evolutionary source for autism?

Post Reply New Topic

just had a random thought...

i wonder if the random mutation(s) for autism developed from less dominant organisms within populations. This is what I mean: The thing that has struck me most about autism (and is what initially lead me to believe i have AS) is the propsensity to avoid eye contact. You know how in animal populations that have a social hierarchy, the main way animals show subordination to the more alpha individual is to avert their eyes?

Well, generally speaking, the suborniate individuals breed with other subordinates and alphas with alphas... So, what if this kind of created a situation where all the less-socially accepted individuals interbreed and maintain a particular set of qualities amongst these individuals and that this kind of set the stage for the evolution of autism?

I realize that the social ramifications of autism in human populations is different than being an omega individual in some pack species... At least there, the omega individuals serve a specific stress-relieving role within their social groups... But oh how our social structure has changed! I just see a lot of similarities in the behaviors of these lower-ranked animals and with some of the behavioral characteristics of people with autism...

Keep in mind that evolution is random and does not always provide a functional purpose (like adaptations)... and that even genes that don't serve a functional purpose or are actually harmful (like things that cause a variety of genetic problems) can definitely stay stable to some degree within populations.

There's more I want to rant about on this... But I can't quite write it out just yet... and i'm at work procrastinating what I have to do... So i'll check back later.

Oh, and this isn't meant to offend anyone... As a scientist, it's just something I was thinking.

.....and the meek shall inherit the earth....

I think there is definitely some evolutionary component to Asperger's, because it often runs in families. Genes are at work. How did they get there? How were they able to survive? Isn't Asperger's a more or less debilitating disease in terms of the law of the jungle? Today surrounded by computers and automobiles it may actually be less of a handicap physically speaking than if the individual were suffering from Asperger's in the dark ages or in a village in the African savanna.

Maybe it is Neanderthals. Slow and clumsy but with larger brain capacity. Therein may lie the answer of the evolution of Asperger's. I know that theory makes its rounds a lot, but I know some people from Europe who look close to the pictures of neanderthals, and then we have all these stories coming out like the one from Spain that tells that Neanderthals were living in Europe as little as 20,000 years ago. If the neanderthals and humans were similar enough who says mating couldn't have occurred? and that the offspring were hybrids, more fit to endure the ice age's onslaught?

yes, the selective pressures of society and socializing are much different than what they used to be... that's part of why i think autism has the sepctrum that there is... when there is not the same selective pressure for a particular gene/mutation... it tends to diversify even more and become more stable in a population and not necessarily have the same purpose (if any) that if used to.

i just think that this is a plausible source within our own populations for this type of condition to arise and thrive...

Why would the Neanderthals have been slow and clumsy? A larger brain capacity can mean quicker reflexes and the fine control that allows for more speed. Having a heavier bone structure certainly won't make an animal slower than a modern human. Look at tigers and large herbivores. They are very heavy and very quick. They have differences that give them a much more favorable ratio of strength to mass. Of course, most of them are also a lot younger than most humans. They have fewer defects, too.

I think that autism is a perfectly normal reaction to unacceptable situations. Everyone might say that they hate having children run around like little animals unsupervised when they are only two years old, but that's what we used to do. We should compare autism rates between those households that are "controlled" and those whose children do run free.

im not trying to start an argument on the types of hominids involved in human evolution nor what their specific capabilities were nor their genetic contributions (from a particular species) as i think these wheels were set in motion before even that...

im just thinking about some of the rudimentary aspects of autistic behavioral traits and comparing to how they might have been applied/used/explained in earlier social structures (for many kinds of animals, not just humans) to explain a possible subset of our population that this condition may have arised from (pre neanderthal ect)...

you must consider two things: a) selective forces on social behaviors (yes behaviorial genes can be inherited and thus selected for/against via mating preferences) for humans are very different than those for any other organism and also for what it used to be for humans... they have been completely changed and so it is harder to draw direct conclusions... b) the evolution of our brains was at one point, very accelrated, so basically, there have been many major revisions and lots of possiblilities for random changes to occur at an accelerated pace. this also makes it hard to connect points a and b together.

i guess im more thinking along the lines behavioral similarities...that more subordinate individuals in the social animal kingdom have more behavioral traits akin to autism becuase they are excluded from the mainstream of their social world in some respects... and habits like eye avoidance and a more solitary lifestyle and less-developed communicative skills are all traits that these subordinate individuals have (in order to fullfill their social role in their groups) and pass down to their offspring and because these lower-ranked individuals can only breed with eachother, i think this is how a lot of these behavioral traits became sustained with in populations and allowed to evolve.

i think this also helps account for why autism occurs in individuals of all IQs... in the animal kingdom, dominance is not necesarrily associated with the mental capacity of the animal, just as not all subordinate individuals are necesarily meek...it's not that more subordinate individuals are any less fit than others within their herd/pack/whatever... they can hunt and perform everything just as well as other individuals. their subordinate nature just serves a specific social function.

and so here we are, in a day in age where none of this carnal stuff really applies anymore... yet somewhere, we have these behavioral traits ingrained in us... and our social world has gotten way more complicated than the social world we were in when these traits started arising. so how do they apply now? they may not have a specific function anymore... and new more morbid aspects may have developed because the old rules don't apply anymore...

so again, with a whole new social structure and way more complex brains and behavioral natures... it may be hard to connect specific autistic traits with things still seen in nature. but at least for me, i can invision how the stage might have been set up.

everything is a spectrum. autism. species. time. so many variables. it is amazing. where's a timemachine when you need one?

That would be an interesting study but the problem is how you defind "controlled." Some kids will say, just because their parents gave them a curfew or made them eat their vegetables that they were too "controlled." I'd be the one to say "you had a curfew? At least you were allowed out."

Going out was very strictly regulated in my home. We had to have a reason to go out and if it wasn't one our parents agreed with, we stayed in. If we were allowed out, we were on a schedule as to when we had to come in. If an event ended at 10, in by 10:30 or something like that. There was no just going to "hang out" or something like that.

What you are saying is similar to what many people, including myself, believe about the ADD/ADHD "epidemic" that has exploded in the last several years. I think many of these kids with ADD/ADHD probably wouldn't have it if they were just allowed to go outside and have some unstructured playtime or as you would say, "run around like little animals" and just have fun.

Alot of schools have done away with recess and many kids aren't allowed to play outside anymore and instead, are just shuffled from one scheduled activity to the next with no chance to just kick back and be kids.

There are alot of legitimate ADD/ADHD cases out there and these people need help, but there are many others who are probably bright or ordinary kids being drugged into being zombies, just because they want to get up and expend some of that childhood energy.

Like you, I wonder if there isn't a similar link in autism/AS symptoms.

Just my opinion.

I tend to agree that autism is more of an adaptation than a random mutation.

Its just too perfect the ability to live as a solitary animal for prolonged periods combined with the hypersensitivity it would require to hunt solo, the lack of an alarm (emotional) response (no one around who needs to be warned of danger but probably predators who would be attracted by the noise), etc just fits the profile of the omega class who are often as has been stated, interbred only with others of the same class and tended to be left behind or forgotten by the group only to be picked up by another group later after spending significant time alone.

How about an adaptation to a scarcity of food? If food becomes scarce, smaller clusters or individuals often do better than extended family groups.

Or perhaps, we reflect a more "natural" developmental state of humanity. What bothers us? Mostly manmade things and situations - things "new" on the planet. Clothing - try shoving an aborigine into a three piece suit and loafers and see how he'd react. Chemical smells - OK, these are usually toxins to some degree or another, we just aren't desensitized and half nose-dead like everyone else. Noises - what in nature makes a sound that actually frightens you other than dangerous animals or situations? In a primitive human situation a person making a loud noise - that would probably have been something bad like screaming or aggressive shouting - good things to startle about.

Think about it - if put to human standards nearly every animal is autistic, except perhaps dogs.

Out of millions of years of evolution only the last 10 thousand or so have seen us in bigger social situations. What early human needed to be good at dealing with crowds when there was no such thing? Who needed mad social skills when mating was about pheromones and instincts?

Maybe we're just more in touch with our animal nature?

I've been savagely assaulted by humans - they are just large wild animals. In what situation wouldn't a person get nervous if not downright terrified while standing in a large grouping of good sized (100 - 300lbs) unpredictable wild animals if he realized he was standing amongst such a grouping of creatures?

Thats weird because thats exactly what I think when I see a large group of people: "a herd".

Herds make me nervous because you never know when something will spook one of the critters and start a stampede.

Yep & it's only a matter of time now!