source is a paper about the variability hypothesis and the author uses as evidence the topology of Africa including lakes and shorelines, to support the variablity hypo. Variablity hypo also supports AAT.

THe paper is not about AAT. It does not use the word AAT anywhere in the paper. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 15:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? I have been as specific as I care to be in my comments thus far. I will try and answer your questions I have no questions for you. I understand your argument, I just disagree. MrOllie (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

So can we get back to how the page needs to be updated to include the latest scientific research? Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 15:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Why do my edits immediately disappear? Even small ones? Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 20:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Because other editors disagree with your changes and this page is heavily watched.Simonm223 (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I had extensive discussions with the editors. I believe I provided a creditable case for my edits. One edit I proposed was because the reference was simply incorrect. An incorrect reference needs to be changed, correct? I would be happy to discuss this with you further.

I would be interested in your opinion of those interactions on the talk page. My interactions with the editors are at the bottom of the talk page, I believe I defended editing the page quite well, because it was simply, incorrect. I am really surprised that this is even a discussion. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 20:52, 17 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)

This has not been updated on the page. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 13:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

See above and below. And kindly don't open multiple talk sections about the same issue again in the future. MrOllie (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I didnt realize there were multiple sessions. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 14:04, 17 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)

This page has not been updated. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 13:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

See above and below. And kindly don't open multiple talk sections about the same issue again in the future. MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

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)

I cannot access this article. I suggest a different reference be used. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 13:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

That you cannot personally access this article without paying money is not a valid reason to remove a citation. MrOllie (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Understood that is the rule. Thanks. Seems strange though. It would encourage other people to post un-accessable articles as reference to the counter viewpoint. Just suggesting a different reference be used instead.

Also the changes I made to this article to reflect the rules - that a neutral point of view be used for the article - have not been implemented yet. I changed the first paragraph to be more neutral. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 14:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

You were reverted. Neutral POV explictly does not mean false balance (see WP:FALSEBALANCE). In cases such as this one where the reliable sources call something 'pseudoscience' the Wikipedia article will as well. Accurately reflecting the sources and the mainstream view is not any kind of neutrality problem. MrOllie (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

In order to be neutral, just the facts are necessary. The intro paragraph should begin with the explaining the theory, with references to the first author, and developer of the theory. That is a neutral argument. Then both counter arguments are presented in the second paragraph.

Additionally, there are other posts here as the the label of "pseudoscience" being completely unjust. Those additional facts were not included in the main page. And those references should be included.

Additionally, the poor references given in the first paragraph make the page inaccurate. For example, the first references to human evolution in general is not specific enough. IT is like saying the Honda Accord is a bad car, and giving a reference to all cars in general. The reference is not specific enough. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 15:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome to believe the word is "unjust", but on Wikipedia we follow the independent sources and accurately summarize the main stream view, which is clear: the AAH is pseudoscience. Your comments on citations have been repeatedly inaccurate and have in no way established that the sourcing is "poor". MrOllie (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Can you reference the specifics about what I have previously stated? - one part of the argument - which is currently pseudo science You really are just moving the goal post for me, which is not a valid in debates.

Do you know what year AAH was declared pseudoscience? Do you understand what has happened recently in the science, especially all the discoveries in anthropology since 2005? Science moves forward. There is a lot of new science.

New and additional information always refutes or confirms a theory. The NEW evidence only supports the theory. I would like to be allowed to add support to the theory, and to the objections which were raised more than 20 years ago. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 15:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I once again decline to repeat myself, feel free to read the above discussion again. MrOllie (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh. so false balance applies to pseudo science? OK, but you have a flat earth page? So why not a aquatic ape page? Additionally, a "pseudo science" is a theory without any scientific evidence at all, which does not apply to the aquatic ape theory. I would be glad to expand this detail with scientific papers. The fact that is is clasified as a pseudo science is incorrect and was done more than 20 years ago by one author and one blog post. Since it has been on the internet so long, it has become "main stream" even though it was one blog post by one author, it was not a peer reviewed article. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 15:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

The fact that is is clasified as a pseudo science is incorrect and was done more than 20 years ago by one author and one blog post. This is clearly false, given all the citations we've been discussing. MrOllie (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Again, you have not addressed my previous comments, but I will bite.

We have been discussing the previous citations as being invalid! - so this is not "clearly false" as you suggest. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 15:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Every sourcing claim of yours that I have checked (and discussed above) has been factually incorrect. In at least one case (that you have admitted to so far) you had not read the source you were claiming was invalid. "Clearly false" is a good summary of your contributions to this talk page thus far. MrOllie (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I had an incorrect reference number that I already apologized for.

The source that I was claiming was invalid, you dont know if I read that or not.

Can we stay on topic and discuss changes to this page? Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 15:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

you dont know if I read that or not. I know that you didn't read it because you said you didn't have access to it. On other pages on Wikipedia you asked someone to send it to you - after you had already claimed it wasn't valid here. I suppose the other option is that you were being dishonest about that for some reason. Can we stay on topic and discuss changes to this page? I disagree that it is off topic to note that all of your claims thus far have been factually wrong. But given that, and your repeated attempts to cover the same ground (reminiscent of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) I think I'll take a break from this talk page for a while to see if anyone else has something to say. MrOllie (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

> I know that you didn't read it because you said you didn't have access to it.

But that was a week or so ago. How do you "know" i didnt get access after that. And more to the point, the article is about pseudo science in general, it is not specific enough.

>I disagree that it is off topic to note that all of your claims thus far have been factually wrong

I would like to discuss this in more detail, can you give me specifics?. I have dyslexia so I sometimes make mistakes with numbers and I apologised for that already. I apologised for the one mistake. In essence, this is just a distraction from the main argument of whether the article has any merit or not. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 20:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

additionally what you are calling my mistake, when I know the actual facts about when this theory was developed, are incorrect. Your reference 2009 reference is from an UPDATED article, not the original. Irrespective of those facts, again, this is just distraction from the main point of the discussion, which is the relevance of the article in the first place. 2009 is 15 years ago. More research has been done. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 20:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

The reference itself says it was a blog post! Reference 5 - Hawks, JD (August 2009). Why Anthropologists don't accept the Aquatic Ape Theory" (Blog post).

How can you possibly say this is not a blog post? It is referenced as a blog post on the main page! Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 00:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

No one has said that. MrOllie (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh. I see what you are saying. the blog post was updated to 4 August 2009. The original blog post is from 1999, and believe me I know, because I was discussing these ideas with the author at the time, but the blog has been updated. Irrespective of the exact time, it is almost 20 years old and it is NOT a peer reviewed journal article. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 16:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

OK, finally had a chance to see the reference. It is from one book chapter of a single book. Book chapters are not peer reviewed scientific articles. Book chapters are put together at the request of the author by similar minded authors. They are not peer reviewed.

Request that the main page for aquatic ape hypothesis list significant recent references from high impact journals and not book chapters, to support counter arguments. Book chapters, in general, are not valid as credible scientific sources. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 21:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, books from reputable publishers make fine sources. There is no policy based reason to remove this. MrOllie (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

You are cherry picking. The rules also say "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." This is not the case with the book chapter in question.

Additionally, a book chapter in question is not a peer reviewed journal article and should not be used as the primary source to refute an argument in a scientific setting. This is not how it is done in academic settings. I respectfully understand this is a wikipedia rule, but this rule does not follow typical academic standards. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 22:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Books from major publishers like Routledge have a strong Wikipedia-wide consensus to be reliable sources. You can try to raise this at WP:RSN, but the chances that you will be able to convince anyone that this book does not meet WP:RS are near zero. MrOllie (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not see the additional rules pertaining to my comment. I will read up on those additional rules you sited for me.

As context, I have been a scientific reviewer for literally 100s of scientific articles as a government scientist, both as a publisher and an author. It has been my job to review research papers from academic institutions, and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt, that a book chapter is not a scientifically peer reviewed journal article, and would never be used to refute a another theory in an article. This is not just my POV, is also widely accepted in academic circles. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 23:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

No one is claiming that a book chapter is a peer reviewed journal article. MrOllie (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

That is correct. In my personal experience with editing scientific articles, is that a book chapter is not a suitable reference to refute a theory. This is not an accepted practice. This is why I wanted to, and have been attempting to, edit the aquatic ape hypothesis main page. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 23:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Books about pseudoscience (which is commonly ignored by mainstream scientists) are as good a source as it gets for classifying something as pseudoscience. You can talk about personal experience all you like, but on Wikipedia we're going to follow Wikipedia's policies, which are what they are for good reason. MrOllie (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

As previously discussed, the label of pseudoscience is inaccurate, and has been recanted by the original author (that is discussed in the talk section).

The original accusation of pseudoscience was made about 20 years ago, in a single blog post, by a single author, and did not represent a consensus viewpoint at the time.

More to the point, determining a good reference is easy if you look at the number of citations of the book chapter or article. The book chapter in question has 5!

Yes, I am actively supporting a petition to make more distinctions and specifications about what articles should be considered reputable and what articles should not be considered reputable. The process is very simple really, the number of citations is a very good objective measure. I hope that wikipedia will change its rules and follow mainstream academic policy which would allow for more public trust in wikipedia. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 23:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent article which claimed vaccines cause autism has thousands of citations. MrOllie (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

His most recent book of 2010 has 56 citations. Where do you see thousands of citations?

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C21&q=andrew+wakefield+autism&btnG= Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 23:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0/fulltext

The point being, citation counts are not a useful stand-in for reliability. Oftentimes a paper is cited only to disagree with it.

Wikipedia has been around for a while, you're not the first to come up with this idea, you know. MrOllie (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Point taken.

However, notice the high number of citations are to a RETRACTED article, which is clearly labeled as RETRACTED. I am guessing it has a high citation rate because it was INCORRECT.

But you are correct, this can also lead to a high citation rate, but only if one doesn't read the article in question. One only has to read this article to understand where the high citation rate came from. This would be done in a peer reviewed setting.

I understand wikipedia has been around awhile. I have made numerous edits to pages over my many years. Today I am surprised by the pushback to making any edits to the main page of an article. If others have presented this same idea or conundrum as I am presenting, as you say. I can only conclusion I can make is that the idea and definition of article reputation and scientific merit needs to be taken more seriously. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 00:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Another way of determining if an article has a high impact is to look at the number of citations an article has received by other peers. The article, or book chapter in question, has received 5 citations! A high impact article will have hundreds or thousands of citations. This book chapter would not be considered a high impact article. You can review this information here.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=17063542218986825404&as_sdt=20000005&sciodt=0,21&hl=en Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 23:08, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

The theory has not be debunked

OP was page-blocked, continued their personal attacks & disruption, is now site-blocked. Nothing more to see here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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)

This has not been updated. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 13:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

The citation can be found at the end of the sentence. Despite what you have written here, that citation is not a blog post. MrOllie (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

can you provide the full reference here so we can be clear what reference you are talking about? Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 15:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

The reference, is in the reference section, and is labeled as a blog post! How can you say that it is not a blog post, when it is clearly labeled as such in the reference section?! Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 00:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

You appear to have mixed up the citations in question. Go back to the article and look again at the citation on the paragraph you're complaining about. MrOllie (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

It is difficult to determine what you are talking about if you do not provide specifics. Which is my comment above.

Yes, perhaps I made a mistake for the "article I was complaining about" of which, there are several. However we have discussed references 2, 3 and 4 extensively already. The reference to a blog post is the point. Which is reference 5. Again, pointing out simple numbering mistakes does not address the main point of the original article being a blog post, it is just a distraction. Can you please address how that reference (the blog post) complies with rules for reputable articles. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 00:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

This is basic Wikipedia stuff. If you can't accurately match portions of the article to the citations - which are clearly and plainly linked in the article - you should probably stop and work on that until you figure it out (WP:CIR). Again, the text you complain about in this section has nothing to do with the blog post. MrOllie (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I do not believe you are responding to me in good faith. You have repeatedly obfuscated, distracted, and "moved the goal post" in response to my comments. You continually point out superfluous details in an attempt to distract from my main point. When I ask you to explain your posts with more specificity, so that i can comment in more accurately or in more detail, no specifics are given. When I respond anyway to your lack of post specifics, you accuse me of making an error. You could have easily seen from my comments I was referring to article 5 in the references. Again, your responses have not been in good faith. I am just sorry I spent an entire day interacting with someone that has no intention of editing a page a wikipedia. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 01:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Again, citation #5 is clearly not the one attached to the paragraph you quote above. A paragraph of personal attacks on me will not change that. MrOllie (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not believe I made any personal attacks. If I did, I am sorry for that. Now, can you please address the point of my post? THe fact that citation 5 is a blog post, by one individual, and should not be used to refute a scientific theory. I do occasionally make mistakes with numbers, as previously mentioned, I have dyslexia. But again, you are just distracting from my original argument with my simple mistake. You are essentially saying my simple mistake invalidates my entire argument, which is not a valid argument. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 01:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

One again, the citation attached to the 'debunked' paragraph you quote above is not the blog post. The blog post is not being used in the way you suggest it is. You are arguing that the article should not do something that the article already is not doing. This isn't a 'simple mistake', you're arguing nonsense. MrOllie (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

> One again, the citation attached to the 'debunked' paragraph you quote above is not the blog post.

How could you possibly think, at this point, I don't understand that? You are just reiterating your previous argument.

>The blog post is not being used in the way you suggest it is.

Why dont you provide the sentence that is the assertion for the blog post?

The theory developed before major discoveries of ancient hominin fossils in East Africa.

This assertion implies that the theory was developed before major discoveries and the major discoveries do not support the theory. This is in fact false.

And back to my original point AGAIN. A blog post should not be used to refute a scientific theory or make implications that the theory is incorrect. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 01:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The citation for 'debunked' is Rafferty SM (2022). "Chapter 6: Biological anthropology and pseudoscience". Misanthropology – Science, Pseudoscience, and the Study of Humanity (1st ed.). Routledge. pp. 100–112. The abstract for the chapter says 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. It also says the aquatic ape hypothesis has been roundly discredited by the consensus of evolutionary science".

The 'blog post' is written by anthropologist John D. Hawks, and while perhaps not the greatest source for scientific claims, it is more than good enough to critique the aquatic ape hypothesis per WP:PARITY.  Tewdar  13:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Tdkelley1, could you clearly explain what change you actually hope to see made to the article?

I don't fully understand your criticism as it applies to the article as it stands today, but perhaps if you provide an example of the change you'd like to see made, the conversation could move forward or reach some definite conclusion? ApLundell (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

This page needs actual scientific articles as references

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.

---

The first reference (2) is from an issues news and reviews journal. This is a journal for presenting news and opinion - not a scientific peer reviewed article of scientific evidence. At least not this issue of the publication. I understand the publication might put out different types of publications. Reference (3) is about pseudoscience in general, and does not offer a detailed PEER REVIEWED evaluation of AAH. Article (4) is again about pseudoscience, which is not needed in addition to reference (3) and is not a peer reviewed journal article.

Additionally journals should have high impact scores if they reference the theory either for or against. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 16:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

This is a much better paper to reference for the intro on the page, since it is from 2020, and discusses the bias and controversy around the theory in scientific detail, with facts and references. It discusses Paradigm bias which has become an issue when discussing the AAH theory. And discusses the counter theories as an intelligent scientific debate.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dfb1/41a25ec926baf6d05d45c2cf63d054fbe992.pdf Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 16:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

(ec) Hello Tdkelley1 . OK, so what specific change to the article are _you_ proposing? And what "actual scientific articles as reference" are you citing to back up that change? I don't think there is any reason to continue this thread until you provide that specific change request. See WP:TALK and WP:FORUM. -- McSly (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I posted a few simple deletions about a week ago, but I am not sure where they went.

See above my suggested changes? It says "I am suggesting this change... Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 16:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Then why are you wasting people's time by creating a new section if you don't have anything that is not already being discussed? We can close this section as useless. --McSly (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

What? I deleted information. I did not suggest a new section! Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 16:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

btw, I hope you were not serious with the pdf you just linked there. --McSly (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your implication and rhetorical question? Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 16:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Reread (or read) the documentatios given to you about evaluating and choosing sources. You'll see the answer is obvious. --McSly (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

THese rules ? - you can consider things like the author, publisher, and date of publication.

Yes I considered those things. You need to be more specific. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 16:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

The journal it is published in on its own description page makes it clear that they are not a peer-reviewed source, and not subject to the level of review associated with WP:RS _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

OK, well there are plenty of non peer reviewed articles on the main page. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 17:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was slightly off with the "not peer-reviewed" assertion, should say not a typical peer-reviewed source as they note: The central mission of this journal is to provide a rapidly published repository for cutting-edge novel thinking and opinion-pieces _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

In my experience, a peer reviewed journal article hypothesis testing. The hypo is reviewed by a panel of judges. That is not the case with this article.

Additionally, reference 3 is actually supportive of the other theory, or AAH! That kind of thing would not work in graduate school... citing the other sides theory!? And that is the first thing the public reads about the theory? Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 17:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, in my experience, a peer reviewed journal article involves hypothesis testing. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 17:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Correct. this is not a peer reviewed article, which is what I have been saying in previous posts. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 22:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry yes, the reference I gave is more of an opinion piece, but I would argue other refs in the main page are also opinion pieces.

However, if you are asking for a better reference, in short, there are plenty of other references supporting the theory, and that are not from opinion journal publication, or from book chapters, as has been previously noted. The citation score of the article below is 40, which is much higher than the article I called into question, which had a citation score of 5. This score is a good objective way to determine the reputability of a source.

Anyway, this article is a much better representation of the theory. :https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3923303/ Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 23:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

You need to stop WP:BLUDGEONing this page. This is getting ridiculous, and could get you blocked for disruption. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

First we hear that the sources bring cited were of too poor qualiflty and then, when the source you provided was too low quality you shrug and say "oh well there's lots of equivalent quality in the article. @Tdkelley1 this seems a double-standard. Please return with some peer reviewed examples of cutting edge science missing from this topic or stop bludgeoning. Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Here you go. More recent articles on the subject. Notice the last two references are very recent.

As I previously discussed. This article provides support for AAH.

Trauth MH, Maslin MA, Deino AL, Junginger A, Lesoloyia M, Odada EO, et al. (2010). "Human evolution in a variable environment: The amplifier lakes of Eastern Africa". Quaternary Science Reviews. 29 (23–24): 2981–2988. Bibcode:2010QSRv...29.2981T. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.07.007.

I am not sure why I have to continually point this out. The reference is just incorrect. Irrespective of that, it also offers support for AAH.

Verhaegen, Mark. "The Aquatic Ape Evolves: Common Miscon-ceptions and Unproven Assumptions About the So-Called Aquatic Ape Hypothesis." Hum Evol 28.3-4 (2013): 237-266.

Abrahamsson, Erik. "Shifting the Paradigm: From Acheulean Hand Axes to Modern Minds." (2024).

Rozwadowski, Helen M. "“Bringing Humanity Full Circle Back into the Sea” Homo aquaticus, Evolution, and the Ocean." Environmental Humanities 14.1 (2022): 1-28.

If given enough time, I could offer many more references.

Might I suggest... an intro paragraph that talks about the controversial nature of the theory. Then two independent sections, one pro AAT and one pro Savana theory. This is typically the way it would be done in academic circles. Typically, a journal would have a special issue where both sides of an issue are discussed using the most recent findings so that recent findings can be addressed. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 18:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I understand you want to improve this article, but it can be difficult to do without being acquainted with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There's a lot so I'll just point you to some relevant ones. If you have the time, do sit down and read them through and take them to heart. Editing will be much more pleasant then.

WP:SCHOLARSHIP is relevant to your suggestions. Specifically, we prefer secondary sources over research papers. I suggest you look through those articles and identify any review articles or, even better, look for monographs and textbooks which mention the aquatic ape hypothesis. These sources will better function to improve the encyclopedia.

WP:V is policy and so very important to keep in mind. You tried to edit the page previously, but it was reverted. I think a reason for that was that you removed text which was backed up by three sources! Obviously, a lot of authors agree that this theory is pseudoscience. Now, they may not be representative of the field as a whole. Read WP:UNDUE and consider if this is the case. Specifically, all viewpoints must be represented "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those [reliable] sources". The easiest place to check would of course be a textbook. If you can cite a textbook, I think your additions may be very welcome. But please do not remove text if it is cited, unless it has been given undue weight.

Now, your suggestion for one section pro- and one anti- is not standard procedure on Wikipedia. WP:FALSEBALANCE describes this scenario. These articles are not structured like academic articles (where debate often happens, within the pages of the journal) but like encyclopedic articles. We want to be as accurate as possible, and we can only trust what reliable sources say. We do not engage in scholarly debate, but simply report it. The structure of the lead section will have to follow what seems to be consensus in the sources. Again, the best place to probe for that is in an introductory textbook to the field, or a monograph about something else which just summarizes previous research in a background section. From those descriptions should this lead section be written, with the generally agreed wisdom coming first and any alternative viewpoints after, according to due weight.

The three most important Wikipedia policies are WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. This last one I think you already understand. I've also given some examples from WP:RS which may also be useful to read. Having done that, and taking those things to heart, I think your future suggestions will land on fruitful soil. Aspets (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind suggestions. Yes, perhaps I am a bull in a china shop.

In terms of scholarship, I have been a scientist for 30 years. If you send me a private chat, I can send you my publications list and my google scholar link. As a government scientist in AI, I have reviewed 100s of scientific journal articles as both a publisher, and as a reviewer.

So if you look at my interactions with the editors, I have been discussing the credibility of the three sources that you mention. Again, I have reviewed scientific papers and those references would not get past any peer reviewed journal. We can discuss the specifics of my opinion if you like.

I understand now that the False Balance appears to apply to pseudoscience specifically, and I was not aware of this. False Balance implies the balance of the arguments was not balanced, and not really anything about pseudo science. I apologize.

It is funny you mention verifiability rule. It seems if an article is behind a paywall, it is difficult to verify. Perhaps that is just an opinion of mine, but when I worked with academics, it was their opinion as well. In terms of scholarly references, it is generally disliked in the academic community when a paper is behind a paywall because it makes it difficult to check. Refs should not be behind a paywall, but again, I respectfully understand that is a wikipedia rule. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 20:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes the credibility of the sources in question is of course of great importance. It is, however, vital that the discussion proceed with agreed-upon standards of credibility, and on Wikipedia those are documented in aforesaid policies and guidelines.

False balance and undue weight are easy to mix up. WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:UNDUE for reference. Both should be avoided and true balance and due weight given instead.

Wikipedia of course has a history, and your comments on sources behind a paywall have also been graced with a short write-up by previous editors. See WP:FUTON on the page for perennial proposals. Rest assured, many agree with you.

I suggest that you take some time on another topic on Wikipedia. Read through the list at WP:VA3 and see if there's some other page you could improve. If you continue editing this page incessantly, you may be construed as editwarring. That can lead to a block so make sure to avoid that. Instead, broaden your reading and contribute in other corners of Wikipedia, then you can come back here with new experience and a rested mind in questions of evolution. Aspets (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Great. That sounds like a great idea. Thank you. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 20:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh yes I support the WP:Fulton proposal. How do I relay my support? Using the most accessible papers has always been the standard with academics. Papers behind paywalls could be reaping benefits for the author. For example if an author suggests his/her/their own paper behind a paywall, they might get paid for the download of the pdf. Additionally, counter arguments could use other paywalled articles for their arguments, which would make checking the pros and cons of any theoretical argument difficult, hence, this is why this is not done in academic circles. Finally, most recent research done at universities does not have a paywall to access the most recent research, or the academic institution pays for access to the paywall. I support having the most accessible references, and giving accessible references more weight than paywalled articles. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 22:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

As some of these citations are a bit incomplete (lacking DOIs or urls) it may take some time to look at them and assess their due weight and reliability. But I will - likely tomorrow. Simonm223 (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Great. I was having trouble with the wiki editor for references. Again, I can provide more references than those if you are interested. I would have to allocate the time for a complete bibliography.

Additionally, in some academic publications, you will see notes on the bibliography, giving each reference more context and perhaps publishing the impact score of the publication. In short, I would suggest a annotated bibliography for this page, given the topic is so contentious. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 20:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I realize Tdkelley1 cannot reply here but I finished my review of the sources provided:

• Trauth MH, Maslin MA, Deino AL, Junginger A, Lesoloyia M, Odada EO, et al. (2010). "Human evolution in a variable environment: The amplifier lakes of Eastern Africa". Quaternary Science Reviews. 29 (23–24): 2981–2988. Bibcode:2010QSRv...29.2981T. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.07.007.

  Fails verification. Mentions the existence of Aquatic Ape Hypothesis but does not provide any support that did anything but provoke conversation.

• Verhaegen, Mark. "The Aquatic Ape Evolves: Common Miscon-ceptions and Unproven Assumptions About the So-Called Aquatic Ape Hypothesis." Hum Evol 28.3-4 (2013): 237-266.

  Makes claims to support AAH but Verhaegen is not a paleoantropologist, a primatologist or any other sort of subject matter expert. He's a general practitioner MD.

• Abrahamsson, Erik. "Shifting the Paradigm: From Acheulean Hand Axes to Modern Minds." (2024).

  A blog post from TheAquaticApe.org. No indication of peer review. Not an academic article.

• Rozwadowski, Helen M. "“Bringing Humanity Full Circle Back into the Sea” Homo aquaticus, Evolution, and the Ocean." Environmental Humanities 14.1 (2022): 1-28.

  An interesting article on perspectives of humanity adapting to sub-aquatic life in the future that engages as much with fictional literature (Verne, 20000 leagues under the sea) as with any science. Provides no support for AAH. Instead it treats AAH as a work of literature that inspired people like Jacques Cousteau.

All in all none of these sources are strong support for AAH being non-fringe. Simonm223 (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Also the Verhaegen article does not appear to have ever been published by The Journal of Human Evolution (Elsevier) or Human Evolution (Springer) so I think Verhaegen is playing fast and loose with where he was published. Simonm223 (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

THe other thing is that any suggestions I make don't show up on the page for more than about 5 seconds. They are immediately removed. How can the page be edited? And I am making very small edits. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 20:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

By not marking major changes as minor. Slatersteven (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I made some very simple minor changes in formatting and they immediately vanished. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 20:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

We can see in the article's edit history that you were not making 'simple minor changes in formatting', you were deleting substantive text from the article () or adding editorializing () to try to undercut the cited sources. Neither action was appropriate. You have seen on this talk page that your proposed changes do not have support from others, you should stop trying to edit the article as if they do. MrOllie (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Citation 4 is where I deleted information. I don't think that is a substantial edit. 5 is a more major edit, but I do not consider it editorializing, as you suggest. Perhaps we can have a 3d party decide if I am editorializing?. Or we discuss these two problems in more detail? Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 20:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Minor edits are only used for things like typos, reformatting paragraphs, removing extra spaces, etc. No substantive edit should be marked as minor. Simonm223 (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, perhaps I should go back and make the change. I did not understand the definition of a substantive edit. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 21:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

If you keep making these edits (or variations on the same edits), it is likely you will find yourself blocked for edit warring sooner or later. You have seen on this talk page that no one has agreed with you. You must secure consensus agreement from others to proceed. WP:CONSENSUS. MrOllie (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

This talk page is not the place to explain policy, that is your talkpage. Slatersteven (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for the clarification. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 21:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note Tdkelley1 has been page blocked. Bon courage (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2025 (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.

Childbirth

I removed a section that was added in February in assumed good faith about childbirth. Please note there was consensus that this connection to AAH was tenuous at best and not well attested to (unlike the other subsections under which this was included). Once more complete connections are made and there is independent notice of this research program, we can add it back. As it is, I think the PI was inspired to publish these few papers by his interest in AAH, but the papers themselves are rather obviously avoidant of any AAH discourse, perhaps to allow for a pass of reviewer or editor bias against such speculation though, obviously, we cannot know for certain why there is an absence of an argument when there is, for example, radio interviews explaining the connection. In any case, because the previous discussion of this had been archived, I thought it a good idea to create a new opportunity for discussion just in case there were movements in the consensus space. jps (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

That exact topic has come up on this page quite some time ago. IIRC, the wording in the section you removed was the same as (or similar to) wording that was arrived at as a compromise between multiple editors who wanted the section included and a handful of editors pointing out that it was extremely WP:SYNTHy to have it. I could be mistaken, however, as this was several years ago. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there was a lot of back-and-forth, but I think this was where we last left it. jps (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

That was well after the discussion I'm thinking of, but I agree with the consensus there. I support the removal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• FWIW, I found the discussion I was recalling, and my description above isn't quite accurate, but close enough. Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis/Archive 9#Workshopping_a_mention_of_Brenna. Note that there's some prior discussion above it, which helps contextualize it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• Good cut; that content was very poor. Bon courage (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Article presents pre-2010 viewpoint, AAT is mainstream today

Since the highly toxic WP Admin of this page will remove the paragraph text anyway (see above), I wrote my point in the headline. Please dear Admin, just step back, you are opposing NPOV.

--~2026-11845-17 (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

No, the aquatic ape hypothesis isn't even remotely 'mainstream' today. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide the necessary citations to mainstream scientific publications to support this extraordinary claim. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I am also unsure your (unsourced) edit was reverted by an admin. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

It wasn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

They are likely referring to nearly the entirety of this talk page, and they are likely the blocked user, returning to their favorite dead horse. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Your Dead Horse hypothesis seems more plausible than the Aquatic Ape one. Or at least, better supported by verifiable evidence: we have many fossils still embedded in their original stratigraphic layer, at least some of which may be direct ancestors of the deceased equine. They show little evidence of changing much over time... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

- UtherSRG (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2026 (UTC)