[TalonDJ]

You have to keep things in evolutionary perspective. Homo spp. are believed to have originated to a warm climate. There would be no need for "fur covering". Any adaptation that requires energy input (as in fur) that did not provide a selective advantage, could easily be lost.

Looking at things from the 'evolutionary perspective' we once had fur, so why did we lose it? Other critters in hot places did not lose it. The premise that we never lose 'good' features is clearly flawed. Unless you are willing to invent elaborate reasons why indevidual features were kept or discarded without any evidence for those reasons except that they feature is or is not still there. The other posters premise was that that the program he watched was using false information about evolutionary theory. I think his point stands.

Current biology text books do not use Haeckle's embryo's.

What the poster said was that the program he watched DID use it so someone somewhere is still using that idea.

[GreenFreeper]

Looking at things from the 'evolutionary perspective' we once had fur, so why did we lose it? Other critters in hot places did not lose it. The premise that we never lose 'good' features is clearly flawed.

Your missing the point. The premise of evolution is not that we never lose 'good' features. "Good features" is a subjective terms. Fur (hair) may provide an advantage in cooler climates while it may provide a disadvantage in warmer climates, or vice versa. With the advent of increased intelligence, fur production would likely decrease fitness as more energy efficient means of temperature regulation developed (e.g. fire, clothing, etc.). Evolution and natural selection is based on increasing fitness. OK, in your example (fur) 3 outcomes are possible.

1). Fur provides neither a selective advantage nor a disadvantage.

Outcome: any change in fur would be the result of random genetic drift.

2). Fur provides an advantage.

Outcome: Furry individuals would be selected for.

3). Fur provides a disadvantage

Outcome: Furry individuals would be selected against.

Whether or not a derived character is 'good' or not is dependent upon spatial and temporal scales. Temperature regulation and metabolic needs vary in different organisms. While hair on one species in a warm climate may be advantageous, it may be disadvantageous to other species (diurnal vs. nocturnal for example). That is how one species can retain fur in a hot climate while others may lose fur.

[Modernman]

Looking at things from the 'evolutionary perspective' we once had fur, so why did we lose it? Other critters in hot places did not lose it.

There are few other animals that are better long-distance runners than humans. Our ability to keep cool due to our hairlessness is one of the reasons behind this ability.

[b_sharp]

Wow. Are there any anti-evolutionists here at all that have the slightest inkling of what the theory of evolution, as it stands now, says? Since I have been here I have heard everything from spontaneous generation, to Lamarkism, to Communism, to religious fervor unsubstantially attributed to evolution. I have also seen evolution variously defined as within species modification, speciation, even change in some unknown and abstract taxonomic classification, depending on which definition is easiest to abuse.

How is it possible for anti-evolutionists to carry on any kind of debate when they know nothing about the subject being debated?