Are autistics part Neanderthal?

Post Reply New Topic

The neanderthal theory makes more sense to me than any other theory, though I don't know how true it is. For example, some autistics prefer dogs or cats to humans, which coincides to neanderthals communicating with animals such as dogs. The larger head in both neanderthals and only SOME autistics.....

The theory doesn't encompass everyone on the spectrum, which doesn't make it a good theory. If the theory is true, there are huge chunks missing.

There has been a lot of migration back and forth throughout history, as well as constant interbreeding between neighboring populations, so some Eurasian traits have been introduced into African populations.

As for the OP, Neanderthal genes don't necessarily affect people's body type. Modern day humans have an astonishing phenotypic range of body types, and some bulky shapes might be the result of Neanderthal DNA. But I doubt that there is a great correlation with autistic traits.

Very well, point taken - there are no more 'pure' Africans.

This does not in any way support the idea that Aspies are any more or less the genetic descendents of Neanderthals than NTs are.

Unless a disciplined science-based study of the genetic profiles of a significant number of both Aspies and Enties of every ethnicity occurs, we will never be able to do more than assume and pontificate on the alleged Aspie / Neanderthal genetic connection.

You are correct about that. As we would expect, there is little to none correlation between physical and behavioral traits from Neanderthals. That's also why there is little to none correlation between possible Neanderthal physical traits and ASCs. However, the possible Neanderthal physical traits themselves are slightly correlated. The thing is, you can estimate the correlation between Neanderthal traits in our population by estimating their relevance for communicative and social traits. It is these traits that has created asortative mating in our species, and thus that has kept these traits more correlated than expected after 30,000 years in our species.

There are no pure nothing. We are all mixed, Africans or not.



At least it is now possible to prove, as one company know sells a genetic test for Neanderthal ancestry. Anybody could set up a study and check the results on a few 100 AS and NT individuals, and then we have the final verdict.

Does anybody dare to do it? That is the big question.



Not necesary. As of above, it is relatively easy and not very expensive. All it would cost is $10,000-20,000. Any autism research team could do it, but will they dare to?

Links:
https://www.23andme.com/store/cart/
https://23andme.https.internapcdn.net/r ... cestry.pdf

That is impossible, because we all have mixed heritage. That is why ASCs are so hetereogenic.

It's possible and has been suggested on average that Neanderthals had bigger brains than modern humans. Cro-Magnon Man, the first example of early modern humans, existed about the same time between about 25 BC and 35 BC. Cro Magnon man had a cranial capacity that was larger than Neanderthal man, at about 1600cc as compared to about 1520cc, per example, given earlier in the thread.

Cro-magnon man was also built powerfully, and was a taller hominid on average than neanderthals.

If one is going to use evidence of bigger ancestoral brains, in relationship to autism, one would point to Cro-Magnon man, but it is of no signficance, because we all are modern versions of Cro-magnon man.

Bigger brains are associated with more robust bodies. They are required to control those robust bodies. With the advent of agriculture, physical prowess was not as essential a characteristic for adaptation, as it was for archaic hunters and gathers. Overall, humans became a less robust species with slightly smaller brains on average, compared to Cro Magnon Man.

Given the less robust physical stature of modern humans, on average, the brains of modern human beings may actually be slightly larger relative to their body size, as compared to to Neanderthals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal



This is a common misconception that has been floated around, pointing to the significance that neanderthals had bigger brains, when Cro-magnons, our most recent, direct ancestors evolved with even bigger brains, that eventually became smaller per archaelogcial evidence, as man became more of a domesticated species, with the advent of an agrarian way of life.[/quote]


http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_2.htm

It is not just the brain-mass to body-mass ratio, but the number and complexity of the neuronal connections that seems important to determining intelligence.

The size of the Cro-Magnon Man brain is not relevant, as they are hybrids. We need to compare pre-contact Hs with Hn, not Hs x Hn hybrids with Hn.

Other than that, I discussed this with a paleoantropologist a while ago, and his conclusion was that the sample was too small to determine that the difference was significant.

How come none other conditions have all of these extra things related? Why just Autism? And what about people who are borderline Aspies, or have PDD-NOS, or have traits of AS but can be clasified as neurotypical? Are they all ''Neanderthal'' too? Are they ''half-Neanderthal''? What about people who have ADHD but have a few AS traits with it? What about people like myself who just have mild AS? And if we ain't humans then how come we don't have any notable physical differences like those with Down's Syndrome and even Fragile-X do?

I've never even heard of the word ''Neanderthal'' before I saw this thread today. If I was Neanderthal, how come I have never heard of it? And why is ''Autism'' called ''Autism'' and not known as something like ''neurotypically Neanderthal'' or something like that?

I always thought I was ''a HUMAN with a CONDITION''. Just like my ADHD friend is ''a HUMAN with a CONDITION''.

Jeez! What's the next thread going to be? ''Are Autistics related to dinosours'' or something?

Last edited by Joe90 on 28 Jan 2012, 4:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Blame Canada.



Seriously, this whole subject boils down to two things: Nature versus Nurture. Is it genetic, environmental, or some combination of both?





(By the way ... I apologize to our friends from the Great White North for my little joke.)

IQ tests are just pure BS. They have no relevance whatsoever. You can get whatever result you want with IQ tests. That is why IQ testing has switched from non-verbal tests to verbal tests, and these test no longer measure the same thing as the original IQ test. The development of IQ tests simply reflect ideals of society / culture. If a culture value verbal ability high, they create IQ tests that measure verbal ability.

Additionally, the number and complexity of neuronal connections is not determined by genetics, but largely by environment. If you examine deprived autistics, you will find lesser number and connections.

ADHD certainly is also strongly correlated to Neanderthal heritage, as is a variety of other conditions that are usually part of the neurodiversity concept. It is actually more correct to talk about the Neanderthal theory of neurodiversity.



Because the physical traits could early on identify Neanderthal heritage, and often led to the child being placed in the woods. That is probably why the physical traits from Neanderthals today are more or less unrelated to the behavioral traits.

Who said anything about IQ? Not I.


Explain Down Syndrome, then.

It's also called "Trisomy 21", where all or part of an extra 21st chromosome is present. Down syndrome is associated with some impairment of cognitive ability - the average IQ of children with Down syndrome is around 50, compared to normal children with an IQ of 100.

Ergo, genetics determines intelligence, or is at least a significant determinative factor.

I agree with joe90 on this one. Autism isn't 'all or nothing.' It is a spectrum, a range of developmental disorders, and there is high possibiliy of a person on the spectrum to suffer other co morbids. Some people can have traits of it but not meet the autistic criteria to the full extent and so what will that make them?

And if autistics were a different species then unborn babies would be able to be tested for autism while still in the womb, being that theres a different kind of 'living thing' inside the womb.

Its freaky when it comes down to it because it looks like its always 'autistics vs humans'. Its bad enough autistics feeling different without being convinced theyre not humans either. I dont know where this kind of BS pops up from.