Re: Aquatic ape theory

Osmo Ronkanen (ronkanen@cc.Helsinki.FI)
13 Oct 1995 19:21:58 +0200

In article <45ls71$>, <> wrote:
>Paul Crowley <> wrote:
>>I think that I've got to agree with the substance of David's logic here.
>>If the loss of hair was caused by a relatively brief period 5-4mya,
>>then it should have come back since.
>I think that the most likely explanation here is that although the marine phase was fairly short
>(not more than 2 million years, say) our anbcesters were swimming in fresh-water lakes etc. until
>very recently.

Again the aquatic ape theory is unnecessary. The fact whether we have
hair is result of evolution that happened after the AA. Whether humans
used to swim in lakes is not relevant.

>Maybe wearing clothes reduced the selective pressure for the regrowth of hair .I do think that
>something wierd is happening here thopugh because elephants don't wear clothes but they haven't
>grown their hair back having returned to the land after a marine phase.

Elephants are big, so they have much higher mass surface ratios than humans.

Yes, wearing clothes become relevant when humans moved to colder areas.
So hairlessness is not optimum for current living conditions of many

There is at something like 1-3 million year gap between the speculated
AA and wearing clothes. That time is enough either to get the hair
back or to lose it.

>James Borrett