Is Asperger's Evolution in Process?

Post Reply New Topic

By what mechanism is nature regulating human reproduction?

This is very true.
The eye-tracking is an important diagnostic tool.
This also explained that I have no interest in watching films on tv unless it provides information to me related to a special interest.
My special interest in childhood was aeroplanes and I could watch a film about aeroplanes as it provided information of aeroplanes but otherwise when there is no information concerning a special interst of mine I cannot watch a film on tv or elsewhere as I do not follow the persons involved in it which makes me not understanding the context of a film and I lose interest very quickly or lack motivation to watch a film at all.
My eyes do not track what is supposed to be tracked in a neurotypical mind.

Those traits that are selected in evolution are those traits that increase one's reproductive success.

It seems to me that the reproductive success of people with any form of Autism or Aspergers is pretty low. Therefore, it is categorically not selected via evolution.

Citations please.

Remember that evolution is a very long term process. The "growing taller" that we seem to be seeing today is likely due more to increases in nutrition than anything involving genetics.

That has nothing to do with evolution.

Technology can certainly help individuals survive who would not have been able to survive without the technology.

For example, until recently it would be unusual for premature babies to survive until adulthood. But with modern technology, they do survive and many will likely reproduce.

As for designer genes, I would think that the biggest reason for designer genes would be to avoid certain serious conditions. After that would be to enhance the odds of certain abilities.

Those of us who don't reproduce are unlikely to pass on our genes.

Maybe if you could clone yourself in hopes that the clone would pass on your genes. And, of course, if you have siblings, they might reproduce and pass on some the genes that they share with you.

But outside of those, it does rule it out.

Evactly...so many misconceptions about "evolution" and "nature" in this thread. There's no forward or backwards in evolutionary terms, and even if this was any different, there's no indication that HFA makes people more intelligent in general. Just not true.

Sorry, this is not true.

As a professional in the field I have to counter this

The criteria are well established, though changing this year (not the WHO criteria which still use the Gillberg criteria and have always been more accurate and are more widely used in the UK along with the disco which is probably the more sensitive diagnostic tool - many use the ados but it is more of a sledge hammer in terms of tools), and the diagnostic tools are fully available, though they are not the Aspie Quiz, etc that most people look at, and professionals are trained to use them in the most effective way - it is the depth of understanding and the consistency in applying the criteria that makes professionals more capable and accurate in diagnosis. (before we get into variability in the quality of the people diagnosing - yes, some are more thorough than others but most are highly skilled)

Some of the quizzes are actually quite accurate and were developed as diagnostic tools - the AQ for example is part of the diagnostic tool box developed by Simon Baron-Cohen though a professional would not only be looking at the raw score and it would not be used alone, only as a part of the overall package. Alone it is a very good indicator but not a diagnosis.

There are no eye tracking or brain imaging tools used in actual diagnosis at the moment as these tools have not been calibrated over large enough populations to allow their accurate use yet and they are still in the research phase. Brain imaging is less likely to be used than eye tracking in the near future as the scientists haven't yet found a consistent factor in brain imaging that is easily identifiable enough to use for diagnostic purposes.

If someone was given this type of test during the diagnostic process then it was for research purposes or to rule out other things like the impact of epilepsy, not as part of the formal process - my son had his fingers measured during diagnosis as part of some research being done at the time, my daughter had her head measured for the same reason and also had MRIs to look at the impact of her synaesthesia, neither were for diagnostic purposes.

genetic testing is also often done at diagnosis - this is not to confirm autism or AS but to rule out other known conditions that can produce autistic type behaviours and developmental patterns such as fragile x.

By creating people with Asperger's and autism, who are by their very nature (apparently) less likely to breed.

That would only make sense if we were actually increasing as a % of the population which is very unlikely especially as we struggle to breed but NTs breed like rabbits - we haven't got a hope of outnumbering them, they will always fill the gap, we will not. We are not here in sufficient numbers for us to influence the population in this way and with our reproductive rates being lower than those of NTs there is no way we will ever do so. The so called autism epidemic and rising numbers of ASCs in the population is a myth and even if it wasn't we can't out grow a population that is so geared to reproductive success.

First off --- you are assuming that being Asper is and has always been a disadvantage - you are making an assumption that today's rules applied 100 - 1000 - or even 10,000 years or more ago. What we are calling Asperger's today must have arisen about 70,000 years ago because it seems to appear in all races of man and that was the last time that we were all in one place. It could well be that the traits of Asperger's have provided a survival advantage in the past. My mothers family which is heavily involved in Asperger's that lead to my generation - also reproduced quite well. My mother an Asper woman and her brothers one of which was diffidently Asper - another younger brother may have been - but at the very least passed on the genetic stock. My generation numbered nearly a dozen - my sons generation numbers about 20. So its seems that this Asper stock has done quite well in the reproduction department. Two grows to 20 in 4 generations.

Secondly -- since it seems that Asperger's arises from more that a dozen different genes it could be that some combinations of these genes are better at selecting for survival that other combinations. To assume that such conditions leads directly to a simple up or down decision on reproduction or that traits are all good trait or all bad inheritance from our genetic code, is completely off the mark. One need only look at Sickle Cell Anemia to show such a idea as false. Get one copy - and be immune to a deadly disease, Malaria - get two copies and die before you can reproduce - yet in malaria infested parts of the world this gene is in 1 of every 300 people. Yes, some Asperger's traits may damage or chances - but others grant us an excellent reproductive ability.

This is an area I have been interested in and studied for a while now -- I can assure you that there is nothing simple or straight forward about it -- but I am convinced that, yes, Asperger's and HFA are related to evolutionary changes working their way through the human race. It is not neat, It is not concise, It is not straight line or straight forward, but there is some fairly good evidence that it is happening and yes it is going on right now! It seems to have started 70,000 years ago and has not yet gone to completion.

some ASC people reproduce effectively - we can trace traits back 4 generations on both sides of our family - which is why I believe there must be a place for us, but for every one family that does there are probably almost 200 NT families managing to do even better which means we probably only maintain our position, our numbers will not increase this way

Nature doesn't work that way. It has no mind of its own. It does not do anything and that especially includes "fighting back". Gaia is a myth.

Gaia may be a myth but the earth does influence evolution just by being what it is and finite in its resources - if we destroy or run out of our resources the earth will stop meeting our needs and we will either have to adapt or our population will be restricted in some way - traditionally by fire, pestilence or famine

but our environment will not turn against us until we push it that far - and then the impact will not be directed simply at the culprits but at the whole of nature. While some of us can see the need for a change in the human race nature does not see that need and will not do anything about it therefore there is no evolutionary imperative to improve the human race in that direction