Evolution and AS

Post Reply New Topic

This is a question for all the evolutionists out there. Where do we stand, as autistics, when you think of evolution as the survival of the fittest? And is anyone out there a white supremacist who found nothing wrong with Nazi Germany? Where would that leave you as someone with a "disability"?

Perhaps it could be explained by surviving of the group - fews Aspies can be very helpful for a group to survive. So the gene could also survive. An other idea is that the "Aspie-Genes" are liked to surviving genes, like there is some recent research that homosexuality in male is genetically liked to genes which do provide women with higher fertility).



For this you may read Hans Asperger's original text. Thus he published 1944 the his ground breaking text, he explained lengthy which his little patients are important for the state ...

Would just like to clarify that I am not white and haven't been convinced either of evolution or intelligent design. Just curious because I've been following some other threads and some members actually seem quite bigoted. (No I don't think evolutionists are bigoted, I just thought posting one thread would be more convenient). I just want to read your opinions on either question.

Evolution is not the survival of the fittest, but the survival of those most adaptable to change.

It's all rather moot in a society with birth control anyway.

QFT

it is annoying how creationists tend to misinterpret the "fittest" in "survival of the fittest" part. all it means is those best adapted to the environment that they happen to live in. whatever that might mean at the time.

if the world and it's culture ever changes into one that is more aspie-friendly than NT-friendly, then inevitably, there will be a growing aspie population.

nowdays it seems (at least in Europe) that the "fittest" are those who uncontrollably reproduce. it's as simple, and as sad, as that.

In reality, 'survival of the fittest' is a bit more complicated, since life doesn't adapt to a static environment. In many ways life also changes the environment it lives in.

I stand on Creationism. Evolution just doesn't make sence if you compare it rationally.

How so?

Well, no. It's not moot. There are important questions about what kinds of people may be reproducing. Broadly, there are clear demographic trends in terms of human spawning. Genetic correlates then seem plausible candidates for things to be acted upon. For example, IQ is heritable (around .75 by 30, IIRC), and likewise lower IQ people reproduce more; we might suspect that IQ is being selected against (note that "natural" selection is only part of the equation; sexual selection is extremely important too; how do you think peacocks got such feathers?)

There is no reason to think that everything would be exactly equal if birth control is widely available; on the contrary, simply a different set of characteristics becomes the thing to be selected for and against.

Evolution is proper scientific theory. It is based upon observation, logical reasoning and it have been scrutinised and have withstood the test of time. It is not a perfect theory, but it is THE best theory we have. We have no alternatives to Evolution of a similar distinction.

Creationism or ID is based upon the bible. It is *A* theory, but not a scientific one. The theory is just as "scientifically correct" as if i suggested that mickey mouse created the universe (Which would make Walt Disney a God-God).

There is nothing scientific about Creationism, it is just the religious community's last pointless effort to fight against the impending victory of reality. As Lewis Black described Creationism: "What we're seeing here is a clinical psychotic reaction, these people are watching the flintstones as if it was a documentary."

Oh, and Creationism and ID have been banned from being taught throughout the civilised world. There are still uncivilised places where it is presented as a valid scientific theory.

of course it does. still though, the definiton of environment is constant. if you don't adapt to the environment that is made, you loose. even if you're the one making it.



wait! don't tell me... you're about to bring up the eye aren't you? and then the bumble bee right?

drop it. we've been through your usual brochure stuff already

what exactly is imperfect about it?

I take issue with the bolded part of what you have written. The theory does not belong to the religious community.

It belongs to a religious community.

There are plenty of Christians who believe in evolution.

I've read some speculation that AS may be the next stage of human development - and of course having someone who is really great at a certain thing most people don't get can be of great benefit.

And yeah, not believing in evolution is normally due to never having heard of it except be their preacher presenting a straw-man version. It's about as rational as not believing in gravity (which believe it or not some people dont - the flat earth society believes the Earth is flat and is moving upward at the rate most people believe is that of gravity - apparently they are serious, too.)

meh, there is no way to asses what would be the "next stage". individual success, or even success with the opposite sex does not equal being one of the "fittest" in the age of contraception. the only genes that win are the ones that reproduce and let's face it- they are not the genes of those who do best on the job/intellect market :p

That's actually true (and was the premise of the comedy "Idiocracy.") It does seem that people who are the least educated and able have lots of kids while the more succesful and most educated either go childless or have one or 2.