Why do people have different types of hair. how can we relate this to Darwins theory of natural selection?
478857
While the echoes of Darwin's book The Origin of Species reverberated, an Austrian botanist by the name of Gregor Mendel discovered the laws of inheritance in 1865. Not much heard of until the end of the century, Mendel's discovery gained great importance in the early 1900s. This was the birth of the science of genetics. Somewhat later, the structure of the genes and the chromosomes was discovered. The discovery, in the 1950s, of the structure of the DNA molecule that incorporates genetic information threw the theory of evolution into a great crisis. The reason was the incredible complexity of life and the invalidity of the evolutionary mechanisms proposed by Darwin. \nThese developments ought to have resulted in Darwin's theory being banished to the dustbin of history. However, it was not, because certain circles insisted on revising, renewing, and elevating the theory to a scientific platform. These efforts gain meaning only if we realise that behind the theory lay ideological intentions rather than scientific concerns. \nThe Desperate Efforts of Neo-Darwinism\nDarwin's theory entered into a deep crisis because of the laws of genetics discovered in the first quarter of the 20th century. Nevertheless, a group of scientists who were determined to remain loyal to Darwin endeavoured to come up with solutions. They came together in a meeting organised by the Geological Society of America in 1941. Geneticists such as G. Ledyard Stebbins and Theodosius Dobzhansky, zoologists such as Ernst Mayr and Julian Huxley, paleontologists such as George Gaylord Simpson and Glenn L. Jepsen, and mathematical geneticists such as Ronald Fisher and Sewall Right, after long discussions, finally agreed on ways to "patch up" Darwinism. \nThis cadre focused on the question of the origin of the advantageous variations that supposedly caused living organisms to evolve-an issue that Darwin himself was unable to explain but simply tried to side-step by depending on Lamarck. The idea was now "random mutations". They named this new theory "The Modern Synthetic Evolution Theory", which was formulated by adding the concept of mutation to Darwin's natural selection thesis. In a short time, this theory came to be known as "neo-Darwinism" and those who put forward the theory were called "neo-Darwinists".\nThe following decades were to become an era of desperate attempts to prove neo-Darwinism. It was already known that mutations-or "accidents" -that took place in the genes of living organisms were always harmful. Neo-Darwinists tried to establish a case for "advantageous mutation" by carrying out thousands of mutation experiments. All their attempts ended in complete failure.\nWhy Cannot Natural Selection Explain Complexity?\nThere is nothing that natural selection contributes to the theory of evolution, because this mechanism can never increase or improve the genetic information of a species. Neither can it transform one species into another: a starfish into a fish, a fish into a frog, a frog into a crocodile, or a crocodile into a bird. The biggest defender of punctuated equilibrium, Stephen Jay Gould, refers to this impasse of natural selection as follows; \nThe essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.16\nAnother of the misleading methods that evolutionists employ on the issue of natural selection is their effort to present this mechanism as conscious. However, natural selection has no consciousness. It does not possess a will that can decide what is good and what is bad for living things. As a result, one cannot explain biological systems and organs that possess the feature of "irreducible complexity" by natural selection. These systems and organs are comp
12683
First off, the alleles that control hair and eye color are on more than one gene, so it isn't one specific gene, that control the color of hair or eyes. Brown hair is not a mutation. Allele wise you can either have light(blond) or dark hair, dark being dominant. As i stated it is a polygenic trait so varying gene configurations account for shades of hair.
422445
During a person's lifetime small adaptations are made to their body and therefor their genes (egg. your body learns to fight off a disease) This genetic code gets passed on to their offspring so that they have a better chance of fighting off the disease. \n\nThings like eye and hair color are also passed on through the same genetic code. Bad things can also get passed through this genetic code like bad mutations and diseases. Genes are why evolution takes place because eventually all these small changes leads to different species. Read more on evolution at wikipedia they will probaly explain it easier than I have : )
318256
The primary function of hair is (or used to be) to protect against the cold. Africans and Asians (the latter are descendants of the mongols, who lived in the Mongolian desert) were naturally exposed to much higher temperatures, so having hair would be a disadvantage. Europeans, being exposed to lower temperatures, could use the extra "fur".
703467
Through a variety of mechanisms, gene flow, mutations, etc... allele frequencies in populations change over time. Some genes are favored while others are not this is how selection and evolution, as it were, work. \n\nSay that there is an organism that has two dominant phenotypes, one green and the other bright purple. If for some reason being one color or the other affects that organisms ability survive and reproduce, then organisms with the preferred phenotype will end up creating a larger percentage of the offspring that those without it. IN this way the population will be directionally selected towards the "preferred" phenotype, in this case say purple makes you more attractive to mates so therefore you reproduce more than others of your species that are green.\n\nThe interesting thing is that this is not a one way street and there is no end... this is because the environment is always changing and what was preferred before might be selected against in the future. In this way DNA is always and will always be changing and in that way evolving.
1036836
Darwin's theory of evolution isn't entirely wrong. However what does seem wrong is that while it is able to explain the phenomena of selection as well as survival in animals, humans seem to violate the very postulates of the theory.\nAlso darwin's theor talks about sexual selection where the male is generally the better-looking or stronger etc of the two genders and that the female choose the one who is stronger/better looking/can sing better etc...but then there are certain birds where instead of the male it is the female that has the coloured plummange and looks better.\n\nBetter research some specific examples in case you need to prove a point to someone
892480
True, in fact observations that the offspring from parents of different species (where offspring are possible) are sterile was one of the key lines of evidence that lead Darwin to evolution by natural selection. ie. that once two populations of the same species become different enough, they can't interbreed thus stay separate.  \n\nIt is now established though, through many observations, that bacteria have and do pick up chunks of DNA from unrelated species of bacteria. A lot of their DNA is very mobile. I guess it depends on what you call 'kind'.
594113
It's pattern recognition. We are used to seeing white men sporting more hair than black men. Because naturally kinky hair sits low to the scalp, we have come to recognize people of color that way. We react to seeing big naturals and pompadours, etc. worn by black men because we don't recognize the pattern.\n\nEven notice how "doifferent" Little RIchars, Al Shaprton and James Brown look?
660577
I have been studying this question for many years and concluded the reason is that men cut their hair more often than women do! \nAnd I also observed that men have their hair cut shorter!!\nI have written a paper on this subject and I am expecting to hear from the 'Nobel prize' people very soon now!!\nHope this helps??
747319
Same reason that asians generally have super straight hair or caucasions generally have thin hair. We are all different on the outside, but that's what makes us great. \nI am African American and I am very proud of my hair. I wear it natural most of the time.\nWe should all be proud with whatever we were born with and stop trying to all look the same.
234948
For the same reasons we all have different builds, skin colors, hair types and colors, sizes of our feet and hands, etc. Nature made a choice from the thousands of variables available.\n\nI like to think that penises are much like fingerprints, where no two are exactly alike. Yeah, many are similar, but I think you get what I'm saying.\n\nAccept what you have.
25918
There are a lot of kinds of "hair". Each species of mammal has at least one kind of "hair" or fur. Many species have several different specialized types. For example, cat whiskers are very different from regular cat fur in texture and length. One of the main differences in hair is whether it is determinate in length (grows to a certain length and stops) or indeterminate in length (grows for as long as it is alive.) Humans have both kinds in different places on the body. Head hair, scalp and face, is indeterminate. Body hair, arms, underarms, legs, pubic area, fingers and toes is determinate. The only determinate hairs on the head are normal eyebrows, ear hair and nose hairs. I think the reason is obvious. "Wild hairs" are determinate hairs that have encountered a genetic failure. The length possibilities of each type of hair from sheep's wool to seal fur are genetically determined.  Pubic hair is a secondary sex characteristic that signals availability for mating. It is not designed to cover, conceal, protect, or warm the area that produces it. It may have some scent retaining or focusing function too. This is still debatable. I hope this helps.
19010
Some people have claimed this, but to my knowledge no research has found any corelation between hair color and intelligence.\n\nAlthough some research has found that hair color can influence social relations, so people might treat a blond as being ditzy, but the blond would still have the same average intelligence as anyone else
1159286
When referring to human phenotypes for hair colour:\n\nBlond (for male) and blonde (for female) are the proper scientific or biological terms used for pale yellow.  Blonde colored hairs have more phaeomelanin than eumelanin but less than red hair. Natural blondes have the thinnest strands of hair but have more hair on their heads than others. They have an average of 140,000 hairs.\n\nBrunet or brunette are the actual terms for brown of varying shades. They have medium-thick strands of hair and about 100,000 strands of hair.
663061
Nope, your not missing anything.\nNatural selection involves a loss of DNA.\nSay if you take a breed of dog that has the genes for long and short hair, then take it to a cold place such as Greenland or Canada. Left to there own devices, and assuming that at the time there wasn't any other breeds in the area, any short haired dogs would be less likely to survive. If, after many generations of dogs had passed, you took some dogs back to a warm country, the genes for short haired dogs would have either become extinct in that breed, or exceedingly rare.\nNatural selection doesn't show any new DNA - it does not support evolution.\nSome evolutionists would claim "mutations" of DNA would lead (over billions of years) to new species. However this is just another example of DNA loss.
103711
Please take the time to\nvote for the best answer\n\nThank You!!\n\nI know this is for take yr pick\n\nConditions for natural selection\n\nThe excess fecundity, and consequent competition to survive, in every species provides the precondition for the process Darwin called natural selection. Natural selection is easiest to understand as a logical argument, leading from premises to conclusion. The argument requires the four conditions listed below.\n\n1. Reproduction. Entities must reproduce to form a new generation.\n\n2. Heredity. The offspring must tend to resemble their parents: roughly speaking, 'like must produce like'. This condition is provided by Mendelian inheritance.\n\n3. Variation in characteristics of the members of the population. \n\n4. Variation in the fitness of organisms associated with these characteristics. \n\nProvided these conditions are met for any property of a species, natural selection automatically results, as in the case of the peppered moth. If any are not, it does not. Thus entities, like planets, that do not reproduce cannot evolve by natural selection. But when the four conditions apply, the organisms with the property conferring higher fitness will leave more offspring, and the frequency of that type of organism will increase in the population. \n\nThe biologist Richard Dawkins argues that there is possibly only one condition for natural selection.
695255
one reason may be that humans don't go running through the bush as other mammals to. onther reason is in the genes. Some mammals may have genes the control the growth of hair in some species. \n\nBut i like the thought of the first one. if we were having to run and catch our food or we had to sleep on the ground our hair may not be allowed to grow as long.