Are bald men more evolved?

Question

Judging by the evolutionary trend for humans to lose their body hair doesn't it follow that bald men are a little further along in this regard? Don't you think we'll all be bald one day? Bald and blind like mole rats?

Stuart - You are right, it won't aid us in survival, but evolutionary trends aren't always strictly about survival. Studies have shown that a species will lose charateristics over time if they are unused. The appendix is one example. The dog's 'thumb' is another.

Answer 1

I have answered a question on evolution. You may want to visit the site listed:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmEkqj3Sj60EQEanIHlbljfsy6IX?qid=20061217043259AA4dpjd&show=7#profile-info-4d940511aaff9ab07432dc0d905d4fecaa

Anyway, I do not think that bald men are more evolved. Firstly, men are more likely to bald because of male pattern baldness that is due to a gene found in the sex choromosome.

Even if we say that this gene is supposed to be a recessive one and should not be found in the nature, bald men are still NOT more evolved because carrier women or balding women ARE MORE evolved because they are the ones who passed the gene down.

Then you have that little answer of mine. Evolution only happens to those who requires them to have it to survive. Our body only evolved when there is a need. If currently, our body feels that there is no need to evolve, there would be no evolution. Besides, becoming bald isn't a very good thing and I do not see any benefits that helps in the human or male species.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

No. You are making two errors with this question:

First, individuals don't evolve. Species evolve. So it is meaningless to wonder whether some individuals are "more evolved" than others.

Second, even with species, it is meaningless to speak of one being "more evolved" than another. That implies that there is a direction to evolution, and that anything "further" along in that direction is "more evolved." Evolution is just change in a species as a response to environment. So whatever is better adapted to the current environment is the closest we can consider to be "more evolved". But this can change if the environment changes.

BTW, you are correct that not all evolutionary change is directly linked to survival of the individual. This is the common mistake with the "survival of the fittest" synopsis of natural selection (which is why I try to avoid it as innaccurate). What matters is survival of the *gene*. So it can be linked to reproductive success of the individual (i.e. it doesn't help bald men survive, but the ladies like it), or it could be a gene that is carried along for the ride because it is close to another gene that *does* have some survival advantage.

Answer 4

Evolution isn't linear, so which you would be able to no longer say extra or much less developed. Male-development baldness is a genetic trait on the X chromosome. And so some distance, it has neither given benefit nor disadvantage to the carriers of the gene that i'm conscious. One reason is interior the previous, adult adult males who have been going bald did no longer achieve this until AFTER infants have been born! That and because its on the X chromosome, his maternal grandfather could desire to be alive to have a wager if he became going to have that gene from his mom- some thing that did no longer commonly take place. different mutations like hemophelia could commonly kill the male carriers, and shrink its frequency until extra cutting-side circumstances. people who carried the sickle cellular gene survived the place those without died of malaria, and people who had 2 commonly suffered and died from sickle-cellular, it became people who had in basic terms a million of the two genes that survived, and shop blacks in equilibrium in terms of that gene's frequency.

Answer 5

Despite not wanting to sound biased given my own state of capillary deprivation, I would have to say no.
All the human population on this planet is essentially equally evolved.
There is a statistical correlation between the amount of facial hair (beard density, shaved or unshaved does not matter, as mother nature did not include shavers in the mater plan) and loss of hair on the head; populations with less prominent beards also tend to be less likely to go bald, like Asian population for instance. At the same time, women do not go bald as often as men do, and most of then do not grow beard. Should women be considered less evolved than men? I think not, evidently.

For the record, older chimps will tend to go bald on the top of their head as well. Are chimps more evolved than human? No, they are just as much evolved.
There is a distinction to be made between "evolved" and "advanced". Humans are more advanced than chimps on certain aspect, but " evolved" means being adapted to the environment. In most cases being evolved implies becoming more advanced, but human cheat: we are no longer evolving as we are not adapting to the environment, we are changing the environment to suit us instead.

Answer 6

we don't gani anything by being blind - so we're not likely to go blind anytime soon! But also, evolution is slightly more irrelevant for humans because we all have a fairly decent survival rate, and a trait such as baldness won't cause us to survive longer than if we had hair.

Answer 7

It's difficult to define more evolved. But for sure you can't say that individual is more evolved than this other in the same spicie.

Answer 8

sounds very researched..I'd say yes