AS most of them aren't worth bothering with.
ALL other primates? ALL of them? So if the human skeleton was shown to be proportionately heavier than say, a pygmy marmoset or a Phillipine Tarsier, then this claim would be invalidated.
Really?
This link has a picture of a primate brain, can you tell which primate it is without looking at other sources?
There are entire scientific projects dedicated to comparing our brains with the brains of other primates.
Yes, humans may be unique in primates in having continually growing head hair. However, other primates have other unique hair features. So what? That's what makes us different species.
The quote Schwartz & Rosenblum
"Allometric analyses of hair densities in 23 anthropoid primate taxa reveal that increasingly massive primates have systematically fewer hairs per equal unit of body surface. Considering the absence of effective sweating in monkeys and apes, the negative allometry of relative hair density may represent an architectural adaptation to thermal constraints imposed by the decreasing ratios of surface area to volume in progressively massive primates."
Now its
all primates. All of a sudden our closest relatives, which are primates don't count. I see goal post shifting.
As it required none.
The 5-10 stronger thing is incorrect from the get go. Most, but certainly not all other primates, have higher strength to weight ratios. In Chimps, its about double, in bonobos its about 30% more, in gorillas, its about 125%.
Humans evolved weaker muscles to help the metabolic demands of larger brain development.
Its not the 'ToE Narritive" that was debunked, but the ridiculous assertion that humans have 10 times more body fat than all other primates.
As I noted before, sedentary, westernised humans with calorie rich diets have body fat percentages 10 times that of some of the leanest primates. However, when you compare humans in hunter gather societies with average primate body fat percentages, humans are within the same range as other primates such as lemurs, gorillas, bonobos and orangutans.
Walking upright on two legs is the trait that defines the hominid lineage: Bipedalism separated the first hominids from the rest of the four-legged apes. It took a while for anthropologists to realize this. At the turn of the 20th century, scientists thought that big brains made hominids unique. This was a reasonable conclusion since the only known hominid fossils were of brainy species–Neanderthals and Homo erectus.
Supporting evidence needed for claims
Baculum avatisms arent enough? What more would you want?
Not sure this one makes any sense.
If you understood evolution, you'd understand why bringing this up just makes you look foolish. Chromosome 2 fusion is pretty well established by comparative genetics.
