AS should be named Evolution Syndrome

Post Reply New Topic

This would be true if it took 2 AS parents to produce an AS child, but it does not. An AS and NT can have an AS child, and as someone previously pointed out, even 2 NTs can produce an AS child. Aspies and auties are increasing around the world, not DEcreasing. Besides which, evolution in the broadest sense does not require the new subspecies to outbreed the "old", but simply to increase its numbers over time, regardless of what is happening to the others. It's not a competition where only one can survive. There can be coexistence.

BTW, I'm not necessarily saying I believe that AS is superior to NT; superiority is a judgment that can only be made on a case-by-case and trait-by-trait basis, and therefore it cannot be generalized to that extent. Evolution? Yes, it certainly is evolution, in the broad sense of "genetic change". But it's probably not evolution in the "goal-oriented" way most people here seem to be using the word. As another member said, evolution isn't directed towards some ultimate perfection; it's blind, random. The "evolution-as-gradual-perfecting" view was popular in the 19th century and unfortunately still seems to have a hold on the popular imagination.

For AS to possibly be evolution, AS must be genetic. If two NTs can produce an AS-child, AS couldn't be genetic. However, undiagnosed Aspies that *think* they are NTs can certainly produce an AS-child. It all comes down to the problem that AS is a formal diagnosis while NT is at best what people call "normal". That's why we should doubt any claims about parents being NT unless they have been through the diagnostic process and failed.



Not so. Aspies are decreasing. Even though awareness and social issues force the label upon ever higher functional individuals all the time, this will sooner or later stop. In the next generation, Aspies are sure to be less frequent. This is self-evident unless the autistic community can make sure that Aspies reproduce just as much as NTs do. No babies means fewer Aspies in the next generation.



There have been coexistence for a long time, but it seems like the balance is shifting. In yesterdays society Aspies were active participants that perhaps were considered odd, but they formed families and reproduced. It seems like the current generation to a large extent might not because of social exclusion and unemloyment issues.



Exactly. Evolution isn't goal-oriented. That's why Aspies cannot be the next step in human evolution because that would imply goal-orientation.

People with AS are no better or worse than anyone else, just different.

There are many positive aspects to my condition: a good vocabulary, a good memory for facts and high intelligence.

The drawbacks in my particular case include social awkwardness, a tendency to do dumb things despite being intelligent, anxiety and a mild seizure disorder, fortunately controlled by medication.

I am high functioning in some areas, but have a way to go before I accomplish all the goals I set for myself, goals some normal people have accomplished long ago.

IMO, people with ASD are no more the next step in evolution than homosexual people are the next step in evolution. Why is that ? Because both groups have less likelyhood of having children. Both are just variations in humanity, and both have likely been around for a long time. If ASD were supposed to so be 'the next step', it should already be much more common.

You can't say something is the next step in evolution anyways, you can only observe evolution in retrospect. If in 10,000 years, most people have ASD, you could then say ASD was a step in human evolution. Personally, I think that scenario is highly unlikely.

Two NTs most certainly can produce an aspie.

Genes are not on/off. They can and do combine. Thats why you can have a blonde mother and a dark brown haired father with a child that has light brown or dirty blonde hair. Same with eyes, skin color, height, bone structure, and yes, the autism spectrum.

Certain genes carry the traits for OCD, while others are responsible for sensory issues. Still others handle the mirror neurons that deal with interpretation of body language. Not all aspies have all comorbidities, and you know it. That is because not all aspies get their AS from only one gene set.

I love it when people make up stuff about imaginary things.


You should hear some people on time travel.

I think that is a bad comparision. The conditions you compare with are single-gene or at least only a few genes. Autism is extremely multigenetic and thus it is pretty meaningless to talk about dominance and such. I cannot see how two real NTs could ever come up with an ASD child. They've got to have at least some ASD genes for this to be possible.

It is typical on curebee lists that only *one* of the parents are pushing cures. That seems to always be the NT-type.



You are oversimplifying the issue.

I don't want to interrupt the discussion here, but can I ask, what is NT? I'm totally in the dark about what it stands for. Sorry, but I don't know a lot about AS, so I have no idea what NT is.

Evolution does not depend on being popular with the ladies, I seriously doubt a cro magnon found a neanderthal very attractive, they didn't even look like the same species. A few neanderthals beat the odds and mated over a long enough period of time, not to mention that the cromagnons were likely having neanderthal children. In this since the cro magnon because the NT, and the neanderthal became the AS.
The evolution theory isn't proven, so I can understand if someone disagrees, but the reproduction argument is baseless and stupid.

Neuro-Typical (non-AS)

Dude.... Why are they negative to the individual? That sounds like an uncle tom statement if I've ever heard one. We don't have good social skills AS PERTAINS TO THE NT WORLD. In the advent of a brain evolution of coarse sociological differences will occur. I'm not totally saying AS is evolution, but it shouldn't be ruled out as a possibility either. You can't deny we'd be more likely to make better and more mature decisions on how things should be ran than what most NTs do, because we have less of the dominance issues (I'm not saying aspies don't have any tribalism in them left but compared to NT society we're pretty much above tribalism).
But the statements about AS should be wiped out of the human genome or that we're "negative towards the individual", that sounds like a load of uncle tom crap.... Either that or your just a NT who'se pretending to be AS but is sub-consciously trying to bash aspies to fuel your want to feel dominant or "better".
If AS is evolution, it is possible that the social aspects were phased out of evolution because they are too complex, and often confuse emotions?

Why social and communicational differences are negative to the individual? This should be pretty obvious. It is because we cannot make ourselves understood with the majority.



No, but we have pretty good social skills in the AS WORLD. Yet, NTs are the majority so our differences are not useful (reproductively speaking) in a world where NTs are a majority. For this reason, these things cannot have evolved in a world where NTs were a majority. This only leaves the possibility that they evolved somewhere else where these traits indeed were a majority (in another species).



Certainly, many ASD-traits are useful among NTs, just not the differences in communication and social life. I'd say that the fact that we still exist in spite of communication and social differences is because of these superior traits.

I still say AS traits are ideal for a sustenance level medieval, or more correctly, dark ages life style.

Small family groups, life long habitation of one small area, repetitive multi-hour tasks. Limited lighting and noise, grooming and cleanliness are of little social importance...

AS is not at all suitable for a hunter gatherer society. Likewise, its not ideal for modern society, but with a current trend to social isolation, it is becoming less of a liability.

I bet autism is only 1000-1500 years old.