Debate:The so-called Aquatic Ape Hypothesis is not pseudoscience

Proposition
The mislabeled, misunderstood and misrepresented so-called "aquatic ape hypothesis" has been falsely cast into the "do not touch... ever" box for all the wrong reasons. I have studied the wading hypothesis for 25 years, having wanted to understand how such a simple, plausible idea could be dismissed so easily. I returned to academia to do a Master's degree in Human Evolution at University College London (under Leslie Aiello) and then emigrated to Perth, Australia to do a PhD at the University of Western Australia (finally under Charles Oxnard.) I have a dozen papers, three book chapters and one of my own published. I have learned that the wading hypothesis is head and shoulders, both metaphorically and literally, in terms of evidence compared to the others. I suspect all the other fascinating ideas Elaine Morgan so brilliantly discussed in her "superbly written books" (Tobias 1998) would reveal the same thing if any student were directed to actually openly investigate them.

The proposition is that waterside hypotheses of human evolution (as they should be referred to, in the plural) are long overdue a rational and scientific investigation rather than the ignorant, group-think sneering that has been the case so far.

Commentary
Have you looked at the 15 questions for evolutionists? MjkL382 (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)