Why the horseshoe pattern?

[iamnaked]

I'm not saying it has to be random - there could well be a very compelling and uninvestigated reason why male pattern baldness is so prevalent in terms of how survival of the fittest works. However in order for people to be bothered with doing the research, there should be questions raised which tickle peoples' fancy. *Find* the variable that hairloss corresponds to (be it virility, penis size, whatever). Then lets see if there's a connection. As far as I can see theres no trait synonymous with baldness.

Just saying - oh this is weird, let's check it out, doesn't really float my boat for some reason. I don't see anything particularly funny in it when juxtaposed with the umpteen other things about our bodies that might strike someone as odd when taken in isolation.

 

[Aplunk1]

Baldness is a dominant trait, correct?

If so, then we have a reason for going bald.

Just like blue eyes are a recessive trait... There is no need for them for the future of mankind.

 

[Aplunk1]

I wish Ronaldkia were here...

We need his expert opinion.

 

[bodysnatcher]

So no-one knows why we bald in the horseshoe pattern?

 

[Bryan]

So no-one knows why we bald in the horseshoe pattern?

Nope. Nobody knows why some hair follicles are STIMULATED by androgens, and others are SUPPRESSED by androgens.

Bryan

 

[Guest]

it has probabyl somethign to do with ADN, genetics and how the fetus is created...

And since nowadsy when wee talk about ADN and gentics, no doctors know sh*t about it, we can't answer this question... anything to do with genetics or ADN is like GURU.

Yes, even nowadsy in year 2006... Incredible.

 

[Solo]

well I think we´ve made great steps in the field, given all the stuff we are talking about is highly and precisely organizated at a molecular level.


I saw a documentary about the work of one top doctor in genetics, I can´t remember his name, but he was clean shaven and with strong british accent, he managed himself as he was very well stimated in scientific community. (Most of scientifics do this, though)

He explained how the info stored in genes becomes an organ or a tissue, and the role of the Hedgehog in controlling simmetry and repetition of tissues and structures, and believe me, it was intricated and complex.

I took some biology courses in college, and the DNA thing was kind of understandable, but when you get to the point of protein formation, with the 3-d domains and other stuff I can´t remember, it becomes a very hard subject.

But sure they are advancing, but they are very far from controlling the whole aspects of it, as the doctor said.

Btw, guess what the guy mentioned, when talking about organ manipulation via DNA altering, he passes his hand through his slick bald cue ball and say: Yes, If we could alter organs using controlled replication of cells, I could have, as an example, a full head of hair, so I wish we can do it soon!!.

 

[Matgallis]

Baldness is a dominant trait, correct?

If so, then we have a reason for going bald.

Just like blue eyes are a recessive trait... There is no need for them for the future of mankind.

no balding is a recessive trait.


For "keeping you hair" is determined by the x chromosome. We only have one x... therefor if we do land this awesome recessive trait, then we're doomed.

 

[Aplunk1]

To my understanding, if two people come together to produce one offspring:

Parent 1 has Androgenetic Alopecia

Parent 2 has no history of Androgenetic Alopecia

Then the offspring is likely to inherit Androgenetic Alopecia or thinning, correct?

This would make it a dominant trait.



If Androgenetic Alopecia were a recessive trait, then throughout the span of human existence, it should naturally die out, correct?

 

[Armando Jose]

Hi;
My idea is simple, the "privileged" hairs are those can not interrupt the sebum flow because seven/eight hours a day are in touching with a absorbent surface as the pilow when we rest.
The same explanation for the different incidence in common baldness between sexes due women normally have longer hair than men, and then it is not necessary the direct contact with the zone of exit of hairs.

Armando

 

[Solo]

Hola, colega, a ver si me explicas lo siguiente...



How do you explain that there are long haired men that thin/receed in the classic male pattern baldness pattern??


There are good examples between rock stars, first that came to my mind is the singer of The Darkness.

 

[Bryan]

Hi;
My idea is simple, the "privileged" hairs are those can not interrupt the sebum flow because seven/eight hours a day are in touching with a absorbent surface as the pilow when we rest.

LOL!! Armando, you're a funny guy!

Ever heard of "donor dominance"?? :wink:

Bryan

 

[Guest]

My hat is made out of good absorbing cotton.. I use it all the time, doesent help me much.. STRANGE AHH!!!

 

[powersam]

bodysnatcher "People talk about evolution as if there is some kind of divinity to it.

Evolution works on survival of the fittest, random genetic things happen that cause that creature to be more successful that it's counterparts, genes don't just decide to do things."

actually genes do just do things. thats the basis of evolution random mutations and natural selections. as to baldness being around, its a condition that manifests itself well after what has been the breeding age for most of human history. in the past if you didnt have kids by 20 you probably werent going to have any. so it has had no chance to be 'bred out' if indeed it should have been.

aplunk1 - genetics isnt quite that simple. you cant just state' if its recessive it would be bred out'. if that were the case then noone would have blue eyes, blonde hair, etc. now the fact that baldness is getting more common might suggest to you a dominant trait, but that would also be incorrect. human traits tend to reach a balance, the simplest explanation would be in highschool science you make those little charts, with the Pp x Pp and get PP-Pp-Pp-pp etc. the recessive traits are expressed in 1/4 of the offspring. thats basically how it stays in the human population, recessive traits are expressed less but at a steady ratio in the populace.

so why is baldness getting more common? the answer is very simple. rap music.


nb/ i finished uni a while ago now so if the above is incorrect please dont be mean just point it out. i'm feeling tender.

 

[S Foote.]

bodysnatcher "People talk about evolution as if there is some kind of divinity to it.

Evolution works on survival of the fittest, random genetic things happen that cause that creature to be more successful that it's counterparts, genes don't just decide to do things."

actually genes do just do things. thats the basis of evolution random mutations and natural selections. as to baldness being around, its a condition that manifests itself well after what has been the breeding age for most of human history. in the past if you didnt have kids by 20 you probably werent going to have any. so it has had no chance to be 'bred out' if indeed it should have been.

I agree, and i think people are looking at male pattern baldness in the wrong evolutionary context here?

There is "certainly" an advantage to be gained from higher levels of DHT in primate evolution. This is a greater chance of breeding success in a society where the females are mating with many males.

Most higher primate males have evolved sexual "systems" to increase breeding success, so why not humans? Consider other primates.

http://www.primates.com/bonobos/bonobosexsoc.html

The lowering of DHT by taking drugs like propecia or dutasteride, has adverse sexual effects. Reduced potency, effects on sperm etc.

DHT increases potency and sperm condition, increasing your chance of passing on "your" genes rather than your sexual rivals!

So blame your male pattern baldness on your female ancestors who were "up for it" with everyone :roll:

S Foote.

 

[Solo]

I think bodysnatcher meant "genes don´t do things intentionally"



The principle of "random mutation and natural selection" is under discussion. It´s just a theory.

in the past if you didnt have kids by 20 you probably werent going to have any. so it has had no chance to be 'bred out' if indeed it should have been.

Mmmm... I think this is just plain wrong. In almost every human society in history, sex has been linked with how much power the male has. Remember the right kings had in middle-age to f*** with ALL the women prior they engage with their husband?? Well, this is an extreme example, but you got were I´m going. Leaders tend to be mature. Apart from now, they´ve had more sex than anyone. Male leadership and sex is deeply linked.

It could be valid for women, though.

 

[Solo]

I agree, and i think people are looking at male pattern baldness in the wrong evolutionary context here?

There is "certainly" an advantage to be gained from higher levels of DHT in primate evolution. This is a greater chance of breeding success in a society where the females are mating with many males.

Most higher primate males have evolved sexual "systems" to increase breeding success, so why not humans? Consider other primates.

http://www.primates.com/bonobos/bonobosexsoc.html

The lowering of DHT by taking drugs like propecia or dutasteride, has adverse sexual effects. Reduced potency, effects on sperm etc.

DHT increases potency and sperm condition, increasing your chance of passing on "your" genes rather than your sexual rivals!

So blame your male pattern baldness on your female ancestors who were "up for it" with everyone Rolling Eyes

S Foote.

This is total bullshit that don´t explain anything.

Yes, DHT is neccesary for sex, all right, we got that.

But how does it come that this DHT just destroy the follicles in the Norwood 7???

Why not everyone of them??

And why it promotes growth of body hair??

You can have enough DHT to set playboy´s mansion on fire with the only help of your dick, but, after the party, non sensitive hairs are going to stay in place.

Dig my line??

[/b]

 

[Aplunk1]

Solo,
everyone has DHT circulating throughout their bodies.

However, it's true that balding men have elevated levels of DHT as compared to non-balding men.

If what Stephen says is true, or at least partially true, then is the common belief "balding men are more virile," true also?

As for "non-balding" men... If you inject them with enough steroids, eventual hairloss will occur. Am I correct?

 

[S Foote.]

I agree, and i think people are looking at male pattern baldness in the wrong evolutionary context here?

There is "certainly" an advantage to be gained from higher levels of DHT in primate evolution. This is a greater chance of breeding success in a society where the females are mating with many males.

Most higher primate males have evolved sexual "systems" to increase breeding success, so why not humans? Consider other primates.

http://www.primates.com/bonobos/bonobosexsoc.html

The lowering of DHT by taking drugs like propecia or dutasteride, has adverse sexual effects. Reduced potency, effects on sperm etc.

DHT increases potency and sperm condition, increasing your chance of passing on "your" genes rather than your sexual rivals!

So blame your male pattern baldness on your female ancestors who were "up for it" with everyone Rolling Eyes

S Foote.

This is total bullshit that don´t explain anything.

Yes, DHT is neccesary for sex, all right, we got that.

But how does it come that this DHT just destroy the follicles in the Norwood 7???

Why not everyone of them??

And why it promotes growth of body hair??

You can have enough DHT to set playboy´s mansion on fire with the only help of your dick, but, after the party, non sensitive hairs are going to stay in place.

Dig my line??

[/b]

Whatever theory of DHT related male pattern baldness anyone cares to believe in, there is "ONE" fact everyone agrees with. Seemingly apart from you that is!

There is a "particular level" of DHT that is required to trigger male pattern baldness in any individual, in any species!

Everyone has a level of androgens including DHT pre-puberty, so the sensitivity you claim requires a higher level to cause male pattern baldness doesn't it!!!

So the "LEVEL" of DHT is the trigger, whatever theory you support :roll:

Sorry, i don't dig your line at all, do some research :wink:

S Foote.

 

[michael barry]

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= ... D%26sa%3DN


Armando, if you look at that hair transplant repair pic....................where the hair has been kept short, you will see why your theory cannot be true. That man had thos plugs put in while he still had hair in the area, but it was thinnish hair. He wanted to thicken the area up. Over the years only the hairs "plugged" in didnt fall out. The ones that naturally occured there fell out as well as what was behind them.

Hair transplants would eventually fall out if you were right, but they dont......even though they can thin a little bit over time as not even all of one's hippocratic wreath hairs stay for life.