>

Lovely sentiment.
Sadly not entirely accurate to say that because something is common it is a positive evolutionary trait. It may be something that simply hasn't caused enough of a genetic barrier to have been selected out.
I imagine baldness is one of these genetic traits, like the presence of an appendix, wisdom teeth and Gall bladders. Just elements that aren't positive and can be a problem but don't kill enough of us to be selected out.
This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)
Rule-breaking posts may result in bans. >

A trait doesn't have to be helpful for survival. It just has to not be detrimental. >

Not only that, but detrimental traits can also persist if the mutations to combat them have never appeared, or if an individual is generally able to reproduce before their appearance, or if individual genes that cause the trait are beneficial when combined differently, are present in the opposite sex, etc. There are many factors. >

exactly, a living proof is the Babirusa! >

That's the boar with the teeth that pierces their own skull, right? >

Wat >

It’s exactly as it sounds. It’s a type of South American wild boar that continuously grows a pair of tusk over its life. If it doesn’t somehow grind them down fast enough the tusks will eventually pierce it’s skull killing it. >

Damn! Also its* >

it could just be a neutral trait, thats not detrimental enough to evolve out of the population, but not exactly positive either. >

It also generally doesn’t appear until one has already procreated, thereby not being selective. >

Not true really. I’ve known several guys in my life that had male pattern baldness in their mid twenties. It’s not extremely common but yes it does happen and it has nothing to do with procreation. >

When we're young, we are strong and fast. When we get old, we slow down. So our heads go bald to be more aerodynamically efficient. >

As a cyclist… this response makes me so happy. If it ain’t Aero, I don’t want it. >

Since it's so common, apparently complete stupidity is a positive evolutionary trait. >

It technically is a positive evolutionary trait, because people who are less educated tend to have more children. >


who are less educated tend to have more children

True 30+ years ago where you can own a home with minimum wage and still go on vacations. Not so much after the millenium as everything got so expensive. >

Not necessarily positive, just not selected against. Probably because male pattern baldness shows up long after sexual maturity and therefore doesn't impact the likelihood of reproducing all that much >

I've known people who started going bald at like as low as 10 and quite a few in early-mid 20s. Aweful feel bad for em! >

Have we met? I started going bald in high school >

Wow so many people on this thread need to go back to Biology 101.
Not all selected traits are positive. They just don't hinder survival/procreation. In fact, some genes transcribe to multiple traits, one positive, one negative. For example: the genes that transcribe to sickle cell anemia (negative) also help with not feeling the full effects of malaria (positive), and in certain environments the positive trait creates a better chance of survival over the hindrance that suckle cell anemia causes. So just because there's a lot of people with sickle cell anemia doesn't mean it's a positive trait. Or sometimes traits are common but also are to our current understanding negative, like depression or parkinson's. But many are just... average. It all depends on the survivability not just of the organism but of the progeny they have with those traits that can then go on and pass them down and so on and so forth. >

"it could just be a neutral trait, thats not detrimental enough to evolve out of the population, but not exactly positive either."
Do you agree with this statement? >

Sieves on what we're taking about but in general yes? >

okay thanks >

Sure, when you go bald at 30 and girls finally leave you alone, you can focus on making your existing offspring survive! >

i don’t want to be bald, but I would definitely do Stanley Tucci >

It could also mean that when you get it you're past prime reproductive age and therefore genetics doesn't give a fuck what happens to you.