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.
That was not my point. My point is that even the people spreading evolution as fact (or strong with implication that is it an undeniable fact) have poor understanding of what evolution clearly implies or requires. If you were to look at an evolution science video made a couple decades ago you would probably see evidence presented that has been since refuted. I would bet most of the hard evidence (as opposed to vague and 'subject to interpretation' evidence) will all be out of date. Schools should send more time teaching scientific thought and less on evidence with a short expiration date. Which leads back to the stickers in the article and the reason why students need an open mind about such things.