[loser]

I'm sure that I don't understand the TOE in all of its nuances so perhaps someone can answer this question for me.

It's my (mis?)understanding that evolution is triggered as a survival of the fittest phenomenon; that adaptations which give a species a clear advantage (a better chance of survival) are the ones that are passed on.

I was thinking about just how much of an advantage it is to have thick fur. My dog is able to withstand cold outside that would kill me. Some arctic animals swim in frigid arctic waters that will kill us in seconds. How much better it would be for humans to have such fur in order to live in the many hostile and extreme conditions.

Did we evolve away from having body fur so that we would have to kill animals and then make coats from their fur in order to survive in these conditions? That really doesn't make much sense to me. If we had more hair in the past, why did we lose it? For aesthetic purposes? Why couldn't we just evolve body fur with zippers for easy removal? Or, like other animals, the ability to molt or shed?

It's hard to accept evolution when so much of it goes against reason. Of course, there may be answers that I can't see that others can. Hence, the question.