In the vertical margins either side detail on one side aquatic explanations - other side -conventional explanations
With particular emphasis on explanations. How the focus area / structure evolved the way it did. Why it could NOT have happened the other way
What survival advantage did it provide
The swimmers ear factoid is indicative, and has no "conventional" explanation. Advantage clear and mechanistically obvious.
The subcutaneous fat layer likewise. Advantage obvious.
The loss of fur seems dubious to me - plenty of aquatic mammals have thick fur, and the advantage of losing it is not obvious. They were too small, basically, to benefit from losing hair. The subsequent loss of hair as a daytime running adaptation seems more likely (and better accounts for the still-incomplete nature of the loss: people are covered with hair). Tossup. There is no indicated conventional explanation, though.
The breath control and unique physiology of the upper throat and nasal connections has obvious aquatic advantages. The only "conventional" explanation I've seen is sexual display via vocalization (or the Just So story of abetting talking). That is possible - but has a jury-rig feel to it compared with the direct mechanical gain for swimming, and in particular does not account for the survival hit via various troubles (aspirated food, choking on things, SIDS, etc).
There's the diet thing - humans are better adapted for a fruit and seafood diet than most (consider what complete diets need no cooking or special processing); there's the blood pressure and salt physiology and so forth, there are the behavioral cues (people love shorelines, water, etc). No solid conventional accounting for this stuff - maybe the fruit.
And so forth - the cumulative effect is worth noticing.
But the main one, imho, is bipedalism and foot/leg structure. The wade foraging explanation is so clearly based in mechanistic advantages of all kinds - including incremental ones ideal for Darwinian pressure - that it becomes plausible immediately upon encounter. But in addition, it highlights an overlooked matter: the conventional explanations make little sense, to the point of being an embarrassment. They have always been little better - even no better - than Just So stories, with no Darwinian mechanism of the slightest plausibility backing them. There are even published hypotheses, accepted in the conventional and scientific literature, that incorporate basic errors in Darwinian reasoning - such as abetting the ability to carry things in the hands. And the most common one - seeing over tall grass when venturing into savanna - was simply foolish long before it was obviated by better evidence of the timeline
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus: there is no advantage in making oneself simultaneously slower and more visible in predator country far from trees, as early stages of the transition would demand. Grassland prey might occasionally stretch high for a quick lookout, but they don't stumble across the savanna on their hind legs with their heads in the air for hours on end. There is very little bipedalism among baboons. It's not a sensible idea. But that leaves bipedalism - the central and root-level modification from which all else sprang - unexplained, conventionally.
The point being not that some tree-climbing wade-foraging ape phase is an established and sure thing - merely that it's the best and most sensible possibility on the table at the moment, for several features of human behavior and physiology. It's a normal, sane, reasonable, and interesting hypothesis.