why is the lack of "fur" positive Progression for humans?

I have always been perplexed by Human's nakedness. Sure we have peach fuzz, and some men push he envelope separating us from apes; but generally we are the naked ape. That isn't the only obvious difference the 2% gene gap has wrought between chimps and us. Funny how everything that is different between us and other apes actually enables aquatic living.I would guess our nakedness goes back at least through the Aferensis period. Although there really is no way to prove it, I believe we humans are the aquatic ape. We sure can out swim any other primate. Our nakedness understood in an aquatic environment makes it easy to understand. Naked skin decreases swimming friction.Sweating is not really a great way to cool off. It only works well under a breeze. It's like a water cooler. That doesn't work unless a fan pulls air through it. What sweating does well, and, very well at that, is carry salt from our bodies. You know the sea turtle expels salt through tear ducts. It's something that sea going creatures need to do.Our trailing legs lend naturally to gliding through the water. They can powerfully kick propelling the swimmer forward. Being a brachiate, our arms make efficient paddles.Adipose fat insulates, and smoothes. It also increases buoyancy.We can control our breath. Babies instinctually know how to swim and hold their breath. Other apes can't even learn it.Besides, anyone ever trying skinny dipping knows how right it feels.

I was taught the same thing, that Homo evolved peering over the grass on the plains surrounding vanishing jungles. The problem here is all Australopithecus fossils have been found in, or around water environments. Lucy was recovered in what us to be the, "Sea of Afar." An ape that can swim as well as climb trees has a huge survival advantage over any savannah ape. Being naked allows for slick swimming, and quick drying. Chimps build nests. There is no reason not to believe Australopithecus took shelter in flooded environments in trees. Big predators, like lions and leopards would not be a problem. Crocs would, but I bet the Hominids had a warning signal for that predator. Like baboons, they probably stayed close to a tree.The problem with the savannah explanation is it is merely conjecture, as is the aquatic origin. What you have to do in this case is line up points of evidence.You can go here to see a brief overview of aquatic origins for Homo:http://www.primitivism.com/aquatic-ape.htmHorses sweat, and they are furred. you don't need to be naked to sweat. I don't care how much sweating I can do, an air conditioned room is what I look for on a real hot day. Sweat is very salty. Lots of sweating will deposit salt on the skin. That is an advantage to a sea going ape. Edited by arrogantape, : No reason given.Edited by arrogantape, : No reason given.

You can't really be taking the horse as a defeat all premises we are of aquatic origin. Horses also have fir. Fir wics sweat off the body better. Mammals in the hotest climates have fir. Camels do. Horses are the exception as we are for copious sweating. On the other hand all mammals that live in salty water emit salt through glands.Sweat glands are found on all mammals. If it were the best cooling agent, they would have developed to the degree our skin does. Wild Dogs in hot Africa do real well without sweating.

It has been proven that all babies do instinctually know to hold their breath under water, and swim. Odd but true.Our subcutaneous fat is plentiful compared to any other ape.There is the ornamental side of head hair. We also have hair wherever it can gather body scent. The rest of us is superficially naked - peach fuzz. Edited by arrogantape, : No reason given.Edited by arrogantape, : No reason given.

chiroptera, I'm with you on your philosophy. I live for the next scientific discovery. I want to know it all.I just think taking one out of place example like the horse, and decide since it sweats and is not aquatic, then people who also sweat aren't aquatic either. The fact is Hippos and dugongs are related to the horse and are aquatic. Perhaps the horse split from a common aquatic ancestor. Horses have gone through some dramatic evolution after all.

Hi Razd, I write out of interest, and not profession. From what I have read, the female human being more hairless than the male rather shoots down the Savannah folks, but maybe not. Certainly millions of years of development can bring out interesting sexual dimorphism.The thing is, why are we such a peculiar ape? We are so different in so many ways? We are natural swimmers. Evolving in the reach of lions and hyenas while practicing bipedal behavior just doesn't cut it for me. Our sweating, larynx migration (also found in other aquatic mammals), adipose fat, head hair, instinctual swimming, and more just makes it look like we were aquatic?You hit the nail on the head when you mentioned the wet environs of our earliest hominids. II can tell you this, if I were around in those days, I wouldn't want to be protected by mixed up nudy savannah hominids over a good boisterous gang of chimps.

Chiroptera, I am going to back off a bit on the particulars. It is interesting reading back on dialogs over the net concerning aquatic apes. I find fault in both camps. It seems the chief defender of the aquatic origin hypothesis reaches afar for animal mirror attributes. These are, in turn, easily refuted. On the other hand, the antagonists bring up ridiculous refutations that are far off anything to do with hominids.Still, I am not wavering in my favoring the aquatic origin. Just look at the known fossil record. Don't you think it very strange we are looking at bipedal hominids dangerously close to the split geneticists have postulated of 5 million years?It seems there must have been some real strong environmental forces acting on an isolated population. I just don't buy the pelvis, legs, spine, appendage specialization and head articulation changes appeared what looks like all at the same time any other way.The fossils are being found in and around water. Lucy and her gang seems to have been in the midst of water.We are not anything like seals, and whales. But, we are definitely confident in the water. Anyone getting wet clothed wants to shed that clingy wetness. Wet terrestrial fir just isn't something I would want to wear swimming.In the savannah, speed to the tree is the way to survival. Baboons and chimps are good at that, and they fully utilize all fours.In an aquatic environment, a lot of predators would not venture there. I am talking of flooded plains. That helps. Creatures to eat under the water are more plentiful, and easier to capture than the small pickings on the savannah.It is just plain easy for me to digest our evolutionary leap from our simian brethren.Edited by arrogantape, : No reason given.

RAZD,The chimp vs. hominid protector comment was meant tongue in cheek.

Bluejay, we all have seen lots of film depicting babies swim. They may have had coaxing, but they do it, and a lot sooner than their first step.The sexual hair on our bodies are out of the way. They produce almost no drag, unless you are counting the hundredths like Phelps.Speed swimming was not Lucy's goal anyway. She just wanted to collect some tender water weeds and morsels then dry quickly. Obviously the early terrestrially slow hominids were somehow very successful in surviving.I like the idea of head hair naturally staying in place while the rest sheds hair for practical reasons. Toddlers would find it handy.

""""""That's just what we did with both our babies when they were but two months old. They held there breath, up to about 30 seconds, and while they could not lift their heads above water to breath, they made effective swimming motions and swam to us. Most amazing, they thought this was all fabulous fun. There was at that time a public recreation program called 'Water Baby' that promoted this type of training. They are now both excellent swimmers and love being in the water and have raised their children the same way with the same results. It would be interesting to know if any other primate infants would react the same way to being introduced to the water.""""""Nothing like first hand evidenceNow, I'd say why on earth do our naked babies know how to swim, and love it, while no primate, other than the wading Japanese monkeys, have anything to do with water.My premise is there had to be a seriously strong evolutionary forcing major morphology changes on our ancestors over a relatively short period of time.Our closest relative, the Bonobo chimp, has all the tools it needs to survive in a dangerous world. It is hot where they live, yet they are well furred. They don't swim. There are nasty predators that stalk them, and so they still can use all limbs for running and climbing. This is a successful survival strategy employed by all arboreal mammals. None are naked.We are so so climbers. Lucy might have climbed better, but like us, she had her long trailing legs to slow her down. Not good. Lucy was no brainiac. She made no tools. Yet, her species survived millions of years. Homo Habilis most likely evolved from Afarensis, and so on to us eventually.I ask everyone, what do you think this slender upright brachiate, Anfarensis, have that made it so successful?

By aquatic I mean hominids that used water born resources for their survival, not that they lived in the water. There is no evidence how any of the individuals that left their remains in fossil form lived.It is just too hard for me to imagine any other survival strategy for slow moving, slow climbing creatures, with nothing to defend themselves with. They would have been taken by a multitude of predators as easily as those predator's undefended babies could be snatched.Add to that our peculiar naked bodies, blubber floats, elongated body, AND a natural swimming instinct, and no wonder some of us question our origins. Think of how many naked creatures are out there? The very big elephant is one...... the rest utilize nutrition found in water.

Sorry about my slowness to adapt to the posting styles here. I am a Macman and have an allergic reaction to codes.I would not try to outrun a chimp or gorilla. I would loose. Free hands are what the other primates have when they are not running, or climbing. Afarensis is being found with no tools. Their brain is small on the hominid scale.The only other model we have for the earliest hominids is an ape peaking over the grass model. generally speaking, for long grass to grow in Africa, a good rainfall must occur.I have stated, I cannot fathom how Lucy managed to survive. Those long legs will increase endurance, like the Bushmen show so well, but they are armed. A slight naked upright gracile ape trotting about is lunch. By the way, the newest Afarensis find is that of a 3 year old baby. It appears to have died by being swept away.I don't ever accept time honored models. From Shakespeare authorship, to audio, I am always looking into the new thinkers. The aquatic hominid strikes true for me subjectively.

Bluejay, did I click the right reply button? You know, I think we would agree on almost everything science wise. Too bad I started us on the wrong foot.I just find our looks fascinating. The huge structural revolution our fore-species undertook eons ago boggles my mind. I remember reading, "Lucy," in the 70's, where Johanson expressed surprise at the fact it's pelvis and legs were so advanced at such an early date in our development.I am sure you are as eager as I to see what they dig up next. Ardipithecus ramidus is certainly interesting. The folks studying the many bones think this creature may have been bipedal. The teeth say something between chimp and Afarensis. Geneticists have put the split some 5 million years ago. Well, it could be chimps diverged from us rather than the other way around.Yes, I did see your baby swim refutation. Interesting, I never saw that before. Having, "Them too," examples thrown up at me all the time is ego deflating.There is no refuting our physiology allows us to swim faster and far longer, as well as under water, than any other primate. We do it well, and there are generations of folks who did that for a livelihood.We not only are hairless, we have this bum. Female sexual organs are out of sight, where chimps are there in living color. Our feet have nearly fully lost their prehensile ability, specializing in locomotion on land and in water.I already mentioned all the changes our whole body has to go through to make bipedalism
possible. There really is no workable intermediate. Unless...... that entails evolving to swim rather than walk first.Nakedness is better than chimp hair for speed, and prompt drying. There is no arguing sleek skin is a bonafide water travel garb. it isn't so cool for brush whacking. I know that first hand..... ouch!

If I remember correctly, Einstein first understood Relativity first, and substantiated that understanding with the mathematics constituting fact.Quantum Physics was met with derision on it's outset. Some mathematics have given scientists a toe hold on facts. Bigger and bigger cyclotrons are working with the theory.I don't think there would be any interest in aquatic derived legs in line with spine and nakedness, and breath control, and highly developed sweat glands, and smooth derrier, and common sense, if the conventional explanation we slowly made all these adjustments working out survival strategies on vicious plains, when other savannah primates are doing the opposite.Remember, brain development followed uprightness. Lucy didn't make tools of any kind. The clever fingers allowed for faster manipulation of obstacles hiding food stuffs.On the plain, primates have two goals. Those are foraging for food, and the other being close to a safe tree. They have retained their protective fur, four legged speed, and superior climbing strengths.I am quite willing to drop water friendly Hominids, if some other model were to come up. The exciting recent discoveries of A. Ramidus only brings supportive new evidence into light for my side. Along with Ramidus they have recovered other relating fossils that suggest thick forested FLOOD plain.This creature is deemed different enough to be given a different genus. Their dental details share characteristics of both chimp and hominid. The exciting and confounding thing to the savannah grass theory is the pelvis suggests bipedal locomotion. Think about that. Bipedal locomotion came right away. It was not a slow development.So the present knowledge says a bipedal barely hominid creature lived in a heavily forested flood plain.They didn't swing from trees Gibbon like. Their build suggest floor foraging. The floor is covered in water. Under the water are succulent plants, amphibians and their eggs, snails, clambs, insects, and so much more. Meanwhile we should be able to assume they built nests in the trees. Chimps do.What better way to be than naked?????? One advantage I haven't read yet is parasites are easy to locate on bare skin. If you live in a place where ticks are a problem, you know it is far easier to find them on yourself, and your kids than your furry friends.I already mentioned quick drying, sleek gliding, and conformation to some other aquatic beings.It is not the fact we are swimming apes sounds right, facts are coming in that support it too.The fact shaving body hair is popular, we like bare bodies. Sexual preferences surely supported nudeness, but the environment made the first play for our smooth skin.Also, bringing the legs in line with the spine works for swimming and walking. Our sports are proof of that.

There were the same traditionalists that slowed down our understanding of the therapod origin of birds. People who believe the son of a shoe repairer wrote the Canon overpopulate academia. I went through a lot of university science training and yet I refuse to let my imagination suffer ossification.I was told to stick to the facts. My last post did.The new news was A Ramidus evolved in a heavily forested floodplain. What do you think Ramidus was doing to support his family?Edited by arrogantape, : No reason given.