Raw Paleo Forum Subscribe to Raw Paleo Forum by Email
September 07, 2010, 09:10:45 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome New Members, to the Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle!
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Del.icio.us Digg FURL FaceBook Stumble Upon Reddit SlashDot

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Baldness American indians  (Read 7546 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
TylerDurden
Global Moderator
Mammoth Hunter
*****
Online Online

Gender: Male
United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 5587



View Profile WWW
« Reply #50 on: March 23, 2009, 02:59:51 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2009, 03:30:48 PM by TylerDurden » Logged

"Even a mistake may turn out to be the one thing necessary to a worthwhile achievement." Henry Ford
Satya
Guest
« Reply #51 on: March 23, 2009, 03:29:19 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2009, 03:35:12 PM by Satya » Logged
invisible
Elder
****
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 325


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: March 23, 2009, 04:43:04 PM »

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.
Logged
Satya
Guest
« Reply #53 on: March 23, 2009, 04:54:44 PM »

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.
Logged
invisible
Elder
****
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 325


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: March 23, 2009, 04:55:19 PM »


 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.

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2009, 05:02:42 PM by invisible » Logged
invisible
Elder
****
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 325


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: March 23, 2009, 05:02:03 PM »

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.
Logged
Satya
Guest
« Reply #56 on: March 23, 2009, 06:07:25 PM »

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."

Huh?

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.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2009, 06:18:45 PM by Satya » Logged
Satya
Guest
« Reply #57 on: March 23, 2009, 06:26:53 PM »

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.
Logged
invisible
Elder
****
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 325


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: March 23, 2009, 07:46:25 PM »

a shaved head looks much better when u have a full head of hair because the hairline frames the face
Logged
TylerDurden
Global Moderator
Mammoth Hunter
*****
Online Online

Gender: Male
United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 5587



View Profile WWW
« Reply #59 on: March 24, 2009, 06:57:34 AM »

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.

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2009, 05:26:34 PM by TylerDurden » Logged

"Even a mistake may turn out to be the one thing necessary to a worthwhile achievement." Henry Ford
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Raw Paleolithic Diet Info Site
Subscribe to raw paleo diet
All contents of Raw Paleo Diet Forum, unless otherwise noted, are © 2009 Raw Paleo Diet Forum, All Rights Reserved.
Paleo Diet
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!