Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9077 total)
83 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 82 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,031 Year: 5,143/6,534 Month: 563/794 Week: 54/135 Day: 0/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   why is the lack of "fur" positive Progression for humans?
entityUnknown
Junior Member (Idle past 5001 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 07-20-2008


Message 51 of 202 (476052)
07-20-2008 8:29 PM


Aquatic Theory
In the aquatic theory, it states that our ancestors spent a signifigant amount of time in water to eventually obtain useful adaptions, the lack of "fur" being one.

The aquatic theory compares us to aquatic mammals, such as the whale, dolphin, hippo, etc. All of these mammals have little fur. It makes them more streamlined. This is not directly related to the question, but it also explains why our fat is attatched to our skin, like the blubber in seals.

For the thermoregulation hypothesis, it simply doesn't add up. If we went to the savannah and shed our fur coat to better regulate our temperatures, why aren't there other "naked" animals? All other predators on land, wolves, cheetahs, etc, haven't found it necessary.

In reply to the sexual preference suggestion: why would we be attracted to naked apes in the first place? Other terrestial animals don't seem to have a problem with furry mates.


Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 07-20-2008 9:13 PM entityUnknown has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022