jared34 wrote:
I'm sure most people here have heard the neanderthal theory of autism before. I first learned about it last year but I only focused on the mental part it. But then I recently read something about neanderthal physical characteristics and I seem to have a lot of them. I have an occipital bun, I have a receding chin, a protruding mouth, I'm short, I have small bones, I have a consistently body temperature, brow ridge, and low blood pressure and low heart rate. These are all rare traits among modern humans and supposedly common in neanderthals. Oh and not to mention I'm very autistic and I have ADD. So basically all the similarities that neanderthals have with autistics I also have, along with many physical characteristics.
So am I pretty much a different species ? A neanderthal to be specific. It would make perfect sense if I was.
After looking into it some - I don't give it much credence. There are Asperger's of African decent - yet Neanderthal genes seem almost totally absent from people of African decent. Further, we now have about a dozen genes known to be in some way tied to Asperger's and these genes do not seem to be of Neanderthal origin. I have been working on a theory of where and how Asperger's arose in modern man. I have not gotten is completely worked out = but as long as you understand that this is still a work in progress - go ahead and have a read
Some speculation about the history of Autism and Asperger's.
A few years ago I read and article that discussed the rise of early man. This article pointed out that modern humans have existed in the world for somewhere between 210,000 and 250,000 years. For all this time there have been people in the world that looked just like us! But for the first 140,00 to 180,000 years our ancestors did not act like us at all. They invented no new tools or weapons they did not make art – and most telling – they made no effort to expand their range. During this first period of “modern human” existence we left behind only primitive tools essentially just like our predecessors tools – we lived only in part of Africa. During this entire time we could only have been considered minimally successful as a species – we hung on and survived but unlike Homo erectus or Neanderthal we were not spreading out. Then for no reason that can be found in the fossil records we “suddenly” changed – about 60,000 years ago we had filled Africa and began moving beyond Africa – we also began leaving behind much improved tools and weapons – and then very soon after signs of culture.
Later I came across the “Toba catastrophe theory” Which postulates that around 60,000 to 70,000 years ago human kind came near to extension. Depending on which data models you look at our population dropped to as few as 1000 to 15000 breading individuals. While many findings cannot accurately place such a minimum in a 10,000 year period – the fact that data coming forward that all overlaps in this time frame can place such an event within this time frame. We have strong evidence in both the Y chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA over lap in time frames of 60,000 to 90,000 years ago a couple of our parasites place the minimum closer to the 60,000 year date than earlier. Other east African only animals show similar minimums at a time of 60,000 to 70,000 years.
We now add in one more fact into my observations – It is now accepted that nearly all evolution of species happens at times of population stress and die back of the species. Logic tells us that when the population numbers are down – it is easier for a change in the species to over whelm the rest of the population – in times of upset of habitat that lead to population stress and die back, changed conditions will lend themselves to different adaptions having an advantage – thus leading to new and changed individuals thriving.
Bring all of these items together – we come up with what must be at least one inescapable conclusion – the human race underwent a period of evolutionary change some time between 60,000 and 70,000 years ago and that this change was a major alteration of our thought processes. It is at this point that I leave the obvious and move into speculation.
What could the change that lead to our rise to prominence as species could have been. It was the way our brains worked – this part is simple to deduce – somehow we changed but left no discernible change in our bones. That means no physical change – yet we suddenly began to thrive – that means it must have been our behavior that changed thus our thought processes changed.
Humans that looked like us have been on the Earth for somewhere between 210,000 and 250,000 years. It was not until 60,000 and 70,000 years ago that humans began to act like us. In the first 2/3+ of our existence we made no lasting art invented no new tools or weapons – we lived in only one small part of Africa, and most notable of all; as a species we nearly died out. This small group of people may have looked like us but in some key factor they were not us. Then our fortunes changed. We began to thrive and expand our range until today we are making our first forays into space. We suddenly started inventing all manner of new items, tools, weapons, musical interments and we started leaving behind art works and other indications of advancing culture. Something among the humans of that time had changed or at least for some of us it had.
Now fast forward to today – who are the inverters of the modern era – what group of people make the great changes of today, what group today are way disproportionately represented among the inventors, the great thinkers, and great artists today. It is the group called Asperger's and suspected Asperger's (note: Officially to be an Asperger's you must be diagnosed by someone specialized in the diagnosis which means many Asperger's even today are not considered Asperger's because they refuse to go through the process – and yes that means that Asperger's that died before the first clinician came into existence cannot officially be an Asperger's ever.)
Now I must diverge from the main discussion for a bit to lay some ground work.
I have seen bits and pieces of Asperger's behavior in many NT people. My wife seems to have a perfectly normal ability to communicate with NTs yet will jump if she is touched unexpectedly and complains of texture for reasons of not liking some foods and has above normal intelligence. I have had friends and acquaintances that often would show one or more Asperger's traits yet they would not rise to the level of being on the spectrum because of “normal” function in other areas. If you start to look around you I do believe that you will see such yourself. Which must lead us to ask – just where do we draw the line when deciding who is on the spectrum. Do we include my wife – who shows only a couple of traits of Asperger's or do we exclude her and those like her. Once we decide to exclude or include her – we need to draw the line somewhere – and while the consensus is that she is not Asperger's – but how far down the spectrum do we go before we decide that a person is not on the spectrum at all. This spreading out of traits of Asperger's leads to one very obvious conclusion – Asperger's and HFA are the result of several normally inherited genes spread out through the human genome. My conclusion here is base on my understanding of genetics and how it functions in living organisms.
1. Single gene inherited traits – get the gene you have the trait usually full on. The only variations here is between recessive and dominate traits coded by genes. An example of this is a gene that codes for brown eyes is dominate – thus one brown eye coded gene and one blue eye gene you have brown eyes. It is generally agreed if you inherit a particular gene you get that trait within the laws of simple inheritance known since Mendel's times.
Genes inherited
Brown ++ Brown == Brown eyes
Brown ++ Blue == Brown eyes
Blue ++ Brown == Brown eyes
Blue ++ Blue == Blue eyes
(example: dominate and recessive genes).
2. Inherited traits which are closely coded on the same gene usually but not always inherit together. This comes about because as the genes are split apart for fertilization and embryo development they mostly follow the chain of bonds – though at times (that seem random) as the DNA strands split apart they will switch and start using the opposite side of the chain. Thus the closer the coding for two traits are the less likely it is that you will inherit one and not the other.
3. From examining my family and discussions with others on the spectrum I must conclude that while some traits and co-morbid conditions are closely linked most traits of those on the spectrum must by the very nature of the wide spread of differences of the traits we display and to weight and level we display them – we who are on the spectrum are in fact inheriting a spectrum of genes spread over our genome. This is the only conclusion that can be drawn from our present understanding of genetics.
4. As for other explanations for Asperger's and HFA none match well to what we see going on among us.
Now that I have presented an abbreviated discussion on why Asperger's and HFA must genetically inherited and that it most likely be spread over a “spectrum” of our DNA lets go back to the original line of discussion.
Here is my thoughts on what happened 60,000+ years ago when Homo Sapiens nearly went extinct. What most likely happened is that during a major Toba eruption catastrophe humans (almost us) began dropping like flies – the people most likely to survive will be those that solve new problems quickest, who were willing to try new ideas even if the rest of the group did not like the ideas. Even not taking your eyes off prey or the activity you were doing while communicating would be a survival skill when all the chips were down. Thus the catastrophe selected for a different kind of human than the one that was in Africa at the beginning of the catastrophe. Thus arose a new kind of human – one that solved problems better and faster – one that would find a better way of doing something and stay with it despite social pressure – one that had no interest or need to look others in the eye while communicating. In fact the only problem in having such a catastrophe drive a near extinction evolutionary event is that it would almost surely not last long enough to drive the changes to completion in the population or even close to it. Thus you have two groups Homo Sapines Asperger's and Homo Spaines NT both surviving today.
This is a far as I have taken this Idea in this manner as of this time. I have been working on looking into genetic inheritance that may be related to this idea but I am still at an unformed general study stage of that investigation and thus this hypothesis is still very raw - but I would gladly like to hear from anyone willing to discuss this idea - not interested in hearing whinny comments about lack of completion - I know it is not complete that's why I am working on it!
_________________
Found in an old and dusty book --- Roger's Axiom: If it is worth doing it is worth over doing!
Found on
http://jacobbarnett.org/ -- If you are suffering from Autism - you're doing it wrong!
11 Nov 2012, 6:02 am
