The Aquatic Ape theory is not new (proposed in the 1940s) and has never generated any scientific scholarship apart from repeated debunkings. It was proposed, and is today promoted by, people without any formal education in anthropology. It's not supported by any rigorous physical evidence--fossil or genetic. It's got nothing going for it other than an energetic former TV writer and a credulous audience.
I don't think you get my comment: the debunking itself is valuable. Just look at the many papers/critiques published on the subject[1]. The last paragraph of the Wikipedia article is also very relevant:
In a 2012 paper, anthropologist Philip Tobias noted that rejection of
the AAH led to stigmatization of a spectrum of topics related to the
evolution of humans and their interaction with water. The result of
this bias, in his and co-authors opinions, was an incomplete
reconstruction of human evolution within varied landscapes.
This is why I think these not-100%-scientific talks (but not spiritualistic crap) are perfectly valid in a TED event. They might be wrong after all, but it doesn't matter as long as they made you visualize/explore new ideas.
The debunking is not valuable. For one thing it takes up the time of professional scientists who could be studying more promising subjects. For another, as your quote points out, this crazy theory has unfairly tarred related, more promising areas of study.
In terms of TED, the primary harm is that it gives the subject lay credence that it does not deserve. The very fact that you are arguing that this theory has value proves my point. What is your educational or professional background for evaluating the merits of this theory? A Wikipedia page? My wife is a professional anthropologist and I can assure you that her field considers Elaine Morgan a crackpot. She was astounded that TED would give her a platform.
It says rejection of the AAH led to stigmatization; correct me if I'm wrong but that means it was not acceptance of the theory which has tarnished related areas; it was labeling it as "crazy" as you just did that caused damage.
You're right that I don't have a degree in the area, but I don't claim any merits to the thoery, to me it's just another conjecture (like what if life on earth came from a martian asteroid) - I don't really care if it's going to be proven or not and don't take it as a fact, it's just food for thought. Falsifying hypothesis is the basis of science after all! Quoting from the aquaticape.org debunking website:
false views, if supported by some evidence, do little
harm, for everyone takes a salutory pleasure in proving
their falseness: and when this is done, one path toward
error is closed and the road to truth is often at the same
time opened
- Charles Darwin
It might sound crazy if you're immersed in the field, but it's not the kind of blatant pseudo-science we should be raging about.
