Asperger's and Evolution

Post Reply New Topic

I'm sure we have some in common, but, relatively speaking, as I said in that post, not as many as, say, chimpanzees.

Because if they scare the newbies away, they are the Kings Of The Forum

Evolution does kind of become irrelevant once you evolve to a level where you can interfere with it, which basically happened already with regard to humans.

Of course Aspergers has a negative impact on the chances of producing offspring, so it's not something that's going to prevail as some kind of next step in evolution; at least not in the traditional sense. But when you consider that sooner or later once they get closer to what Aspergers actually is at the chemical level, first of all they'll think of how to stop it, and it would look as if Asperger's is at an end. But there are also bound to be people who notice the benefits, and eventually they'll be someone who has found out how to give people the good traits. If that happens, given enough time, the majority of the population will have those traits. That's because whatever proportion do choose to "upgrade" either themselves or their children will find themselves with this advantage, and no disadvantages; they go on to become slightly more successful in their careers, end up with more power (bit by bit), and basically more people want to be like them no matter how many offspring they have (so what I'm getting at is that the evolution of the future will be more about natural selection of "ideas of genes" rather than "genes").

More importantly, the kind of people who opt for these "aspie traits" will also be the same ones inclined to opt for a whole range of other "upgrades", therefore it can hitch a ride. If there is the ability to prolong life indefinitely, those immortal people will at least try it out sometime in their lives, like it, go on to live forever with it, with infinitely more offspring than anyone else, whilst those people who are against upgrades will just die out relative to the others. Only problem is that sooner or later there will be better improvements to the brain, and it will become obsolete, but probably still be a component of the next stage.

Anyway, this technology will turn up eventually, then it will be available in secret, then as more and more people have it done illegally the pressure will lead to the law changing over time. People who don't want to turn themselves into semi-aspies won't be forced to, but because of their disadvantage they'll find that not all their offspring agree with them, and they'll inevitably become a demographic in decline.

You could also have a worldwide catastrophe scenario where only the Asperger's are able to concentrate enough to escape thus speeding things up a lot.

But my point was that humankind definitely won't evolve into Aspies, but it's likely that if we looked at humans a million years in the future, most or all of their DNA will have contributions from both Aspies and NT. They are clever enough to pick and mix. There certainly won't be all the prejudice there is nowadays.

Is Asperger's even genetic is what I want to know? Even if it isn't there is something there for scientists to uncover.

An entirely Aspie civilization may not seem like an exciting idea to humankind nowadays, but I can tell you for certain that it would be a much more efficient and successful civilization by a whole range of standards. A lot safer too. But Natural Selection would never lead to that in any kind of ecosystem.

Here I am rambling on again...

you said no such thing. you asked why chromosome count mattered and proceeded to ask me (whether i could guess, lol) how many chromosomes we had in common with tobacco (relatively speaking)... a completely different question... cause you, like others in the thread, weren't grasping that it's not so much the chromosomes as the genes we have in common. and yes, as i said, we don't have that many genes in common with tobacco... only genes common to all eukaryotes.

point is, you're guilty of the same crap you're torturing the newbies over.

Barely, if at all

You probably just misread my post

And, regardless, I don't go around claiming that aliens run the government. That is grade-A BS.

The fact is that your invariable vitriolic haranguing contributes as little as the posters espousing new world order conspiracies. To put it another way: your angry posts are as unproductive as theirs. You seem as unable to bend your mighty intellect to the task of an enlightened emulation of social niceties as they are of overcoming their paranoia.

What makes you think your foible smells any better?

Your bumbling efforts to incline them to rationality fails because you do not transmit your message in a format that articulates anything but anger, hurt and a wall of emotion in those you brow-beat. Exactly opposite what you apparently want to coddle.

Engendering a sense of commonality with others alleviates recalcitrant interpersonal communications.

IE: dont talk down to people and you might actually influence them.

I suppose my message is lost on you though. I talked down to you the way you do to them.

Chever is obviously trying to discount that aliens are controlling the government because he is one. Using Photoshop, if you remove his beard, his nose, his left eye and notice an exaggeration of one of his ears into an antennae does something peculiar to his face, he is obviously an alien. They control the energy industries and are encouraging global warming to re-form Earth's ecology to conform to their home planet's ecology. They are killing off the honeybees and the frogs that eat their eggs. And they are reducing the size of electronic equipment to fit their physiology as they are the size of raccoons. Since all you see of chever is his face, you cannot see how really small he is.

Chever most likely believes that everything he says is infalliable and without error and that excuses him from courtesies such as politeness and civility. I wouldn't mind so much if he debated things rationally and maturely but he's just violence with a wrongplanet account. I'm sort of tempted to become a conspiracy theorist, just to piss him off further but then again I'm not a spiteful bastard.

i didn't misread anything, as there was no substance contributing to the question in your post. you never even mentioned monkeys. you ASKED me a question and I answered it for you... and you never responded back.

who the F*** cares about what you goo around claiming. i'd at least give you an earnest response to anything you said... which is something you should learn to do.

especially to newbies.

I didn't make any error, as you'll see below.



God, you DID misread the question; it was rhetorical.

The whole point of 'asking' the rhetorical question was to point out that tobacco having more chromosomes didn't make it more 'complex' than we are, which is what ShawnWilliam was apparently driving at: it's the content of the chromosomes that matters, not the quantity. IIRC, most genetic material is inert anyway. And, relatively speaking (the term I used explicitly in that post), we share very little in common with tobacco as compared to creatures like chimps.

Which, by the way, are NOT monkeys.

now you're even forgetting the context of the post to make up some BS excuse for your crudeness.

Conversation in the thread was on evo vs creationism AND COMMON DESCENT (NOT COMPLEXITY)... the whole chromosome schpeel had nothing to do with the issue of complexity. i linked you a webpage that had the number of tobacco chromosomes and it was that website that was dealing with complexity, which is why i mentioned complexity at all...

----

this was the thread since you can't seem to remember:

some poster had a dialogue between a creationist and evolutionist which mentioned that the evolutionists had other evidence besides bones for common descent (chromosomes). you asked what chromosomes had to do with it. i told you. you said, "i know," and asked me whether i knew how many chromosomes we shared with tobacco. i gave you a detailed response where i volunteered the info that it's not the chromosomes that are conserved, but genes; you pointed out NOTHING. there was nothing else from you.

---

if that was a rhetorical question then you really have no lucid grasp of grammar or logical thinking.

and grats, for findin your peen fast enough to quibble over chimps and monkeys. which of those do we share more genes with, relatively speaking? (btw... THAT is a rhetorical question)

Quotes or lies

Incredible. Any cretin could post about Asperger's being the next stage in human evolution, but they'd still be a cretin. Don't even know why I should read any replies to this thread over four lines long.

the thread is still here on the forum.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf74444-0-45.html

at least that shut you up.

All living organisms participate in evolution and so influence it. Evolution is not irrelevant, and interference/participation amount to the same thing.

What evidence is there that the 'negative' impacts can be disentangled from the 'beneficial' impacts?


Is there any evidence that effects could be induced in someone far enough along in the development cycle to make such choices? Is there any evidence the induction of the effects can occur outside particular 'developmental windows'?


Are you suggesting that somehow discrete aspects of probably entangled traits can be induced post-birth and then be inherited by off-spring? That sounds very far-fetched to me.

While it seems unlikely whatever alleles might influence the development of AS would become predominant in the human gene-pool as a result of genetic drift, it does seem more likely (to me) than your suggestion regarding 'up-grading' via technology to discrete AS traits (sans other AS traits).


I suspect if you look at humans now, most or all have contributions from people with and without AS.


I have my doubts about the utopic nature of a civilization consisting entirely of people characterised by AS.

This.