If you ask me, Floresiensis is the smoking gun for how we evolved.
I disagree when you say "we." H. Floresiensis is a prime example of what you get when you isolate a gene pool. It evolves unique characteristics, like a diminutive stature or physical characteristics adapted to its environment. Those characteristics are specific to that particular cousin in the evolutionary tree, not the default. Besides that, H. Floresiensis isn't even our direct ancestor at all, rather we share a common ancestor with her [them].
I will never believe a bare bod could be gene pooled without some other impetus other than through sexual preference.
There is no known species of primates, alive or extinct, that spend the majority of its life in the water. Of those that do spend more time in watery environments are just as hairy as their cousins. How do you reconcile that?
Secondly, if we are directly related to H. Floresiensis, and it is the smoking gun that we are the products of aquatic apes, then why were huge paddle feet, small stature, and not spending a great amount of time in the water, etc, deselected if it was as large of a selective factor as you suggest?
As well as humans swim when properly taught, they still have to be taught nonetheless. They are still slow and clumsy in the water, relatively speaking to other aquatic mammals. Why is swimming not innate or intrinsic if it was such a huge selective factor?
What compelling evidence actually exists that would even begin to allude to water being the dominant factor in why the Homo genus began to lose its hair? This is all very theoretical and I am not seeing a connection.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.
"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston