The three 'Great Refutations' of the so-called 'Aquatic Ape Hypothesis'

In academia it is generally considered that the so-called 'Aquatic Ape Hypothesis' (AAH) has been rejected. It seems, however, that it is not so clear on what basis that rejection was made. If you probe a little, you'll find that there's actually been  surprisingly little written against the hypothesis in the literature and yet the rejecting view appears to have won primacy.

In this web site the three major 'refutations' of the AAH are critiqued and, it is argued here, are found to be greatly wanting. They all seem to be considering an strong (or extreme)  form of the hypothesis, rather than the mild one espoused here. It is possible to reject any hypothesis if one is allowed to distort it's arguments to the point of ridicule and it seems that this is indeed what has happenned.

The three refutations most often cited are:

1. John Langdon's (1997) critique published in the Journal of Human Evolution.
Langdon's paper remains the only paper published in a first class anthropological journal to attempt to reject the AAH. It does so, it is argued, on the basis of an exaggerated interpretation of the originally proposed hypothesis.

The paper:
Langdon, John H (1997). Umbrella hypotheses and parsimony in human evolution: a critique of the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. Journal of Human Evolution 33:479-494

The Counter-Critique:
See my paper which challenges Langdon's hitherto unchallenged paper.

2. The Proceedings of the Valkenberg Symposium.
Roede et al (1991) remains the most serious piece of literature about the AAH. Rather like in some great football final, eleven proponents and opponents lined up against each other to do 'battle' in the Dutch town of Valkenberg. The findings did come down, very marginally, against the AAH but it is clear from the comments of those on the editorial committee (two pro and two against) that they thought they were critiquing the idea that humans evolved from some kind of truly aquatic ape, not that water had merely acted as an agency of selection in our evolution more than in the evolution of the great apes.

The book:
Roede, Machteld; Wind, Jan; Patrick, John; Reynolds, Vernon (eds.), (1991). Aquatic Ape: Fact of Fiction: Proceedings from the Valkenburg Conference. Souvenir Press (London)

The Critique:
See my web pages which review Roede et al here.

3. Jim Moore's Aquatic Ape: Sink or Swim? Web site.
Amazingly, but considering how little solid counter arguments  there are in the literature to the AAH perhaps not so amazingly, one is often encouraged to check out the famous 'Jim Moore web site' when one demands an answer as to why the AAH is not discussed in the texts. The web site, does not disappoint those who are already sceptical. Indeed it provides a great deal ammunition

The Web Site: Please do go and read Jim's web site. The URL www.aquaticape.org might lead you to think it's gives a balanced view about the hypothesis but you'll soon find it is anything but that.

The Critique: Many people will not have the time to read every single sentence on Jim's site, but if not, you shouldn't just take his introductory paragraphs as any kind of justification for his scepticism. I've taken the trouble to read through every line and check every allegation of poor practice and I've found the actual substance of his claims fall well short of his rhetoric. See this web site's critique here before you make you mind up.