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

Hi RAZD,What answer do you want from me on sexual dimorphism? Yes, it exists. If you are alluding to modern male and female differences, yes, indeed, there are remarkable differences. The female of our species is smoother skinned.You are assuming our species is the end product of a steady progression. I don't buy that. We could have inherited the naked trait, and the bipedal mode of moving about, plus tool making from our distant semi aquatic ancestors. Then, with the move inland, larger size, and more efficient land travel was needed for survival. Sexual dimorphism, no doubt, progressed too.

A florensies is now regarded as a primitive hominid. This creature enjoyed easy pickings on the island of Flores. It did have tools, rather advanced tools at that. Their feet precludes any notion they were land travelers, and that they came by water to that island. There were enough of them to keep a colony going for many thousands of years. Besides the easy land animals they devoured, they also had fish, frogs, and other water born creatures in their diet.There has to be a biological reason for changes. Our females are barer than we males. Like I said before, though, my skin dries quickly, after a swim as my wife's. We are not as densely fur clad as our ape brethren. Some males have little more noticeable hair as women. 200 thousand years can obscure our beginnings.I think that this debate has run it's course on these pages, save for another discovery relighting the fire. You can be sure H floriensis will start the debate among scientists. I am googling for that to happen.

lyx2noFunny you should mention the word penguin in reference to my take on h Floriensis, who would have walked similarly to the flat footed penguin. H f. had to have picked up the knee considerably more than we do. The papers say H f. was no runner, either fast, or slow.Flores is a closed system. There were no big predators. If H f. was smart enough to make a stone dagger, he was smart enough to trap his prey. Running was not necessary, and h F. was a ridiculous runner any way.The big flat feet are ideal for water propulsion. The question that needs to be answered is, was H f.'s closest kin, H habilis, flat footed?

lyx2no,You used Penguins to counter what the scientists wrote. I ran with that, because I think penguins look clowny, not that I really thought they looked like a penguin, with bunyons yet.... geees.It was reported that with such large flat feet, H floresiensis had to walk like a clown. I post things from a variety of sources. They, in turn, quote Nature. New Science is a reporting site for breaking news in science. Yes they write in the vernacular.Try fitting your feet with skin diving fins. This is an exaggeration, but you would find you have to lift your knee high. You would be ungainly. H f. could not defend themselves against big cats. There were plenty of those inland over the globe, except isolated islands.H habilis remains are found with big cat' trash. Small 3-4 footers with simple rock tools, would be a lot better off avoiding carnivores whenever possible.They were a strong swimmer.h Floresiensis swam to the Island. That is a long swim, and not one for novices. Since there has been occupation on Flores for 800,000 years some early hominid made the swim.If the anthropologists make it back to that island, and caves anywhere around the region, perhaps we can have some questions answered. I would like to see a skeleton 800,000 years old.

Bluescat, come on, you must be joking. It was a migration, performed over generations.

The evidence is that it swam to Flores Island. Another thing that has me excited are the big flat feet. This is a very archaic condition. Not having the specialty bone needed to create an arch left it with a big chimp foot. H f. also has a primitive wrist bone that matches that of H habilis, known from some incomplete specimens in Africa. H habilis is about the same size as H floresiensis. That would mean there was no need for it to be a shrunk H erectus. Besides, H erectus had a modern wrist, and feet.

The new Scientific American issue has a story of h Floresiensis. The idea it is closely related to Homo Habilis has taken root. The similarities are significant. Size, brain capacity, tool making, and morphology link the two.It seems non plausible to me that scientists staring at the Hobbit's feet don't entertain at least a fleeting thought the feet are great for water propulsion. Michael phelps had large feet, short legs, and a long powerful torso. The Hobbit is built the same, but with a downward curve of the clavicle, giving the hobbit a streamlined neck to shoulder shape.Interestingly, the artist who created the model for the Hobbit pictured in Scientific American made her buck naked.There needs to be an intensive search of shoreline caves in Africa, the middle east, all the way to Indonesia. I think it very unlikely H habilis, or H floresiensis will be found inland. They would stick to the coast, where the geology is fast changing. It's a tall order. I think islands will afford the best places to look.

Thanks for the reply. My point being that the unusual morphology of Phelps is behind his success. Long arms, long torso, short legs, long feet are great gear for swimming. The little hobbit lasted for a 100 thousand years in just that one cave. H habilis was a long survivor. The Hobbit is almost certainly derived from H Habilis, or the other way around. Whatever the genealogy hierarchy, The little guy did not swim to Flores from Africa. It was a slow procession along the shores by thousands of ancestors, beach by beach. My bet is they will never find this hominid again. Flores was unnatural as it had no large predators. That allowed the diminutive clumsy Hobbit to venture inland and establish a home there. Only on like no predator islands where you might find a cave with remains. Lets hope they do.