Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3 →

Contents 1 Newbie impressions 2 Article quality 3 Unrelated to overall quality 4 Most paleoanthropologists 5 Restructuring 6 Love It

Newbie impressions

Forgive my top posting but I wanted to make a point separate from the argument below; please feel free to edit it and put the comments at the bottom if the top posting is offensive. I recently heard a documentary about this theory on BBC Radio 4. The arguments were very cogent, and well-proposed with as good substantiation as any theory can hope. It makes a lot of sense to me personally. I was disappointed at the dismissive tone this article takes; one might believe it was written by an outright opponent to the theory in hopes of casting doubts on its validity.--leica 18:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this is it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/scarsofevolution.shtml --Landwalker 04:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm listening to Attenborough's take on AAH and I'm genuinely surprised. The BBC's presentation makes the hypothesis sound much more believable than I thought. In fact, it implies that it's making slow headway into the mainstream. Attenborough says "Then, in the early 90s, the consensus has begun to fall apart." This is too cool. British accents make everything more respectable! Ooh, he's getting ready to review the evidence.

• “And there’s another persuasive aspect to the theory—it’s predictive. It predicts that because iodine & other nutrients in the marine food chain are essential to the evolution of the human brain, then if we switch to a new land based diet that is poor in those nutrients, brain function will suffer. And that’s exactly what has happened According to the World Health Organization report of 2004, iodine deficiencies amongst inland populations affects around 740 million people worldwide.” --David Attenborough

• They say humans swam to Flores!

• Apparently, AAT predicted the existence of Vernix caseosa or a similar substance on newborn aquatic mammals. It was unknown prior to the production of the BBC series above!

• Note: National Geographic, in an article on seals, mentioned the presence of vernix on newborns. DD

• Sir David says that the evidence seems to be tilting in its favor...the tide is turning. Wow. Time to rethink things guys.

Aelffin 19:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Article quality

i looked up this theory today and was fairly shocked at the article. From reading the article and discussion, it seems that POV should not be the complaint... instead, a lot of it should be disputed. For instance, the article claims that the dive reflex is and is not present in other mamals. Well, which is it? Article claims humans have 10x the fat of other mamals. Discussion claims otherwise. So is the article talking about overweight humans? How is that at all related? Forget if the hypothesis is accurate or not for a moment -- can't this article at least be consistent with the facts it mentions? I really think this needs to be started over. --Steven Fisher 02:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you the same poster as 63.183.161.115, who put up the NPOV banner yesterday (not at the same time as your comments above)? You say your comments are more about consistency and clarity than POV. If not, then this person hasn't seen fit to post any justification in the discussion page, and I'd like to ask what the recognised procedure is for putting up such tags.

As for your comments, don't forget that this isn't an article written at one time by one person. Also, it's a subject on which people have published complete books - it's not something where all the questions are going to be answered in a single Wikipedia article. The contradictory statements about the diving reflex need to be resolved; and in answer to your question about human fat: no we are not talking about overweight humans - although I understand that to be more accurate, the article should refer to the number of fat cells, rather than just the amount of fat. --Tiffer 20:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not that user. I just dropped in looking for an explanation of this theory and was surprised at the contradictions I found and thought I'd comment on them. With apologies if you're an AAT proponent, the more I investigated this theory the less sense it made... and the more I felt like the article is not just factually contradictory, but incorrect in other ways and has the NPOV problems mentioned as well. --Steven Fisher 09:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

What NPOV problems mentioned? Whoever placed the NPOV banner did so anonymously and without explanation.

Yes, I am an AAT proponent, but I don't wish to start a discussion here on whether or not it makes sense. If you come fresh to the subject, a lot depends on what sources you read. There are a number of sources in the web devoted to scotching AAT, sometimes misrepresenting it and generally not making a proper comparison with possible non-aquatic hypotheses.

I think this article has suffered from too many cooks. When I first came across it, it read like an argument between 2 people (or even 2 groups of people) - the original article had evidently been editted by someone who didn't like AAT, and had interspersed the text with what he saw as a rebuttal of each point. It was me who moved these objections to their own section, and added a section making a comparison between AAT and the land-based alternatives. Since then, several people have added snippets of evidence here and there; and whether or not individually they are valid, it doesn't make for a very coherent setting-out of the hypothesis.

You may be right that the article could be started again; alternatively, it could be rewritten using the existing material organised more coherently and with some more attributions where appropriate. I don't know if I have time to do that. --Tiffer 21:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Right now, it makes a whole lot of false claims and states a lot of pseudo-science under "The aquatic ape hypothesis puts forward these main arguments:". This is not an adequate warning that nearly everything that follows is pseudo-science and for the most part proven incorrect. It also claims that support for AAT is growing amongst the scientific community. In fact, so far as I can see, no one in the scinetific community supports AAT. 0->0 is not growing. See Time Cube for a way of handling a fringe theory that does not make any sense. --Steven Fisher 22:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I've reworded the introduction a bit, putting the note that this is a minority viewpoint sooner. I've also put in more adquate warning that the bullet points may not be factual, and I've removed the bit about growing support, since there's no proof of that. This is not to say I now agree with the article or even feel it is now neutral, but simply that I feel these changes are mostly non-objectionable and make it more neutral. I plan to investigate neutrality procedure on wikipedia and try to do whatever the person who applied the template missed. And sorry about the TimeCube link -- AAH is not nearly that crazy. ;) --Steven Fisher 23:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Steven, you'll have to do better than this. Before going any further, I think we need to agree on what "neutrality" means, and what is the proper level of exposure to be accorded to a minority view. Some of your comments above and on the main page make me think that you are not yourself coming to this discussion from a position of neutrality. In particular, statements like "should be viewed with a certain degree of suspicion" are no more than value judgements; and your comments about "pseudo-science" and claims that the basis for AAT has been "proven incorrect", I think are also inappropriate.

You refer me to Time Cube; let's both refer to Neutral_point_of_view, particularly the paragraph on Fairness and sympathetic tone. I highlight that particular paragraph, because I interpret it to mean that even minority viewpoints are entitled to be treated sympathetically, and not have a page devoted to them laced with warnings and challenges. There is (and was) already a section in the page for "Objections to AAH", which I think is the appropriate place for most of your concerns. For example, I see no need to place the comment about AAH being a minority position in the the first sentence; it makes sense to place it where it was: alongside the statement about the conventional ("savannah" or "mosaic") view of pre-human genesis - which AFAICS is no more scientifically sound than AAH.

I haven't at this stage attempted to improve on your contribution. I have no wish to do anything to precipitate an edit war - let's not reduce the AAH page to the situation of the Time Cube one! --Tiffer 17:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Tiffer, do whatever you want to the article. I don't really care. I'm not interested in an edit war, either. I tried to make the article more encyclopedic. If you are determined to keep it promotional and full of incorrect information stated as fact, that;'s your choice.

However, I feel the most important fact about AAH is this: It is a minority position. In fact, it is a zero position, not held by any serious scientists.

That is just not true. Here are just a few "serious scientists" who could be labelled as pro-"AAH": Michael Crawford, Stephen Cunnane, Leigh Broadhurst, Eirka Schagatay, Derek Ellis, Simon Bearder, Chris Knight. Here are a couple of "serious science students" who could be labelled as pro-"AAH": Algis Kuliukas (me, PhD at UWA, Perth), Stephen Munro (PhD at ANU, Canberra). Here are some "serious scientists" who could be labelled as open to the "AAH": Philip Tobias, David Attenborough, Colin Groves, David Cameron. And here are some dead scientists who could be labelled as open to the "AAH": Alister Hardy, Max Westenhöfer, C O Sauer, Gorden Hewes. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As usual, the aquasceptic view is based more on gossip than fact. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a very strong objection to labelling something "Arguments for" and then stating a lot of stuff as if it was fact. Interpretations of facts there are fine, but this does not even slightly excuse putting incorrect information in there. You agreed here that the diving reflex is present in all mamals, but it is stated there as if it was fact. The alternative to putting a note that the arguments (including facts) are all under objection is to use the dubious statement for every point there. That doesn't really make sense, since those are the arguments being put forward. It's just some of them are known false. Thus, it needs an introduction that states that not only are the interpretations following in question, so are the "facts." In fact, that facts aren't in question, they're known by everyone to be outright wrong.

So I not only agree with the NPOV tag, I think it also needs a request for deletion in its current state. Better to have nothing than have incorrect information stated as fact. I plan to watch the article out of the corner of my eye for a while, and nominate it for deletion if it remains at this quality and factual level. Better to not say anything that to have this article promote a crazy hypothesis with incorrect information.

To address your other "point" (that being the personal attack on me), Yous seem to have decided that my objecting to the article or arguments therein means I object to AAH, but such is not the case. In fact, maybe I do dislike AAH, but it is only as a result of reading this article and researching the facts stated therein which are wrong. And regardless of whether AAH is true or not (and it may be true), it certainly deserves a place in wikipedia.

What I object to most strenuously is the level of dishonesty present in the article. I object to statements of fact that are untrue. I object to the article misleading people about the popularity of AAH. I object to, in short, pretty much this entire article. Someone wrote this without respecting the neutrality guidelines, and in particular "write for your enemy." In fact, not only did they fail to write for their enemy, they failed to write for someone new to the subject -- me. Statements of fact on wikipedia must be true as far as I am concerned. This is why I'd rather have this article deleted than continue to exist in its present form. Saying you don't have time to fix it does not make it fixed, nor make it less objectionable.

Perhaps instead we should be discussing how to reduce this article to a point where it can be entirely true. Three or four accurate paragraphs would be much more acceptable to me.

--Steven Fisher 23:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, how do you feel about the first two paragraphs now? I think the first paragraph neds a little more on what the actual disagreement is, like the time frame. Got any data on that? To clarify, I think a better introduction would include something like as a final sentence to the first paragraph:

That life initially evolved in the water is not in dispute. Where the AAH and conventional viewpoint diverge is at what point day-to-day life spending significant amounts of time in water stopped having a direct influence on the evolution of man.

It would then give some dates.

--Steven Fisher 03:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Steven, the first paragraphs are better than your original edit - although on an uncontentious point I would remove the duplicates of the 2 words "theory" and "hypothesis". I am sorry you have taken offence at my comments on your neutrality, although I would add that your use of language like "fringe theory" and "crazy hypothesis" says more than I can on the subject.

I think there are other places where you have misunderstood my position. I am not, after all, the author of this article - all I have done is reorganise it and added some material, as have others. I agree that the article needs some dates - at least approximate ones. Most people I think understand that the hypothesis relates to the divergence of the human ancestral line from the apes - but for one reason or another even that isn't made clear in the first paragraphs. --Tiffer 09:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Tiffer, I think we've both insulted each other. Sorry. I can be an ass at times. I forgive you, and it seems you forgive me, and we're working well together despite some initial problems so let's not blow it! Well, I think anyway. The reason for the doubling of the "(or theory)" is that I didn't really know how to smoothy handle the wording, based on the proximity to it being called a hypothesis (or theory). It sounds like you're okay with just calling it a hypothesis, so I'll go ahead and do that.

Moving down, I'm wondering if an overview less detail is the answer. For instance, if the arguments were laid out plainly without supporting facts or statements up front, I'd be much less concerned with a AAH perspective later in the article. In short, we'd have three sections where we have two now: A simple bullet list without comment one way or the other, the AAH perspective, then the response, then the links. I'm not sure what to do about the response to the response, it seems to bog things down a bit, but we won't get there for a while anyway. I don't plan on making these changes right now, so let me know what you think asap. --Steven Fisher 09:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I also want to just quickly add that I'm a lot more fair sympathetic in articles than in discussions. I think you'll agree with that based on what I've done so far. :) I think it's a little natural that I'm swinging the article a little anti-AAH at times, since the first few paragraphs started out a bit pro AAH. We'll just work together on this for a while and see if we can find a nice middle ground.

Anyway, I found a better tweak to the first paragraph than what I'd planned on using. That good with you?

Also, since we seem to be the only people commenting here and this is more of a dialogue than a thread (and we haven't been indenting consistently anyway) I propose we dispense with indenting our discussion and quote when it is unclear what we're replying to. Should that become difficult to follow, we can always switch back. --Steven Fisher 09:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Hang on, let's not talk about anyone being insulted. I've suggested that you weren't entirely neutral on the subject, that's all. It's no more than you were suggesting about everyone who'd put anything into this article - it's certainly not a personal attack. And I don't feel insulted either; I've engaged in this debate online for some years up to now; there's nothing you could say that I haven't read in that time.

And let's have some proportion - this isn't about some terrible injustice, it's not capital punishment, it's not the Iraq war. Nobody is going to die, just because a few more people get taken in (since that's how you see it) by AAH. After the Wiki page on neutrality, can I suggest you also have a look at the page on staying cool?

Back to the questions you raise. Seabhcan (see below) is quite right IMO - the article shouldn't be either about promoting or rebutting AAH, but about reflecting accurately what it says. So in a sense it's not the scientific truth of the claims that matters; it's whether or not, as Seabhcan points out, they are in the AAH literature. Whether this can be achieved in a Wiki environment is a good question - certainly all the time I've been on Wikipedia this article has been loaded with the AAH pro-anti debate. I take on board your concerns about including suspect facts; but in the absence of a point-by-point assessment, you haven't convinced me that there are serious issues of that sort here - other than the point about the diving reflex. It is not AIUI now claimed by AAH sources, and is an inaccuracy in the current Wiki article. Having said that, it was never something on which AAH depended, and my experience of the AAH controversy is that it is more about interpretation of facts than agreeing what they are. Certainly I have seen at least as many false claims of fact by anti-AAH debaters as pro - for example that sweat-cooling requires naked skin.

So, rather than have safety warnings about the facts in the article, more important perhaps is a statement at the beginning, addressed to potential future contributors, that the purpose of the article is to state objectively and verifiably what is in AAH, not to argue the case for or against, and certainly not to make any judgements about its value as a scientific hypothesis. Perhaps then we can get away from debating, and back to being a reference source. --Tiffer 23:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. In that case, I think we'd want to trim some of both the pro- and anti- arguments out of this article. It's bald statements like the diving reflex being only present in humans in the arguments that bother me. Yes, that's what the AAH theory says (well, let's be honest, it's really what some of the AAH theories say), but it's known to be untrue. I don't know that I want to try to go through and verify every statement in here, and even if it obviously false I can't apply the dubious template since it is what AAH argues, it's just wrong. This is a really sticky situation. --Steven Fisher 23:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

---

As an outside observer of this dialog, I'd just like to make a few points:

• AAH is a minority theory but cannot be described as a 'fringe' theory. Google Scholar lists 76 scientific papers on "Aquatic Ape", Amazon has books and the BBC recently did two radio documentaries on the subject, narrated by the anthropologist Sir David Attenborough.
• This theory is scientific, as in, the Scientific method has been applied. See above 76 papers for examples.
• It is the nature of Scientific theories that a theory is valid until it is proven false. A theory is never proven 'true', as there is always the possibility of some falsifing evidence arising in future. See Karl Popper. It is apparent that this article refers to a theory. There is no need to keep repeating that it is unproven. All theories are unproven.
• If there are points in this article that have been "proven incorrect", they should be discussed specifically. What are they? Where have they been proven incorrect? All the points made in this article are (or should be) taken from the Aquatic Ape literature. Thus if a wikipedian believes a point has been proven incorrect elsewhere the burden is on them to provide the references, while keeping in mind that Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

Finally, remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If you disagree with theory or belief, this is not the place to fight it out. Go do some science, write a paper or a book. Only then your beliefs or ideas can be added here. Seabhcán 16:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Read previous discussions, please. There's quite a few fact claims by AAH that are, in fact, false. That is why this article is do difficult to edit in a way that makes both sides happy. I actually would argue it is a fringe theory, since the people supporting it seem to have little to no link to real science. However, I'm certainly not proposing putting that phrase in the article. :) --Steven Fisher 23:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Steven, you are confusing AAH with what every supporter of AAH says. The claim about the diving reflex was introduced by one contributor, presumably on a misunderstanding of what AAH actually says. In her 1997 book, Elaine Morgan specifically states that all mammals display the reflex, although it is more highly developed in aquatic mammals. This, I think, is a correction of early statements she made, when she was still developing the hypothesis.

I have now removed the sentence on the diving reflex (although left it in the "Objections to AAH" section) because it is evidently both wrong scientifically and not part of AAH. It was worth you drawing attention to it, but not worth the amount of time that has been spent on it. Given the contentious way in which the article has been developed, there may well be similar instances in the article; and a review of it, based upon sources that reliably reflect AAH, is required. This is not going to happen instantly, and the more time we all spend on this discussion, the less time there will be available to correct the main article.

I reject your suggestion that AAH is based on scientific falsehoods. Serious authors, particularly Elaine Morgan, have taken considerable pains to ensure that the facts on which they base their arguments are sound. That is no guarantee that AAH supporters who are less well-informed will not make unsound claims, but that does not reflect upon the general soundness of AAH. It is also clearly the case that some anti-AAH debaters make untrue claims, as well as misrepresenting AAH. --Tiffer 09:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Tiffer, I think you're confusing my point of view. I couldn't really care less what AAH says, or what AAH proponents say, or what AAH opponents say about what AAH proponents say, or whatever. What I care about is that this article supports AAH proponents statements with some falsehoods stated as facts. That needs to be corrected. --Steven Fisher 01:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed you removed that bit about the diving reflex. Thank you. That makes the article less objectionable to me. In fact, I can at least turn away from this now since I can't immediately spot more problems. (I'm fairly sure there are more, somewhere, but as I've noted before I'm by no means an expert on this subject, and I have desire to become one.) See you around. :) --Steven Fisher 02:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm not pro-AAH so much as I recognize that the hypothesis of terrestrial origin for hominid traits lacks even the circumstantial evidence the AAH can summon. Essentially, it got the majority position by default. People said, more or less, "well, great apes live entirely on land and mostly in forests, so I guess eventually they moved out on the plains and stood upright".

Faced with this alternative, I don't see any harm in a neutral-sympathetic tone in even a hypothesis that the clearly bureaucratic and anti-change anthropological establishment hasn't yet embraced. There is nothing pseudo-scientific about this hypothesis, only about those few people who insist that it clearly is hard fact, not (at best) a perfectly valid theory.

Note that it was pretty clear two decades ago that birds evolved from theropods, but it was a "fringe theory" until the last decade or so, and is really only a majority position very recently. There is overwhelming evidence of human inhabitation of the Americas up to 20,000 years ago, yet the establishment still rejects the premise of pre-clovis habitation utterly and without examination. I'm not sure the idea that Europeans and Australo-Africans lived in the Americas before the amerindians showed up from Asia 12,000 years ago is even accepted enough to quality as "fringe theory", yet it is supported by hard evidence, like genetics and a plethora of archeological sites. Even the Mayo Clinic has, through unfairly heavy peer review, managed to publish serious evidence that cellular life as small as 10% of the 200nm limit exists...in fact, it's starting to seem likely that "nanobes" are the most common life form on the planet, comprising the largest segment of its biomass...and yet most microbiologists won't even discuss the possibility, they're so dogmatic about the meaningless, arbitrary 200nm limit.

All of those things, unlike AAH (which is very hard to either falsify or verify), will probably be the widely accepted establishment position, in a generation. But...either now or until recently...they all are "fringe theories". They all are or were called pseudoscience, mainly because they're rejected out of hand by the establishment, through knee-jerk defense of popular preconceptions.

Remember, continental drift was universally laughed at or completely ignored for decades, then suddenly turned out to be probably true, with the previous lack of proof/evidence simply being a result of knee-jerk refusal to give it a chance. Now it's opposition to continental drift which is a nearly nonexistent fringe.

But all of them deserve articles treating them as seriously as any other theory.

Including the semi-aquatic origin of various key hominid traits.

If anything, I'd suggest that the article is sometimes not presenting the circumstantial evidence firmly enough. Oreopithecus is a strong sign of the possibility of a semi-aquatic origin to walking erect, for example, as well as moving the possible benchmark for bipedalism much earlier, along with Sahelanthropus...yet it's only cited as "another animal" with an aquatic bipedalism origin.

Kaz 20:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

It isn't that AAH doesn't deserve an article. It's that that AAH article has a bunch of falsehoods stated as facts. The diving reflex being present in only humans is one of those (it's in all mammals), but not the only one. How do you handle a situation where some of the arguments are outright lies but people will not accept a statement like "Not only are these interpretations in dispute, but so are the facts"? This is a serious question, btw. --Steven Fisher 23:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

If you can give some references for your assertion that the diving reflex point is false then you can add that. If you can show using references that "people supporting (AAH) seem to have little to no link to real science" then you can certainly add that too. There is no point endlessly repeating yourself in this talk page if you can't produce the references. Seabhcán 08:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

With the greatest respect, do your own searching. The Earth has been proved to not be flat, and mamals have the dive reflex. Neither of those are in ANY serious question anywhere but on this page. This is in no way a controversial claim, it's an outright false one. --Steven Fisher 01:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

No, YOU do YOUR research...you're the one wanting to change the article. Instead of a false claim that the facts themselves are in question (and it's false, because it's too general, encompassing the true facts as well as the ostensibly false ones), identify each fact in error, and cite some proof of that error we can check.

One doesn't generally just attack whole articles, one does (should) identify and fix specific parts of it, WITH references and citations on the Talk page (or, as in a case already under discussion like this, by posting it here first in case someone has counter-arguments). Also keep in mind (not accusing you of anything, just have seen it happen too often) that a good editor fixes, instead of censoring. Some guy defending Robert Byrd kept trying to simply delete all mention of that senator's long history of racism, instead of changing the statement of those facts to be more objective/neutral. Similar stuff happens on the global warming page, George W Bush page, et cetera, spawning long delete wars where neither side seems to give a rat's ass for the actual truth, just spinning the article for their own personal agenda.Kaz 00:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Unrelated to overall quality

"Some young children also have the ability to close their nostrils at will like an aquatic mammal." Now, I'm 19 and maintain this ability. Is this rare, or was the orignal author simply mistaken, which affects how the corrected version should read. Thoughts? 68.60.221.121

Interesting. An old friend of mine (whom I've since lost contact with) was able to do so as well (the last time he demonstrated it, he must have been in his early twenties), and he claimed his sister had the same ability. I've no idea whether it's fairly common or not, though. --Twid 00:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I can do this too. I cannot completely shut them when out of water, but under water, the pressure seals them. Also, Steve would be VERY useful to this article if he could at come half way and at least highlight all these falsehoods so that interested parties can research and verify/disprove them instead of talking generally about "a bunch of falsehoods stated as facts"

 "Valid criticism does you a favor" Carl Sagan, page 32 of The Demon-Haunted World (1995).

-greg

I am extremely interested in this ability, but can't seem to find any reference to it on wikipedia or elsewhere on the net. Can somebody find me a reference? - DJsunkid

Most paleoanthropologists

Few paleoanthropologists accept the hypothesis. Most adhere to the Savanna Theory, the dominant school of thought among scientists for the past 20 years, which holds that human ancestors evolved in savanna environments.

Most paleoanthropologists may reject AAH, but do they really support the savanna theory ?

For example take this quote from the proceedings from the Valkenburg Conference:

"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. As a result, we humans today have the ability to learn to swim without too much difficulty, to dive, and to enjoy occasional recourse to the water."

It seems that support for the "wet" environment, even if not completely aquatic, is pretty broad. Taw 06:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Restructuring

I restructured the page to make full use of Wikipedias sub-heading ability. I thought the article was a bit chaotic (perhaps due to the great amount of changes made, and the disputed ideas contained in the article). I hope this hasn't degraded the article quality. These changes will probably make the article both easier to read and easier to navigate. Shandolad 14:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Love It

I like this hypothesis. It raises interesting questions and it is simple 1:24 AM MYTime