Are we a new species?

Post Reply New Topic

I am curious to know peoples opinions on this subject. I do not mean to cause offence to anyone in anyway.

Autistic brains could be seen as more advanced than a N.T. brain and almost all autistic people have average to above average IQ. Some of the most brilliant people in recorded history have been suspected for having autism. Although N.T.s have been among the most important people in history, this text box is not big enough to list the names of all the autistic people in history who have been important in some way.

The autistic brain may be ideal for the new technology that is being produced. As far as I can tell, autism has become increasingly common throughout history. In recent years there has been a rapid increase in people with autism, and a rapid increase in technology. In 3rd world countries there are less people with autism than in 1st world countries. The global rate is 1 in 220 but in some countries it is has high as 1 in 50.

Short answer: NO!

A species is frequently defined as a group of organisms who are capable of producing viable and fertile offspring together, and who would be expected to do so in a natural environment (aka, why lions and tigers are not the same species). We're no more a different species than are, say, Australians or Mexicans, it's just genetic diversity.

Also, I would check your sources that almost all autistic people have above average IQs...last I read I remember seeing something quite the opposite. When talking about Aspergers alone that may be the case, but autism as a whole, I don't think so. I wouldn't take autism rates as a constant either, because a big part of it has to do with diagnosis rates and procedures. In a third world country where you're struggling daily just to survive and eat, do you think as many people are going to be paying a psychologist for a diagnosis?

I do not giving answers, only venting some of my toughs.

Well, my response to the new species is no, because to be a new specie we should not be able to reproduce with the older specie. That would make us a new specie.

But are we evolving the specie to a smarter one? Why we do exist after so many millenniums of evolution?
If we are useless, evolution should had find a way to delete us from the genetic pool. We are still here, on large numbers, so we should be useful, and not just a genetic accident.

Evolution favors the beings most able to reproduce. Not necessarily the smartest ones. There is evidence that humanity is getting dumber thanks to civilization, not smarter. Nobody is subject to the harsh prehistoric evolutionary forces. Food is guaranteed. Most people survives, even if can't survive by itself.

We are socially disabled, so we have reproductive disadvantages, and many dumb people have lots of children, so evolution is against us.

Most women chooses men with the highest social skills. That selection pressure is high even fot NT's. Many NT man find hard to master the social skills required by women.


On other side, humanity paid many high prices to get smarter. We do not have thick skins to stand climatic agents. All humans need heat, clothes, do not have fur, claws. Our smell and auditive senses are atrophied. Our survival instincts are lost: Our instincts can't even tell food from poison. An antelope is able to run just minutes after birth. Human babies are helpless for years. Our muscles, as humans, are weak and slow compared to other mammals.

Our hair grows permanently. If we do not cut our hair, it grows meters and meters. Imagine any wild animal with meters of hair. It would entangle on bushes and trees, making that animal easy catch for predators. Imagine a lion or a wolf with meters of hair. It would not be able to hunt.

Except for our intelligence, we are a disaster animal. Full of flaws and diseases.

My point is that we have evolved in a lot of ways that weakened us.

The consensus in science is that we got intelligent first, and then we lost all these survival advantages (fur, claws, fangs, speed, force, smell senses, etc). I suspect that it is wrong.

To what I said, I add that genes do not, generally have a single effect. For example many animals with mutations causing white skin are prone to ire, aggressive and self destructive behavior. But polar animals, which have advantages being white, evolved additional mutations which restored his mids to a more equilibrated and useful states.

So, I suspect that the same mutations that made us weak, flawed animals, also made us intelligent, and we didn't needed new mutations to equilibrate flaws like a weak skin.

Autistic mutations give great gifts, but also social impairments, problems with noisy environments, and other problems.
Will these mutations spread to the rest of the society? That's the only way to which our genes will help humanity to evolve.

Our genes will spread if we achieve reproduction. If additional mutations compensate our flaws, like on white polar bears, if our intelligence or culture compensate our flaws, if women start choosing us over NT for parenting (improbable, women are genetically programmed to choose man with social skills over any other traits), if we get medicines/machines which gives us social skills, or simply if we reproduce more than NT (well, NT's are removing themselves from the genetic pool by not having children).

Last edited by Buxcador on 04 Jun 2013, 6:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No.

Seriously, no. There are so many things wrong with this idea.

New species arise because of a reproductive advantage that manifests itself in the current environmental conditions.

Do Aspies and Auties have a reproductive advantage over NTs? I hardly think so. It is hard for an Aspie to get a date. Evolutionary change occurs only when certain characteristics yield a reproductive advantage. Nature does not care how smart and beautiful we are. She only cares about how many offspring we reproduce that themselves live to reproduce.

ruveyn

ruveyn

No.

There is no material cause to believe that "we" are a new species.

No. And even if we were, we would be an evolutionary dead end. Even if we have all the advantages you claim, the species that most successfully reproduces (AKA everyone else) would exist in the future.

No.

No, humans are very social animals, most of us live in crowed cities, where having good social skills are an advantage.

I believe we are part of normal genetic variation that exists in our gene pool.

AS we do exist and have existed for a long time, there must be some advantage in us to overcome our obvious social skills deficit.

If we have no advantages, we should have died out, if we were superior to NTs, we should have ended up by being more than 1% of the population.

To claim a more advanced brain (in evolutionary terms) it would have to grant a survival and/or reproductive benefit. Genes need to get transmitted and reinforced for the AS gene(s) to become dominant. Problem with this is... AS socializing issues = bad for reproductive success (even among those with AS) and sensory overloads/obsessive behavior/etc is not exactly a beneficial survival trait.

If anything along those lines, I would say its a first, tantalizing step at re-wiring the brain functions for improved efficiency in some areas. Eventually.. in like another 10 thousand years or so, it may come to be that humans will have the socializing ability of NT's with the few benefits/quirks that can be considered 'improvements' of AS (enhanced memory is a trait often identified as 'improvement' in autism for example..savants,etc).

But right now? Nope. I'd say were just evolution's version of : 'hmm what would happen if I change this little thing here...?' portion of the trial and error game.



Its become more common in record because of increased awareness, medical coverage and technology. I do not doubt technological advances like internet and cellphone and computers in general have made it better for those with AS to lead more fulfilling lives ... but there is no such thing as all the sudden more people being born with autistic traits in 1st world countries than in 3rd world. They are simply getting diagnosed more due to the better mental health resources.

suggested title for a schlock movie:


Aspies need Women!

If we lived in an autistic society it would be easy for us to get a date.

If my grandmother had balls, she would be my grandfather.

ruveyn

I'm not even sure about THAT!

Autistics are equal opportunity social klutzes. I dont see evidence that they can wrangle dates from their own kind any better than can from NT's.

No I see AS and autism more as genetic variations in humans. If people with AS and autism could survive better in the information age (i.e., obtain jobs as computer programmers and perform in a more effective manner than NTs) and other jobs such as writer, blogger, etc. than maybe someone could say ASD persons are better adapted to survive in the world. Well persons on the Autism Spectrum would need to reproduce more and then maybe become the norm or majority. Since persons on the autism spectrum are roughly 1% of the population it would take a long time to become the majority. It does seem that in the U.S. the person with the better social skills seems to win (i.e., the more socially adept person obtains employment easier and also it is easier to get married and reproduce).

Adaptation applies only if there is success in reproduction. If you are Mr. Perfect and never have offspring, you make no difference to the species in the long run. Nature does not care how smart you are or how beautiful you are. She only cares if you have reproduced successfully.

ruveyn