How old is Autism?

Post Reply New Topic

Mutations happen all the time, there is no delay between a trait becoming dominant within a species and mutations to happen. I imagine that should a species develop a new trait particularly suited to its environment then further mutations are likely not to then drive evolution of new traits as the species is doing well in its environment as it is. However, mutations are still happening, be them adopted or not. As for environmental factors, true it would rule out any potential environmental factor which is present today but not thousands of years ago. However, there are many potential environmental factors that might be around both today and thousands of years ago and hence these would not be ruled out. Also, there might be multiple environmental causes, so prevalent thousands of years ago and others prevalent only today, hence increase in numbers.

That said, I’d still be interested out of curiosity, but for it really be of scientific value it would require some pretty heavy ecological biology, sociobiology, evolutionary psychology, which would certainly make interesting reading. But as for actually proving anything...

The environmental factors would have to be ones found in every global society though, right? Since Autism can appear in people from anywhere on Earth and, if it has aways been around, any time. Also, I think your opinion is a little pessimistic. I'm no expert on psychology or any of those other things, but I'm certain there would be some scientific gain. But then I think we're starting to digress

Mutations happen all the time. They are very common. Becoming human is the result of accumulated mutation, and the notion of this process as having some distinct boundary is contrary to the gradual and blurred reality.

There is no evidence that Autistic Spectrum Disorders share a common genetic cause anyway. The evidence in this area actually indicates the contrary.

Mutations do not happen because nature intends them though. Evolution does not happen because nature intends it. Nature does not have an intent.


Whether or not Autism existed before some current environmental factor, does not tell us whether or not that current environmental factor causes Autism.

I think autism is an evolutionary step from the distant past.

The autistic animal behaviour scientist, Temple Grandin, argues that all, or at least most, mammals are hard wired for autism, that it is the basic mammalian mind set. So the early Hominids, 2-6 million years ago, were probably all autistic, maybe to an extreme in the earliest stages, and Homo Sapiens evolved out of that, with the social form of Homo Sapiens (who now claim to be the only form), taking over around 50,000 years ago (when the first evidence of tribalism appears).

What do you think of that?

AC

I suspect autism (including AS) has been around for as long as our species has been around.

ruveyn

Having studied and worked with animals, I definitely agree with the general idea. It seems especially noticeable to me in species of mammals who both hunt and are hunted by others, as our early hominid ancestors would have done.

Interesting ideas, AuntyCC.

In folklore a changeling (or bytting in my language) was a child of the underground people who was put in the crib in the place of the real child.
The belief in changelings existed in the entire German and Celtic areas (the Nordic countries, Germany, Northern France, the British isles and east towards the Carpathians and the Baltic states).
The changeling didn’t learn to walk*, but stayed in his crib crying and he is insatiable. He is ugly, can have a big head and deformed limbs. The changelings were usually boys.
*although I have heard one tale where a child was changed and the entire family left him at home and caught him red handed running around in the house yelling.

To prevent a change one could put steel in the crib, like an open scissor that made a cross, or do a cross over the child and keep a light lit through the night. The change usually took place at night when the mother had fallen asleep without taking the necessary precautions. It was a common conception that changes usually took place before the child was christened. The changeling could at first be so alike the right child that it took time before people realised what had happened.
To get the right child back it was a common belief that one could torment the changeling, so the underground people took it back.

Rickets and athyreosis are seen as likely explanations.

I don't know of any groups of people, though. The underground people was a generic term for several creatures in folklore, not any real people.

Evolution is not a thinking process or a process directed toward a desired outcome. It's dictated by how useful different genetic combinations and natural mutations are to helping one organism survive as opposed to another. The more successful ones pass on their genes and the traits become more prominent as a result. The unsuccessful genes don't get passed along.

OK that's basic, but that's the level of my understanding of evolution. There seems to be a common belief that there's a direction toward becoming a "higher life form" through evolution, but all it really is is change.

If less intelligent beings were better at surviving than more intelligent forms, then there would probably be a trend toward less intelligence. No?

It does seem that in the modern world, less intelligent humans are better at surviving than more intelligent ones, and there appears to be a trend toward a decrease in human intelligence (due to reproductive success of the less intelligent). IMO, this trend may well be shifting within the next 20-80 years. From my perspective---it's all about wastage of natural resources. The pollution and destruction of our environment is a challenge that must be successfully turned around or we will not survive, regardless of the trend in human intelligence. Wastage of human intelligence will most likely some day be seen as the epitome of folly, if not already perceived in that light. When we find it necessary to stop destroying the earth, we will undoubtedly also find it necessary to stop encouraging (and funding) most humans toward mediocrity and conformity. The opposing argument, a conspiracy theory, being: the powers-that-be running this planet, are purposely engineering a future where most humans will have a minimal drive toward actualizing their innate intelligence, and will thus be more accepting of slave mentality, concommitant with the tedious/wretched life afforded to slaves.

However, the operational definition of "intelligence" is crucial here. So what exactly is intelligence and should it be considered relative to the culture in which one lives?......i.e., is one's particular type of intelligence useful in procuring contemporary employment, in getting along with contemporary members of one's species, in making contributions to the greater society which enhance one's physical and psychological well-being, and in procuring resources necessary to one's survival? For example, if one has (aspie/autie) analytical abilities suitable for engineering, physics, or computer technology but one lives in the stone age---this type of intelligence may only be minimally helpful. But as human culture evolves and becomes more sophisticated, this type of intelligence certainly becomes more useful....hence, more apt to produce adequate employment and an adequate living wage for supporting a relatively large family. Therefore, intelligence per se, is not only difficult to define, but may not be terribly useful in reflecting reproductive success. There may be other factors guaranteeing reproductive success such as positive attitude, compatibility with one's culture, kind loving parents, and physical health and endurance.

What has kept autism in the gene pool, if it has been around since the dawn of man?

Absolutely. We can only speak of intelligence as presently defined by IQ tests and so forth. Also conformity may mean one thing now and another in the future.

Found in rodents, apes, and humans are just a mutation.

The Greeks wrote about people with obsessive special interest, and talents. The Muses, Demons who were the messengers of the gods who brought knowledge to men. They said some people were sometimes possessed, which gave art, music, engineering, all of the arts.

In the Christian era being possessed by demons became a bad thing.

With a recent species considered to only be 125,000 years old, and that doubted, it is very early to tell what will be dominate.

Then there are changing times, up until 1850 the main force was a man plowing with an animal. 99% were selected for this work over thousands of years.

The machine age did not take a lot of people to produce the machines, our era starts about sixty years ago when technology speeds up, and selects another type of person, a thinker with knowledge in several fields.

Technology does seem to select for autism.

The thing about nature is it adds but does not delete. It has Packrat Syndrome, I may have a use for that later.

When life is hard people die younger, less children survive, till life is less hard.

Warrior cultures die in battle, and the remaining popuation is less war like.

City people have always died of plauges, then country people become most.

Evolution by survival of the fittest is a vauge concept. Survival of the lucky is a closer fit.

My thought is ASDs have always been 1%, and with left handed at near 10%, and in a rural setting, the odds are you would never meet one.

The gifted were always rare in history, thousands mentioned out of many billions.

Their numbers seem consistant over time.

Babies do not care what language you speak, what you do for a living, they will adapt.

So with the species, they always adapt to the current situation, including some rapid changes.

Also, one species has many backgrounds, some lived far north and ice ages shaped them, but those who lived in tropical areas saw no climate change. Both have autism. So it pre dates the spread of humans, and has continued in all lines.

There is some record of them being gathered, prentice boys seem to fit the description, as do Buddist monks. For a while computers showed who understood, and thought they needed work, and those with no idea how that worked. Now it is a business with mostly non autistic.

Social networks used to be family, church, small town, and as they grew, so did cities, factories, then beyond the borders, which lead to jobs being relocated, factories closing, cities failing. Now a lot of people are moving back to small towns where they have family.

All of this is too short term to be considered evolution.

The rise in population, decline in intelligence, will reach a point where most die.

The current population bubble started about 1500 with a long period of good weather, very untypical of earth.

Can animals inherit Autistic spectrum conditions?

How old is Autism?How old is Cane's brother ?

About a hundred dollars

I'm just getting back to this and I see it's produced a lot of interesting posts.

Re IMForeman's idea that we (Homo Sapiens as a whole) might be evolving to a lower intelligence - I think that happened when collective tribalism appeared about 50,000 yrs ago (give or take a few) - specifically, I think it's a drop in sensitivity - I think pure hunter-gatherers were highly sensitive people (needed acute senses to hear, see, predators and prey and be intuitive about their environment), but when the tribes came along, well predators are less likely to attack large human groups, not every one has to hunt etc. On top of that, all the evidence is that hunter-gathers (the Kalahari, Bushman, etc) were egalitarian - they had no 'leaders' - whereas, the leaders in the tribe were probably those who were most able to dominate. To dominate others you have to intimidate them, and that requires emotional insensitivity doesn't it? In fact, insensitivity would also have helped the others to accept being intimidated.

The sensitive ones - the autistic ones - probably ran away, or got killed. So. I think 500,000 yrs ago most people were probably autistic, but over time the tribal people have either outbred us, or killed most of us, most likely both, so now they are in charge.

In my experience, NTs, or extroverts, or whatever you want to call them are almost always less sensitive than shy, autistic or solitary people. That's why they can handle all that contact.

Also - I love Inventor's comment that Nature has Packrat Syndrome. I'm going to borrow that one from you Inventor. I've got to use it somewhere. It may be because Nature is like that that we are still here.

AC

Packrats and pocket dollars topic

Autism could not have been the most lethal of differences, as there are many of us here on the Spectrum today. And we have families.

Survival is often luck or chance, yet we are here. We are useful to the human race, just as much if not more than those who like to be herded. The world needs both. I am just glad I am not one of the herd mentality.