IMO, you can account for just a warm climate. Even though there are furry animals in warm climates, this may not necessarily be related to climate at all. A tree dwelling animal would not do well without a tough, furry hide, to withstand the cuts and scrapes from dwelling in an environment wich consists of sticks and rough surfaces. When the first ground dwelling bipedal hominids appeared, the need for such protection was no longer required, considering that hunting in open spaces involved light weight, stamina, but still a way to stay cool. Thus the melanin in the skin turned dark as protection from direct sunlight radiation, the hair follicles evolved to sweat glands. https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/skin As far as I know heavily furred are usually large and and slow and live in colder climates The Musk-ox is an example. However the once heavily furred mammoth evolved into almost hairless elephants, which need to cover their skin with mud, lest they get sun-burn.
Actually, there is a wide variation in fur type inspite with similar environment i.e among species, among body parts, among gender, among individuals etc. Probably, there is some other reason to it than just climatic and need.
What was the main trigger to it,? One cause shoud be for sure, our primates lived only in warm climate for long.
The need to sweat effectively. Early man was not as fast or as strong as other animals contemporary to him - but had more endurance. He could wound a deer, then follow the deer for miles. The deer would easily outrun him then tire, and eventually the hunter would catch up to the deer. In the hot environment he was in, being able to effectively cool himself was critical for this.
Does it mean, we never lived in colder climate in our primitive state? Even so, how we see many variations in fur--gender, body parts, regional, age related,color etc.?
Basically, yes. Happened afterwards, and we aren't really that variable. Culture amplifies differences that may only be superficial.
Now to OP: Does above quote support the idea of physically weaker and mentally stronger in future: One poster, initially in this topic had presented one imaginary image which probably will match with future human.
This quote can support your and mine idea: One more issue has popped up by above quote. Are we losing sexual attractiveness corresponding with loss of hair?
No. We aren't losing facial hair. Anyway, sexual attractiveness is a cultural trait, not an objective measurement.
Cultural, social, scientific or modern, whatever may be, that will be an environment, whose consistence exposure for long term should become a reason to evolution. Many time I feel, full nude human body do not look so attractive and natural as other species look.
The desire to reproduce is not going to hindered by too many strolls along the 'clothing optional' beach.
Indeed. A woman with ghost white skin and a giant black mole on her cheek is still beautiful - if all the women in the world have ghost white skin and giant black moles. Otherwise, we never would have survived the Elizabethan Era. And taking that to the extreme, how does Kumar think we bred when humans were hardly distinguishable from apes?
True, it just takes the mystery (and ignorance) out of sex and begins to treat it like the natural function which it is. It does not affect creativeness in sex though................Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!