Baldness American indians

[TylerDurden]

My question of selective pressure still remains. In order for baldness to have gone into the gene pool as you claim as a possible evolutionary change, there must have been selective pressure for it. I think we can all agree that the average woman prefers their men to have a full head of hair over partially or fully bald, that alone points to no selective pressure. Unless you can show somehow that bald men have more reproductive success, or rather had more reproductive success in the preceding generations when baldness started (you would have to figure that out too) to get us where we are now of many men going bald later in life, then it's just not evolution.

Also why would it only happen to men as they age? If it's an advantage and a genetic change rather than a breakdown of hair follicles from faulty nutrition, I would imagine it would be present at birth and they wouldn't go through the normal cycle of growing full heads of hair in their adolescence and early adulthood.

Looking at all the factors I think it's unreasonable to say it's more likely for baldness to be an evolutionary trait rather than just the effect of faulty nutrition. Yes some gene pools tolerate this faulty nutrition for this trait better (Asians in particular) but that doesn't make it genetic, it just makes it like everything else in that your genes determine how faulty nutrition will affect you. That would be like saying because Asians have less colon cancer than Europeans that it's a genetic disease rather than a disease of nutrition. Every disease the modern SAD or grain heavy diet causes affects different gene populations differently, still nutrition is the cause not their faulty genes.

No, we do NOT all agree that the average woman prefers their men to have a full or partial head of hair. As Satya pointed out, women have a wide difference in their views of what constitutes sex-appeal in a Man(much like men), and bald people are also seen as more intelligent, which would be a bonus for some women.

 Plus, if all or most women really did view baldness as being so bad, why is it that as much as 1 in 4 men noticeably grow bald in their twenties(NOT in old age) with 3 in 4 growing bald, later on? The only plausible explanation for the 1 in 4 figure for young men is that there must be some reproductive bonus to being bald. And it's also been pointed out  that the greater number of androgen receptors you have on the surface of your follicle cells, the more DHT activation is likely to be induced and the more likely it is that your hair will fall out and stay out. The distribution of androgen receptors is thought to be determined almost entirely by your genes.

Re why does it only happen to men as they age:- First of all, baldness is heavily influenced by testosterone, which only becomes a factor in men, around puberty, so that if one assumes fluctuating hormone-levels in the 20s that would explain baldness at that stage(20, not 14 or 18, is actually the age at which both males and females stop maturing, funnily enough). Secondly, a lot of animals go through initial stages such as cocoons or keep certain atavistic characteristics from earlier phases of that species' evolution(eg:- tadpoles becoming frogs), so it.


Here's a most interesting theory re baldness and sexual selection from the web:-

http://ask.metafilter.com/69507/How-does-natural-selection-account-for-male-pattern-balding


"One theory, advanced by Muscarella and Cunningham, suggests baldness evolved in males through sexual selection as an enhanced signal of aging and social maturity, whereby aggression and risk-taking decrease and nurturing behaviours increase.(1) This may have conveyed a male with enhanced social status but reduced physical threat, which could enhance ability to secure reproductive partners and raise offspring to adulthood.

In a study by Muscarella and Cunnhingham, males and females viewed 6 male models with different levels of facial hair (beard and moustache or clean) and cranial hair (full head of hair, receding and bald). Participants rated each combination on 32 adjectives related to social perceptions. Males with facial hair and those with bald or receding hair were rated as being older than those who were clean-shaven or had a full head of hair. Beards and a full head of hair were seen as being more aggressive and less socially mature, and baldness was associated with more social maturity.

Here's the abstract from that study:

Both male facial hair and male pattern baldness are genetically based, suggesting that they contributed to fitness. The multiple fitness model provides an evolutionary interpretation of the social perception of male pattern baldness and beardedness in terms of the multidimensional meaning of physical maturational stages. Male facial beardedness is associated with the sexual maturation stage and is hypothesized to signal aggressive dominance. Male pattern baldness, by contrast, is associated with the next stage of physical maturation, termed senescence. Pattern baldness may signal social maturity, a non-threatening form of dominance associated with wisdom and nurturance. We tested these hypotheses on social perceptions using manipulated male facial stimuli. We presented faces with three levels of cranial hair, including full, receding, and bald, and two levels of facial hair, beard with moustache and clean shaven. Consistent with the model, a decrease in the amount of cranial hair was associated with increased perceptions of social maturity, appeasement, and age, and decreased perceptions of attractiveness and aggressiveness. Targets with facial hair were perceived as more aggressive, less appeasing, less attractive, older, and lower on social maturity than clean shaven faces.

So maybe women tend to chase hairy, irresponsible and aggressive young guys, but settle down and raise kids with balding but stable and nurturing men, even though they find them less attractive than men with full heads of hair.

Or male baldness may be associated with another, yet identified trait that is being directly selected, and baldness survives as a tagalong."


Of course, the clincher re the testosterone-genetics theory  is that if a man is castrated before or at the very start of puberty, he gets a full head of hair. Castration is the one sure defence against baldness. This blows the whole notion linking baldness and ill-health out of the water. Besides, if one takes the theory of baldness and ill-health too seriously, one would have to assume that Asians were healthier/had healthier diets etc. than other racial groups, which is very unlikely.

[Satya]

No, we do NOT all agree that the average woman prefers their men to have a full or partial head of hair. As Satya pointed out, women have a wide difference in their views of what constitues sex-appeal in a Man(much like men), and bald people are also seen as more intelligent, which would be a bonus for some women.

Damn straight.  And that intelligence confers itself in a very practical way - ie. good provisions.  I would say that even in less than modern times, physical attraction of women to men is less physical and more exhibited in terms of bringing home the bacon.  A woman wants good food and shelter for the family.  Good looks don't guarantee that.  A good, smart tool user is better than a big brute in most cases.

Great study.  And interestingly, my husband is younger than me, but he does look older (so it works, ya know?).  That older look I think is a benefit for men, at least in terms of career advancement by age.  No doubt about that.

[invisible]

These associations with baldness are simply cultural though. Different societies will associate different things will baldness (in this case its claimed intelligence). The only consistent thing between cultures is that having hair is physically more attractive than being bald.

[Satya]

These associations with baldness are simply cultural though. Different societies will associate different things will baldness (in this case its claimed intelligence). The only consistent thing between cultures is that having hair is physically more attractive than being bald.

I tend to think that this is a very modern idea, and we do see many products on the market to "cure" this baldness.  How was it viewed 2000 ya though?  Was it unattractive then?  Or was it honored?  Same with white teeth, it is very cultural and really has nothing to do with health.  Dark teeth due to staining from fruit means nothing.  It is modern society that says we must bleach the teeth and otherwise keep what we see as youthful. 

Personally, I would rather be super strong and fast all my age than worry about superficial markers like hair and teeth.  I can do the splits and spar teenagers, and if I can do that into my 60s, then I will have preserved my health, afaiac.

[invisible]

 Plus, if all or most women really did view baldness as being so bad, why is it that as much as 1 in 4 men noticeably grow bald in their twenties(NOT in old age) with 3 in 4 growing bald, later on? The only plausible explanation for the 1 in 4 figure for young men is that there must be some reproductive bonus to being bald. And it's also been pointed out  that the greater number of androgen receptors you have on the surface of your follicle cells, the more DHT activation is likely to be induced and the more likely it is that your hair will fall out and stay out. The distribution of androgen receptors is thought to be determined almost entirely by your genes.

All illness increases as people age. Diabetes is more common in older people than young. No reproductive advantage, simply bad diet affecting particular people worse/differently. Everything doctors don't understand is thought to be "genetic". I think very little is.

Of course, the clincher re the testosterone-genetics theory  is that if a man is castrated before or at the very start of puberty, he gets a full head of hair. Castration is the one sure defence against baldness. This blows the whole notion linking baldness and ill-health out of the water. Besides, if one takes the theory of baldness and ill-health too seriously, one would have to assume that Asians were healthier/had healthier diets etc. than other racial groups, which is very unlikely.

Not true. Castrating a man might stop him going bald, since baldness is only a symptom of illness. He would not be able to produce the hormones needed to go bald, but he would likely develop another illness instread. Seems to be going back and fourth. Raw Kyle already said that you don't have to assume that Asians were healthier, since Asians are more likely to get other diseases than other people were - they suffer from the same underlying problem but the body shows it in different ways. It's not as if 100% of Asians had there hair or that baldness was scarce compared to Native Americans, Aboriginals. But after world war 2 Baldness in Japan increased dramatically with a change in dietary practices. Evolution can't take place within a few decades. The Australian Aboriginals also have lost any seemingly baldness immunity Weston Price talked about. Even if he exaggerated it, it's beyond doubt that baldness has increased consistent with other health problems in people adopting a SAD.

[invisible]

I tend to think that this is a very modern idea, and we do see many products on the market to "cure" this baldness.  How was it viewed 2000 ya though?  Was it unattractive then?  Or was it honored?  Same with white teeth, it is very cultural and really has nothing to do with health.  Dark teeth due to staining from fruit means nothing.  It is modern society that says we must bleach the teeth and otherwise keep what we see as youthful. 

Personally, I would rather be super strong and fast all my age than worry about superficial markers like hair and teeth.  I can do the splits and spar teenagers, and if I can do that into my 60s, then I will have preserved my health, afaiac.

I think it would be viewed much as it is today. Makes you less attractive, but it's not going to warrant killing yourself over. Possibly would have made you more unattractive than it does today since primitives show less baldness than moderns. It's common nowdays so not much of a problem. The less common it is the less likely a woman is to overlook it and the less likely a man is to accept it.

[Satya]

I think it would be viewed much as it is today. Makes you less attractive, but it's not going to warrant killing yourself over. Possibly would have made you more unattractive than it does today since primitives show less baldness than moderns. It's common nowdays so not much of a problem. The less common it is the less likely a woman is to overlook it and the less likely a man is to accept it.

I would love to see any evidence that baldness was less in primitive cultures.  Please provide any reference to support this idea.  I mean, fossils don't give any evidence about hair, do they?

For the selection of baldness:

http://newyork.broowaha.com/article.php?id=1512
"Looking back through prehistory to the hunter-gatherer mode of human existence, he notes that, in contrast to our society today, elders in the relatively small groups garnered great benefits in power, occupying a high position within the social hierarchy. Concomitant with this posturing of power and status by male elders within the tribe (life expectancy was remember closer to 30 than 80) was the implication of "well, he must being doing something right if he's lived this long," making them attractive mates for prospective females, with good genes and resources to pass on to progeny. In addition, some primeval societies upheld an ideology of patriarchy that promoted elder men within the group to mate with younger, fertile women, thereby increasing the chances of producing offspring (as opposed to elder men mating with elder women).

"In other words, the older men who ran the show got first dibs on the chicks. Consequently, men might conceivably gain reproductive fitness by appearing older than they really were (celebrating one's birthday hadn't quite come of age yet). Physical traits that would make one (male) appear older (such as baldness) would become more prevalent as the potential reproductive benefits the individual gained became more tangible. And hence, the scourge of premature baldness has become rampant."

Not exactly the best evidence, but how do you explain:

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Baldness#Evolutionary_theories_of_male_pattern_baldness
"There is no consensus regarding the origin of male pattern baldness. Most evolutionary theories regard it as resulting from sexual selection. A number of other primate species also experience hair loss following puberty, and some primate species clearly use an enlarged forehead, created both anatomically and through strategies such as frontal balding, to convey a superior status and maturity. The assertion that MPB is intended to convey a social message is supported by the fact that the distribution of androgen receptors in the scalp differs between men and women, and older women or women with high androgen levels often exhibit diffuse thinning of hair as opposed to male pattern baldness."



If this directly above is true, then we can all sit back and smoke a pipe together, as the question of the evolutionary nature of male baldness is slam dunked with an affirmative answer.

[Satya]

But back to aesthetics.  Natalie Portman shaved her head for a movie.  Having fine facial features, she looked great.  Same with anyone.  Often, it's the long, flowing hair that makes people look good; but if you shaved their heads, they'd look like crap (I think Meg Ryan here).  If you have a good face, hair is so optional - male or female.

[invisible]

a shaved head looks much better when u have a full head of hair because the hairline frames the face

[TylerDurden]

All illness increases as people age. Diabetes is more common in older people than young. No reproductive advantage, simply bad diet affecting particular people worse/differently. Everything doctors don't understand is thought to be "genetic". I think very little is.

The  flaw in your logic is the fact that these people I mentioned get bald in their 20s. If baldness was, in any way, a sign of ill-health, then it would be much more common for children to lose their hair(yet they don't, they start losing hair later). And, like I said, given the genetic characteristic(people inheriting baldness from parents is a classic example), the link between baldness and illness becomes highly suspect.

Not true. Castrating a man might stop him going bald, since baldness is only a symptom of illness. He would not be able to produce the hormones needed to go bald, but he would likely develop another illness instread. Seems to be going back and fourth. Raw Kyle already said that you don't have to assume that Asians were healthier, since Asians are more likely to get other diseases than other people were - they suffer from the same underlying problem but the body shows it in different ways. It's not as if 100% of Asians had there hair or that baldness was scarce compared to Native Americans, Aboriginals. But after world war 2 Baldness in Japan increased dramatically with a change in dietary practices. Evolution can't take place within a few decades. The Australian Aboriginals also have lost any seemingly baldness immunity Weston Price talked about. Even if he exaggerated it, it's beyond doubt that baldness has increased consistent with other health problems in people adopting a SAD.

Well, judging from the multiple  photos I've seen of Australian Aborigines over the years(even those following crap diets) they all appear to have a full head of hair(and some magnificent beards). So, I have my doubts re this.

As regards Asians being relatively immune to baldness(as a supposed illness) but less resistant to other conditions, that seems highly unlikely. For one thing, the fact that Asians, worldwide do not all eat the same diet(there are Asian Americans who eat fast-food diets, after all), yet all have a greatly decreased likelihood of baldness by comparison to other groups, makes it clear that baldness is of a primarily hereditary nature. 

As regards castration, the very fact that hormones are needed in order to produce baldness indicates that there is no illness in question. After all, it isn't so much the excess amounts of hormones but the number of androgen receptors on the follicles(re male pattern baldness).

Mind you, I agree that people can lose their hair due to shock, chemotherapy etc., but that is not the same thing as male pattern baldness.

[Raw Kyle]

The only plausible explanation for the 1 in 4 figure for young men is that there must be some reproductive bonus to being bald.

I see a system stressed by toxins and nutrient deprivation as a more plausible reason than reproductive bonus. Satya may have a man she likes that is bald, but all of my life experience has been that it's not considered attractive. The famous tennis player Andre Agassi was a sex symbol until he started balding, then the advertisers had no interest in using him anymore. Advertising may be a bunch of bs used to trick people to part with their money, but they sure know how to do it.

The androgen receptor thing could be genetic or it could be nutritive as well. Certain mental diseases are associated with too high hormones and receptors, and I'm guessing this isn't conferred genetic superiority. Breast cancer happens more in women with larger breasts, which is obviously a reproductive advantage, but cancer is not. And I'm assuming we agree that cancer is caused by toxins and not large breasts, yes?

[Satya]

Breast cancer happens more in women with larger breasts, which is obviously a reproductive advantage, but cancer is not. And I'm assuming we agree that cancer is caused by toxins and not large breasts, yes?

What reproductive advantage?  If you are implying that larger breasts yield more milk, this is absolutely incorrect. 

http://www.babies.sutterhealth.org/breastfeeding/bf_production.html
Breastfeeding success has nothing to do with the size of your breasts or nipples. Breast size is an inherited trait and determined by the number of fat cells you have. The breasts will enlarge with pregnancy and breastfeeding. Breastfeeding is a supply-and-demand process. Therefore, the more you nurse, the more milk you produce!

Larger breasts have more fat, and breast size will vary with overall weight per individual.  However, many breasts today are augmented with toxic implants.  Look at movies from the 50s where women body size was a bit on the plump size, and you have fuller breasts.  Look at 70s movies and breast sizes generally are smaller.  Look from about 1985 and beyond and you see aliens with cantelope shell shaped breasts - complete with ribs showing and abrupt angle changes not possible in nature.  And now we have magazines changing women's arms and waists to impossible proportions as well.

And I find this whole idea of marketing and advertising worries somewhat funny on a health-oriented list.  I stopped watching commercial television save for rare moments when I was 19 years old.  Who cares about Agassi's commercial contracts?  (If he gave a rat's ass about that, I am sure he would have a transplanted head of hair today.)  He has a wife and kids, does he not?  So, where's the reproductive disadvantage?

[Raw Kyle]

I guess the disadvantage would be that he would be more likely to have illegitimate kids with fans if he was a sex symbol, like a musician or actor is more likely to have that than average Joe.

And with the breasts I mean women with larger breasts get more male attention.

[Raw Kyle]

I guess I should say that I'm not arguing that baldness is a reproductive disadvantage, more so that it is not an advantage. At least not enough of an advantage to warrant a selective tool for genetic change.

Does anyone here really think that baldness is in the same league as height increases, intelligence and lack of disease susceptibility in selective demand? Because that's what you would be saying if you're saying that baldness is spreading through the population due to evolution rather than nutrition changes.

[Satya]

I guess the disadvantage would be that he would be more likely to have illegitimate kids with fans if he was a sex symbol, like a musician or actor is more likely to have that than average Joe.

And with the breasts I mean women with larger breasts get more male attention.

To a point.  For those smart males interested in really good sex, a strong backside and some solid legs should attract just as much attention as breasts. 

Oh, and big breasts really get in the way of doing various tasks like running and working.  I am pretty average in that department, but I have heard various friends complain over the years.  The more active the girl in adolescence, the smaller her breasts, so we can only imagine how things might have been preagriculture

[Raw Kyle]

I'm not a breast guy but I can certainly appreciate them. I've actually never had a girlfriend with huge breasts so I don't even know what it's like. I like nice breasts, they don't have to be big. I'm more into thighs and ass myself.

At any rate though in hunter gatherer times I'm not sure women had to do much running, they didn't hunt right? From what I remember of tribal pictures of the closest thing I can think of to hunter gathered I remember seeing fairly large breasts on the women.

[TylerDurden]

The way I see it, baldness must have some evolutionary advantage for it to appear in so many males, at this stage. At the same time, it does not provide an overwhelming evolutionary advantage or we would all be bald, so there could be an opposing evolutionary trend against baldness as well.

[JaX]

I think this is one of those topics it's possible to discuss in great lengths and never really reach a conclusion on.

I've read a lot of books on evolution and let me tell you there are so many completely opposing views when it comes to evolutionary topics.
Take the peacocks tail as an example... An evolutionary trait which still puzzles scientists today...   What is its evolutionary advantage? Some scientists believe there are advantages for peacocks having a big tail, most scientists believe there are none and that females choose males with larger tails randomly.. Others argue that the larger tail of a peacock proves the ability of a peacock to survive with an additional burden (and that the generations before have been able to survive with this burden as well)...

And does natural selection still "go on" in humans today? You could draw different conclusions by looking at thousands of different factors. Yes we humans live in a controlled environment, i.e. diseased/dying people can be treated just enough to reproduce... But on the other hand, healthy females with good genes (and what are good genes exactly? yet another topic which can be discussed in great length) will choose a male based on things like social status, looks/health and personality (including intelligence). Which of these is the most important factor? Maybe personality, taking into consideration the majority of humans. Which personality traits are attractive to most human females? Gentle or rough/Dominating or submissive/humble or arrogant....

These things can be discussed for a long time and statistics are not very reliable IMO. Baldness is just one factor which works in combination with thousands others. It's impossible to isolate baldness from all the other variables, since there are so many.

What's fun about evolution is that it's possible to design theories to fit whatever paradigm you are looking for. Even a vegetarian can argue that the weather conditions and atmosphere were so different thousands of years ago that plants were extremely nutritious and it was possible to live mostly on plants. Even though a theory like this does not follow main stream beliefs today, it can be made into a scientifically valid theory by following the scientific model and finding the appropriate proof.

What really cracks me up is when I see people like Loren Cordain giving ratios of what people ate 10,000 years (x% protein, y% carbs, z% fat)... Was he there? Did he eat with the paleolithic people? lol

[Guittarman03]

Guys, both sides are probably somewhat correct re baldness.  Look at chemotherapy.  Is it a genetic thing that it causes baldness?  Well, yes, in that your body responds poorly to radiation like that.  Have people slowed or stopped their balding since switching to RP?  Seems to be the case.  So yes, baldness must be in many instances, primarily the result of toxins/poor diet/environment.

Yet it's seems highly probable that even if every human followed RP from conception to death, and lived in a clean environment, we would see baldness, so in many instances it is complete genetics.  Probably most cases fall somewhere in between the two extremes. 

It seems kind of silly to me, the whole back and forth about whether baldness conferrs a higher or lower probability of reproduction.  I am sure this varies with culture, time, location, environment.  Most likely it's just one of those random, mostly neutral, forms of diversity that has sprung up in our species over time, and probably increased as a result of less than ideal food and environment.  Key words being MOSTLY NEUTRAL. 

Are we going to argue next about whether pointed chins vs square are better for attracting mates and passing on our genes?  Or try to find some way that a large nose conferrs a survival advantage?  Diversity arises among many species, and indeed is necessary for the continued survival and evolution of those species.   

[Raw Kyle]

The way I see it, baldness must have some evolutionary advantage for it to appear in so many males, at this stage. At the same time, it does not provide an overwhelming evolutionary advantage or we would all be bald, so there could be an opposing evolutionary trend against baldness as well.

So you're saying it CANNOT be nutritional? I HAS to be evolution? Wouldn't that be like saying every change you see in modern humans is evolution and not nutritional?

[Satya]

So you're saying it CANNOT be nutritional? I HAS to be evolution? Wouldn't that be like saying every change you see in modern humans is evolution and not nutritional?

But how can male pattern baldness be nutritional?  You eat a certain way and then bam, 20 years later you get the same balding pattern as your mother's father?
I hope this discussion continues, regardless of outcome.  It's about time we had a good, honest debate on something here.  Who cares if we end up circling around for awhile.  Do you have any idea how long Kepler kept the same incorrect ideas about perfect geometric solid shapes ruling the spacing of the planets?  Without questioning, we give up.

I am watching Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon right now.  The guys all shave the frontal head.  In these Eastern cultures, age is highly respected.  I know this first hand as a long time student of traditional martial arts.  Totally different culture than European influenced ways.  You have to be a part of it somehow to understand.  I am just saying, there is a major pecking order in most primitive groups.  All members don't just share equally in the grub and gals and sing Kumbaya by the fire, ya know?

[Raw Kyle]

I'm considering it the same way as cancer, diabetes and heart disease are considered genetic. You eat a certain way and them bam, you have the same cancer, diabetic condition or heart disease as your mother or father.

Genetics determine HOW poor nutrition affects you, not that it WILL. I'm suggesting that pattern baldness, full baldness, or simply a receding hairline are different ways genetically you can be effected by the toxins present and nutrients not present in the modern diet, just like various diseases.

I wish we could find a group of test subjects to test this on. I'll make myself one, I'm probably going to continue on a diet like this, and my mother's father is bald.

[TylerDurden]

So you're saying it CANNOT be nutritional? I HAS to be evolution? Wouldn't that be like saying every change you see in modern humans is evolution and not nutritional?

  Every recent change in modern humans can't be totally due to evolution, but baldness is something we've had for hundreds of millenia(possibly even more if, as seems likely, our apemen ancestors also had bald people) so I view it no differently from other basic physical, mutational characteristics such as having 6 fingers on each hand etc. I don't see having 6 fingers as being a sign of illness so don't view baldness as being bad.

Re chemotherapy in other post:- I think perhaps that you assume that if hair-loss occurs as a result of radioactive chemotherapy, that all hair-loss must be due to illness. I guess what I'm saying is that suddenly  losing hair due to shock, radiation or similiar event is quite different from people(of varying levels of health) developing baldness over time as they enter their 20s etc.

[goodsamaritan]

I think its in the shampoo. 

[Raw Kyle]

How do you know how far back in time baldness occurred?