Parasomnium writes:
Is that really a problem, though?
It could look like a problem when written like this. It's like he is saying that because neanderthals wore hides they lost their hair, meaning that the common ancestor of neanderthals and sapiens had lots of hair. This does nothing to dicredit the aquatic ape theory, because neanderthals didn't evolve into humans, so it can be easily said that the cause of losing hair by neanderthals is irrelevant to the cause of sapiens losing its hair. If that makes any sense.
Neanderthals probably weren't the only members of the Homo genus who were wearing hides. The general argument still sticks.
Oh yes, the
general argument sticks. And is probably the cause. Sapiens lost its hair because it was unneccesary when it began wearing hides. It's just that neanderthals wearing hides is not an answer to sapiens losing it's hair.
Maybe it was just semantics, it's best to be clear in these cases though.