Argument for Autism being a breakthrough in evolution

Post Reply New Topic

Now I have read the links and can comment on them

This one I was familiar with. It is about cortisol, even though- oddly- they don't discuss cortisol as such. This article observes that our survival instincts which saved us in the past can now cause us illness and decrease our quality of life. Under severe stress which requires action via our survival instincts, there is a hormonal cascade involving mediated by increased cortisol. It lets us snap into action: fight or flight. When the stress is over, the cortisol and all the other hormones (like adrenaline) subside and we go back to normal, crisis survived. If we are subjected to an unending stream of micro-crises which we can't solve with fight or flight, our cortisol stays elevated continuously and this leads to ill health. Although it leads eventually to lower quality of life, that happens by middle age (it's happening to me now ) and it doesn't compromise fertility so no evolutionary impact.

The author is merely pointing out that the cortisol which mediates our survival instinct is lowering our quality of life because now it stays elevated due to a lifetime of micro-crises which don't let it drop back down. The author just barely acknowledges that we actually still do need this from time to time and it saves our life even today. I outran an attacker once thanks to it. Yay cortisol! But it has no effect on reproduction so not relevent to this particular thread




This link is actually very relevent to this thread. It is actually arguing against the points the OP made and more in favor of the points I made. So thanks indeed for linking it. Upthread I called it Lamarckian view of evolution. This author tells me that the proper name for this POV is teleology. So I learned a word and will use that "teleology" the next time this thread happens (which is about once a month). The article says this:



which runs rather counter to the idea that autism is an evolutionary response to increasing reliance on technology or the need to "think logically" in order to avoid barbarities such as genocide and war (as said in earlier similar threads). We don't change because it's a good idea to move forward. (The hippies were wrong about that too- no Age of Aquarius). We change because certain genetic mixes allow an organism to reproduce more in a given enviroment.

The links are not supposed to be provided as MY view or the OP's view. They are just information to use to build and refine opinion. Your INFORMED opinion.........eventually.

Ive never looked at a relationship between coritisol and fertility but I can confirm anxiety wont often get you anywhere with women. I think you will find that is highly relevant to this thread being as we dont reproduce asexually.

It seems you are a petty arguer to me. It does not support your view or the OP's view its just CONTEXT for you. You have to have some basics in place for me to even begin to argue this properly. This takes time and effort. Please dont cut the thread by making a judgement too quickly.

I dont believe your assertion or that you have understood mine. I do however believe its like pulling teeth on this site.

Here is a like argument that saves my running. http://www.psychforums.com/asperger-syn ... 54561.html and http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/showthr ... ?tid=11023

Answeraspergers, I'd like to understand your position. Do you think autism is the next step of evolution? If so, could you explain why?

I will do!! Its coming! I promise

To be clear its after some things are sorted out in my life now and some (rather a lot) of work is done.

Oh, this oughta be interesting.

Anxiety about social interactions won't get you anywhere with women. So in that sense the fight-or-flight survival instinct works against reproduction for people with social anxiety. That's an argument against an evolutionary advantage of autism (or anything that causes social anxiety). For people who don't have this specific anxiety, the increase in cortisol longterm gives them stress longterm. But it has no effect on reproduction because success with the opposite sex is not the source of their anxiety.



yes I am. I'll cop to that.



I have the basics of evolution in place. I argue against anybody who doesn't, which is anybody who thinks that evolution proceeds towards some sort of goal.



You haven't made assertions in this thread. You have asked snarky questions which I have answered.

sarcasm i assume.

These are the reasons I wont invest or share much here

opinions are like a***holes - everyone has one and much sh!te comes out

here is a quote I like on the general topic of "theory of evolution" given many doubt it

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.
- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates

Last edited by answeraspergers on 28 Jan 2013, 4:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I thought it was well established evolution has the goals S & R.

I don't see how full-blown ASDs could possibly be seen as an evolutionary advantage. It is a known fact that those with ASDs tend to get married and/or have children far less than the neurotypical population. And the whole point of evolution is to survive long enough to pass on one's genes. I am a big believer that full-blown neuropsych disorders are a consequence of having traits of a disorder (but still being neurotypical; e.g., the Broader Autism Phenotype) be an evolutionary advantage, but I don't think that the increases in autism diagnoses lately have anything to do with natural selection. If the rates of autism truly are increasing (and it's not just a matter of better/earlier diagnosis), I'm inclined to believe that one big reason probably has to do with so many atypical births nowadays. Extreme prematurity, C-sections for no real purpose, induction using Pitocin for no real reason other than the mother's comfort- all of these things aren't being looked at enough, if you ask me.

Individuals have the goals of survival and reproduction. Evolution is what happens when only some of those individuals succeed.

Although many people doubt evolution (usually for religious reasons), nobody in this thread has doubted it.

Exactly. its not even clear if we are talking about Aspergers or ASD

Impossible to argue without clear defined subject and terms

I have wondered the same. This isn't being looked into much at all but it should be. It's a lot more likely than vaccines or even assortative mating. I do actually think assortative mating plays a part, but it's not the whole story and may not even play a big part. Researchers have noticed that the increase in the births you describe has led to an increase in other disabilities such as vision impairment (underdeveloped eyes) and learning disabilities.

I was a normal birth. I have aspergers

Individuals have the goals of survival and reproduction - so do you think someone who does not have the goal to reproduce is "unevolved?

Have you seen birth rates compared to IQ? I have. Its inverse - study limitations may apply - not my work.

Evolution is what happens when only some of those individuals succeed - so is evolution a cause or effect for you? Im guessing effect.

Huh? No. The term "unevolved" is just silly slang which I don't think is relevent here. I don't think the term "unevolved person" has any actual meaning even though it gets used as an insult.





Yes. I have seen various studies showing that it is inverse. It is quite common especially in developed countries for people with higher IQs to have fewer children. This led to the famous (at least here) movie Idiocracy. It may be that IQ past a certain point is not a reproductive advantage although it may confer a species- wide advantage and thus genius is a conserved trait.



You guessed correctly. Effect. Evolution is what we call it when we look backwards at what changes have happened in the past. Attempting to use it to predict is a perilous business- although I did do that when I predicted it would involve our livers. But you just never know exactly what trait is going to be what lets people (or any organism) survive whatever bottlenecks await us in the future.

At least we have some agreement.

No time and too risky for me to use this forum ATM.

We will argue later