MONKEY

BODY HAIR

People lost body hair. The only reasonable explanation I've heard of is Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (AAH) ... is generally ignored by anthropologists, ... Despite being debunked, it returns periodically ... members of the community of academic anthropology ... reject almost all of the claims related to the hypothesis ... considered to be a classic example of pseudoscience among the scholarly community ... and has been met with significant skepticism ... hypothesis has equivalent merit to creationism.

Official scientific explanation of body hair loss is thermoregulation benefits, yet no comparable size mammal living on the ground lost hair for the sake of thermoregulation. Elephants, hippos and rhinos are huge. Human weight is a fraction of zebra or gnu weight, we are comparable to large hyenas or kangaroos, that's how much fur we should have. So they came up with persistence hunting explanation for hair loss. Same question: animals had way more evolution time, it's a simple mutation, - what other carnivore/prey came up with loss of hair to enhance hunting/escaping endurance?

Another idea on the table is that "naked" body was an esthetic choice of early humans which lead to sexual selection. Somehow even today majority of humans prefer furry pet breeds over hairless ones.

Why shun the AAH? It's not creationism, and it's much better than anything else they've got. It doesn't contradict mainstream science in any way. I've accidentally heard about it 20+ years ago, thought it would be mainstream by now. Now I know it's 60+ years old and it has been despised all this time. Why? AAH means that "archeological findings", "dating methods", "chemical analysis", which don't show any trace of Aquatic Ape, aren't proof of anything, because 99.99% of what existed hasn't made it to our time. They make multi-volume conclusions from observations of random lottery winners. Modern archeology is hostage to preservation bias and there isn't even an article in wiki for this term. If they acknowledge it, they loose their authority and credibility. They will not be able to suppress logic/reason with "holy archeological evidence". That's why they don't even debate the AAH, they ignore it, as something obscene or inappropriate.

One additional argument for AAH I could think of is behavioral. Living by the lake/sea, monkeys wouldn't have to migrate/run: it's inexhaustible source of food and reliable shelter from land carnivores. Stable environment, lots of time to think, observe fish they can't catch, and come up with new ways of doing things. As simple as hole in the ground/sand for fish to swim into it. Safe playground to develop cognitive abilities.

HAIR

People have to cut their hair, because it just keeps growing. One can't survive with that much hair. We got hair after we mastered sharp tools.

COLD

We have no alarm system for cold. Humans easily get cold/flu/inflammation without noticing it. No hat, even semi-naked in cool wind? Sitting/lying on a cold stone/ground? We feel fine. We actually somewhat like it. When we realize "it's too cold" it's usually "too late". That means we originated where it's constantly hot. We haven't been North long enough for natural selection to give us some built-in protections.

HOT

White people get sunburns everywhere. It's not instantenious in the North yet it still happens in the Sun. White skin is not so much adaptation to Far North as it is adaptation to clothes which are necessary even in North Africa, when it gets cold at night. White people are as new old as clothing.

SNOW

Snow reflects sunlight. Snow all around 24/7/365 will blind you. Asian eyes are adaptations to that, natural snow goggles. That much snow in Eurasia is only in Siberia. You'd only move to Siberia if everywhere else is taken. Asian people are the latest breed of humans, from Siberia, they came South not so long ago, only made it to Indonesia, when Europeans came 500 years ago. The absence of Asians in Australia shows how new that race is.

SELECTION

Bulldog, doxie, schnauzer, dobermann have been created without microscopes and quantum chemistry in Europe since 1600+ by people with no college degrees. The last/right one is (mostly) hairless Chinese Crested Dog of unknown origin, was discovered worldwide in tropics, when Europeans got there:

How smart do you have to be, as a scientist, to NOT come up with a Theory of Evolution? Yet it was only published in 1859. Darwin wasn't genius, he was allowed to publish it, because "time was right".

WHEN

We are being told that Homo sapiens emerged 300,000 years ago because "time isn't right". BTW, when I went to school, it was "50,000 years ago", but even that is exaggerated. Bible says Adam was created 7000 years ago and that one is exaggerated too.

Our specie probably inherited some basic tools/weapons and social skills from ancestors. Agriculture and animal domestication aren't rocket science yet if hunting and gathering is good enough they will never happen. Even if you are a racist and you believe that some races just couldn't do it - how long would it take "more capable" races to take their place?

Free roaming herds of bisons and antilopes in America and Africa meant that transition to agriculture happened not so long ago anywhere. As a matter of fact we know that at least in medieval agriculture and cattle-herding took hold in Africa and been spreading since. Africa is 3 times larger than Europe or USA, so it took longer to spread. Popular culture presents it as "wild continent", forgetting that throughout Europe ... thousands of deaths attributed to wolves in the 18th century alone. This is approximately African statistics of today, just replace wolves with hippos and crocodiles.

Humans appeared not long before civilization started, only few thousand ears ago. Not 7,000, more like 3-4,000. People started to fight for "good spots" long before land run out. Agriculture/cattle didn't cool things down, on the contrary: denser population meant larger battles. Nothing pushes progress as much as warfare.