An evolutionary basis for the left-handed human phenomenon

Annabelle Smith

Honors 221 B
 According to Darwin’s theory of evolution, the frequency of left-handed people in human

populations could evolve if three criteria are met: if there is variation in the population’s handedness, if

that variation is heritable, and if left-handedness results in differential reproductive success.

Humans vary in handedness. Using the Waterloo Handedness Questionnaire, Susan and Daniel

Voyer surveyed 140 Canadiens, and, with positive scores indicating right-handedness, the scores formed a

bell curve. The top of the curve was around a score of 40, indicating a higher number of righties than

lefties and a variety in the overall dominance of one hand over the other for daily tasks (DS1). Also,

across 14 countries, left-handed frequency varied from 5 to 26%, according to studies analyzed by M.

Raymond and Pontier (DS1). Humans vary in hand preference, both individually and across populations.

Part of this variation in handedness comes from genes. In a study examining the correlation

between handedness and the genotype at a particular chromosomal location, Bernard Crespi et al found

that a person’s “laterality quotient” is, on average, higher with one particular variant of a genotype at

location rs4942830, and subsequently lower with different genotypes (DS2). Though this correlation

could not explain all variation in handedness—a person could still have the gene most strongly associated

with right-handedness and be left-handed—it is still important, as it indicates that one’s handedness isn’t

just due to random chance. Genetic, heritable factors influence handedness.

There is evidence to suggest handedness can impact an individual’s survival and reproductive

success. Researchers Thomas Richardson and R. Gilman found that there is an advantage to being a lefty

in combat sports, as the chance that a randomly selected left-handed fighter has a higher win-loss record

than a right-handed fighter is greater than 50% for all three types of fighters studied (DS4). These data

show that lefties have a slight advantage over righties. This could be because, due to being a minority in

the population, the majority of people (who are right handed) don’t expect to fight a lefty, and are better at

anticipating how a right-handed person will throw a ball or punch than predicting how a left-handed

person will. This idea helps explain the results of a study by Charlotte Fourie and Michel Raymond,
where a presumed cause—homicide rate in stone age societies—is plotted against a possible effect:

left-handedness in the population. As homicide rates go up, left-handedness in the population goes up,

suggesting left-handed people survive more than the right-handed when a society is violent (DS4-C). This

leads to a reproductive advantage as well; those who survive are more likely to pass on their genes, which

is consistent with the hypothesis that left-handed population frequency evolved by natural selection. An

alternative explanation to how lefties came to be is that people are born with the trait due to random

chance; however, DS2 corroborates that this is not a viable explanation for how this trait’s frequency

comes to be, as a certain gene is correlated with handedness, making it slightly heritable.

Given the three data sets’ evidence, one would expect lefties to be rare, because they are found

most frequently in societies with high combat homicide rates. Such societies are not as common today as

they were in the Stone Age, making the particular selective pressure in those societies less applicable to

today’s populations. Still, natural selection will be at play, as combat still happens and still kills people.

Overall, evidence that left-hand frequency evolved in human populations makes this theory seem

very plausible to me. Though the genetic basis for handedness isn’t as strong as for other human traits

like, say, hair color, it remains an important factor in how the trait gets passed along. Thus, three criteria

for Darwinian evolution are covered: variation, heritability, and differential selection.

A human trait currently evolving by natural selection is malaria resistance. Because malaria, a

fever caused by a parasite, often kills, those who are genetically resistant to it have better chances of

survival and reproductive success. This is why I think the frequency of this trait may be changing across

generations; this natural selection would increase the frequency of malaria-resistant genes in a population.

Additional evidence to support this idea could show the genes for malaria resistance are, in fact, heritable,

there is variation in their population frequency, and those who carry such genes are more likely to have

grandchildren than those who don’t.

 Works Cited

Hedrick, Philip W. “Resistance to Malaria in Humans: the Impact of Strong, Recent Selection.”

Malaria Journal,​ BioMed Central, 22 Oct. 2012,

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3502258/.