Is evolution hurting us?

[dda]

Recently, my cousin remastered tons of old family pictures, like basically the ones from the 40s and 50s and 60s. My paternal grandfather, who passed in his 80s recently, still had pretty good coverage thick white hair when he died. His dad had plenty of hair too. I was too young to remember what my maternal grandfather looked like, but I've seen plenty of pictures and he had plenty of white hair too in pictures in which he appeared to be in his 50s or 60s.

My dad and his 2 brothers, are all bad, and they range in the age of late forties to late 50s. I just don't get how their dad had hair, but they are pretty much COMPLETELY bald, like not even a NW 4 or 5 or anything like that. Could evolution and the mixing of different european backgrounds maybe contributing to baldness? I feel like I know so many people who are 100% of their oringinal family ethnicity have no problems with MPB.

My only cousin on my moms side, is also thinning in the crown area. However, his dad, in his late 50s, has a FULL head of hair. I don't get how me, my middle brother, and said cousin are balding so young. I guess its just shitty genetics once the nationalities were mixed?

Anyone else on here have similar family history in terms of balding?
I feel as if people today are balding younger than before.

[Morbo]

Ok seriously, are you for real?
At first I wanted to give a serious reply, but on second thought I find it hard to believe anyone being that stupid to believe this. Lemme guess, you're from a family of avid BNP-supporters?

[Tracy C]

Anyone else on here have similar family history in terms of balding? I feel as if people today are balding younger than before.

It is very rare for anyone to have no hereditary hair loss anywhere in there family history. Almost everyone has someone in there family tree who has suffered with hereditary hair loss. Sometimes it can skip a generation or two.

I don't know if people are actually balding younger or if it simply that people are now less accepting of it.

[NotBelievingIt]

It is very rare for anyone to have no hereditary hair loss anywhere in there family history. Almost everyone has someone in there family tree who has suffered with hereditary hair loss. Sometimes it can skip a generation or two.

I don't know if people are actually balding younger or if it simply that people are now less accepting of it.

People aren't necessarily balding younger - whats happening is that todays generations are sooo much more connected and we're fed images of what is "beautiful" that anything not what we see on TV must clearly be horrible and terrible.

Or it could be that younger people are balding more frequently because of the population boom, there is just that many more available candidates, as it were. Also, diet could be playing a more heavy role.

[chrisis]

Human evolution occurs so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or maybe even hundreds of thousands of years. There is no way hair loss can be blamed on evolution, it's simply a matter of perception.

[rupe]

I don't know if you could rule out ever 'blaming' evolution for hair loss, but there is absolutely no way you can see any evolution taking place looking at your family photos in the cupboard it takes indeed hundred of thousands to millions of years.

[chrisis]

evolution occurs because of random mutations that lend to a favourable survival advantage. balding is not caused by a random mutation and last I checked balding does not help men become more sexually competitive. anyway the onset of balding for the majority occurs after many people have already reproduced, so it's possible balding will always be with us unless humans fiddle with the genome.

[rupe]

Evolution certainly does not occur due to random mutations at all. It occurs through natural selection because within a species those with favourable genetic traits live longer and are able to pass on their genes more often, propagating certain genes into the gene pool while conversely those with unfavourable traits are passed on less and less and eventually that trait dies out.

How can you know that balding is not considered a sign of maturity which could have been beneficial to men in the past? There are a multitude of possibilities as to why natural selection may have favoured bald men.

[StressedToTheBald]

How can you know that balding is not considered a sign of maturity which could have been beneficial to men in the past? There are a multitude of possibilities as to why natural selection may have favoured bald men.

As much as hate unfair evolution..

"Evolutionary hypotheses
..It has been speculated that this is an evolutionary event that signifies maturity and conveys greater authority on affected men.
In a study by Muscarella and Cunningham,[11] males and females viewed 6 male models with different levels of facial hair (beard and mustache or none) 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."

[chrisis]

rupe, evolution IS about random mutations! Not all random mutations are positive, it's only the random mutations that give a positive reproductive/survival advantage in a given environment that survive.

MUTATIONS ARE RANDOM!!!

[StressedToTheBald]

rupe, evolution IS about random mutations! Not all random mutations are positive, it's only the random mutations that give a positive reproductive/survival advantage in a given environment that survive.

MUTATIONS ARE RANDOM!!!

Whats not positive today might have been positive thousands of years ago..
Although not fitting the modern days' standards, maybe :
A.) Cavewomen liked the bald cavemen better..
B.) Bald cavemen could hide better in the bushes..

[dda]

thanks for the input

[chrisis]

Stressedtothebald, caveman did not live long beyond 30 years old. As the majority of men do not start exhibiting signs of balding until beyond 30, I doubt balding was a factor for cavewomen to even consider. Even if balding was present in cavemen, I very much doubt they had the same superficial values we have today. I'm certain they'd have been more interested in surviving than in how many follicles their partner had........

[UK_]

recently, my cousin remastered tons of old family pictures, like basically the ones from the 40s and 50s and 60s. My paternal grandfather, who passed in his 80s recently, still had pretty good coverage thick white hair when he died. His dad had plenty of hair too. I was too young to remember what my maternal grandfather looked like, but i've seen plenty of pictures and he had plenty of white hair too in pictures in which he appeared to be in his 50s or 60s.

My dad and his 2 brothers, are all bad, and they range in the age of late forties to late 50s. I just don't get how their dad had hair, but they are pretty much completely bald, like not even a nw 4 or 5 or anything like that. Could evolution and the mixing of different european backgrounds maybe contributing to baldness? I feel like i know so many people who are 100% of their oringinal family ethnicity have no problems with mpb.

My only cousin on my moms side, is also thinning in the crown area. However, his dad, in his late 50s, has a full head of hair. I don't get how me, my middle brother, and said cousin are balding so young. I guess its just shitty genetics once the nationalities were mixed?

Anyone else on here have similar family history in terms of balding?
I feel as if people today are balding younger than before.

ahahahahahahaaaaaaahahaahahahaahaaaahahahahaaaahah ahahahahahaahahahahahaahahaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[StressedToTheBald]

Stressedtothebald, caveman did not live long beyond 30 years old. As the majority of men do not start exhibiting signs of balding until beyond 30, I doubt balding was a factor for cavewomen to even consider. Even if balding was present in cavemen, I very much doubt they had the same superficial values we have today. I'm certain they'd have been more interested in surviving than in how many follicles their partner had........

I was just putting out theories, I don't know their attitude towards baldness, neither do You. You have a proof that cavemen only started balding beyond 30 ? Or proof of what cavewomen found more or less attractive ? What if the bald cavemen were better hiders or survivors ? But even then, it wasn't all just survival, otherwise they wouldn't create paintings on cave walls.. the element of visual existed even then.. Lets not simplify things. And I wouldn't underestimate the visual element.. more recent history example, about 2000 years ago, ashamed of his bald top, one Roman used an olive branch to conceal his bald eagled head.. the name was Ceaser. With all the kingdoms, gold, power, women and soldiers under him - it was the power of hair that he lacked and felt ashamed of.

The fact that more than 50% of men today go bald one way or another is however a proof that the baldness gene became dominant for some reason..