Why Humans and Their Fur Parted Ways

The hypothesis fails to explain why this adaption is unique to humans. Lice probably was just as big of a problem for other animals in similar habitats as it was for humans. The question is what element in human evolution made the benefit of not having fur greater than the benefit of having it. Sexual selection seems far-fetched.<p>I like the idea of the discovery and invention of maintaining fire as being that element. It is known that modern hunter-gatherers hunt and catch their pray in long distances by exhausting them, and our ancestors probably did the same. Not having fur is of great advantage in this scenario as it allows for effective cooling when sweating, while the obvious down-side is freezing at night. With the taming of fire, freezing could be avoided by staying close to the hearth, and so fur was no longer needed and we lost it.<p>I recommend "Catching fire" by Richard Wrangham for further investigations on how fire shaped our evolution. It's quite a good read, and a very interesting hypothesis.<p>[Edit: Gave the book's subtitle instead of the real title.]

I have long felt that sexual selection dominates random mutations for external features. My guess is that darker skin enabled sexual selection for hairlessness. I can see where smooth healthy skin would be more attractive than monkey hair. If these characteristics appeared in a relatively isolated population, the evolution to nakedness by sexual selection could be quite rapid.<p>I give little credence to just-so stories like nakedness evolved to free us of parasites. Viewing human evolution as dominated by sexual evolution with a few tweaks from mutations, like darker skin, makes more sense to me. Head hair and pubic hair are purely sexual.

I prefer the aquatic monkey theory.