I believe that Autism Is 100% Genetic!

Post Reply New Topic

... like it's a religion ?

Why would I believe in science like it's a religion. Would you explain to me how science can be a religion. Aren't they oxymorons?

Because you said "I believe in science" ?

I believe in science but not like religion. More like because it's science and it's open to rigorous scrutiny. The scientific method requires evidence and evaluation of that evidence, and the theory changes when new evidence is evaluated and found to be more accurate. I have faith in this process. Yes.

Very well said.



Don't twist her words, that's a matter of semantics. If you treat science like religion, then it's not science, so you can't "believe in science" like you would a religious faith." As I said, it's a matter of semantics.

I agree that I think autism is primarily caused by genetics, but irregardless, I am certain that it has nothing to do with the whole amalgamated filling/thimerosol vaccines BS agenda. I've read many articles in scientific and medical journals, and the mercury scare holds little water, as a matter of fact, after thimerosol vaccines were outlawed in New Zealand, rates of autism increased.

I do believe there's something as a autistic gene, but I don't think it's the only answer. BTW, no one in my family displays any signs of autism. and we're a pretty large family. I don't believe the vaccine thing at all. I was vaccinated,sure, but I exhibited symptoms long before. I know there was some trouble with my birth or growth but I do not know the extent of them.never asked. Doctor said it might've cause my neurological issues as well as physical ones.
but I don't think it's 100% genetic. I don't believe everything can be explained by science or DNA.

Genetic influences are diverse. Everyone has their own genetic blueprint.

Our environment has an impact and will influence us as individuals in regard to the way we intrepret and react to world the around us.

There cannot be a genetic predisposition to mercury, otherwise every child in a family would be autistic. Even a junior level geneticist knows why. That theory is clearly poorly thought out.
Autism is 100% genetic; but may not manifest in more than one family member. That's mathematics. As for environment: the only environmental factors are post-birth, psychological. The raising of the child. Interaction is the key element in raising autostic children. The classically autistic need roughly five times as much interaction to develop as another child.

As for these so-called "other autosms", prenatal trauma, virus, etc. Are NOT Autism, but are similar. They've no genetic relationship to autism; nor possibility of savant skills, barring extraordinary changes to their brain. The only reason they are called autistic is because psychological diagnosis cannot distinguish. As such; there is no name for autism-like brain damage - note brain damage, not neurological realignment.
There are several like these; but they are only autism as much as marsupials are mammals.
Unfortunately; the confusion about this on the parts of those uneducated about it muddies the water, and makes work harder for people like me.

100% genetic experimentation. Nazi Germany created super-scientists; which went awry when they found out that they couldn't control what obsessions their subjects chose--some chose chemistry, others counted buttons (it's no coincidence that Kanner and Asperger both were taught in Germany). The subjects were adopted out to rich families who couldn't have their own children (they saw that there might be potential for some of them, but they were unsure of which ones, and they saw that they wouldn't breed as adults as they weren't interested by design...).

No useless social interaction, enough communication to get the formulae across, a near-perfect memory for knowledge in relation to an interest/obsession; the ability to stick to something until all avenues of approach are seemingly found, and then gone over again and again.

There's so many "aspies" now because the original stock was diluted and passed on via genetics, so we have more and more less stereotypical cases where people want to interact, it's just that they still have the remnants of the experimentation in their genome, which are the social deficits. Some of us are complete throwbacks to those few test subjects.

No, seriously....

Why is that?

Genetic isn't the same as hereditary.

And all children in a family have slightly different genes.

I don't believe it's caused by mercury. But genetic predispositions to something can happen in one family member and not another.



Environment means everything coming from outside the person, it does not just mean social enviornment and it does not just mean post-natal environmet.



I know several people who are autistic because of prenatal exposure to a certain drug or a certain virus. They do have autistic skill patterns. And yes, brain damage in the womb can lead to savant skills even among non-autistic people. I remember hearing of one woman who had a stroke in the womb that knocked out most of her left hemisphere permanently, and she was a savant, not autistic, but that shows savant skills can come from brain damage.

You talk about ignorance, but you have a lot of assumptions in your post that don't match the facts about genetics or about the brain. It seems more like you're starting from wanting autism to be pure in a certain (limited) way, and then working backwards from that.

Spot the Creationist.

Dude, you've got a LOT of reading to do.

Anbuend, it seems you've misinterpreted my post. Yes, there are genetic predispositions to things. But not to how the mercury theory is being prsented.
Genetic is hereditary.
If you'll play closer attention, you'll see I acknowledged savant skills in non-autistics, I mentioned "barring extraordinary changes".
I said "environmental factors". Being such; environmental factors are however limited to psychological environments in autism.

As for working backwards, if you've failed to notice, that's a typical scientific process is to develop a theory - in this case, genetic autism, and, yes, work from there. The goal of theories is to aim to disprove, and failing that, finding proof.

Don't question my profession, please.

Anbuend, it seems you've misinterpreted my post. Yes, there are genetic predispositions to things. But not to how the mercury theory is being prsented.
Genetic is hereditary.
If you'll play closer attention, you'll see I acknowledged savant skills in non-autistics, I mentioned "barring extraordinary changes".
I said "environmental factors". Being such; environmental factors are however limited to psychological environments in autism.

As for working backwards, if you've failed to notice, that's a typical scientific process is to develop a theory - in this case, genetic autism, and, yes, work from there. The goal of theories is to aim to disprove, and failing that, finding proof.

Don't question my profession, please.

Hehe.

Well they aren't the same thing. "Animal" and "dog" aren't the same thing either. All dogs are animals, but not all animals are dogs. All inherited conditions are genetic, but not all genetic conditions are inherited.

Genetic conditions that were not inherited are generally spontaneous mutations, but there are also forms of gene damage that can occur.

Not that any of these are necessarily the main point of what you were saying, but it's not like you've never heard of an autistic person taking something literally before, is it? I don't know where "questioning anyone's profession" comes into it either, I'm just stating facts, heredity (inherited conditions) is not the whole of genetics, and they're not identical ideas.