Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

I believe that Autism Is 100% Genetic!

Page 7 of 15 [ 240 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 15  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

MemberSix
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Dec 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 606

26 Aug 2008, 3:25 am

anbuend wrote:
MemberSix wrote:
anbuend wrote:
Ishmael wrote:
There cannot be a genetic predisposition to mercury, otherwise every child in a family would be autistic.


Why is that?

Genetic isn't the same as hereditary.


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


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.

I would answer you, but I don't know where to start.



Ishmael
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jul 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 953
Location: Australia

26 Aug 2008, 3:30 am

When did I say all genetic conditions are inherited? My current focus is genetics; I like to keep that in mind. But, the argument here is about genetic autism, and it being hereditary.
Please, please study more about genetics and scientific process! I'm not trying to be mean, but your arguments on the subject are just common knowledge - I shouldn't think it would need to be mentioned.


_________________
Oh, well, fancy that! Isn't that neat, eh?


BokeKaeru
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Jun 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 535
Location: Boston, MA

26 Aug 2008, 3:31 am

The_Cucumber wrote:
Autism is probably mostly genetic however environmental factors can determine exactly how it manifests enough to move someone on the Autistic Spectrum or even render then undiagnosable.

If no one tries to teach an LFA how to communicate, they probably will forever be considered low-functioning. However if that same LFA is surrounded by people who want to teach him how to communicate, he could very well learn how and end up a high-functioning adult.

In the case of Asperger's Syndrome various factors can push someone completely off the autistic spectrum into the realm of "NT's with some autistic traits". In fact if you only took my current behaviors into account you probably wouldn't be able to find enough to diagnose me with Asperger's Syndrome, only when you look at my life as a whole do you see that I do indeed match the criteria for Asperger's Syndrome.


Quote for truth.

I know people on the spectrum who weren't pushed as hard as I was, for better or worse, and the results varied greatly. I can't say that if the same people were adopted by my parents from birth that they would have turned out the same as myself, as people have inherently different abilities, as well as drastically different aspirations and expectations for themselves even in the same environment. However, the fact that I WAS pushed in a certain direction while others I knew were not did prepare me for a certain kind of life and a certain set of circumstances that the other people might not be - or, as the rest of the world might see it, it made me more functional in some respects. Did these environmental factors CAUSE me to be on the spectrum somewhere? No. They did, on the other hand, profoundly impact the way it manifests itself now, because of what was given emphasis in my growing up. Can I hold an interesting conversation with a passable amount of eye contact, hold a job and do well in school? Yep. But can I drive a car, go to crowded and noisy events, or make friends with just about anyone? No chance. And, for my purposes, though the latter set of skills could be useful, I don't specifically NEED them. Even with that knowledge about my social and sensory deficits, most people would not think I was on the spectrum if they met me... just that I was a little bit off. On the other hand, some of my spectrum friends have received diagnoses, and might be more easily to spot, even though they are better on the more common small-talk and sensory fronts than I am, just because of the things that weren't focused on.



MemberSix
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Dec 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 606

26 Aug 2008, 3:42 am

BokeKaeru wrote:
The_Cucumber wrote:
Autism is probably mostly genetic however environmental factors can determine exactly how it manifests enough to move someone on the Autistic Spectrum or even render then undiagnosable.

If no one tries to teach an LFA how to communicate, they probably will forever be considered low-functioning. However if that same LFA is surrounded by people who want to teach him how to communicate, he could very well learn how and end up a high-functioning adult.

In the case of Asperger's Syndrome various factors can push someone completely off the autistic spectrum into the realm of "NT's with some autistic traits". In fact if you only took my current behaviors into account you probably wouldn't be able to find enough to diagnose me with Asperger's Syndrome, only when you look at my life as a whole do you see that I do indeed match the criteria for Asperger's Syndrome.


Quote for truth.

I know people on the spectrum who weren't pushed as hard as I was, for better or worse, and the results varied greatly. I can't say that if the same people were adopted by my parents from birth that they would have turned out the same as myself, as people have inherently different abilities, as well as drastically different aspirations and expectations for themselves even in the same environment. However, the fact that I WAS pushed in a certain direction while others I knew were not did prepare me for a certain kind of life and a certain set of circumstances that the other people might not be - or, as the rest of the world might see it, it made me more functional in some respects. Did these environmental factors CAUSE me to be on the spectrum somewhere? No. They did, on the other hand, profoundly impact the way it manifests itself now, because of what was given emphasis in my growing up. Can I hold an interesting conversation with a passable amount of eye contact, hold a job and do well in school? Yep. But can I drive a car, go to crowded and noisy events, or make friends with just about anyone? No chance. And, for my purposes, though the latter set of skills could be useful, I don't specifically NEED them. Even with that knowledge about my social and sensory deficits, most people would not think I was on the spectrum if they met me... just that I was a little bit off. On the other hand, some of my spectrum friends have received diagnoses, and might be more easily to spot, even though they are better on the more common small-talk and sensory fronts than I am, just because of the things that weren't focused on.

You have a bad case of carriage-returnophobia.

I might have replied to your post, but I don't do big blocks of unbroken text.

Please show a little more consideration when posting.



anbuend
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,039

26 Aug 2008, 3:50 am

(Sorry -- changed my response after seeing things that were written after I wrote it, then saw it was already responded to. I mentioned that I didn't invent the concept of non-hereditary genetic conditions, because Down's syndrome is one, for instance.)


_________________
"In my world it's a place of patterns and feel. In my world it's a haven for what is real. It's my world, nobody can steal it, but people like me, we live in the shadows." -Donna Williams


Last edited by anbuend on 26 Aug 2008, 3:56 am, edited 2 times in total.

Ishmael
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jul 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 953
Location: Australia

26 Aug 2008, 3:55 am

You heard Downs Syndrome referred to as non-hereditary, because Downs Syndrome is non hereditary! That doesn't mean autism is too!


_________________
Oh, well, fancy that! Isn't that neat, eh?


BokeKaeru
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Jun 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 535
Location: Boston, MA

26 Aug 2008, 4:06 am

MemberSix wrote:
You have a bad case of carriage-returnophobia.

I might have replied to your post, but I don't do big blocks of unbroken text.

Please show a little more consideration when posting.


Well, technically, if I was replying to anyone specifically, it would've been Cucumber, who I was quoting, so no need to take my post's formatting personally.

I DID consider breaking that up into paragraphs. However, according to my own judgment, there was no place that seemed logical to split it off. I apologize for any inconvenience, but it is first and foremost my choice how to format my writing, based on how the flow would be in one paragraph versus several. I generally do not like extremely long paragraphs aesthetically either, but function trumps aesthetics as far as I'm concerned.



anbuend
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,039

26 Aug 2008, 4:18 am

Of course it doesn't mean autism is too! But it doesn't mean that autism isn't, or for that matter that autism can't be.

All I was doing, was responding to the apparent assumption, that if something was genetic, then all siblings within a family would have it. If that wasn't what was meant, I'd like to know what was meant.

Can you also please explain how your statements "genetic is hereditary" and "Down's syndrome is non-hereditary" aren't contradictions? Why is it that you can say that non-hereditary genetic conditions exist while belittling me and treating me like I am stupid for saying the exact same thing?

And where do you acquire so much knowledge about autism that you know that factors such as disease/drugs in the mother, or spontaneous gene changes (like with Down's syndrome, which itself has a much higher autism rate than usual), can't ever cause it?

How do you know that autistic people with savant skills always have hereditary versions of autism? (And all I was saying was that brain damage can cause savant skills. You seemed to be saying that it couldn't, and therefore the autism that it caused couldn't be "real" autism which does have savant skills.)

Why do you automatically exclude prenatal environmental factors like maternal rubella and say "for autism" they don't count? Just saying they don't count doesn't mean anything.

If you provide enough sources where the data match your conclusions I might actually believe you. If you belittle me, blow me off, and say that bald and absolutist pronouncements of "facts" that nobody on earth is privy to yet (at least, I don't know anyone who's discovered the cause of all autism or even the nature of all autism) are "science", I'm unlikely to and my guess is so are a lot of other people.

And if you're wondering, I'm not from the mercury militia or something (that'd be a laugh), I don't believe in that stuff at all, I just also don't think that it ought to be refuted by sloppy assertions like that if something is genetic then it occurs in all siblings. (Again, if that's not what you meant, then I really would like to know what you do mean. You seem to be using your conclusions as your premises and that's confusing, not illuminating, and most definitely not how science is done that I've ever seen it.)


_________________
"In my world it's a place of patterns and feel. In my world it's a haven for what is real. It's my world, nobody can steal it, but people like me, we live in the shadows." -Donna Williams


Last edited by anbuend on 26 Aug 2008, 4:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

MemberSix
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Dec 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 606

26 Aug 2008, 4:20 am

BokeKaeru wrote:
MemberSix wrote:
You have a bad case of carriage-returnophobia.

I might have replied to your post, but I don't do big blocks of unbroken text.

Please show a little more consideration when posting.


Well, technically, if I was replying to anyone specifically, it would've been Cucumber, who I was quoting, so no need to take my post's formatting personally.

I DID consider breaking that up into paragraphs. However, according to my own judgment, there was no place that seemed logical to split it off. I apologize for any inconvenience, but it is first and foremost my choice how to format my writing, based on how the flow would be in one paragraph versus several. I generally do not like extremely long paragraphs aesthetically either, but function trumps aesthetics as far as I'm concerned.

The main 'logic' underlying paragraphing is legibility.

And you can't hide behind the claim that the post was in some way, 'tailored' to Cucumber's preferences (of which you have no idea).
It's a public domain open to all members, so unless you're posting a private PM, I would have thought it would be subject to considerations of general acceptability rather than individual preference.

But as you point out, it is YOUR choice as to how you format (or don't, as the case may be) - but OTHER people's choice as to whether they wish to try and read impenetrably illegible blocks.



MemberSix
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Dec 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 606

26 Aug 2008, 4:27 am

anbuend wrote:
Of course it doesn't mean autism is too! But it doesn't mean that autism isn't, or for that matter that autism can't be.

All I was doing, was responding to the apparent assumption, that if something was genetic, then all siblings within a family would have it. If that wasn't what was meant, I'd like to know what was meant.

Can you also please explain how your statements "genetic is hereditary" and "Down's syndrome is non-hereditary" aren't contradictions? Why is it that you can say that non-hereditary genetic conditions exist while belittling me and treating me like I am stupid for saying the exact same thing?

And where do you acquire so much knowledge about autism that you know that factors such as disease/drugs in the mother, or spontaneous gene changes (like with Down's syndrome, which itself has a much higher autism rate than usual), can't ever cause it?

How do you know that autistic people with savant skills always have hereditary versions of autism? (And all I was saying was that brain damage can cause savant skills. You seemed to be saying that it couldn't, and therefore the autism that it caused couldn't be "real" autism which does have savant skills.)

Why do you automatically exclude prenatal environmental factors like maternal rubella and say "for autism" they don't count? Just saying they don't count doesn't mean anything.

If you provide enough sources where the data match your conclusions I might actually believe you. If you belittle me, blow me off, and say that bald and absolutist pronouncements of "facts" that nobody on earth is privy to yet (at least, I don't know anyone who's discovered the cause of all autism or even the nature of all autism) are "science", I'm unlikely to and my guess is so are a lot of other people.

And if you're wondering, I'm not from the mercury militia or something (that'd be a laugh), I don't believe in that stuff at all, I just also don't think that it ought to be refuted by sloppy assertions like that if something is genetic then it occurs in all siblings. (Again, if that's not what you meant, then I really would like to know what you do mean. You seem to be using your conclusions as your premises and that's confusing, not illuminating, and most definitely not how science is done that I've ever seen it.)

I think your time would be far better invested in reading up the basic concepts of genetics than in trying to undermine the credentials of a qualified professional working in the industry.
You owe yourself (and if you're going to undermine him, then Ishmael) that much.



Ishmael
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jul 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 953
Location: Australia

26 Aug 2008, 5:02 am

Anbuend, I never said all siblings inheret genetic conditions. But, the way the mercury argument presents it, they would have to. As they don't manifest in all siblings, their argument is flawed. Genetics enompasses hereditability, but that does not mean all genetic conditions are one or the other.
I never said all autistic savants are genetic; though I can see how my wording would confuse you. However, the non-genetic "autistic" savants are few and far between.

As for my disregard of prenatal causes for autism, there is plenty of evidence around, if you wish to pursue it. As for my sources and evidence, you'll have to wait for my book. ;)
Why? If you're familiar with scientific process, you would then be familiar with legal practices regarding intellectual property? In other words; it's close to being "finished" in laymens terms, but not quite.


_________________
Oh, well, fancy that! Isn't that neat, eh?


BokeKaeru
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Jun 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 535
Location: Boston, MA

26 Aug 2008, 5:26 am

MemberSix wrote:
The main 'logic' underlying paragraphing is legibility.

And you can't hide behind the claim that the post was in some way, 'tailored' to Cucumber's preferences (of which you have no idea).
It's a public domain open to all members, so unless you're posting a private PM, I would have thought it would be subject to considerations of general acceptability rather than individual preference.

But as you point out, it is YOUR choice as to how you format (or don't, as the case may be) - but OTHER people's choice as to whether they wish to try and read impenetrably illegible blocks.


By saying that I was responding to Cucumber's reply, I meant that I found it strange that you felt it necessary to get worked up about the formatting of a post that wasn't even specifically directed at you.

Indeed it is other people's choice to read it or not. I was only trying to explain to you the logic I used while writing that and formatting it as I did, not to say "oh well, too bad if you can't understand it," though I understand how it might be read as such. Rather, I was trying to get an understanding of how I worked while writing it so you wouldn't take it personally. I guess I didn't communicate that so well.



MemberSix
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Dec 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 606

26 Aug 2008, 5:37 am

BokeKaeru wrote:
MemberSix wrote:
The main 'logic' underlying paragraphing is legibility.

And you can't hide behind the claim that the post was in some way, 'tailored' to Cucumber's preferences (of which you have no idea).
It's a public domain open to all members, so unless you're posting a private PM, I would have thought it would be subject to considerations of general acceptability rather than individual preference.

But as you point out, it is YOUR choice as to how you format (or don't, as the case may be) - but OTHER people's choice as to whether they wish to try and read impenetrably illegible blocks.


By saying that I was responding to Cucumber's reply, I meant that I found it strange that you felt it necessary to get worked up about the formatting of a post that wasn't even specifically directed at you.

Indeed it is other people's choice to read it or not. I was only trying to explain to you the logic I used while writing that and formatting it as I did, not to say "oh well, too bad if you can't understand it," though I understand how it might be read as such. Rather, I was trying to get an understanding of how I worked while writing it so you wouldn't take it personally. I guess I didn't communicate that so well.

Don't take it personally.
You just happen to be the unfortunate soul to bear the brunt of years of frustration with people who seem to have no idea how unreadable their lack of paragraphing makes things.

Thanks for the use of the CR, though.



BokeKaeru
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Jun 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 535
Location: Boston, MA

26 Aug 2008, 5:46 am

No problem. I do know how to use it as I think necessary! And I have seen unbearable text walls myself. It's too bad, because it can ruin a good post.



MemberSix
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Dec 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 606

26 Aug 2008, 5:59 am

BokeKaeru wrote:
No problem. I do know how to use it as I think necessary! And I have seen unbearable text walls myself. It's too bad, because it can ruin a good post.

Thankyou for your understanding.

So many people take it as a personal attack when it's nothing of the sort.
I guess because they simply don't see how frustrating walls of text are - particularly when you're an Aspie like me.
Breaking it up means you don't keep losing your place and not being able to find it again.



patternist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2008
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,606
Location: at my computer

26 Aug 2008, 9:11 am

Quote:
'Natural selection' functions by 'survival of the fit enough'. And it has not come to a grinding halt. Accumulation of diversity facilitates a wider adaptive scope at the species level. Even alterations that can have negative consequences for individuals can contribute to species or population viability and survival.



Very well said.

On "survival of the fittest" -

Wouldn't natural selection favor linkage of some traits with others? For instance, certain individuals with phenotypes and behavioral markers indicating autism may fail at reproducing, while others with the same phenotypes and behavioral markers succeed, namely because of combination with other traits...? So what you see may be various combinations of related traits failing with the potential to see the genes themselves succeed. Like Ishmael mentioned about failed proto-humans (failed is also a relative term, considering the only reason sapiens sapiens is a success is that we are the ones currently alive).

A female born without a uterus is an evolutionary dead end. Autism is not. Not by a longshot. What we are seeing now is not the same thing we will see in 30 years or a hundred.

*********************

I'm curious about what Sora said regarding the twin studies....can anyone cite any twin studies where environmental/prenatal factors have been strongly supported?