The Next Step In Evolution?

Post Reply New Topic

People who talk about "the next step in evolution" are usually implying that we are "more evolved" than NT's or whatever, which is a complete misunderstanding of what evolution is. It makes us better adapted for the environment, not "better" overall. Evolution is a branching tree, not a hierarchy... read "The Greatest Show on Earth" if you're interested.

Maybe you could argue that because the environment is becoming more technology based, with PC's, etc, we are better adapted for that?

I go along with Temple. Thinking outside the box drives technology, and it only takes a few.

I would also disagree with "Progressive Development Disorder."

Development Differance is all that is proven. As people are known for ageing out of ASDs, it is not progressive.

Evolution is not the mass of a population changing, most has been due to an asteriod strike that killed most, and change came from the few survivors.

Species development is much quicker, and the human line has seen it's share.

In the recent work of the Max Planck Institute Neanderthal genes have survived, some Northern Europeans and the Han Chinese. Native Americans have Erectus traits, there is not a "Standard Human."

Genetic divergence is all around, a race that the runners go in different directions.

Evolution is not going anywhere, it is survival of the lucky.

Some ASD traits do help. A natural bent for tech is better than an education about how computers used to be. As the world moves toward technology, those who keep up become a sub species.

Computer development does seem to fit under Applied Autism.

Adapting to your world is a great survival trait, and the one in five who are unemployed seem to be waiting to be given another life.

The cute and highly social with a university degree are being ignored. They are unemployed, never employed at twice the rate of factory hands.

I never had much of a life, lost it all several times, but keep coming back with another model. I adapted to living on the edge, and edge has become more common.

As CockneyRebel says, 95% are out being social so they will be in line for the recovery. I think they will be homeless first. The mass keeps up the past, and ignores that the market has been flat for a decade, and money has not held up. Their ship is everything to them, but I am just a rat that leaves when it is sinking.

The last two waves of economy were computers followed by internet. The mass response was real estate and debt. It did not work out.

For all of what social people see as ASD flaws, they have survived. As for living in caves, I have considered it. I am also looking at some desert gold prospects. I could survive on the outside just as I always have, I do not think Barbie will be working the next cave or claim.

Inward looking and technological with an impaired social, fashion and status sense does seem to be a collection of traits that would survive, and that is the evolution ticket.

Recent studies have shown that computer use is causing more people to develop autistic type thinking, and become space cases. We have a head start on the future.

It may be an asteriod, solar storm, ice age, or like the fall of Rome, when millions were the power of the world, and all were gone in a generation. Whatever it is some will survive, and that will bring change.

Evolution is driven by mass dieoffs, so hang in there!

Not really, if everyone was on the spectrum we'd be much less likely to get rejected.

As for the next step in evolution thing itself, I personally don't agree with it, though I do think we'll do better in the future because demand for people good with technology and computers is always going up, and there are already companies which specifically look to hire Aspies.

My current belief is that the spectrum, or in this case maybe the equivalent, probably predates humanity. That is, at least some of our pre-human ancestors were probably overly absorbed in building on a speciallized aspect of affecting the physical environment around them, and a few were the ones, as is often still the case today, who allowed the rest of us to make leaps in our understanding and application of affecting the world around us... aspies are like humanity's R & D.

Right, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. In order for evolution to happen, the change (whether due to natural selection or due to genetic drift) has to make the organism more suited to mating. Thus if AS is an evolutionary step, we should see people with AS successfully mating at a higher rate than NTs.

What we actually see is the opposite -- people with AS do, obviously, mate successfully. But passing on our genetic material tends to happen at a lower rate than the NT population, thus indicating that AS is not an evolutionary advancement of the human species.

I'm thinking more of the opposite. Aspies may lack of some genes that Home Sapiens have developped allowing a greater size of community. It will explain why aspergers are so good with animals, we don't got some genes that separe us from them.

First, it is a dominant gene and second, because emotional behavior is archaic and nature has slowly been replacing it in humans with consciousness and logical decision making. Autism is clearly a next step in that direction.

This is going to seem corny, but each new life that lives long enough to breed new offspring is the next step in evolution.

If it is a dominant gene, they why did my asperger's father and my BAP mother produce an asperger's daughter and a neurotypical daughter? Shouldn't my sister be at least BAP herself if the gene is dominant?

I don't think it's corny. I think it shows a sensible understanding of the process of natural selection.

No, it is the opposite - if a gene is dominant, these means that, even if you only inherit the gene from one of your parents, that gene will appear at your "phenotype"; then, if autistic genes are dominant, if you have a mix of autistic and neurotypicall genes, you will be autistic. The implication is that autistic people can have neurotypical genes, and a couple of autistics could have neurotypical sons (if they inherit the neurotypical gene from both parents).

Gotcha.

Then how do they/you know that the genetics for autism are dominant? They couldn't have been studying it very long since it's only been recently that anyone's discovered any genetic links for autism. And if I remember correctly, weren't there at least five different genetic markers for autism? Are they all dominant?

There is nothing wrong with me.

Precisely. We'd be judged on our intelligence, looks, and money as opposed to our social skills. I know for a fact I'd feel smarter, more attractive, and have more money if I didn't need to worry about how NT's reacted to my lack of a filter. I'm a professional model but I'm "ugly" because of the way that I "behave" and all that. Isn't that something? I have dated stupid, unattractive, poor people who have broken up with me because of my public behavior. Now I'm not saying that I'm supere intelligent or highly attractive. Just that my intelligence and looks are overlooked because of the way I present myself to the masses. Which prevents me from having money. So let's live in an AS society where we aren't judged for our social behaviors. As long as nobody hurts anybody I think everything else is game. Where's the island? Otherwise we will have rich people without intelligence yet superior social skills stomping on the stupid, unattractive, and poor. Which is what we all end up feeling like at the end of the day. Because we didn't come off right. At the store. Last Friday.

I'd even go further and say that much of AS population doesn't care about looks or money. Yet I wanted to have that rant. I needed it.

listen im not supporting this silly idea, Im simply asking the people who believe that aspergers is the next step in evolution why they believe it.

just want to let you know, i completely agree with you. Im not trying to argue for this idea, im just asking the people who do believe this bollocks why and if they have evidence (which im highly doubtful of).