It says on the page General Problems with the AAT/H (aquaticape.

org) :

To address the General Problems portion:

Theories which do not appeal to an underlying cause, and instead simply appeal to membership in a
category, commit the fallacy of limited depth." They also expect this similarity to happen without regard
to relatedness, which means that -- bizarrely -- they ignore the central element in evolution: phylogeny,
relatedness, and descent with modification.

Then, they claim that aquatic mammals generally do have hair, and thus this is reasoning for apes to not
develop hairlessness. First of all, why wouldn’t apes lose hair in water? And second, most aquatic
mammals who do have hair tend to have oily hair that keeps them warm and their inner layer not wet.

It then says on the same page:

This is very bad, frankly -- no regard to phylogeny, no regard to function, just an expectation that
environment should, somehow, cause all creatures within that environment to solve physical problems in
the same way.

This very criticism is contradicted in the comparison of aquatic apes as expectedly convergent to aquatic
mammals. In fact, if we are to compare hairlessness in any aquatic creature, they are nearly always
hairless. Also, this is only taking into account billions of years of evolution, compared to the short time of
the apes, and since it is a small category of function as well as structure, the apes to be hairless aren’t
comparable to other instances in evolution, considering that they are an outlier in evolution.

They bear the question:

They [AAH] make the mistake of supposing that even very distantly-related animals in a common
environment should evolve the same mechanisms for dealing with any given problem

This is the main problem in evolution in general, especially when relying upon any evolution at all. In
evolution, we must rely upon expected environments and fossil appearance which causes the relation to
function. Where we find the fossils, and the fossils’ functional anatomy are generally held as a key to the
life of the fossil’s livelihood. Likewise with living species.

Then it says:

They make the mistake of supposing that even very distantly-related animals in a common environment
should evolve the same mechanisms for dealing with any given problem, for instance, believing that if
hominids had a land-based transition they would've have used the same form of thermoregulation as
"the wild ass and the camel" (that example is from Elaine Morgan, in her 1990 book, The Scars of
Evolution: "On the supposition that man's ancestors moved out from the trees to open ground and
needed sweat-cooling, they might be expected to have followed the example of the wild ass and the
camel in adapting their apocrine glands for that purpose."). This idea -- suggesting that developing an
adaptation is like catalog shopping -- is an odd and non-evolutionary idea, which not only ignores the
role of phylogeny in evolution (the core idea in evolution, actually) but also ignores the fact that animals
in any given environment often develop many different mechanisms to deal with common problems. This
often leaves AAT/H proponents in the odd position of being surprised that humans most closely resemble
our primate relatives (for instance in sweat-cooling via eccrine glands rather than apocrine glands)
instead of distantly related ungulates.

This statement is referring to whenever the AAH proponent affirms that the AAH is right, and there are
counterexamples in other mammalian species in their anatomical functions and tendency to have
certain features other than what a non-AAH ape would have. However, how can we account for ‘many
different mechanisms’ in ‘common problems’?! We cannot look at a creature and magically know how
they avoided certain avenues of evolution and kept other adaptations, especially if there are many
different methods of solving a problem in evolutionary context of adaptation. Not only this, but they
contradict themselves in the very idea that evolution isn’t ‘catalog shopping’ but yet claim that evolution
has ‘many different mechanisms to deal with common problems’. This in itself is a shot in the dark. To
clarify what I mean by this, the critic is attempting to know the unknowable. If we are to look at
evolution in a categorical way, and to develop theories about how evolution occurred, we simply must
consider convergent evolution’s commonality amongst creatures whom are adapted to a certain
environment.

It is said:

The AAT/H method also includes an ironic double standard: for instance, while the observation that non-
human savannah mammals don't predominantly walk bipedally and predominantly cool by sweating via
eccrine glands is considered devastating evidence against a terrestrial divergence for our ancestors, but
the fact that no non-human aquatic mammals do so is simply ignored.

This is no double-standard. Of course, the author clings to using the notion that ‘aquatic mammals’ in
general didn’t develop like aquatic apes. This is seen over and over again, ad nauseum, as it is a main
supposed critical point of the theory. Using the supposed exemplar of evolution for the contradiction of
the AAH, the aquatic mammal, the dead horse is flogged over and over again in complete dismissal of
understanding that the two are completely different. In defining the aquatic ape, we must consider first
an ape, and then evolution in its aquatic environment as compared to a non-aquatic environment. Apes
in non-aquatic environments that have subsisted in this way in an evolutionary timescale are indeed
distinguishable from aquatic apes. However, non-human aquatic mammals did not begin their
evolutionary descent with regard to being an ape first. It amazes me that this statement is even made by
a supposed balanced critique of the AAH and someone who supposedly understands evolution.

One example of this -- and a real roadblock for AAT/H proponents' understanding of hominid evolution --
is the way they mistakenly assume that environmental determinism is the normal method within
paleoanthropology.
There are examples of non-deterministic evolution certainly; however, what other than environment
shapes general evolution in culling random mutations and mating? Environment is exactly what is
claimed to shape the beginning of human development from apes, although of course this double
standard is held by the critic. If environment is important, then the AAH is the strongest evidence of our
evolution.

There is a blatant omission held:

But the mainstream theories of human evolution typically deal with social interaction and food-getting,
not environment, as drivers of selection.

Surely, but this is mainly held as in temporal closeness between the development from ape into human,
and for some reason this is said, but yet it doesn’t consider that the AAH can’t bear this same gravity.
Just as aquatic or non-aquatic, there can be social interaction, and especially food-getting. In fact, the
food of aquatic areas could have helped develop brain growth. Supposedly humans developed a bigger
brain because of cooking food on a fire. Not only is the latter nonsensical, it is only a human
phenomenon, and thus can’t be tested with evolutionary principles.

It is said:

All animals have to dissipate heat, and this is easier for animals which have more surface area for their
volume. This is just like a radiator; if you look at one you see it is designed to have a great deal of surface
area for its volume (if you look inside your computer you'll find this principle in use in heat sinks on heat
producing components -- it's a general law of physics). An animal like an antelope has relatively long legs
and neck, and therefore a lot of surface area for its volume compared to an elephant; the elephant
therefore has more trouble getting rid of heat. The elephant has little hair for this reason (and tends to
habits that don't build up heat as readily too) and as further proof that this is the reason, one can look at
prehistoric elephants (and rhinos) which lived in much colder regions -- they were covered with hair,
because they didn't have the heat load that their tropical cousins have to deal with.

Is this really even addressing the AAH? It seems not. If we lived in water, we wouldn’t need to dissipate
heat, obviously. The AAH doesn’t claim that we lost hair to dissipate heat, and evolutionarily in
phylogeny we find that this isn’t the case at all for any haired mammal especially in convergent
evolution. Also, elephants cover themselves in mud to keep cool, and often go swimming as well to do
the same.

The critic also claims that we cannot look at convergent evolution categorically, but rather in function,
but he is using the former rather than the latter in this very instance.

The critic claims this is a strawman of the AAH:

This is -- judging from its continual and widespread usage -- another essential AAT/H technique. An
example is the assertion, echoed by almost all AAT/H versions, that paleoanthropologists claim that
early hominids lived on "the arid savannah", which AAT/H proponents typically -- and inaccurately --
characterize as a waterless, treeless plain. The AAT/H is then said to be the only sensible theory, since
early hominids were probably not well adapted for surviving on a treeless, waterless arid grassland.
In truth, this notion isn’t held by AAH at all. In fact, it is the notion that there are watery areas near and
in the Savannah and in the surrounding time of human evolution there were shores and water-logged
areas, which not only support the AAH, but also are useful for explaining why the common theory of
savannah evolution is the main theory of human evolution.

A strawman from the very person claiming that the AAH makes this very same strawman: she/he claims
that one wrong doesn’t make another wrong right, like proving the Savannah theory wrong doesn’t
make the AAH right, which in this very claim of a strawman he assumes that the AAH is wrong. But, if we
are to accept the AAH, we generally have to prove the alternate theory wrong, considering that they are
non-implicative of each other in their fullness.