People often seem to misunderstand evolution. A trait isnt selected out simply because it causes a problem. Traits are selected out when they decresse the likelihood of reproducing (thus decreasing the likelihood of that gene being passed down to future generations).
Even if you assume that baldness offers some disadvantage (whether its being less attractive to a mate or dying from scalp melanoma), I would assume for most men baldness would kick in AFTER the age where they would typically father children. Therefore baldness's alleged ill-effects would not prevent to be baldies from passing on their genes.
Whoever wrote the article is assuming before the fact that baldness is maladaptive, then searching for justification for this assumption (despite admitting that evolutionarily speaking, baldness does not appear to be maladaptive). The author eventually changes tune and starts theorizing reasons why baldness may be a positive adaptation (which seems more supported by the evidence... although Id still argue that a predisposition toward baldness probably has no bearing on reproduction at all).
Based on the article's begrudging conclusion, it probably should have been titled "Why Arent Men with Hair all Dead?" I wont hold my breath on that one. Haha
