Editing Aquatic ape hypothesis (section)

==Reactions==
[[File:AAT Confer 3.jpg|thumb|Aquatic Ape Conference delegates in Valkenburg, 1987]]
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]].<ref name=hold>{{cite journal | vauthors = Rae TC, Koppe T | title = Sinuses and flotation: does the aquatic ape theory hold water? | journal = Evolutionary Anthropology | volume = 23 | issue = 2 | pages = 60–4 | year = 2014 | pmid = 24753346 | doi = 10.1002/evan.21408 | quote = most practicing anthropologists are unbothered by the Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT) and its advocates, except perhaps when a student brings it up in lecture | s2cid = 5456280 | doi-access = free }}</ref> Despite being debunked, it returns periodically, being promoted as recently as 2019.<ref name=pseudo>{{cite book |chapter=Chapter 6: Biological anthropology and pseudoscience |title=Misanthropology{{snd}}Science, Pseudoscience, and the Study of Humanity |pages=100–112 |vauthors=Rafferty SM |year=2022 |edition=1st |isbn=9781032231778 |doi=10.4324/9781003276166-6 |publisher=Routledge}}</ref>

Academics who have commented on the aquatic ape hypothesis include categorical opponents (generally members of the community of academic [[anthropology]]) who reject almost all of the claims related to the hypothesis. Other academics have argued that the rejection of Hardy and Morgan is partially unfair given that other explanations which suffer from similar problems are not so strongly opposed. A conference devoted to the subject was held at [[Valkenburg (city)|Valkenburg]], [[Netherlands]], in 1987.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Groves |first1=Colin P. |title=Review of "The Aquatic Ape: Fact or Fiction?" edited by M. Roede et al. |journal=Human Biology |date=Dec 1993 |volume=65 |issue=6 |language=en}}</ref> Its 22 participants included academic proponents and opponents of the hypothesis and several neutral observers headed by the anthropologist [[Vernon Reynolds]] of the [[University of Oxford]]. His summary at the end was:{{quote|Overall, it will be clear that I do not think it would be correct to designate our early hominid ancestors as 'aquatic'. But at the same time there does seem to be evidence that not only did they take to water from time to time but that the water (and by this I mean inland lakes and rivers) was a habitat that provided enough extra food to count as an agency for selection.<ref name=Reynolds1991>{{cite book | vauthors = Reynolds V | title=Cold and Watery? Hot and Dusty? Our Ancestral Environment and Our Ancestors Themselves: an Overview | year=1991 | page=340}} in {{harvnb|RoedeWindPatrickReynolds|1991}}</ref>}}

===Critiques===
The AAH is considered to be a classic example of pseudoscience among the scholarly community,<ref name="Dunsworth2007">{{cite book |author=Dunsworth, H.M. |title=Human Origins 101 |page=121 |year=2007|publisher=[[ABC-CLIO]] | isbn=978-0-313-33673-7|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0juhJgGco5QC&pg=PA121}}</ref><ref name=McNeill>{{cite book | vauthors = McNeill D |year=2000 | title=The Face: A Natural History |pages=36–37 |isbn=978-0-316-58812-6 |publisher=Back Bay |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qcOvIc-LP_IC&pg=PA36 }}</ref><ref name=Trauth>{{Cite journal | vauthors = Trauth MH, Maslin MA, Deino AL, Junginger A, Lesoloyia M, Odada EO, Olago DO, Olaka LA, Strecker MR, Tiedemann R | display-authors = 6 |doi=10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.07.007 |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234204290 |title=Human evolution in a variable environment: The amplifier lakes of Eastern Africa |journal=Quaternary Science Reviews |volume=29 |issue=23–24 |pages=2981–2988 |year=2010 |bibcode=2010QSRv...29.2981T }}</ref> and has been met with significant skepticism.<ref name=Graham2008>{{cite book |isbn=978-3-540-69930-9 |title=Pediatric ENT | vauthors = Graham JM, Scadding GK, Bull PD |year=2008 |publisher=[[Springer Science+Business Media|Springer]] |pages=27 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=laEQt_Vp3ngC&pg=PA27 }}</ref> The ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' editor and paleontologist [[Henry Gee]] has argued that the hypothesis has equivalent merit to [[creationism]], and should be similarly dismissed.<ref name=foley>{{cite journal | vauthors = Foley R, Lahr MM | title = The role of "the aquatic" in human evolution: constraining the aquatic ape hypothesis | journal = Evolutionary Anthropology | volume = 23 | issue = 2 | pages = 56–9 | year = 2014 | pmid = 24753345 | doi = 10.1002/evan.21405 | quote = Where does this leave us? The AAH has been around for more than 50 years. No significant evidence has accumulated in its favor over that time, and the expansion of the fossil and archeological record has filled many of the gaps that made Hardy's original idea seem plausible. | s2cid = 849419 }}</ref>

In a 1997 critique, anthropologist John Langdon considered the AAH under the heading of an "umbrella hypothesis" and argued that the [[Falsifiability|difficulty of ever disproving]] such a thing meant that although the idea has the appearance of being a [[parsimonious explanation]], it actually was no more powerful an explanation than the [[null hypothesis]] that human evolution is not particularly guided by interaction with bodies of water. Langdon argued that however popular the idea was with the public, the "umbrella" nature of the idea means that it cannot serve as a proper [[scientific hypothesis]]. Langdon also objected to Morgan's blanket opposition to the "[[savannah hypothesis]]" which he took to be the "collective discipline of paleoanthropology". He observed that some anthropologists had regarded the idea as not worth the trouble of a rebuttal. In addition, the evidence cited by AAH proponents mostly concerned developments in [[soft tissue]] anatomy and physiology, whilst paleoanthropologists rarely speculated on evolutionary development of anatomy beyond the musculoskeletal system and brain size as revealed in fossils. After a brief description of the issues under 26 different headings, he produced a summary critique of these with mainly negative judgments. His main conclusion was that the AAH was unlikely ever to be disproved on the basis of comparative anatomy, and that the one body of data that could potentially disprove it was the fossil record.{{sfn|Langdon|1997}}

In a blog post originally published in 2005 and continually updated since, anthropologist [[John D. Hawks]] said that anthropologists don't accept the AAH for several reasons. Hardy and Morgan situated the alleged aquatic period of human nature in a period of the fossil record that is now known not to contain any aquatic ancestors. The traits the AAH tries to explain actually evolved at wildly different time periods. The AAH claims that the alleged aquatic nature of humanity is responsible for human patterns of hair, fat, and sweat, but actually all of these things are similar in humans to other primates. To the extent they are exceptional in any primate relative to other primates, or in primates relative to other mammals, they are exceptional for well-understood thermodynamic reasons.<ref name="Hawks_blog"/>

Palaeontologist [[Riley Black]] concurred with the pseudoscience label, and described the AAH as a "classic case of picking evidence that fits a preconceived conclusion and ignoring everything else".<ref>{{cite magazine |last1=Black |first1=Riley |title=Mermaids Embodies the Rotting Carcass of Science TV |url=https://www.wired.com/2012/05/mermaids-embodies-the-rotting-carcass-of-science-tv/ |magazine=Wired |access-date=1 May 2023 |date=May 31, 2012}}</ref> Physical anthropologist [[Eugenie Scott]] has described the aquatic ape hypothesis as an instance of "crank anthropology" akin to other pseudoscientific ideas in anthropology such as alien-human interbreeding and [[Bigfoot]].<ref name="scott">{{cite journal|year=2015|title=Quacks and cranks, GMOs and climate, science and philosoph—CFI Conference covers it all|url=http://www.csicop.org/si/show/reason_for_change_quacks_and_cranks_gmos_and_climate_science_and_philosophy|journal=Skeptical Inquirer|volume=39|issue=5|page=12|author=Frazier K|author-link=Kendrick Frazier|access-date=25 February 2017}}</ref>

In ''The Accidental Species: Misunderstandings of Human Evolution'' (2013), Henry Gee remarked on how a seafood diet can aid in the development of the human brain. He nevertheless criticized the AAH because "it's always a problem identifying features [such as body fat and hairlessness] that humans have now and inferring that they must have had some adaptive value in the past." Also "it's notoriously hard to infer habits [such as swimming] from anatomical structures".<ref name="Gee 2013 115">{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AUp5AAAAQBAJ&pg=115|title=The Accidental Species: Misunderstandings of Human Evolution| vauthors = Gee H |publisher=University of Chicago Press|year=2013|page=115|access-date=6 January 2017|isbn=978-0-226-04498-9 }}</ref>

Popular support for the AAH has become an embarrassment to some anthropologists, who want to explore the effects of water on human evolution without engaging with the AAH, which they consider "emphasizes adaptations to deep water (or at least underwater) conditions". Foley and Lahr suggest that "to flirt with anything watery in paleoanthropology can be misinterpreted", but argue "there is little doubt that throughout our evolution we have made extensive use of terrestrial habitats adjacent to fresh water, since we are, like many other terrestrial mammals, a heavily water-dependent species." But they allege that "under pressure from the mainstream, AAH supporters tended to flee from the core arguments of Hardy and Morgan towards a more generalized emphasis on fishy things."<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Foley R, Lahr MM | title = The role of "the aquatic" in human evolution: constraining the aquatic ape hypothesis | journal = Evolutionary Anthropology | volume = 23 | issue = 2 | pages = 56–9 | year = 2014 | pmid = 24753345 | doi = 10.1002/evan.21405 | s2cid = 849419 }}</ref>

In "The Waterside Ape", a pair of 2016 BBC Radio documentaries, [[David Attenborough]] discussed what he thought was a "move towards mainstream acceptance" for the AAH in the light of new research findings. He interviewed scientists supportive of the idea, including Kathlyn Stewart and Michael Crawford who had published papers in a special issue of the ''[[Journal of Human Evolution]]''<ref>''Journal of Human Evolution'' Volume 77, Pages 1-216 (December 2014)</ref> on "The Role of Freshwater and Marine Resources in the Evolution of the Human Diet, Brain and Behavior".<ref name="Attenborough 2016">{{cite web| vauthors = Attenborough D | date = 2016|title=The Waterside Ape|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07w4y98/episodes/player|website=BBC Radio 4}}</ref> Responding to the documentaries in a newspaper article, paleoanthropologist [[Alice Roberts]] criticized Attenborough's promotion of AAH and dismissed the idea as a distraction "from the emerging story of human evolution that is more interesting and complex". She argued that AAH had become "a theory of everything" that is simultaneously "too extravagant and too simple".<ref>"It's time we let go of the 'aquatic ape' myth." The [[i (British newspaper)|''i'' Newspaper]], 17 September 2016, page 23</ref><ref>{{cite web | vauthors = Maslin M, Roberts A | author2-link =Alice Roberts | title = Sorry David Attenborough, we didn't evolve from 'aquatic apes' – here's why | publisher =theconversation.com | year =2018 | url =https://theconversation.com/sorry-david-attenborough-we-didnt-evolve-from-aquatic-apes-heres-why-65570 | access-date = 27 May 2018}}</ref>

Philosopher [[Daniel Dennett]], in his discussion of evolutionary philosophy,<ref>{{cite book|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=FvRqtnpVotwC |title=Darwin's Dangerous Idea |vauthors = Dennett D |publisher=Penguin |year=1995 |page=244 |isbn=978-0-684-82471-0}}</ref> commented "During the last few years, when I have found myself in the company of distinguished biologists, evolutionary theorists, paleoanthropologists and other experts, I have often asked them to tell me, please, exactly why Elaine Morgan must be wrong about the aquatic theory. I haven't yet had a reply worth mentioning, aside from those who admit, with a twinkle in their eyes, that they have also wondered the same thing." He challenged both Elaine Morgan and the scientific establishment in that "Both sides are indulging in adapt[at]ionist [[Just-so story|Just So stories]]". Along the same lines, historian [[Erika Lorraine Milam]] noted that independent of Morgan's work, certain standard explanations of human development in paleoanthropology have been roundly criticized for lacking evidence, while being based on sexist assumptions.<ref>{{cite book|title=Outsider Scientists. Routes to Innovation in Biology| vauthors = Milam E |publisher=University of Chicago Press|year=2013|editor=Oren Harman |editor2=Michael R Dietrich|chapter=Dunking the Tarzanists. Elaine Morgan and the Aquatic Ape theory}}</ref> Anatomy lecturer [[Bruce Charlton]] gave Morgan's book ''Scars of Evolution'' an enthusiastic review in the [[British Medical Journal]] in 1991, calling it "exceptionally well written" and "a good piece of science".<ref>{{cite journal| vauthors = Charlton B |date=5 January 1991|title=How the apes lost their fur|journal=British Medical Journal|volume=302|issue=6767|pages=58–59|doi=10.1136/bmj.302.6767.58|s2cid=36046030}}</ref>

In 1995, paleoanthropologist [[Phillip Tobias]] declared that the savannah hypothesis was dead, because the open conditions did not exist when humanity's precursors stood upright and that therefore the conclusions of the Valkenburg conference were no longer valid. Tobias praised Morgan's book ''Scars of Evolution'' as a "remarkable book", though he said that he did not agree with all of it.<ref>{{cite book | vauthors = Tobias PV |title=Foreword: Evolution, Encephalization, Environment |page=viii}} in {{harvnb|Cunnane|Stewart|2010|pp=vii-xii}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Tobias PV |year=1998 |title=Water and Human Evolution |journal=Dispatches Human Evolution |url=http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm |access-date=16 January 2017 }}</ref> Tobias and his student further criticised the orthodox hypothesis by arguing that the coming out of the forest of man's precursors had been an unexamined assumption of evolution since the days of [[Lamarck]], and followed by [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]], [[Alfred Russel Wallace|Wallace]] and [[Ernst Haeckel|Haeckel]], well before [[Raymond Dart]] used it.<ref name=":1">{{cite journal | vauthors = Bender R, Tobias PV, Bender N | title = The Savannah hypotheses: origin, reception and impact on paleoanthropology | journal = History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences | volume = 34 | issue = 1–2 | pages = 147–84 | year = 2012 | pmid = 23272598 }}</ref>

=== Reactions of Hardy and Morgan ===
Alister Hardy was astonished and mortified in 1960 when the national Sunday papers carried banner headlines "Oxford professor says man a sea ape", causing problems with his Oxford colleagues.{{sfn|Morgan|2008|p=12}} As he later said to his ex-pupil [[Desmond Morris]], "Of course I then had to write an article to refute this saying no this is just a guess, a rough hypothesis, this isn't a proven fact. And of course we're not related to [[dolphins]]."<ref name="Attenborough 2016"/>

Elaine Morgan's 1972 book ''Descent of Woman'' became an international best-seller, a [[Book of the Month Club|Book of the Month]] selection in the [[United States]] and was translated into ten languages.{{sfn|Morgan|2008|p=15}} The book was praised for its feminism but [[paleoanthropologist]]s were disappointed with its promotions of the AAH.<ref name=el/> Morgan removed the feminist critique and left her AAH ideas intact, publishing the book as ''The Aquatic Ape'' 10 years later, but it did not garner any more positive reaction from scientists.<ref name=el>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-h-word/2013/may/13/aquatic-ape-elaine-morgan-history-science|title=Elaine Morgan and the Aquatic Ape| vauthors = Milam EL |date=2013-05-13|work=The Guardian|access-date=2017-05-02|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077}}</ref>