The caveman theory may be correct

Post Reply New Topic

These guys wouldn't have lived in caves, though. Because of their technical skill and their enjoyment of sticking things together, they would have had a compulsion to build crude shelters for themselves. "Crude" would have been a bit unfair to these primals, though, because their special skills would have insured that these living spaces were highly ordered in their construction and especially sturdy. If possible, they would have laid stones for their walls and bounded together sticks and other materials in order to create their rooves. For comparison, many North American Indians chose to live in similar constructions rather than the huts that we see in other parts of the world. If you were to put an autie in a log and stone cabin, this person would be quite happy with his or her surroundings.

Most probably, they would have had cravings for certain sweet-tart berries during the warmer months. The reason for this is that, when the weather warms, we have a propensity to seek sources of relaxation, and certain sweet-tart berries are high in both the magnesium and antioxidants that are necessary for this. The antioxidants would have resulted in lower levels of stomach acid, which would have no longer been necessary because more digestable foods would have been abundant.

Because of their lifestyle, they would have been quite accustomed to living a life of hard knocks and probably wouldn't have terribly minded it under the circumstances. Their high levels of growth hormone would have promoted rapid healing, so the slaps and punches adminstered to children by their parents and peers would have been taken pretty much in stride. They'd have benefitted from this rough discipline because they are highly in need of extensive operant conditioning. When you tell a caveman/autist "no," you have to make it clear that you mean it. When you tell them "yes," you have to make sure that you are completely understood.

Autists may sometimes have trouble forming memories because of their magnesium deficit. Remember that, as cavemen, they would have gorged themselves on nuts and berries when the weather was warm. This would have been conducive to helping them to remember the "good times," and the magnesium deficit at other times of year would have helped them to put the "bad times" out of their minds. When life was hard and complicated, they would have been living predominantly on calcium-rich bone to increase their attention to the details around them and to keep their reflexes sharp, and these barren months and years would have been left pleasantly in the past along with the calcium-induced muscle aches and manesium deficit-induced tooth ruptures that went with them.

If you are a caveman-type autie, your teeth are probably glassy, sharp and resistent to infection. To improve their structural integrity, you should supplement yourself with plenty of magnesium. This would improve the potency of what little vasopressin and oxytocin you produce, also, so it would improve the life of your friendships. Getting extra magnesium would also improve your absorption in class if you are a student. If you are a parent of an autistic child, you may or may not like the idea of using supplements, so you could induce similar effects and calm your child's stomach by making sure that your child always has access to cranberries, almonds or pumpkin-seed kernels, squash, and other magnesium-rich treats. Remember, though, they'd be offered as treats, not as a dietary staple, just as their "primitive" ancestors used them. They'd be eaten as needed and not necessarily everyday. On some days, you'll see these little pieces of magnesium dynamite suddenly disappear by the hundreds as the child gorges on them, and you would need to keep this gorging under control in order to prevent them from overloading themselves. The child would not take kindly to these magnesium-boosters being forced upon them. My mate (who is highly intelligent and kind-hearted and far from "primitive") happens to have cranberry cravings often, but he claims that it tastes unpleasant and makes him feel weird when his body isn't seeking it. Respect the caveman's wishes, and you will be rewarded.

I would give you high odds that, if you were to have park rangers tested for autism, you'd find that these men have risk factors for the disorder. However, these guys were probably trained by their parents to fulfill their dietary and rearing needs, and they were probably subjected to corporal punishment and operant conditioning as it is NATURALLY applied (as opposed to the traumatizing horror that is "formal" corporal punishment, which I will oppose with every single ounce of will I have until the end of my days). I think that, if autists were raised on the diet, discipline and lifestyle of rangers, they would develop along the same lines. Their wits would be sharp, and their lives would be pleasant ones.

However, as I say in all of my posts, I could always be wrong. Consult with a dietician before administering supplements, and consult with a child psychologist before changing disciplinary methods. Although I may sound like I know what I'm talking about, I would prefer for what I say to be taken as suggestions, not as advice. Use your own instincts and wisdom well.

I hate to start this, but it has to be done. There is virtually no chance that autism is due to interbreeding between H. neanderthalensis and H. s. sapiens. There's no evidence in favour of that hypothesis, and plenty of solid reasons why it can't be the case.

Well, I'm not saying one way or the other, but what are the solid reasons?

Steve

Cavenman....I would like to live in a cave,like charred meat,like to pet furry clothes,climb trees,have endurance and stocky muscles.

Not caveman....Dont like being dragged into a cave by my hair and raped,hate misquitoes,sensitive to heat and cold,might find wearing hides a bit uncomfortable considering I dont even like tags or seams on T-shirts.


Issues with the caveman theory and aspie hypothesis.....wouldnt we be better at non-verbal communication if language was not well developed(dont know if it was),wouldnt we have fewer sensory issues that destract us,wouldnt we enjoy social contact more sense we would have to live in a community to increase our chance of survival,wouldnt we have a palate that allowed us to enjoy any kind of food and not restrict our diets?

I think the "gap" in the theory is peoples insistance that it was homosapiens mating with Neadertals and not neandertals mating with alians.Thats were aspies come from,duh.

No relation. I'm talking about a critter that favored temperate forests and did NOT live in caves. Some of them might have lived in caves, but most of these guys would have preferred relatively civilized homesteads. They'd have known how to take care of themselves, as evidenced by their low cortisol levels. What I am reading indicates is that these guys were highly skilled survivors who rarely had to do without food. Their ingenuity was remarkable. The phenotype is adaptative, and it arises whenever it is in demand: if we were cast into a stone age and forced to relearn how to live in temperate forests without the help of technology or helping hands, you'd eventually see the phenotype start to flesh out in those who are more successful. In our case, a completely different set of pressures is causing the trait to appear, but it is appearing, nonetheless. The mechanism by which it appears is probably outrageously simple. To allow us to quickly adapt, it would have to be.

I like being called a critter but I dont care for the idea of beating aspie children to teach them.How do "melt-downs" work into your theory?Should we be beating our children for having sensory/social overloads?

Aside from the fact that there's no evidence in favour of it, it has to explain the prevelance worldwide. Neanderthals can't explain that unless one finds some evidence that they lived in Japan, for instance.

If one isn't talking about Neanderthals specifically, but instead speaking of some unidentified 'other species' then the entire argument amounts to nothing. "There were these people somewhere at some point who had traits like autists do. So autism came from them." It doesn't actually explain anything.

That's great, but without identifying some specific group, it isn't very useful. We know that it can't be H. neanderthalensis. Which species are you speaking of? And what specifically makes you choose that one? If you don't have a particular species in mind, you are left with an argument that essentially says that autists have these traits, so some other group must have had them in the past. That tells us nothing.

They would have been lecturers. They'd have spoken at length, rather than in give/take exchanges, and they would have exhibited a really high degree of internalization. This generational transmission of knowledge would have insured that the skills Forest Man learned over time were remembered. To better insure this, Forest Man would not have taken kindly to being interrupted.

Nope. Our weird senses have potential for being useful for keeping Forest Man alive. Forest Man's extraordinarily high dopamine levels would have kept him in high alert at all times. He wouldn't have been able to stand being around too many other humans. He would have demanded quiet in his home, and he would have been highly possessive over it. Forest Man's serotonin levels could also have afforded to be high: because Forest Man depended upon the forest for his livelihood, he wouldn't have benefitted much from leaving it for long, and, if he did, he would have needed the extra energy boost (serotonin levels rising due to exposure to light) in order to capture whatever game animal led him out of his habitat. However, he would have preferred setting traps, and he would have resented being forced to run. It's dangerous to run around in a forest. It's best to keep yourself to a brisk walk and pay attention to where you're going.

Nope. Temperate forests can be filled with bounty, but they can also be filled with poisons and dangers. If something is amiss, it's probably bad. For example, say a hornet's nest were to make its habitation right above your front door.

Nothing to do with Neanderthals.

It tells us that Asperger disorder and autism could be a runaway adaptative response.

Where on earth are you getting all this supposition about "cavemen" from?

Dietary information is available from certain sources, such as tooth-wear etc, but I fail to see how you draw the conclusion that early man would be a "lecturer." exacty what is this based on?

If information is sparse or non-existent on say, post-roman european society (ie the dark ages), a relatively recent period following long periods of language and record keeping, how do you come to such complex conclusions about a pre-literate society, and how do you determine that "cavemen" were effectively autistic (an entirely neurobiological issue)? Complex neurological examination is hardly possible from bones, fragmentary tools, and some cavepaintings. There simply isnt enough evidence to support these suppositions of mental behaviour. I also note you do not mention the meat content of the average hunter-gatherers diet, but dwell on "nuts and berries." You also suggest that the only way to communicate with a caveman (and autistic) is in easily understood and clear imperatives. Where did you come across that? California man?

In addition.. how do you get from cavemen to park rangers? Park rangers dont live in the woods like wildmen. They have cars, houses, TV's, wives, familes, and all the rest of it. They dont live on twigs or berries. They are essentially security men with a working knowledge of woodlands. In all likelihood most of them shop at walmart and take a packed lunch to work prepared by their wife, with a thermos of coffee. I see no reason to assume that they are any more likely to have been exposed to corporal punishment either. You also seem to be making the assumption that autism is dietary in nature, or that corporal punishment is somehow involved.

You appear to be missing my point. If you are merely saying that some nebulous group in the past sometimes had traits that we would today consider autistic, and passed those to modern humans, then that is trivial. Everybody knows that our genes are inherited from our ancestors. So what?

If on the other hand, you are positing a specific species/population as the origin of autism, then which population/species is it?

H. Aspergensus actually did live in caves, which accounts for his lack of non-verbal communication skills (no need to learn body language in the dark).

an alien from outer space speed up our evolution i think

It can explain that easily. Neanderthals were only the distributor of the Eurasian Homo traits that evolved here during almost 2 million years. It is also possible that Aspies in Japan can be explained by interbreeding with some other local Homo population, although I know of none that lived there and was isolated. One also needs to understand exactly how modern humans spread and how the Mongoloid population formed. One theory (of many) is that Mongoloids migrated from Central Asia, and Central Asia has been populated by Neanderthals.

Speaking about the evidence in favor, which you probably won't accept, is that the Aspie population have variations in basically every species-typical trait possible, all the way from sexuality, mating behavior, social behavior, communication and instincts to physical traits. If somebody can explain why these traits are interrelated without interbreeding I'd be willing to give up this theory at once.

Good grief. There are many, many female park rangers.