<link rel="stylesheet" href="//fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Roboto%3A300%2C400%2C500%2C700%7CRoboto+Slab%3A400%2C700">Why are humans furless? - Filthy Monkey Men

The title of this post is a bit of a lie, humans aren’t actually furless (and I’m not just talking about the hair on our head). In actual fact humans have as much hair as chimps do, completely covering our body. The difference is that our hair is incredibly fine, to the point where most of it is basically invisible to the naked eye. As such we get none of the insulating or visual benefits of the more furry animals1.

These are fairly significant benefits.  Living in the chilly north of England I can think of at least 11 months of the year where a nice furry pelt would be helpful. This is why our fine fur is almost unique in the natural world with only a handful of other land mammals (and no primates) possessing similar hair. If you must know, our furless friends are elephants, rhinos, hippos, pigs and naked mole-rats2.

So why are humans the only primate to have become, for all intents and purposes, furless? Answering this question is very difficult given that skin doesn’t fossilise. As such we can’t identify when our fur became so fine, which stops us figuring out what environmental, behavioural or technological factors may have prompted the change.

Nonetheless, scientists are an innovative bunch and through mathematical modelling and investigations of living creatures (both furred and unfurred) have developed a range of hypotheses that could explain why humans are naked1. These can be grouped into 3 broad categories: thermoregulation, parasites and sexual selection. The aquatic ape silliness could count as a fourth category3, but I like to pretend that doesn’t exist.


The thermoregulatory hypotheses basically state that our ancestors began doing something that meant they accumulated too much heat. Since fur is a great insulator, the extra heat would’ve been difficult to get rid of. This would’ve acted as a strong selection pressure; driving our ancestors to become naked so we could dump the excess heat and get on with doing whatever it was we were doing1.  

Homo erectus was one of the earliest runners so may have been our first furless ancestor

The various hypotheses disagree over what the activity that resulted in all this heat was. Some suggest running over long distances, probably to hunt, was what got us hot and bothered4. Others think that merely walking out onto the hot, open Savannah was enough to tip us over the edge5. Alternatively fire and/or clothing may have rendered fur useless, or perhaps even detrimental6. If our ancestors kept a fire burning through the night to ward of predators then we might have begun to overheat if we were hairy!

In all of these cases the behaviour at the root of the problem was very beneficial, hence why there was a strong evolutionary pressure to keep doing it and stop suffering from overheating as we did so.

However, most these thermoregulatory hypotheses suffer from a critical flaw: insulation works both ways. Not only does hair help trap heat, but stops us absorbing as much heat from the surrounding environment. As such fire or walking out onto the sunny Savannah would not result in significant leaps in a hairy hominin’s body temperature2.

As such the only thermoregulatory hypotheses which actually work are those which claim our ancestors did something that significantly raised their internal body temperature for a period of time, like endurance running. Perhaps chasing down prey over long distances was what prompted our current nudity4.

This would make Homo erectus one of the earliest naked hominins. However, there is some tantalising evidence that some of the earlier, more ape-like Australopiths may have been the first hairless runners. The Australopiths have always been thought to be hairy, given that (aside from walking upright) they’re extremely chimp like. Chimps, if you’ve not noticed, are very hairy. But if running was the reason for our hair loss then we might well be descended from upright, naked chimps!


Human lice can infest humans and sometimes carry typhus. Losing hair removes their habitat, decreasing the chance of infestation

Human lice can infest humans and sometimes carry typhus. Losing hair removes their habitat

Parasites are a problem for all primates, infecting them with all kinds of nasty diseases. Well, all primates except humans. We actually have a relatively low number of parasites on our body and as a result are less likely to suffer from an infestation.

Our low parasite populations are because they can only survive in hairy regions of the body. By becoming essentially hairless we’ve deprived of their natural habitat, keeping their populations in check. Even if their numbers do get too high, its easy to remove them by simply cutting their hair. Many hunter-gatherers mimic this practice, with Australian Aboriginals burning the hair short if someone is overly burdened by tics2.

This has led some researchers to suggest that the primary reason our ancestors began to lose their hair was to decrease the habitat of parasites. This would’ve made us less likely to suffer from parasite infestations, and have fewer parasites altogether. By cutting out these disease bearing bugs our ancestors would’ve significantly improved their overall health2.

However, most primates are capable of keeping parasite numbers in check through grooming. Why did our ancestors have to go and get naked instead? This may be linked to our large brains. There’s a lot of evidence that suggests our large brains evolved to help us live in large groups. However, these groups became so big that there was not enough time to maintain social relationships through grooming alone. This resulted in the development of language, since you can talk to a lot of people at once, making the bonding process more efficient.

But if our ancestors were nattering rather than de-gnat-ing parasites may have become a severe problem. The solution evolution settled on was hair loss! That way we can chat without picking fleas off each other and not worry what those fleas will do.

Sexual selection

Sexual selection hypotheses aren’t really distinct from parasite or thermoregulatory ones. Rather, they suggest that being naked is kind of noticeable (even if the species had invented clothes). This made hairlessness a good signal that the naked individual was a good hunter, in the case of endurance running, or was healthy and tic free. Thus being naked was a sign you were a good mate, and sexual selection would’ve taken over2.

Interestingly, Darwin was one of the first to suggest sexual selection played a role in human nakedness in his book The Descent of Man. Since 1871 the hypothesis has gone in and out of favour. Many like it, noting that pretty much everyone ever examined has a preference for a mostly hairless mate. On the other hand, loss of hair is often a sign of disease, so many seriously question whether or not nakedness would ever be an attractive trait1.

This criticism conveniently forgetting that it is viewed as an attractive trait by most modern people.

So why are humans hairless?

Apologies, but after making you read almost 1,000 words there is no final answer to be had. Until we can figure out just when our ancestors developed super-fine hair it’s difficult to figure out just why that we became naked. So we’re left with the idea it was linked to a high heat generating activity, like endurance running, or to reduce the number of parasites we have to deal with. Plus a bit of sexual selection, depending on how much credence you give evolutionary psychology.

Of course, whilst studying human evolution we’re often tempted to look for the silver bullet explanation; a single hypothesis that can explain everything. This need not be the case. It might well be that both parasite reduction and thermoregulation were strong motivators for hair loss.

But then, it might be that none of the explanations for our nakedness are correct. What if…

One possible alternative


1. Rantala, M. J. (2007). Evolution of nakedness in Homo sapiens. Journal of Zoology273(1), 1-7.

2. Pagel, M., & Bodmer, W. (2003). A naked ape would have fewer parasites.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences,270(Suppl 1), S117-S119.

3. Hardy, A.C. (1960). Was man more aquatic in the past? New Scientist 7, 642–645

4.  Ruxton, G. D., & Wilkinson, D. M. (2011). Thermoregulation and endurance running in extinct hominins: Wheeler’s models revisited. Journal of human evolution61(2), 169-175.

5. Ruxton, G. D., & Wilkinson, D. M. (2011). Avoidance of overheating and selection for both hair loss and bipedality in hominins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences108(52), 20965-20969.

6. Kushlan, J.A. (1980). The evolution of hairlessness in man. Am. Nat. 116, 727–729.

7. Gowlett, J. A., & Wrangham, R. W. (2013). Earliest fire in Africa: towards the convergence of archaeological evidence and the cooking hypothesis. Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa48(1), 5-30.

Shoutout to Artem Kaznatcheev for having some great ideas about the link between the social brain hypothesis, parasites and nudity.

Related posts


Neil Rickert · 8th October 2013 at 9:21 pm

I hope I am allowed to speculate.

I see becoming “furless” as a social adaptation. For a child, being furless makes him more vulnerable, so more in need of protection from the social group. This leads to development of a degree of dependency as part of the child’s learning, and that make it easier for the child to be merged into the society.

    Adam Benton · 8th October 2013 at 9:44 pm

    Speculation is perfectly fine, it’s the source of new ideas. I don’t think you’ve got one with any legs there though. Human infants are already so vulnerable, with their early birth and long childhood that I doubt being hairless would be a significant factor.

    Assuming there’s a connection between vulnerability and integration in the first place.

Jim Birch · 9th October 2013 at 1:09 am

I think your last paragraph says something important. Evolution follows the sum of selection pressures over time. And selection pressures vary with niche, activities, seasons, and so on. So all the explanations – except the fishmen theory – are likely to contribute. It’s going to be a case of weights of different effects of hair v hairlessness over different problems and in different environments.

The sweating-for-cooling thing has a lot going for it in my opinion. Humans are virtually unique in their ability to use sweat effectively for cooling the body. Humans have light musculature and bones. Physiologically we are tuned for endurance not strength. At two thirds of our weight, a chimpanzee could literally rip a man’s arms off. A male gorilla would tear us up like paper. (If you ever need to fight a chimpanzee I would suggest sufficient whooping and taunting to get it to chase you for 10 km before the fight.)

A fit human can run for hours on a hot day because he can loose heat by sweating. No other animal can do this. Thus a human can actually chase a much faster animal like an antelope until it drops from heat exhaustion. On a couple of hot days humans have actually beaten horses in the 22 mile Man versus Horse Marathon. (Google it.)

This indicates that our evolutionary niche is founded in agility. We are light and mobility with the ability to hunt and protect ourselves reliant on our ability to “tool up” for these tasks, when required. Just as we have dropped the muscles and canines that apes use in “bare handed” combat and hunting to gain agility and endurance, we have also been able to drop always-on fur and gain advantages in temperature management and parasite reduction, and then use clothing for protection against the environment when it is required. Being able to change your “extended body” to suit the task at hand will obviously have massive advantages over having a physiological requirement to produce it at all times, just in case a sabre tooth tiger or a snowstorm come your way. We can live in a lot of places that are just too cold to go naked.

    Adam Benton · 9th October 2013 at 4:27 pm

    There’s some debate over the importance of endurance running in human evolution since only a handful of modern hunter-gatherers regularly do it. But then, they have bows and arrows and other things that can travel long distances for them. Perhaps back in the past it was a more prevalent behaviour, hence why we’re now so good at sweating.

      Jim Birch · 10th October 2013 at 12:19 am

      Endurance running is a peak expression of a more common requirement for sustained work rate. Many hunter gather groups spend a lot of time walking. If you life on plains this is relatively low energy expenditure but if there are hills involved your expenditure cranks up. I can personally verify this as I do a 15 minute daily walk home from work that incorporates a 100m climb.

      Also, the practice of recreational sweating (aka sport, vigorous dancing, etc) has probably been around as a form of sexual selection in humans for a long time. It fits the bill nicely: it is an indicator of good physiology that can’t be faked (well, prior to industrial biochemistry), it is believed to attract the opposite sex, and it often does. As a bonus, male sweat contains molecules that attract females of the species. An ability to bringing home the bacon is one thing but running home with it hits the spot.

Artem Kaznatcheev · 9th October 2013 at 6:26 pm

Wait… wait… did you change your citation style and linking patterns? There was no links to previous posts in this entry, even though you have ones like the running one that would have been very relevant. What prompted the change?

Now, onto being a one-trick pony: social brain hypothesis time! This is based on your previous gossip-post, and works nicely with parasites in ordered list form:

Human social groups began to be too large, and
Grooming everybody was no longer a viable strategy, thus
Gossip started to replace grooming as an important social activity, so there was less non-tic advantages to grooming.
Grooming started to decrease, but tics weren’t okay with the gossiping thing and remained an issue.
With less grooming, to achieve the same level of tic-free-ness as other apes, a selective pressure for finer hair emerged.

In other words, we have big brains and no hair for the same reason: bigger social groups. Of course, this is meant a bit tongue-in-cheek, I am personally an advocate of the running hypothesis as the primary pressure. However, I am also very keen on your last paragraph: it is important not to look for a single silver bullet, no matter how good it sounds as a headline.

Is it known why elephants and pigs are hairless? Compares to mammoths and wild boars? It seems like there would be different explanations for the two. The first seems like a thermoregulation case, but the second seems more of a large-social-group (forced by us keeping them together in pens, etc) leading to easier spread of parasites (also because I think pigs share many parasites in common with humans, so for the purpose of parasite-sharing their groups would effectively include us).

    Adam Benton · 9th October 2013 at 9:10 pm

    I did use a numerical style, since I just discovered this theme supports little numbers. My previous ones did not. I prefer the little numbers, since I think they don’t interrupt the flow of sentences quite so much. I would’ve done it a lot earlier if I could’ve. As for the lack of links to prior articles, I just darn forgot about them. Will go back and sprinkle in a few now you’ve reminded me.

    Your gossip idea is great. After all, grooming in chimps keeps parasites in check. Something must have changed for us. Perhaps we wound up in an environment where there were additional parasites, maybe shedding hair gives an individual a greater advantage than picking through fur for hours. Or perhaps it was the result of less grooming because we were “gossiping” instead; as a result of increasing group sizes ala SBH.

    Maybe I’ll add that in the post too, if you don’t mind.

    Also, no clue why the other animals are hairless. The authors of one paper did note that the naked mole-rate doesn’t suffer from too many parasites though….

      Artem Kaznatcheev · 9th October 2013 at 10:53 pm

      I definitely prefer the author + year over footnotes, it gets you an idea of how old the paper is and if you are familiar with the field then you can usually recognize the paper without scrolling down to the full reference.

      Sure, feel free to use my brains and hairless caused by same factors theory, I’d be especially honoured if I was mentioned in a footnote :P.

        Adam Benton · 10th October 2013 at 12:36 am

        In an academic work I agree, the extra information inline is useful. However, I was hoping that these references would make it a more readable for a wider audience. Of course it’s still subject to change. I’ll see how things go.

        You’ve got a italicised thanks at the end of the references for your idea.

Jim Thomerson · 10th October 2013 at 4:37 pm

There are furry people. There is a family in Mexico where some or all members of the family are fully furred. I’ve seen them on TV.

    Jim Birch · 10th October 2013 at 10:10 pm

    A genetic oddity doesn’t say much, apart from the fact that genetics is partly random element. Which is kinda why it works so well. If this hairy variant outbred the rest of us and took over that would be very interesting.

Jim Thomerson · 10th October 2013 at 4:52 pm

Here is a link But it looks like I can’t post it. Google furry human genetics. It looks like the furry Mexican family

Algis Kuliukas · 17th October 2013 at 6:59 am

Adam, it’s great that you decided one of these ideas was just “silliness” but it would be interesting for you to explain why. Imagine, please, a group of pre-adolescent (so as to preclude that body hair that is a manifestation of sexual signalling) humans swimming a slow breast stroke whilst peering below the surface for something (e.g. shellfish). It is a remarkable fact that the only part of the body likely to be above the surface of the water in this scenario just happens to be the one part (the scalp) covered with hair. I don’t think any of the other examples you considered (that presumably you thought were not silly) can say that.

    Jim Birch · 18th October 2013 at 1:00 am

    Apart from a few believers, no one takes the aquatic ape theory that seriously. It’s classic piece of junk science: assume all the people who have been working in the area for years are idiots, cherry-pick a few factoids, combine them into a exciting revelatory story, pump out a book, then start ignoring contrary evidence and protecting your name. This isn’t science. It says more about our weaknesses for narratives and for veneration.

    Wikipedia gives a pretty good summary of the problems with the theory, but http://www.aquaticape.org smashes it into tiny pieces, if you are interested. Just about all of the supposed human adaptions to aquatic life have good alternate explanations, often multiple selection pressures that may have acted in concert as with fur. There is also the completeness problem of how all that time spend flapping around in the water produced just a few adaptions. Why are we such crap swimmers?

      Algis Kuliukas · 18th October 2013 at 5:39 am

      Jim, as you should know, popularity is not a measure of correctness. How many US citizens think humans were made by God?

      “It” is not even an it. I’d say that your misrepresentation of “it” (they – there are several waterside hypotheses of human evolution) and characterization of proponents (believers who think the mainstream are idiots) is the only thing that could be described as “classic” here.

      Some proponents have tried to do some science and reformulate the idea in a context that is entirely consistent with the mainstream. Your comments just sound like bigoted tribalism to me.

      The Wikipedia article is dominated by a group of aquaskeptics who, like you, are determined to pigeon hole what is a simple, plausible, evidence-based model for human evolution in the same box as some of the craziest ideas ever conceived. The ability to discriminate between the plausible and the totally stupid is a key ability pseudoskeptics tend to forget.

      Jim Moore’s attempted character assassination of Elaine Morgan has more “false facts” and dodgy scholarliness than even exist in his most damning allegations.

      How “crap” at swimming and diving are we compared to chimpanzees? – that’s the comparison that counts. You are the one cherry picking here. You read the word “aquatic” and seem to assume it’s talking about something like a seal or a dolphin, when all it’s postulating is that, since the LCA with Pan, our ancestors have been exposed to more selection from wading, swimming and diving than theirs.

      I would encourage anyone, who claims to be open minded, to read this counter critique of the web site pointed to above, (http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Arguments/JimMoore/JMHome.htm) and to read the latest scholarly book on the subject, rather than repeating old ignorant prejudices.


        Jim Birch · 21st October 2013 at 11:48 pm

        Ok, I’ll read that when I get time, I might be a bit out of date. Some of the arguments for homo aquaticus I’ve seen are positively weird, eg, that we developed a cetatean-like subcutaneous layer of fat due to time spent in the water. It seem to me that once you can handle the basic reasons for fur, prevention of heat loss, and to a lesser extent, physical protection, getting rid of body hair would have all sorts of advantages (Inuits haven’t redeveloped fur) but from an evolutionary point of view you want the real drivers not incidental positives.

        Humans might swim better than chimps but we do lots of things better than chimps but we adapt to a massive range of tasks and environments. Not meaning to sound facetious, but we also play badminton better than chimps. The fact remains that we are pretty crap at swimming. Untrained humans drown in water without regularity. We are missing a lot of features (or remnant features) that would be really useful if we actually evolved for swimming, for example, fins, webbing, antiturbulent skin, eyes that can see above and under water, nostrils that close, and so on. OTOH if we only spent a bit of intermittent time in the water, fur seem to be ok for quite a few animals. In comparison, we have a range of physiological and structural adaptions for running, including, arguably, fur loss.

        Anyway I’ll have a look at your references.

        Algis Kuliukas · 22nd October 2013 at 12:31 am

        Thanks for admitting to being a little out of date and for saying you’d read my refs. I should point out that there are some chapters in the book I would not go a long with either.

        The “we can do lots of things better than chimps” argument is an often repeated one but ignores a couple of key points. Playing badminton, riding bikes etc are manifestations of human culture, learning and require technology. Swimming can be done completely naked and can be learned in infants before they learn to walk.

        The “we should have webbing etc” arguments are just a form of cherry picking. Its one of the things proponents are always accused of. If humans were close to 100% terrestrial (and some of us agree we were) then one would not expect such traits to evolve that were maladaptive to walking on dry land.

        Whatever it was that made us more naked can only be helped and not hindered by postulating an additional swimming component. It is entirely compatible with any other possible factor. I find it bizare that such a simple, plausible, evidence based and helpful model continues to be actively resisted for no better reason than tribal ignorance and bigotry.

Cynthia Echterling · 6th November 2013 at 12:14 am

I got to thinking about louse mtDNA, which got me thinking about human/hyena tapeworms, which got me visualizing our furry ancestors cutting chunks off a cat kill and carrying them away before they had to fight off the hyenas and vultures. That got me wondering. Could we have lost our fur for the same reason vultures lost their head and neck feathers? Ewww.

    Adam Benton · 6th November 2013 at 2:44 pm

    That is a idea that was considered by many palaeoanthropologists for a while. However, it was ultimately abandoned because men still have hair around the mouth. If you’re worried about parasites from food then surely that’s one place we would be totally naked.

      Cynthia Echterling · 6th November 2013 at 11:00 pm

      Didn’t think of that, probably because when you see reconstructions of Australopithecines they don’t have hairy faces. That is an equally intriguing questions. When did human sexual dimorphism include hairy faced/chested/backed males? Don’t know if they have pinpointed the genes involved in facial hair yet. Would be interesting to know at least where our Neanderthal and Denisovan relations ranked on hirsuteness.

        Adam Benton · 7th November 2013 at 12:14 am

        Researchers who’ve surveyed modern people reckon it has something to do with sexual selection, with men who have a bit of body hair appearing more mature (and thus perceived as having accumulated more resources) and so more attractive. Of course, whether you can extrapolate from a survey of university students to all humans over the past 7 million years is another question entirely.

      Algis Kuliukas · 7th November 2013 at 12:38 am

      Proposing facial (and other parts of the body) hair as sexual signalling (signalling sexual maturity) is one thing, proposing it and evidence of sexual selection is another. Some populations have much more sexual dimorphism in this area than others, if sexual selection was the reason that variation would have to be explained too.

      There’s an elephant in the room here that I think you’re avoiding. Adam, you never explained why you thought the simplest, most plausible, most evidence-based idea was just “silliness”.

      The one part of the body in pre-adolescent humans (so as to preclude the sexual signalling aspect) that is most likely to be covered with hair is the one part most likely to be above the surface of the water whilst swimming, face down, in coastal shallows looking for shellfish.

      The one major exception, the eye brows, have a rather clear function to deflect water from dripping into the eyes when one lifts ones face out of the water.

      The orientation of body hairs on the forearm (hairy only on the dorsal surface, with individual hairs orientated medially) and almost glabrous on the ventral surface, is also consistent with some selection from swimming a kind of breast stroke.

      How does the sexual selection, lice detection, thermoregulatory hypothesis etc explain these facts?

marc verhaegen · 6th December 2013 at 11:32 pm

Why furless? All fat & furless mammals spend a lot of time in the water (but not all mammals that spend a lot of time in the water are fat & furless!). There’s no reason (apart from pre-Darwinian anthropocentric thinking) why humans should be an exception. When we go for a swim, we take off our clothes, so before the invention of clothes (when we were fat & furless), we spent a lot of time in the water, like all fat & furless mammals.
Stephen Munro’s malacological work (on the molluscs found in association with hominiod fossils) showed that australopiths are never found in association with marine molluscs, as opposed to Homo fossils, and that virtually all archaic Homo fossils are found in association with abundant edible molluscs.
The picture is obvious: early Pleistocene Homo spread along the coasts of Eurasia & Africa as far as Flores, the Cape, Angola & Pakefield, and from there inland along the rivers, presumably at first seasonally, eg, following anadromous fish. Archaic Homo had a lot of traits frequently seen semi-aquatic littoral mammals: very heavy skeletons (pachyosteosclerosis, with bone thicknesses more than twice those of gorillas), flattened skulls (platycephaly), brain enlargement (DHA?), very broad bodies (iliac flaring & long femoral necks improve femoral abduction), flat femora (platymeria), external noses, olfactory reduction, dentitional reduction (MYH16 inactivation): these suggest that these people were, at least partly, shallow slow divers for “sessile” foods, esp.shellfish, but also, eg, ungulate carcasses drowned or killed in mud or shallow water. Early H.sapiens lost the heavy bones, the flattened skull-cap, the very wide pelvis, but evolved more basi-cranial flexion, eyes directed less cranially, longer tibias & stretched legs etc., which suggests they waded a lot in very shallow water, possibly in search of mobile prey, catching fish with spears or nets & presumably also waterfowl etc.
IOW, the evolution from erectus-like to sapiens seems to have been a shift from littoral to more freshwater, from more diving to more wading, from sessile to more mobile prey, from Acheulian to more complex tools used at some distance.
For more info, please google ‘econiche Homo’ or ‘Greg Laden blog Verhaegen’, and read the special editions of Human Evolution with the proceedings of the symposium on human waterside evolution ‘Human Evolution: Past, Present & Future’ in London 8-10 May 2013:
– Peter Rhys-Evans: Introduction
– Stephen Oppenheimer: Human’s Association with Water Bodies: the ‘Exaggerated Diving Reflex’ and its Relationship with the Evolutionary Allometry of Human Pelvic and Brain Sizes
– JH Langdon: Human Ecological Breadth: Why Neither Savanna nor Aquatic Hypotheses can Hold Water
– Stephen Munro: Endurance Running versus Underwater Foraging: an Anatomical and Palaeoecological Perspective
– Algis Kuliukas: Wading Hypotheses of the Origin of Human Bipedalism
– Marc Verhaegen: The Aquatic Ape Evolves: Common Misconceptions and Unproven Assumptions about the So-Called Aquatic Ape Hypothesis
– CL Broadhurst & Michael Crawford: The Epigenetic Emergence of Culture at the Coastline: Interaction of Genes, Nutrition, Environment and Demography
SPECIAL EDITION PART 2 (begin 2014) with 12 contributions

Mary Ballon · 27th September 2017 at 4:23 am

Thank you all for this discussion. I am an aquatic ape “leaner”. I found this link interesting. CARTA

marc verhaegen (@m_verhaegen) · 28th October 2017 at 12:16 am

FYI, AAT update:
-Attenborough Schagatay Brenna 2017
-original econiche Homo
-unproven assumptions so-called aquatic ape hypothesis
-Pan naledi 2017
-Speech originS 2017 PPT

    Adam Benton · 31st October 2017 at 11:37 am

    They all sound great, but some links would be nice.

marc verhaegen (@m_verhaegen) · 1st November 2018 at 10:51 am

For some recent updates, google
-Ape and Human evolution 2018 biology vs anthropocentrism,
-Coastal Dispersal of Pleistocene Homo 2018 Verhaegen,
-not Homo but Pan naledi? 2017 biology vs anthropocentrism.

    Adam Benton · 15th November 2018 at 1:52 pm

    Googled and added to the reading list, thanks

Leave your filthy monkey comments here.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.