Is 'Excessive' Hair Growth coded by a recessive gene.?

Assuming that we did evolve from monkeys, then we have lost a fair amount of bodily hair. As far as i am aware evolution takes place according to "survival of the fittest". It would make sense for mokeys etc to have lots of hair because the monkeys that did not have much hair would die in the cold.... but why was hair lost when humans began to evolve from monkeys? Primitive man wrapped him... or herself in layers of animal fur/skin. This means that whether humans had the gene coding for excessive hair growth wouldnt matter as humans could survive the winter by using the hair/fur/skin of animals that had been killed.

So looking at the humans we are today and the "monkey - like" hairy humans years ago, why has their been a decline in hair growth as it has proved no benefit to humans?

And dos this mean further evolution will lead us to have no hair at all if the gene is recessive?

Sorry if this is all wrong - just an idea - what are your thoughts?

Is 'Excessive' Hair Growth coded by a recessive gene.?

Because there are so many genes involved in hair development, it is simply not possible to examine the recessive / dominant nature of the genes involved.

Worse still some of the genes are involved in hair growth irrespective of body location, whereas the action of other is much more location specific. Arguably the most significant factor in the predisposition of skin to grow hair is the proximity of the inductive mesenchyme relative to the overlying epithelium, and of course this is genetically determined.

However, there are also a number of genes responsible for hair growth at the local level. The hair follicle cycle (anagen, catagen, and telogen) is driven by one set of genes, Alopecia (baldness of the head) is mainly governed by the expression of the Androgen receptor (AR), whereas hirutism is largely the result of genes such as LEF-1, SF-1, CYP11A, DAX-1 plus probably a few dozen others that I've never come across or had time to investigate.

Ultimately you're absolutely correct in that our own efforts to keep warm led to us losing our hair coats, but remember that there is an evolutionary advantage to losing hair - we don't have to expend the metabolic cost of generating and maintaining it.

So will we lose the hair on our heads? Well I guess that depends on whether women are sexually attracted to bald men or not. If they're less attracted to them, then baldness will be bread out of the gene pool over time. But equally they could become very attracted to them, leading to more bald men passing on their "alopecia genes" to their offspring, ultimately leading to a greater level of baldness in future generations.

Is 'Excessive' Hair Growth coded by a recessive gene.?

Yes.

"a condition known a hypertrichosis, sometimes called Wolfitis or Werewolf Syndrome."

"Hypertrichosis is a congenital condition and the incidence is one in ten billion"

An example:

http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/mis...

Is 'Excessive' Hair Growth coded by a recessive gene.?

If you look closely enough, you can notice that we DO still have hair, only it is no longer as thick and abundant as it once was. The fact that in the passage of time (the transition between human and monkey) there may have been mutations in the genetic structure of their DNA as it passed from generation to generation, causing us to have less and less hair.

I'm not sure if we will loss all our hair, but it is possible that in the future we will loss the hair growing in our genital areas. How long this new extremity will take, I'm not sure. But this is the way I understand it. I'm not sure if this is correct. It's just a hunch, but I Hope it satisfies your question.

Is 'Excessive' Hair Growth coded by a recessive gene.?

Good question. I don't think we will loss all our hair. We have retained hairin the face and genital area beacuse they are useful. (Secondary sexual characters). It has been reported that these genes are present in the X chromosome. Since humans have better options to protect themselves form cold than having a hair cover why waste energy. It is not going to improve the fitness either. So at some point in the evolution hair become vestigial and lost in the due course. It is an assumption and not backed with evidences.