This is another one of those things which is more or less orthogonal to the question of evolution of creation/design. A person who believes that God simply created man without fur might still wonder WHY and, likewise, an evolutionite who believes that man originally had fur but lost it might wonder what selective advantage there could possibly be for a land animal to lose its fur coat. In other words, the question of 'why' has never been answered decently. Best attempts I've seen at answering this one are those of Elaine Morgan and Danny Vendramini but I still could not recommend either for various reasons, and neither really provides any idea of an ADVANTAGE which losing fur coats might have conferred. For all land animals which you normally ever see save for the one, humans, fur is a major form of protection from the elements and from contact with sharp and dangerous things.
But there is one thing in the case of humans which scholars appear to have overlooked, one really big advantage which losing fur would have conferred to early man, assuming he didn't freeze to death in the process i.e. before he learned to manufacture clothing.
What I'm talking about here is handling fire outdoors. Picture some poor Neanderthal or other hominid eating a piece of raw meat on some hunting trip and thinking to himself:
"Man I wish I could cook this stuff and I would if I were safely back in my cafe without all this damned WIND, but NO WAY am I gonna risk catching my own butt and my own 6" fur coat on fire...
THAT would be the one really big edge to losing the fur coat and naturally you'd only ever see it on a creature which handled fire. An incident which would cause a minor burn to a human could easily light a Neanderthal or any other hominid up like a torch and fry him.
This page has been viewed
times since the morning of 5 May, 2012
Back to the Natural History Page
This Web Page Created with PageBreeze Free HTML Editor / Web Hosting