Where did male pattern baldness originate

[BostonHawk]

ok, so evolution says that we evolve traits that help us mate and live longer. How and why would we develop male pattern baldness!?

 

[Chujgcha]

...

 

[wastingpenguins]

You seem to lack an understanding of exactly how the evolution of physical traits occurs.

Over a long period of time, physical characteristics in any given species can change due to many different mechanisms. While it is true that traits that make an organism most fit for its environment (and in turn, help that organism to proflierate) can evolve over time and become the norm for the species, evolution does not limit itself to adaptive traits.

There are many non-essential physical traits that organisms possess simply due to random chance and mutation over time.

If you think that women prefer men with full heads of hair, and thus bald men are less fit, that is just silly. Bald men can and do have kids.

 

[S Foote.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>ok, so evolution says that we evolve traits that help us mate and live longer. How and why would we develop male pattern baldness!? <<

Here's my view on this, based on the implications of the `Hydraulic' theory.

The big advantage of high levels of DHT in evolution, is primarily the breeding advantage it gives. Most primate societies are sexualy competitive, and the males develope their sexual characteristics depending upon how promiscuous the females are. Primate females seem to be `up for it' with many males. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... 73_03.html

Chimps for example produce a lot of sperm, and there are substances in ejaculate that attack others sperm. So in this kind of `contest' , potency and quantity are important if you want to be the one passing on your characteristics down the generations!

Increased levels of DHT increase potency and quantity of ejaculate. It is well known that reducing DHT with finasteride/dutasteride, has the opposite effect.

The increased DHT levels that offer this breeding advantage, will create male pattern baldness in some individuals depending upon other factors, which are open to debate in my opinion. But i don't think male pattern baldness `evolved' for a particular reason, it is just a side effect of our primate history.

You have to remember that in early humans, it would be rare to survive to your late 20's, the average point that male pattern baldness `kicks' in! So it would not be a factor in mate selection at the time DHT levels were important in breeding.

I think that in the distant past, where human populations were higher in a given space, this developed higher DHT levels in the males because of the increased `compitition'.

Where smaller groups occupied larger areas, there would be less need for high DHT levels, and these smaller groups would also develope one on one relationships earlier in evolution.

I think this accounts for the native american trait of little body hair and no male pattern baldness.


It could be interesting if someone would measure comparitive DHT levels in different races? The trouble is, we are not really `pure' races anymore in modern society.

S Foote.

 

[Guest]

evolution does not limit itself to adaptive traits.

There are many non-essential physical traits that organisms possess simply due to random chance and mutation over time.

nicely said my penguin friend.

Also.....

Evolution pretty much diss-owns you after the age of reproduction.

That is to say if a mutaion had formed in the gene pool of a little furry creature that makes it's eyes drop out and die at year 7 of an average 10 year life span, and let's say this creatures average reproductive span is at years 2 to 5, then this mutation is unlikely to be bred out of the gene pool, as the gene is passed on before getting the chance to express it's self. A couple of years after the little furry creature has children running around his eyes pop out and he dies, the same shall happen to his children, but not before they pass on the gene to their own children

male pattern baldness is generally expressed in older adult males, what most people on these forums are fighting is premature male pattern baldness, as it is often seen as unattractive, as many signs of aging are.

So in the general population male pattern baldness will express it's self after the (peak) age of reproduction and therefore be passed on the the next generation, so it is unlikey to be 'bred' out of the gene pool.

 

[smudge]

If you think that women prefer men with full heads of hair, and thus bald men are less fit, that is just silly. Bald men can and do have kids.

I know women prefer men with full heads of hair, and it's silly to think otherwise. We'd all be walking around with shaven heads if women prefered bald men. Obviously bald men have kids, there are just a lot of desparate women out there.

Personally, I think bald guys who have kids are irresposible. There is no reason to knowingly put someone through hair loss.

 

[Buffboy]

Increased levels of DHT increase potency and quantity of ejaculate. It is well known that reducing DHT with finasteride/dutasteride, has the opposite effect.

Are you sure about the potency part? Do you mean, that it will lower our possibility to make girls pregnant? I have never heard that before. I heard about the decrease in sperm volume, sure. Heard about lack of libido, sure. But never of decreased level of sperm potency!

That should be on the finasteride package then!

 

[wastingpenguins]

If you think that women prefer men with full heads of hair, and thus bald men are less fit, that is just silly. Bald men can and do have kids.

I know women prefer men with full heads of hair, and it's silly to think otherwise. We'd all be walking around with shaven heads if women prefered bald men. Obviously bald men have kids, there are just a lot of desparate women out there.

Personally, I think bald guys who have kids are irresposible. There is no reason to knowingly put someone through hair loss.

I wasn't trying to say that women don't prefer full heads of hair. They do.

The original question in this thread was basically asking why natural selection would "allow" baldness to evolve the way it has. This is implying that bald men are less fit to have children and pass on their genes, and logically, the baldness gene would slowly work its way out of our gene pool.

That's not really true. Tynan pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Also: It's funny because anyone not affected by this hair hell would think your last statement is ridiculous, but I'm sure all of us can relate to what you're saying.

In any case, by the time I have kids around hairloss age, I'm going to hope there are enough new medical treatments to keep him from going through what I am. We can only pray there will be. :lol:

 

[macdruid]

That is to say if a mutaion had formed in the gene pool of a little furry creature that makes it's eyes drop out and die at year 7 of an average 10 year life span, and let's say this creatures average reproductive span is at years 2 to 5, then this mutation is unlikely to be bred out of the gene pool, as the gene is passed on before getting the chance to express it's self. A couple of years after the little furry creature has children running around his eyes pop out and he dies, the same shall happen to his children, but not before they pass on the gene to their own children

Awwwww, poor little furry creature. Now, I'm sad. I feel better about just having my hair fall out, though.


:lol:

 

[S Foote.]

Increased levels of DHT increase potency and quantity of ejaculate. It is well known that reducing DHT with finasteride/dutasteride, has the opposite effect.

Are you sure about the potency part? Do you mean, that it will lower our possibility to make girls pregnant? I have never heard that before. I heard about the decrease in sperm volume, sure. Heard about lack of libido, sure. But never of decreased level of sperm potency!

That should be on the finasteride package then!

I was using the term potency in the context of competetiveness with other male rivals.

I don't know if the effect of 5ARI's on sperm `health' has been studied? I feel that for someone with borderline fertility, these drugs may make things worse?

S Foote.

 

[BostonHawk]

let me explain my question. I'm not saying bald men ARE less fit to find a mate, but I am saying that, as far as I know, its not beneficial in attracting mates, and therefore I'm wondering how it made its way into the gene pool. I also understand random mutations, but I think my question was written in a rhetorical angst.

 

[Guest]

let me explain my question. I'm not saying bald men ARE less fit to find a mate, but I am saying that, as far as I know, its not beneficial in attracting mates, and therefore I'm wondering how it made its way into the gene pool. I also understand random mutations, but I think my question was written in a rhetorical angst.

It got into the gene pool the same way as, parkinsons disease, non-enviromental cancers, alzheimers, polycystic kidney disease beta-thalassemia, hemophilia, huntingtons disease etc etc, it just walking straight in through the open door that is genetic mutation.

 

[Trent]

It was a mutation that didn't pose any threat to reproduction. I'm sure hair loss was a non-issue for cavemen that lived to be 23 and the male who could collect the most berries was king sh*t. If anything, it was probably a benefit for females choosing mates, as hair loss was probably just a marker for age (thus less sexual prominence) so females could find a mate that would be more likely to get them pregnant (not some old *** dude who's 30 and past his peak). but now we live to be 70, and physical attractiveness has basically overwhelmed the sexual attraction factors, and now the bald guy who is extremely fast at gathering blueberries for the tribe isn't such an asset anymore.

just a thought. or it could be that mother nature is a vicious b**ch.

 

[Guest]

It was a mutation that didn't pose any threat to reproduction.

that says it all really

now the bald guy who is extremely fast at gathering blueberries for the tribe isn't such an asset anymore.

blueberries still required, new shape


Ty

 

[Rawbbie]

good points.

now, can anyone explain how the pyramids were built?

 

[Guest]

good points.

now, can anyone explain how the pyramids were built?

from the top down, by aliens

 

[Vinton Harper]

I think it pretty much has to do with environment. With evolution, you lose what you don't need to survive. Trent8 is right in that male pattern baldness was probably a non-issue with cavemen, as they probably didn't have to deal with it much, because the process only started with them because they started the process, the beginnings of male pattern baldness, the bastards! They just had to start living in caves instead of outside like their ancestors did. :evil: And before you knew it caves became huts, huts became houses, houses had fireplaces and windows to keep the forces of mother nature out, then came air conditoners and better heating systems. And while all that is going on, mother nature is saying, "eh, why do they need hair?!" And then their were automobiles too. Another form of controlled environment. It is that controlled environment thing that the cavemen started that has led to our loss of hair, I believe. You don't see monkeys with male pattern baldness.
Now, could we reverse it by living outside in amongst the forces of nature and forsaking our controlled environments? It's possible, but it wouldn't happen in your lifetime. You, your kids, their kids and so on would have to do the same thing for quite a while, and then maybe your great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great, great grandson might see the benefits of a full head of hair for life.
Oops, I forgot one 'great'. There we go. :wink:

 

[Trent]

even if we "lived outside" for many generations, this would probably never reverse the gene in our bodies. It has to affect the reproduction of humans for it to be changed. In essence, not having hair would have to basically either kill you before you could reproduce (because not having much hair would cause you to perhaps die of hypothermia for example) so that male pattern baldness gene could never get transferred to the offspring, or hairloss would have to be so incredibly looked down upon that no women would ever mate with someone that was having hairloss problems (thus causing the gene to never be given to the offspring). this would be the only way it could shift the gene pool and reverse the male pattern baldness genes. I don't see this happening probably ever, there are just too many men out there with male pattern baldness and too many women who don't care enough about it to never mate with hair loss patients, and most people can reproduce before they ever even KNOW if they have hair loss, thus making male pattern baldness gene babies before their hair starts falling out.

 

[Guest]

you lose what you don't need to survive.

could you explain this to me, I am a little skeptical

Ty

 

[Rawbbie]

great points guys. There are many excellent theories here, but I think that as far as the pyramids go, it was balding cavemen who built them but were forced to evacuate the scene when aliens came down and altered their blueprints, which takes us to Tynan's post.

So, it's a combination of both.


But I have no idea where male pattern baldness came from if that's what you're all asking