While the science in most of his book is still relatively uncontroversial, I have to wonder if the parts I criticized were evidence of a deeper underlying problem, rather than simple missteps. I'm glad I registered skepticism toward his hypothesis of diabetes as an adaptation to cold, which I still find to be dubious, and his endorsement of the aquatic ape hypothesis, which I think is total bunk.

...human beings lack a particular trait that would be far better evidence of aquatic origin than any of these, and one that we would certainly expect to be widespread if our ancestors evolved in the water: webbed hands.

My uncle had webbed hands. He always was kind of ape-like too... Is there a connection?!

"Dr. Moalem discusses this example at length, as well as a similar genetic disorder called favism, an enzyme deficiency which produces severe anemia if its carrier consumes fava beans. Favism, like the sickle-cell gene, has become extremely common in some populations because it protects against malaria." --Ebonmuse

A strong piece of evidence to add against the Design argument.

"I do not think Dr. Moalem is ignorant or a bad scientist. Instead, I think this is an example of an all-too-common phenomenon: the scientist who ventures outside their field of expertise and ends up making mistakes that an expert would have been able to point out." --Ebonmuse

Yes. This problem is fairly easy to fix in advance. The author or editor should consult some experts in the appropriate fields before publishing the final product.

I have read descriptions of semi-aquatic ape theories, so to speak, which postutale populations of ape-like creatures that lived on land but frequently swam in the ocean or in lakes. I have never heard of fully aquatic ancestors.

There's a similar hypothesis for obesity, that it's a side effect of trying to survive starvation conditions.

There's also the "hygiene hypothesis", which states that too much cleanliness can cause allergies, as a result of our immune systems not having enough targets.

More directly parallel to the anti-malaraia adaptations mentioned are Tay-Sachs, which is proposed to be an anti-tuberculosis adaptation, and cystic fibrosis, which is likely an anti-diarrhea adaptation.

Some microbes, like the cholera bacterium, spread themselves by giving their hosts diarrhea. They make their hosts' intestinal-lining cells' chloride-ion molecular pumps much more active, and more chloride ion being pumped out means more water diffusing out by osmosis. This means more fluid for the microbes to spread in. However, diarrhea can cause one to be dehydrated, which is a Bad Thing.

Cystic fibrosis involves the opposite condition; cells' chloride-ion pumps are much less active than usual, which produces CF's other symptoms. This would counteract diarrhea microbes' attempts to induce diarrhea to make those pumps more active.

Our beloved and late Allan Glenn had suffered from that condition, sad to say.

We can become pretty good swimmers, but it's not natural. I was a competitive swimmer for 9 years in my youth - it takes a lot of work.

Still, the first part of the book sounds good. Never heard the diabetes hypothesis though. Does he have any research behind this hypothesis (other than the frog analogy) or is it mere speculation?

Darwin warned against speculation - speculation is well and good, but if you want to be taken seriously, you must have the evidence.