Maybe animals can’t run marathons, but they don’t have to in order to escape humans on foot. That’s not the point I was making. Yes, human babies, as well as most species require the care of a parent to survive. But, animals are born without the need for clothing. The natural skin, or fur or feathers or blubber or scales etc. Make clothing unnecessary. Seems odd to me that we “evolved” into something that would quickly die outside of a very, very narrow temperature range. It doesn’t take very low temperatures to die of hypothermia or very high temperatures to die of dehydration or heat stroke…
Again, we didnt lose all our fur/hair at once. We would have gradually lost it. During that LONG gradual phase we learned how to make fire and clothing. Being able to run long distances also allows us the endurance to MIGRATE if climate conditions were unfavorable
I think that the error that is being made is the one that everything evolutionarily has a purpose.
Where our pre human ancestors are from, there was less need for a protective coat of fur but as migration out of Africa happened, our ancestors adapted by using the environment… animal skins, tools, fire and then agricultural to feed and protect themselves.
Back to the long distance running thing.
An animal may escape by being faster, but a human can keep coming after them. Basically running the animal to exhaustion and then killing it.
From the video you posted, early man didn’t begin migrating for millions of years. That’s a long time in a small area. You would think resources would have been exhausted long before then.
Well for one thing they didn’t have liberals running around screeching about animal rights. No save the sabertooth or mastadon campaigns or anything like that…
BUT on serious point, how many species in America were hunted to extinction or near extinction by native Americans in a matter of centuries? Let alone millions of years…
No. Again, the loss of for would have been gradual. Once clothing was invented (probably when we still had fur and started slowly losing it while migrating north), one could do this thing called “making and storing clothes” for others / future children.
If a species kills off all its prey it wouldn’t survive. Obviously we didn’t kill off all our prey. Strange how much you say we weren’t evolved well enough to our environment, yet assert that we had the capability 100,000 years ago+ to cause mass extinction of all our prey.
And why does this apply only to humans? Why didn’t lions cause everything to go extinct?
Of course, ignoring the fact that humans didn’t eat only meat. In fact, our ability to catch, grow and digest diverse sources of food is quite a benefit.
Clothing was probably developed before we lost most of our hair, especially as we migrated north and explored hunting in cooler climates. Having clothing could have sped up sexual selective pressures against body hair. Although, I guess some people find hairy people attractive.
First of all, your whole fur theory is pure speculation. You created that as a knee jerk reaction to my bringing clothing up. You have no way of knowing the amount of hair early humans had, let alone demonstrate hair loss proportional to their migration.
Second, you just simply gloss over clothing. You guys like to do this as if such things are trivial. If you found yourself popped into a wilderness or jungle without clothing and exposed to the weather, I’m guessing you’d be looking for something to cover yourself pretty quickly and not because of modesty.
How about bugs like mosquitos etc.? You say “once clothing was invented” as if they could just go down to Walmart and buy what they needed…
Killed it with what? The Bible records that Samson killed a lion with his bare hands and Davy Crockett killed himself a bear when he was only three… Outside of those two, I’ve never heard of a man killing a large animal bare handed…
How would they know how many of a given animal was left so that they could stop hunting it to extinction? It is a fact though that the Bison was hunted to near extinction in North America. It’s also a known fact that there are fish that have been over hunted… Sure, I have no evidence except was has been demonstrated by modern hunting and tracking methods. But, if people dwelled in an area smaller than the US for millions of years, I don’t think asking about resources us a stretch.
If a particular source of food or prey starts becoming scarce you find an alternative source. Again, we eat more than just meat as well. But why doesn’t this line of reasoning apply to all animals? Why didn’t lions cause all their prey to become extinct? Were buffalo and bison the only food source?
