SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MikeH who wrote (236)9/14/1999 9:43:00 AM
From: TigerPaw  Respond to of 69300
 
If human ancestors were a species of aquatic ape ...
To be fair the Mezz did not try to state that proto-humans were fully aquatic like a dolphin or something. Only that they hung out at the seashore a lot.

Another theory of hairlessness is that human babies began to take more time to develop. That is to say they retained many fetal characteristics even after they were born. This allowed them and especially their brains to continue to develop for longer, perhaps twice as long, as an animal which is fully developed at birth. In this theory hairlessness is just a side-effect of bigger brains and was not adaptive in itself.

TP



To: MikeH who wrote (236)9/14/1999 9:46:00 AM
From: Mighty_Mezz  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 69300
 
The lack of fossils is a bit of a bother, but savanna theory fails in so many ways. To lose body hair and gain fat would be poor adaptations for a predator in a savanna environment. Then there's the human "descended larynx", also unnecessary in a savanna.

There are also theories that hairless aliens were somehow involved. :-) We may never know for sure, but isn't it fun to speculate.

...Mezz -


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News