Hair, I believe, became less relevant when neanderthals were wearing the hides of other animals because their hair alone was insufficient to warm them during the last ice age. I would say that is a stronger connection than aquatic apes.
There's one problem with this though. Neanderthals aren't our ancestors.
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.
They share a common ancestor that would have been aquatic if the premise of the OP is correct. Obviously if one goes far back in lineage, you would able to trace which "ape" went aquatic. We don't see anything like that.
Ah, like that. Yes, ompletely correct. I thought you were saying that Neanderthals lost their hair because they had begun wearing hides, and that in this manner, with them being our ancestors, we lost our hair as well.
Now that I look at it this way, yes that makes sense. You were right to bring this up.