Evolution

Post Reply New Topic

The evolutionary reason for AS?

Just some off the wall thinking I've been having. Since I read that AS might have an evolutionary reason (and I know this has been discussed on WP before e.g. http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt129045.html and elsewhere). I've been wondering for what purpose.

All I can come up with for the most part, is negative and simplistic - is it possible? As nature is about survival of the fittest, and nature finds ways to cull populations in the animal kingdom, I wondered if it's this. Because the planet is overpopulated so badly with resources under threat, because people with AS find it harder to build relationships and often prefer being alone or at least away from lots of people, and misunderstand in communication, is this an in-built feature that nature is using to reduce the population? I know this is horribly negative and I would feel so bad if there was any reality in it, there are amazing attributes people with AS have, but at a basic level could it be? Or turning it on its head, is it that nature is trying to separate people with AS because they have these analytical and other abilities that would make them the better long-term survivors (or more logical in their ways to protect the viability of the planet even) in that way? I know this is a kind of doom and gloom thought. Just interested in what people think. (But please don't be mean if you think this is ridiculous in any way, I'm no scientist, just someone trying to make sense of things).

And now through reading Ai_Ling's post I've read the NPR article about an autistic woman having an 'alien's view' of social brains, it says that Baron-Cohen thinks her view is plausible that the autistic caveman invented e.g. fire, and although he might not have a family due to his autism, his tribe as a whole will benefit from the invention or discovery and his genes will get passed on in that sense.

I wonder if this is it. Still not a positive thing for the individuals themselves with autism though.

I tend to think that people with disorders in general are not adapted well to the environment. If survival of the fittest fully worked in the modern world there would probably be less people with disorders and they would suffer even more. Fortunately, most of mankind realizes nature is a cruel thing and tries to help the weaker. Of course, there are certain situations, environments where aspies might be more adapted to the environment than NT's. On the other hand, there are still many parts of human society where survival of the fittest stills works (eg. labour market) and people with disabilities have a hard time.

Shamans and medicine people are needed at a ratio of about 1:100. They usually dont have a close family, or live a normal life. They have skills that the tribe needs to excell above other neighbouring tribes. A good shaman is worth his weight in gold

I've been studying parasites. Those critters have got some amazing adaptations for survival, complex ways to change the behaviour of their host..............

We assist the evolution of NT

Lol no, because one can still reproduce by beating off into a cup and inseminating a woman, or you can really force yourself to have sex even though it'd be uncomfortable for a lot of people on here, but it's possible, so the idea of it being to keep population down is a silly theory.

We are just different, that's all. Well I say we, I'm not diagnosed with AS or anything, but I relate to many people here, so I have included myself in the minority

Everybody is an evolutionary experiment.

Statistically speaking, most of those experiments will only produce minor changes, but a certain number will be outliers - will produce major changes. Autism - and mildly autistic child geniuses - may be examples of those major kinds of change. So too are really tall people - like the ones I saw in the Olympic parade today. Some of the variations arise from the accumulation of many old mutations ending up by chance in one person, and some of the variations result from new mutations - perhaps affecting heaps of genes at once. There will always be some people "more different" to the average than most other people are: most people are small experiments, some are bigger experiments.

It is still up to us to work out how to take advantage of our genetic differences - e.g. our strongly focused interests and attention to detail.

Before the times of the great technological advancements of today, grouping together and forming relationships was an evolutionary requirement for survival. In today's society grouping together fuel's the greed of individuals and the only predator is another human. In order to defend oneself against a larger group of humans one must be in a larger or better group of humans, this causes an endless loop of war and terror due to predatory insticts.

Is it necessary to group together to wake up in the morning? Is it necessary to group together to complete a task assigned to you? Is it necessary to group together to purchase groceries? Is it necessary to group together to survive? Why is it for all of these activities there is an instinct to form groups while doing them? The answer to these question is certainly no.

The goal of grouping together is to gain more power over those which are not within the group, there is no mutual benefit for all of human kind, it is just for that single group and the individuals within it.

Those with AS diverge from this process and because of this difference are often subjected to ridicule or bullied into following the expectations of society.

Would it not be better if society faught with their knowledge and words instead of their fists and friends?

Purely speculation, however it does seem likely that AS is the next evolutionary step.

Evolution is NOT about survival of the fittest, Darwin never wrote this. His words were "survival of the most adaptable."

In "Spontaneous Evolution," Bruce H. Lipton explains the origin of this common misinterpretation in great detail. However, since even Lynne McTaggart manages to spread this stupid slogan in "The Field," although one might expect an author would do some research about her topics, i can't blame anyone for this confusion.

Evolution itself is a continuous act of individual and collective adaption to an ever changing environment.

If we consider how our environment has changed during the last 100 - 150 years, we can easily see that the average person today will spend more time in front of a computer than behind a plow. Furthermore, the fact that we live in the Information/Computer/Digital Age makes different requirements on our brains than those a farmer or line worker had to face some decades ago.

Let's assume that the archetype of social person developed at a time when the development required a huge amount of ordinary workers since everything was physical work, from doing the laundry to bread baking. As a result, people basically needed more social than intellectual skills since their lives depended directly on the community and cooperation with others.

Although we are still depending on others, today it is a much more abstract and impersonal dependence. We don't necessarily need a family member or spouse to cook our meals but rather an anonymous technician who operates a power plant.

The trend is clearly directed toward more and more personal independence. This is true not only for Aspies but an enormous number of NT's as well, at least gradually. This is by no means a matter of "better than" or "fitter than" since evolution always works in the direction of diversity and no species ever loses the properties of their ancestors that form the starting material for their development. In other words, that humans have developed an over proportionally large skull doesn't mean they would lose their feet in return, and the fact that most of us have less body hair than chimpz doesn't mean we don't have hair at all but it has merely adapted to altered conditions.

Depending on our living conditions there will very likely be a trend toward more aspieness or autistic traits in the population as we can see already today at the example of the countless self--diagnosed or undiagnosed, aka wannabe--aspies (no offense meant, just an example.)

In todays society the weak are taken care of, atleast in most developed countries. It is no longer the strongest who survive. These days it is the genes of those who procreate most who wins the evolutionary war.

I have recommended it before in evolution-threads, and I will recommend it again http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

I published peer reviewed articles in evolutionary genetics and recently reviewed the scientific papers on autism and genetics. Currently the science is highly fragmented and little can be said that is not speculative.

Remember, autism is a spectrum. The best evidence suggests it is polygenic and not caused by a single mutation in one gene. Genes code for proteins. Recently geneticists have found differences in the non-coding parts of the DNA; that is the DNA that does not code for proteins. There are areas where there are sequential repeats of DNA patterns. When one has too many of these so called copy number repeats, autism is often seen. No one knows yet why. Twenty years ago scientist used to call these areas of the genome "junk DNA" because they appeared to have no purpose.

There are many possible reasons why evolution might select for some of the genes that contribute to autism. It may be that it is very adaptive to have a certain amount of the genes that result in autism but if one has too many it becomes non-adaptive.

Then there is the epigenetic factor which means it is not the genes themselves that result in autism but whether and when the genes are turned on and off. This is also poorly understood at present.

Moreover, there is other evidence that autism is a result of hyperactivity in local areas of the brain that results in an individual having savant abilities. This could be highly adaptive.

As of now these are all just bits and pieces of genetic research that have not yet come together in a meaningful way to allow the evolutionary fitness of autism to be understood or looked at holistically.