The typical person curious about science who comes across an article, internet post, or web site propounding the AAT/H sees some claims about physical features of humans and other animals about which they have little or no personal knowledge, and quotes from authorities whose work they haven't read. They generally assume these claims and quotes are accurate, and because of this they find the argument for the AAT/H convincing. They should be able to make that assumption safely, but unfortunately, they can't. The AAT/H is a hotbed of false "facts" and misleading, often altered, quotes to back them up. Other sections on this site have shown AAT/H proponents making false claims using phony "facts", often said to be drawn from good sources which actually correctly present real, and contrary, info.

This page is in two major sections: The first section looks at just a few quotes by leading AAT/H proponent Elaine Morgan (there are, sadly, many more where these came from) as examples of the most common techniques of changing quotes, and how they affect the argument. The second section shows how Morgan took one excellent source of information and represented it as saying the opposite of what it actually said.

Section 1: Elaine Morgan's misleading quoting techniques

This isn't easy because she very rarely gives page numbers for quotes (sometimes she doesn't even give the source of the quote at all), so there's a lot of searching to do. But I have been able, with diligent searching, to examine some of the quotes Morgan has used, and have found that she commonly distorts them in several ways, including leaving words out of them without indicating that words are missing. This is considered a cardinal sin when quoting, and Morgan, as a Oxford University literature graduate (I hear it's not a bad school) and professional writer since 1955, realizes this.

She has claimed that:

"I have never even in my green and unregenerate days omitted words from even the most long-winded quotation without indicating by a row of dots that words had been removed."
(E. Morgan post, 27 May 96 in the sci.anthropology.paleo newsgroup)

Morgan also occasionally changes words in quotes -- another no-no. For instance when she quotes Darwin on page 60 of The Scars of Evolution, besides leaving out those 27 words, she also changed a couple of words in a manner that just happens to give a more adaptionist spin to his quote.

There are two possibilities here, neither particularly complimentary to her. She is either doing it on purpose and is therefore dishonest, or she does it by accident and is therefore incredibly sloppy. (Which is it? I don't know; I only know that her altered quotes just happen to support her arguments, while the unaltered ones don't.) Either way it makes her research and writing unreliable, and if her research and writing is unreliable -- if her facts are unsound and her quotations inaccurate -- how likely is it that her conclusions are good?

There are a couple of examples of Morgan's quoting technique which suggest that she isn't just being sloppy. One is that Morgan occasionally manages to precisely excise those words which would damage her case, as she did in an online quote of Sir Victor Negus.

Or she might simply use a non sequitur quote, in which the quote she gives as support for a claim is about another subject entirely. This is the case, for instance, when she quotes Elsner and Gooden as support in her passage regarding breath-holding when diving. The quote she gives as evidence isn't about breath-holding at all; it speaks only of heart-rate slowing (bradycardia).

She also uses a technique I had never noticed before, creating a false context for a quote. She does this most notably in the Darwin quote I mentioned (it's a little long to show here at present; I may put it online later), which she proceeds with several paragraphs which imply that the quote is Darwin's view from 1859, when he wrote On the Origin of Species. But Darwin actually wrote those words in his 1871 book The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. That Morgan intends to convey this false impression can be seen when she refers to this quote in her next chapter; there too she implies that it was said before Darwin's 1871 book ("he hadn't changed his mind that..." Morgan 1990: 71). Another example of Morgan creating false context is her quote of Derek Denton seen below.

Perhaps the most troubling part of her quoting of Darwin is that the quote she gives is a introductory statement in which Darwin uses a devil's advocate approach to set up his detailed explanation (this method is a common stylistic element in Darwin's writings). Morgan quotes only this introductory statement, and in doing this she duplicates a very common, very dishonest, ploy often used by creationists, most often seen when they quote the first part of Darwin's famous passage about the evolution of the eye. It is disturbing to see these creationist-like tactics being used in Morgan's work.

Keep in mind that these misleading quotes are just a few examples among many.

In the following quotes the excised portions and/or relevant portions which were excluded are in boldface.

Morgan quotes Elsner and Gooden: Accurately?

pg. 139 (Chapter title is "Breathing"):

"Aquatic mammals, however, have necessarily acquired more conscious control over the operation of their lungs. Unlike land mammals, they can voluntarily regulate the timing of the breaths they take and the amount of air they inhale. Land mammals' breathing reflexes respond only to events which have already happened, as in the case of an animal which accidentally falls into the water. A diving mammal like a seal or a dolphin purposefully regulates its breathing in relation to actions it intends to perform, as explained in a report by R. Elsner and B. Gooden on diving asphyxia:

"Some major component of the diving response is determined by the intention, conditioning or psychological perspective of the animal being studied. Thus, the diver acts as though it produces the most intense diving response when the need for achieving maximum diving duration is anticipated.""

Morgan uses this quote as support for her claims about conscious control of breathing. However, when the quote is in context, it is clear that Elsner and Gooden are talking only about bradycardia -- slowing of the heart rate -- not breath control.

1983 Diving and Asphyxia: A comparative study of animals and man by Robert Elsner (Professor of Marine Science, University of Alaska) and Brett Gooden (Adelaide, South Australia. Formerly Lecturer in Physiology, University of Nottingham). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

pg. 4:
"There was usually less decline in heart rate during trained immersion than during forced immersion (sea lion and harbour seal), but in dolphins the bradycardia was intensified during trained dives. The generalization which appears to apply is that some major component of the diving response is determined by the intention, conditioning or psychological perspective of the animal being studied. Thus, the diver acts as though it produces the most intense diving response when the need for achieving maximum diving duration is anticipated."

Morgan quotes Sir Victor Negus: Accurately?

"Comparing ' for instance a fast-running horse or deer to a considerably slower Man, he says "in the latter there is a tortuous airway with sharp angles at the anterior and posterior choanae and at the larynx. In addition to tortuosity there is obstruction at the internal ostium and at the glottis. There are eddies produced in Man, esp. in the gap between the posterior nasal passage and the laryngeal aperture..'"

Comparing Morgan's quote of Negus with the full, unaltered quote below, note that Morgan has deliberately excised all the references to the human fetus and various primates, as these references harm her thesis that the human airway's shape is due to convergent evolution rather than phylogeny. Note too that these deletions were not noted in her quote, which was presented as if it were unaltered. No wonder she gave no hint of what book, much less page number, her highly altered quote came from (it wasn't easy to ferret out).

From: 1965 The Biology of Respiration by Sir Victor Negus E&S Livingstone Ltd.: Edinburgh and London. pp. 123-124:

"Nevertheless, certain modifications are found which correspond with the powers of exertion of various species, for instance a fast-running horse or deer to the considerably slower Man. In the latter there is a tortuous airway with sharp angles at the anterior and posterior choanae and at the larynx as well seen in a human foetus; in addition to tortuosity there is obstruction at the internal ostium and at the glottis. Sagittal sections of a Monkey show an intermediate condition, with an intranarial epiglottis to connect the posterior nasal passage and the larynx.

"There are eddies produced in Man, esp. in the gap between the posterior nasal passage and the laryngeal aperture. A sagittal section of the head of a baboon (Cynocephalus) shows much the same points, but in lesser degree; in an Orang (Simia satyrus) the gap is greater."

In that same message, Morgan continued to misrepresent Negus's statements; she quotes:

"While the nose of many vertebrates has reached a high degree of perfection for humidification, for olfaction, or for rapid transfer of air currents, the organ in Man is a rather poor affair"

From 1958 The Comparative Anatomy and Physiology of the Nose and Paranasal Sinuses, by Sir Victor Negus. E&S Livingstone Ltd.: Edinburgh and London, pg. 349:

"One can observe the signs of regression in the nose by inspecting a series of the Primates, starting with the most elaborate nose in the Tree Shrew; although described as the first order of the vertebrate kingdom, yet the description is not applicable to most of the timid representatives of the Primates, which took to trees to escape their enemies or to find food denied to them on the ground.
"And so we find, as this book should demonstrate, that while the nose of many vertebrates has reached a high degree of perfection for humidification, for olfaction, or for rapid transfer of air currents, the organ in Man is a rather poor affair..."

As an odd last note on Morgan's quotes of Negus that day, she ended with a passage she felt showed evidence for her contention that humans evolved in an aquatic environment. I present it as another example of how she has so often made mistakes which manage to reach the exact opposite conclusions that the evidence she reads actually show.

E. Morgan: "While looking this up, I cam across this nice little comment: In aquatic species the odorous molecules are perceived when in solution in water. In terrestrial species a smell conveyed in pure aqueous solution is not perceived. But if dissolved in saline solution, the odour may cause stimulation.

"It is somewhat surprising that in terrestrial Man, salt is essential. Whether this phenomenon applies to terrestrial vertebrates other than Man does not appear to be determined."

Negus, from pg. 92 of his 1958 book mentioned above:
"It is somewhat surprising that while a fish living in fresh water is able to perceive odours carried in a non-saline medium, yet in terrestrial Man salt is essential; whether this observation applies to terrestrial vertebrates other than Man does not appear to be determined.
Backman thought that to be odourous a substance must be soluble in water and in lipoids, so as to pass through the watery layer of mucus and then to be dissolved in the lipoid material which constitutes the olfactory cells."

Now aside from this being yet another example of how Morgan alters quotes, leaving out important words and phrases without indicating it's been done, there are two interesting points in this one. One is that Morgan didn't see fit to include Negus's suggestion, citing Backman, that the saline mixture would allow the odorous substance to be soluble in the saline environment of the terrestrial animal's nose. The other is in the section she stated above, which is her rephrasing of Negus's preceding paragraph. Read it again, and consider these points (actual Negus quotes, Ibid, pg. 92):

"In aquatic species the odourous molecules are perceived when in solution in water, but Seydell states that in terrestrial species a smell conveyed to the olfactory area in pure aqueous solution is not perceived."

"If dissolved in saline solution, however, the odour may cause stimulation, according to Jerome."

"while a fish living in fresh water is able to perceive odours carried in a non-saline medium, yet in terrestrial Man salt is essential"

So while Morgan obviously thought Negus's statements were evidence that humans had an aquatic background, Negus actually said the exact opposite: that in aquatic species an odor in pure water can be perceived, but terrestrial species need the odor to be carried in salt water, and that humans need the odor to be carried in salt water. This rather obviously groups humans with terrestrial species rather than aquatic, yet Morgan managed to see it as the opposite.

Morgan quotes Denton: Accurately?

Morgan quotes Denton, pg. 101:

"On the other hand, when an animal has had enough salt it will take no more. In humans neither the compulsory search nor the abrupt cut-off point can be relied on. Their intake bears no relation to salt deficit or surplus. This is surely not a characteristic that would have been acquired on the savannah. As Denton points out, in savannah conditions '...selective pressures would favour retention and perhaps elaboration of salt mechanisms'."

"As Denton points out, in savannah conditions '...selective pressures would favour retention and perhaps elaboration of salt mechanisms'."

From Morgan's lead-in phrase, "in savannah conditions", you might reasonably get the idea that Derek Denton had actually said something about savannahs pertaining to the quoted sentence, but this context which Morgan provides is in fact a complete fabrication. Denton neither says it nor implies it.

He refers instead to the "environmental, dietetic and metabolic conditions" which led to "the behaviour towards salt of a wide variety of species of wild herbivorous mammals", and he points out that these conditions could naturally have "operated on hominoids over a large part of their evolution". So he is not, as Morgan implies, referring to a relatively transient period of a few million years or to only "savannah conditions", but instead to a wide variety of environments and conditions over tens of millions of years.

That this very long time period, and the largely vegetarian (ie., non-salty) diet of our ancestors, is what he means is clear from the sentence that opens this section of Denton's book:

"The principal consideration in this discussion of the 30 million years of evolution of the Hominidae, is that diet was probably almost exclusively vegetarian during the first 25 million years."
(Denton 1982:70)

This lead-in fabrication ("in savannah conditions") giving a false context to Denton's words is just the first bit of tweaking Morgan does to make the quote say what she wants it to, and she hasn't even gotten to the quoted material yet!

Denton, The Hunger for Salt, pg. 70:

"It follows that selection pressure would favour retention and, perhaps, elaboration of salt appetite mechanisms..."

Now about the word "appetite" being missing in Morgan's book. Well, she also changed "selection" to "selective" -- maybe she's just a poor library researcher and proofreader. It is suspicious, though, that it just happens to be that the word "appetite" might well make many readers realize that these "salt mechanisms" are part of their own familiar, personal behavioral repertoire, rather than a "lost instinct" as Morgan wants them to believe. It also leads into the rest of Denton's sentence, which Morgan seems not have wanted her readers to see at all:

Denton, The Hunger for Salt, pg. 70:

"It follows that selection pressure would favour retention and, perhaps, elaboration of salt appetite mechanisms -- both hedonic liking and the hunger with deficiency -- which were developed at earlier stages of phylogeny."

The hedonic liking of salt, a very recognizable characteristic in humans. The hunger with deficiency as well is present in humans just as in other mammals, contrary to Morgan's claim, as Denton's book clearly demonstrates. Morgan's edited quote puts one in mind of what Philip Kitcher said about the quoting techniques of a pair of creationists:

"Whitcomb and Morris do not quote that sentence. Perhaps this is because it conflicts with the point they are trying to defend. Or perhaps we should accept the explanation that Gish is reported to have offered at the Arkansas trial: 'After all, you have to stop quoting somewhere.'" (Kitcher 1982:182)

Here's Denton's full paragraph; Denton, pg. 70:
"The behaviour towards salt of a wide variety of species of wild herbivorous mammals has been recorded in Chapter 3. The environmental, dietetic and metabolic conditions which determined it could have operated on hominoids over a large part of their evolution. It follows that selection pressure would favour retention and, perhaps, elaboration of salt appetite mechanisms -- both hedonic liking and the hunger with deficiency -- which were developed at earlier stages of phylogeny. This may also have held for the elaboration of salt retention by aldosterone secretion, which has a multifactorial mode of control that includes special adaptations to the assumption of the upright posture. This selection pressure would have been ameliorated by meat-eating with the consequential obligatory sodium supply during the latter 2-3 million years of hominid evolution. Whether this resulted in regression of these mechanisms to any extent is a matter of speculation (see Chapter 26)."

References

1990 The Scars of Evolution, by Elaine Morgan. Souvenir Press: London.

1982 The Hunger for Salt, by Derek Denton. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.

Section 2: Elaine Morgan's misleading presentation of the major points from Derek Denton's research

Morgan reads this:

Denton: "But in the human case, the cultural influences are acting in the context of an innate propensity: the liking for the taste of salt and readiness to ingest it."

and produces this:

Morgan: "A salt crisis in our evolutionary history would go far to explain one other specifically human characteristic -- the fact that we have no instinctive awareness of the state of the sodium balance in our bodies."

Morgan reads this:

Denton: "A characteristic feature of salt appetite is the delay in its appearance despite large rapid loss of sodium. With sheep the delay is usually 24 h, with rats 4-8 h. This is in striking contrast to thirst."

and produces this:

Morgan: "When we are suffering from a deficiency of water we feel thirsty, and take active measures to find a source of water and set the balance right. If the thirst remains unslaked it intensifies until all other considerations become subordinate to the need to drink.

"Most mammals respond just as urgently to the need for salt if they are deprived of it."

Morgan reads this:

Denton: "In rats with sodium deficit as a result of adrenal insufficiency, the characteristic behaviour was to overdrink [a saline solution] considerably relative to deficit."

and produces this:

Morgan: "Derek Denton, in his classic study The Hunger for Salt, describes his researches into salt appetite in non-human mammals such as sheep, rats and rabbits. In all these species there is a precise correlation between the amount of salt their bodies need and the amount they will take in."

and this:

Morgan: "On the other hand, when an animal has had enough salt it will take no more."

And Denton made clear that salt appetite was something one sees in animal which are not carnivorous (because they get plenty of salt from meat and blood and don't need to seek it out) and not living at seaside (because they get plenty of salt from their food and don't need to seek it out). Salt appetite comes from evolving in a salt-deplete environment. Now Morgan, although she cited and quoted Denton and claimed he said the opposite of what he actually said about salt appetite in humans, did largely drop the claims after I'd pointed it out to her over a period of some weeks in the mid-1990s, but then we find her claiming in 2008 that "the immersion" could have been in saltwater, which means she's not actually dropping it, just having it as one option when it's been shot down, it's dead, it's an ex-parrot (no matter how beautiful the plumage).

The more fundamental problem revealed here, however, is that quite clearly Morgan took an excellent source of solid information and claimed it said the exact opposite. It's hard to see how this could have been done inadvertently, but it really doesn't matter whether it was inadvertent or deliberate. Inadvertent would mean a bad scholar due to not being able to understand clearly described research. Deliberate would mean a bad scholar due to being dishonest. Either one means a bad scholar, one whose work cannot be trusted.

Home

Feedback: E-mail me

Next