Could it be evolution?

[Apache]

Has anyone ever considered that hair loss may simply be evolution? Being a Christian, I can't really say that I do or do not believe in evolution. But if you think about it, we have hair on our bodies that we don't necessarily need. It seems possible that the hair on our arms, legs, face, etc., could be left over from a creature that was once fully covered in hair. Perhaps those of us that are balding are actually evolving. Maybe in another ten or twenty thousand years everybody-man, woman, and child-will be completely hairless.

 

[Boondock]

Your post seems to assume that evolution is some pre-ordained 'trajectory', where a species moves from one 'lesser' place to a more developed one over time. It's not really that linear.

So while I don't think hair loss is some x-men-style adaptation, it is almost certainly an evolutionary trait. It might be some vestige from our ape ancestors, where the hair loss signalled social maturity and good nurturing skills. But nobody really knows.

It should really be more rare than it is, given how disadvantageous it is to reproduction to be bald. I suspect that the fact most males had children at an early age throughout history is partly responsible for this phenomenon.

 

[Nene]

Your post seems to assume that evolution is some pre-ordained 'trajectory', where a species moves from one 'lesser' place to a more developed one over time. It's not really that linear.

So while I don't think hair loss is some x-men-style adaptation, it is almost certainly an evolutionary trait. It might be some vestige from our ape ancestors, where the hair loss signalled social maturity and good nurturing skills. But nobody really knows.

It should really be more rare than it is, given how disadvantageous it is to reproduction to be bald. I suspect that the fact most males had children at an early age throughout history is partly responsible for this phenomenon.

I agree boondock, back in the days people were having kids in their teens. It's only a recent phenomenon that people are waiting till their late 20s and 30s to have children as we have a much longer life expectancy.

 

[Apache]

Your post seems to assume that evolution is some pre-ordained 'trajectory', where a species moves from one 'lesser' place to a more developed one over time. It's not really that linear.

So while I don't think hair loss is some x-men-style adaptation, it is almost certainly an evolutionary trait. It might be some vestige from our ape ancestors, where the hair loss signalled social maturity and good nurturing skills. But nobody really knows.

It should really be more rare than it is, given how disadvantageous it is to reproduction to be bald. I suspect that the fact most males had children at an early age throughout history is partly responsible for this phenomenon.

I don't want to start a debate over evolution, but why wouldn't it be that linear? Assuming evolution is a real phenomenon, it is based on the principal that species lose what they no longer need, or gain what they do need.

Men and women become capable of reproducing in their early teens. Most men that are destined to be bald begin the process in their twenties and thirties. This is well past the point of which reproduction initially became possible. Ofcourse, this is based on the theory that humans were ment to be monogamous.

Again, assuming evolution is real, wouldn't you think that the first of our cave dwelling ancestors to begin losing body hair and walking upright would have been viewed as being unattractive?

 

[Brains Expel Hair]

As far as not needing all the hair on our body from an evolutionary stand point goes: The hair on our head is incredibly important. Not only does it provide improved insulation for the most important organ in our body but it also provides us with a feedback of proximity. ie: When your hair brushes against something it triggers sensory neurons that let you know to stop moving your head towards potentially pointy, harmful objects. As you go bald you actually get a higher risk of cranial injury from lack of this sensory input cause all your left with are the super small little skin hairs that are so short it often doesn't provide your reflexes with enough of a warning of an impending poke.

 

[noproblemis4ever]

being that the THEORY of evolution (not a fact, by the way) supposes that the strongest survive and the better survival traits evolve over time, it is highly impossible that a hairless mammal is better fit for survival than a mammal covered in thick fur. put us naked in the woods with a furry monkey and the one better fit for survival is the one clothed. hands down. baldness, therefore, is a reflection of the sad condition of the human family as the world and its inhabitants get sicker and sicker with every passing year.

 

[SuprisedGuy]

being that the THEORY of evolution (not a fact, by the way)

Your are wrong and misunderstand the meaning of "theory" in a scientific context. Biological evolution is both a theory and a fact, in the same way the theory of gravity or cell theory are theories and facts of the natural world.

Good old wikipedia actually has a more detailed explanation of it. I have nothing else to add to this discussion but this kind of misinformation must be corrected in any setting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

 

[Bryan]

Personally, I don't have much doubt that balding is a result of evolution, although not for the reasons most people suggest (the idea that it signifies "social maturity" or "nurturing" seems silly and unlikely to me). My own favorite theory is that balding helps cool the brain in developing primates! For an interesting study in support of that hypothesis, see: "Beards, Baldness, and Sweat Secretion", Cabanac M, Brinnel H. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1988;58 (1-2):39-46. Université Laval, Faculté de Médicine, Départment de Physiologie, Quebec, Canada.

 

[Nene]

Your post seems to assume that evolution is some pre-ordained 'trajectory', where a species moves from one 'lesser' place to a more developed one over time. It's not really that linear.

So while I don't think hair loss is some x-men-style adaptation, it is almost certainly an evolutionary trait. It might be some vestige from our ape ancestors, where the hair loss signalled social maturity and good nurturing skills. But nobody really knows.

It should really be more rare than it is, given how disadvantageous it is to reproduction to be bald. I suspect that the fact most males had children at an early age throughout history is partly responsible for this phenomenon.

I don't want to start a debate over evolution, but why wouldn't it be that linear? Assuming evolution is a real phenomenon, it is based on the principal that species lose what they no longer need, or gain what they do need.

Men and women become capable of reproducing in their early teens. Most men that are destined to be bald begin the process in their twenties and thirties. This is well past the point of which reproduction initially became possible. Ofcourse, this is based on the theory that humans were ment to be monogamous.

Again, assuming evolution is real, wouldn't you think that the first of our cave dwelling ancestors to begin losing body hair and walking upright would have been viewed as being unattractive?

Ok. First of all I don't care if you are christian, you need to understand that evolution is very real. Second of all, go re-read what boondock posted. Evolution doesn't have to be linear, meaning that just because there is a mutation, it doesn't mean the entire species will take on that mutation eventually. Some people are born with a cleft lip, does that mean that they are more evolved than the rest of us? Obviously not, only the advantageous mutations will eventually become part of a species' normal genetic make up. And as stated by brains expel hair, baldness can lead to cranial injury ( hadn't thought of that ) it exposes our scalps to the sun raising our risk of cancer and it's easier to get cold in winter. On top of all that it's ugly. Clearly this is not advantageous and will probably be weeded out of our gene pool in the long run.

 

[Bryan]

On top of all that it's ugly. Clearly this is not advantageous and will probably be weeded out of our gene pool in the long run.

Oh, I think it's a VERY distinct possibility that scalp hair is on its way out for good! Think of the way society views the typical representation of space aliens: totally bald, if not completely hairless creatures. I think that's probably the way that homo sapiens is going to end up, in the distant future! :shock: I think the thermo-regulatory importance of a bald head with developing brains will eventually MORE than outweigh minor considerations like what we (currently) think is "ugly".

 

[dougfunny]

being that the THEORY of evolution (not a fact, by the way) supposes that the strongest survive and the better survival traits evolve over time, it is highly impossible that a hairless mammal is better fit for survival than a mammal covered in thick fur. put us naked in the woods with a furry monkey and the one better fit for survival is the one clothed. hands down. baldness, therefore, is a reflection of the sad condition of the human family as the world and its inhabitants get sicker and sicker with every passing year.

did that makes sense to anyone? :dunno:



anyway what is all the confusion about?

if more bald people reproduce than people with hair then baldness will eventually dominate. or vice versa.

i bet future humans will have full heads of hair. clearly it's a desirable trait and one that seems pretty simple to manipulate. i'm sure in the future with designer babies and what not nobody will be going bald. heck we can already select for eye and hair color. i would not be surprised if can identify the genes for baldness and choose babies without said gene in our lifetime.

 

[Brains Expel Hair]

I for one agree with noproblemis4ever, we need to get rid of teaching mere "theories" as a part of science. My stance is further supported by this article:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm

 

[Apache]

Your post seems to assume that evolution is some pre-ordained 'trajectory', where a species moves from one 'lesser' place to a more developed one over time. It's not really that linear.

So while I don't think hair loss is some x-men-style adaptation, it is almost certainly an evolutionary trait. It might be some vestige from our ape ancestors, where the hair loss signalled social maturity and good nurturing skills. But nobody really knows.

It should really be more rare than it is, given how disadvantageous it is to reproduction to be bald. I suspect that the fact most males had children at an early age throughout history is partly responsible for this phenomenon.

I don't want to start a debate over evolution, but why wouldn't it be that linear? Assuming evolution is a real phenomenon, it is based on the principal that species lose what they no longer need, or gain what they do need.

Men and women become capable of reproducing in their early teens. Most men that are destined to be bald begin the process in their twenties and thirties. This is well past the point of which reproduction initially became possible. Ofcourse, this is based on the theory that humans were ment to be monogamous.

Again, assuming evolution is real, wouldn't you think that the first of our cave dwelling ancestors to begin losing body hair and walking upright would have been viewed as being unattractive?

Ok. First of all I don't care if you are christian, you need to understand that evolution is very real. Second of all, go re-read what boondock posted. Evolution doesn't have to be linear, meaning that just because there is a mutation, it doesn't mean the entire species will take on that mutation eventually. Some people are born with a cleft lip, does that mean that they are more evolved than the rest of us? Obviously not, only the advantageous mutations will eventually become part of a species' normal genetic make up. And as stated by brains expel hair, baldness can lead to cranial injury ( hadn't thought of that ) it exposes our scalps to the sun raising our risk of cancer and it's easier to get cold in winter. On top of all that it's ugly. Clearly this is not advantageous and will probably be weeded out of our gene pool in the long run.

I don't need to re-read what boondock wrote. You are both basing your comments on Darwin's theroy of evolution, not "evolution" by simple definition. It is believed that our early ancestors were covered with hair from head to toe. They were constantly exposed to the elements in what was likely a much harsher evironment, and yet the body hair slowly phased itself out. How was that advantageous? I can answer that for you. It wasn't. But here we are today, mostly hairless, wearing clothes for protection, walking upright, taller in stature, but smaller in frame.

 

[Nene]

On top of all that it's ugly. Clearly this is not advantageous and will probably be weeded out of our gene pool in the long run.

Oh, I think it's a VERY distinct possibility that scalp hair is on its way out for good! Think of the way society views the typical representation of space aliens: totally bald, if not completely hairless creatures. I think that's probably the way that homo sapiens is going to end up, in the distant future! :shock: I think the thermo-regulatory importance of a bald head with developing brains will eventually MORE than outweigh minor considerations like what we (currently) think is "ugly".

Well the ugly comment was partially said in jest, lol.

 

[Apache]

On top of all that it's ugly. Clearly this is not advantageous and will probably be weeded out of our gene pool in the long run.

Oh, I think it's a VERY distinct possibility that scalp hair is on its way out for good! Think of the way society views the typical representation of space aliens: totally bald, if not completely hairless creatures. I think that's probably the way that homo sapiens is going to end up, in the distant future! :shock: I think the thermo-regulatory importance of a bald head with developing brains will eventually MORE than outweigh minor considerations like what we (currently) think is "ugly".

Exactly my point. Well said.

 

[dougfunny]

I don't need to re-read what boondock wrote. You are both basing your comments on Darwin's theroy of evolution, not "evolution" by simple definition. It is believed that our early ancestors were covered with hair from head to toe. They were constantly exposed to the elements in what was likely a much harsher evironment, and yet the body hair slowly phased itself out. How was that advantageous? I can answer that for you. It wasn't. But here we are today, mostly hairless, wearing clothes for protection, walking upright, taller in stature, but smaller in frame.

actually it does not have to be advantageous at all. just unnecessary.

hypothesis:

our ancestors learned to shield themselves more effectively from the elements. consequently hair was no longer essential for warmth. thus it was slowly phased out over time.


or it could become disadvantageous and happen much more rapidly:

hypothesis:

there was a tick epidemic and those with body hair died because they could not see and remove the ticks.

all that was left was those without hair.


i could go all day:

hypothesis:

those with hair were more likely to get infections because it is harder to cleanse the skin underneath the hair.

the world went through a heat wave and people with hair died of heat exhaustion.

female cavemen decided hairy guys were totally gross and only slept with the hairless ones.

improbable? i bet many of you would argue those with a sexy head of hair are more likely to get laid in this day and age.

do you think women were any less picky a million years ago?



So there. Body hair could very well have been disadvantageous or at least insignificant. it does not take much of a stretch of the imagination to see this.

 

[Nene]

On top of all that it's ugly. Clearly this is not advantageous and will probably be weeded out of our gene pool in the long run.

Oh, I think it's a VERY distinct possibility that scalp hair is on its way out for good! Think of the way society views the typical representation of space aliens: totally bald, if not completely hairless creatures. I think that's probably the way that homo sapiens is going to end up, in the distant future! :shock: I think the thermo-regulatory importance of a bald head with developing brains will eventually MORE than outweigh minor considerations like what we (currently) think is "ugly".

I just re-read your post, I hope the alien thing is a joke. Anyway, our brains don't need to develop when we're already grown, we already have all the brain cells we're gonna have.

 

[GeminiX]

*cough*
Chewbacca

 

[s.a.f]

female cavemen decided hairy guys were totally gross and only slept with the hairless ones.

improbable? i bet many of you would argue those with a sexy head of hair are more likely to get laid in this day and age.

do you think women were any less picky a million years ago?

Lol I dont think women had much say in the matter of who they had sex with thousands of years ago. :whistle:

 

[Boondock]

female cavemen decided hairy guys were totally gross and only slept with the hairless ones.

improbable? i bet many of you would argue those with a sexy head of hair are more likely to get laid in this day and age.

do you think women were any less picky a million years ago?

Lol I dont think women had much say in the matter of who they had sex with thousands of years ago. :whistle:

I think this is another important point actually. Not only did women marry men younger, but they weren't selecting in the way that they are today. Even in Western cultures, marriages were often to some extent 'arranged'. Women often took what they got.