Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis/Archive1

Psychic tears?
??? 22:39, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tears#Types_of_tears 22:42, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Ah. 22:48, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Quote section
You guys have pages of talk on this site mocking the likes of Conservative on CP who supports his theories by random quotes from unremarkable people. You have a whole article entitled quote mining. Thats what is wrong with that section. 00:02, 8 June 2008 (EDT)&mdash; Unsigned, by: BTM / talk / contribs


 * Surely there's quoting & there's Quote mining. Nothing wrong with a good quote, from a valid source in context. 00:06, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * (Edit conflict!) How is it quote mining? Those quotes seem to represent their opinions quite accurately, from what I can tell. 00:07, 8 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Quotes do not support arguments, also the context of these quotes is not given, all the tell tale signs of quote mining is in place such as ellipses and incomplete sentences. But even if it is not quote mining it is not how scientific principles are advanced or argued for. It should be about evidence not who can collect the most quotations from random people. BTM 00:08, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Agreed, but we're not a scientific journal & the whole article's only a few hours old. leave it to settle for a while, then come back. 00:11, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Oh, and before deleting large chunks, why not bring it up on the talk page first? 00:13, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * At the very least the original full context of the quotes and where they appeared should be required before being entered. The very least if you wont allow their removal. BTM 00:17, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I agree. None of the quotes are sourced.  This article smells of Pacific Arboreal Octopussy.  ħ uman  00:20, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * What do you mean by "full context"? 00:21, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * It's all here if anyone wants to go plundering. 00:26, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Changes
I'd just like to say that this is a very published, intellectual theory, not some crank idea. By treating it as such is anti-intellectualism and anti-science. Elaine Morgan is one of the chief proponents of this theory. It is not in conflict with any evolutionary models, it just presents a different interpretation of the already existing models. An aquatic common ancestor as opposed to a savannic one is not crank, pseudoscience or anything of that kind. 00:28, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * No, of course not. We appear to be experiencing random turbulence. 00:29, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes, but this article is garbage. An intro that is a paraphrase of WP; tables and quotes lifted from some "Morgan" person's webshite.... we can do better.  ħ uman  00:30, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Obviously, but perhaps we could do it politely? 00:34, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes, original articles are meant to be improved by the mob. 00:35, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Also, "The hypothesis and its variations have been largely ignored by mainstream paleoanthropology, although some papers have criticised aspects of it" was lifted straight from WP, although the next sentence, "It has been suggested, for example, that a broad enough terrestrial diet would ensure sufficient access to docosahexaenoic acid that there is no requirement for high consumption of seafood and accordingly no reason to posit an aquatic phase in human evolution." was "left behind". Sorry for the rudeness, but this "article" looks like little more than wiki-spam to me.  ħ uman  00:35, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * "An aquatic common ancestor as opposed to a savannic one is not crank, pseudoscience or anything of that kind." So what is this article for?  ħ uman  00:37, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * It's science. We do science. 00:38, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * We also do footnotes. I removed all the unsourced "information" from the article, which essentially served as a paean to some Ms. Morgan and her website.   ħ uman  00:41, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Does Elaine Morgan have creds we don't know about (yet)? IE, is she an evolutionary biologist or something like that?  ħ uman  01:02, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Regarding various things, such as the decapitation of this article
I recall that at least one section of the article was sourced to science journals and the likes. Anyone mind putting it back?

Also, I'd appreciate Human not calling me a wiki-spammer. Even though the part that I wrote is still there. 00:45, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I didn't know it was you. Could have been anyone.  I called what I saw for what I saw it as.  An article assembled out of bits from elsewhere, with no further elaboration or commentary, mostly supported by one link to "some web site".


 * Anyway, what is this article supposed to be? A refutation?  An example of evolutionary science abandoning a well-reasoned but empty dead-end?  An example of open-ended evolutionary science in action?  Just curious...  ħ uman  01:00, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Er, the "history" tab kind of undermines that argument. :P
 * As to the purpose, I'm not defending the original article, so that's behind us now. 01:05, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * What argument? I didn't check the history, I don't care who built something, just what I see when I come to read it.  So... let's figure out where we are going with this.  ħ uman  03:05, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Elaine Morgan
Has an article at WP: wp:Elaine Morgan (writer)

"Morgan has been accused of using sloppy and unscientific methods in her scientific writing - for instance, systematically distorting quotes to support her position. "

I recommend reading the ref given there. Surely there is an interesting article to be salvaged here, although I suspect it won't be a craven homage to Ms. Morgan.  ħ uman  01:07, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I disagree-- Without context, that quote above is quote mining. [[Image:Shifty.gif]]
 * Seriously, I think the scientific content should stay as is. 01:13, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I have no problem with the inclusion of sourced information and evidence about the hypothesis. But quotes really don't belong. BTM 01:48, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Christ on an Easter stick, Lyra, how can it be quote mining when I link to the frigging source? If you were trying to make a point, I would try to follow your logic.  But now that I know you were the one who assembled the article as I saw it earlier today, your critiques of others' methods fall on deaf ears.  What "scientific content" are you referring to?  Items sourced indirectly, via, the one person who seems to really want to promote the topic?  Let's not take her word, and find the actual sources behind this stuff.  ħ uman  03:09, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

This article's links seem to mainly dwell on Morgan on a personal basis. She was not the originator of this theory, for a start, and we should not confuse people with an idea.-Albannach (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Savannah vs Forest
So far as I know, the scientific consensus leans towards forest rather than savannah environments for the earliest stages of human evolution, including the development of bipedalism, since at the time that the earliest bipedal hominids were appearing, forests were far more common and there was no reason for apes to adapt to grasslands. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 02:39, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * That is not my understanding at all, there seems to be very strong evidence for expansion of grasslands corresponding with hominid evolution. Perhaps the earliest divergence of the homo clade might have taken place in wooded regions but for at least the last 2-3 million years of evolution it has been predominantly grassland environs.
 * Which is of course meaningless to this discussion since we are talking about evolutionary forces operating in the 5 mya-2.5mya. Your right that Homo habilis, Homo erectus and descendant species likely evolved on the grasslands but the divergence from chimp like ancestors took place 3 million years before that. So really the question of savanna/forest/aquatic is for the 5 mya mark. Your sources do not support savanna expansion during this time frame. Fifth Horseman 13:25, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Breath holding instinct
Do we know that baby chimps for example do not do this? BTM 03:50, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * My understanding is they drown - but I've got no source.--Bobbing up 14:45, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Cause of Hairlessness
I've always found this theory interesting on a "huh, that does make sense for that *one* thing" aspect,and the "i love reading my horoscope" part of me, and given that I'm a Mythology scholar. Also, it's just fun to think of us as water lovers, since I'm a cancer-crab, and love the water. That bias admitted, I have to ask about the counter examples to the Hairless area. I don't know if the "elephant, rhino, etc are good examples -- except that they are thought to have some aquatic ancestry so are not the best examples" is supposed to be facetious or not. If it's serious, they it's lacking in anything that actually counters this point, and comes off as a rather weak and creation scientist like response. What are the other examples of hairless animals that do not have "possible aquatic ancestry" other than the ones mentioned then self-denied?--WaitingforGodot 15:24, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

The term 'structure' not well defined in the objections section
I've read that first paragraph in the objections section several times and I can't figure out what it means and it is down to the word 'structure' not being well defined or elaborated on. Does anyone know how to word this paragraph so that it can be better understood? &mdash; Unsigned, by: 86.6.165.64 / talk / contribs
 * Looks clear to me, especially since examples are given. Function = what an organ does; structure = how it achieves it, basically.  ħ uman  23:42, 3 February 2009 (EST)