I've read about neanderthal and came crasy idea to me..

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.thegeneticgenealogist.com/2010/07/13/how-neanderthal-are-you/

I read science journals too much, recalled this one. There's more direct sources elsewhere.

I would suspect NT's would show more neanderthal behavior. I have lots of daydreaming theories and long thought about genetic links of the distant past. I've always found the best way to know something is to start from scratch.

it seems to be an aspie trait to some degree to look much younger than you appear. I for example look like I am still in high school, but I am 34. People say I am blessed...I am starting to wonder if I have some weird disease that keeps me from aging. You should see the look people give me when I say I am 34. Even when I show my ID, they think it is a fake ID. I am starting to enter the uncanny valley with my lack of aging. If I hit 40 without a wrinkle it is going to be really weird. As of now, I have no wrinkles on my face or neck and have baby soft skin although my hands are alittle wrinkled, but not much. I am starting to become a freak though.

You've made a lot of assumptions here. Currently the following paradigms apply
1. Nobody really knows about the genetics of Neanderthals, most of the information is derived from forensic analysis of their skeletons, evidence from skeletons suggest they were not really all that much different to Homo Sapiens except perhaps slightly more robust in appearance.
2. The genetics of autism is still being studied and there is a long way to go. Whatever traits are linked to genes are coded by multiple loci, I'm not sure what you mean by AS genes? are you suggesting different genes code for AS from autism?
3. There is no solid evidence that autistic/AS brains are actually any different on average than a typical NT brain from brain imaging scans. There may be individuals with different brain patterns but overall it's is a myth on par with vaccines causing autism.

Many statements in science have started with axioms, in many of them people strong still believe beside some of them are denounced. You are right, my axioms or 2 points or assumptions from which i start still aren't totally attested, but can you agree with me that many theories in science aren't totally proved? Just take my opinion like assumption, not like statement. Who knows, maybe in future scientist will start from my assumptions and prove that really neanderthal genes caused in us asperger, or they will attest that isn't possible.
(Sorry for my English, i hope you understand me)

No problem, I would suggest stating your axioms are hypothetical and are posed for discussion. I have seen a lot of opinions posted on WP without qualification and the danger is younger people on this forum will walk away thinking this is truth.

The one area that I am a little uncomfortable is your premise there are Asperger specific genes? given the current thinking is that autism is a spectrum of traits then it's likely the same genes code for autism and Aspergers except perhaps in Apsergers fewer genes are activated or conversely switched off rather than talking about the existence of "Asperger genes".

One day I would like to find out what the % of autistic children were born from at least one parent who was AS. The current thinking in one recent study is;
CONCLUSIONS: Children from families in which both parents manifest subthreshold autistic traits exhibit a substantial shift in the distribution of their scores for impairment in reciprocal social behavior, toward the pathological end.

The full paragraph from the study states that mutations from other genes in the study include Down Syndrome, and Schizophrenia. It doesn't mean that Neanderthrals had Downs Syndrome, Schizophrenia, or Autism.

And while those that carry mutated genes are often more likely to have children with disabilities; the mutated genes also arise from other factors known and unknown. In the case of Downs syndrome, maternal age is a factor of consideration. Paternal age has been correlated with Schizophrenia.

While there may be a correlation of where the orginal genes were selected, the mutations aren't necessarily an enhancement that results in reproductive success.

There are many people that are introverted and who are good systemizers, that aren't diagnosed with Autism. Some people with autism, happen to share some of these traits and do well in fields where the traits are advantageous.

I'd suggest checking out Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin. It makes some points about genetics and ancestry that are really fascinating and may point to all kinds of possibilities for the origins of any number of genetic traits without locking them into humans specifically. After all, much of the DNA we have goes back to the origins of life. It could have come from anything.

There is a popular idea that advantageous evolutionary changes will necessarily affect the brain. It's appealing to think that the next evolutionary trait that survives and spreads will have something to do with thinking; smarter, thinking different, more compassionate, less warlike (Age of Aquarius ). Different groups promote different mental traits as the ones that will guide us into the future.

But our recent evolution shows that incredibly advantageous traits need not have anything to do with the brain at all. The ability to make the lactase enzyme after infancy and thereby succesfully digest milk at any age seems to have really helped a hefty chunk of the world's population survive and spread. Who knows? Maybe the next evolutionary advantage will go to some people who seem pretty unremarkable but have some sort of mutation that lets them be unaffected by a particular enviromental toxin that will reduce everybody else's fertility in the future. You just never know what's going to be helpful. Genetic diversity lets nature throw a whole of spaghetti at the wall in the hope that some will stick.

I am beginning to wonder if Neanderthals were just a race or homo sapiens. Genetically, the two species share most genes. Not sure if there isn't a variation but if it is, it might be minor enough to be considered race, not species.

Last edited by ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo on 28 May 2011, 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

As with Flores man (affectionately known as the Hobbit) in Indonesia the Neanderthal could well be a sub-population of Homo Sapiens. The classification of Neanderthals as "Homo neanderthalis" was originally based on skeletal remains. Subsequent analysis suggests the robust caveman prototype for Neanderthal with sloping head and carrying a club etc is misrepresentative of the population although their bone structure is impressively solid. In addition, Neanderthals buried their dead, made tools, wore clothing and used weapons. Their is some evidence they could do art and may have communicated.

There's speculation that Neanderthals could have shared FOXP2 with homo sapiens and might have been more advanced when it came to language and communication. These were necessary for hunting big game so they became species-reliant genes.

It's an interesting theory. I'm dubious about bothering to study it though. There could only be one conclusion... yes, it is a genetic difference. I'm not sure it matters WHERE that difference came from that far back in our evolution. And, it is all speculative with no way to prove or disprove the findings unless bigfoot is really a clan of neandethals hiding in the Pacific Northwest...

I'm not sure if I find it amusing or disturbing that the studies and articles in the links some provided here are studying something on pure speculation. Without neanderthal DNA to do a thorough comparative study it will never be anything but speculation. Interesting. Engaging on several levels but essentially useless especially in regards to understanding Autism.

Unless, of course, this entire thread is tongue in cheek and just playing around. If that IS the case, then carry on. It is amusing

I don't buy into the premise that Neanderthals are responsible for ASDs but admit they could have produced viable hybrids with Cro- Magnon which could have contributed to advanced communication acquisition still noticeable today.

Another way of looking at the hybrid theory. Let's say, Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon (ancient variety) neither one died out but interbred and became one species, what we think of as modern man. What if it's the ancient Cro-Magnon genes that are the key to autism and not the Neanderthals?

Just because the genes are mutated in the Neanderthal strand doesn't mean Autism originated in Neanderthals and were transmuted to Cro- Magnon due to interbreeding. What if the same mutations existed in both populations? What if the Neanderthal population the DNA was harvested from are products of Cro-Magnon/Neanderthal interbreeding and the gene was passed to them through the Cro-Magnon and not the Neanderthal?

Agreed, the frequency of the occurrence of autism is currently most frequent in South Korea and it's frequency across east Asia is significant. Transmission of autism genes from Europe is an unlikely explanation for the concentration of autism outside of Europe as if it arose in one location (like blue eyes) its frequency would dilute out.

One explanation is the initial mating of Neanderthal with Cro-Magnon occurred before the migration East, into Asia. If it happened before mass migration, it would explain why Autism exists in Asian populations. That is, if the Neanderthal theory has credibility, which hasn't been proven, either. People seem determined to put everything on Neanderthal . They are the scapegoat. But do we really know is the question, or does science want to blame Neanderthal because of the stereotype that they are devolved and backward, a stereotype science cannot base on factual evidence.