Did an Ape-Like Being Once Start Wearing Shoes and Clothes?

   One weakness in the evolution theory is that while one of its premises is that the species adapts to its environment, it appears mankind went the opposite direction in at least two ways. Why is it that man never developed harder feet, that he doesn't need shoes? And, why is it that he didn't develop a furry covering, that he should not need clothes to keep him warm?
   The evolutionist replies that the species started wearing shoes, and started wearing clothes, so it adapted to the shoes and clothes by developing softer feet and losing the hair. Perhaps that is it, then. Still, it remains that man evolved away from what the environment required, not towards it. Evolution suggests man came from a being that had harder feet and had a hairy covering, things that helped him cope with his environment. One has to ask, if his feet were hard enough, and his hairy covering good enough, why did he start wearing shoes and clothes in the first place?
   And, are evolutionists really suggesting that a being once looking like an ape started wearing shoes and clothes? Picture that in your mind -- an ape-like creature donning shoes and clothes -- and then tell
 me whether some things just do not make sense.
   The evolution of man might, indeed, have happened. I do not know. But, I know there are weaknesses in the theory that man evolved in the manner they suggest.