Evolutionary theory of Autism

Post Reply New Topic

I have a theory that could be totally bunk, but I would like to see what others might think. I hope it doesn't offend anyone:

That is, Autism is a throw back to Homo rhodesiensis or Neanderthal mental states. If you throw a bunch of aspies in the woods to survive, we would probably do quite well as a lot of our traits may allow us to excel in that situation: problem solving (original thinking), sensitivity to environmental changes, etc. The one thing that sets homo sapiens apart from previous hominids is the social aspect. It also parallels recent discoveries about chimpanzees; that they are actually quite intelligent but lack theory of mind, thus preventing or reducing the capacity to teach and to progress over generations. Chimpanzees can solve problems in their environment pretty well and can be ingenious at times, it is now found, but the knowledge is not passed on except in a limited way through mimickry by other chimpanzees.

It was the strong social aspect that allowed humans to settle and develop civilization and advance over time. Also, I read a theory at one time that Neanderthals had higher IQ's than modern humans (I think that was based on brain size, however).

Anyway, I think that it's possible that the old Eructus/Neanderthal genes never went away totally and manifest themselves in certain lineages as AS and autism. I think there might be a little irony in that it’s possible that civilization would never have happened without AS’s, and in a sense NT’s and AS’s exist in a sort of symbiosis with each other.

NT's excel at organization and education and AS's push society forward with original thinking.

Last edited by Mixtli on 05 Oct 2008, 12:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Yup, total bunk. I'm not offended, though.

Humans and neanderthals were very close; Homo Erectus was different from both.

Aspies surviving in the woods? I wouldn't. Good luck to you if you want to try.

Neanderthals were not more intelligent than Homo Sapiens. They had larger brains, but they were folded differently and had less surface area, and thus less intellectual capability.

To some extent I can agree with this.

I like the theory. Something is different and so often people say we are all the same yada yada. I think of humans like dogs though and not like one is better than the other, but that we all evolved according to our environment. So like a Great Dane is different from a Chihuahua people can vary within the same species. I don't think anyone should kill dogs or people or espouse superiority anywhere. We all are individuals who deserve respect and compassion. I think I will get stoned for saying that. And no I haven't already and I don't my ideas from that so I beat you to the punch line.

An interesting note on wikipedia under Neanderthals (not that it directly relates to the theory):

Statistical analysis strongly suggests that 5% of the genetic material of modern West Africans and Europeans has an archaic origin, due to interbreeding with Neanderthal and a hitherto unknown archaic African population.[11] Plagnol and Wall arrived at this result by first calculating a "null model" of genetic characteristics which would fulfill the requirement of descent from Homo sapiens sapiens in a straight line. Next they compared this model to the current distribution and characteristics of existing genetic polymorphisms, and concluded this "null model" deviated considerably from what would be expected. Genetic simulations indicated the 5% of DNA not accounted for by the null model corresponds to a substantial contribution to the European gene pool of up to 25%. Future investigation, including a full scale Neanderthal genome project, is expected to cast more light on the subject of genetic polymorphisms to supply more details. Contrary to the investigation of mtDNA, the study of polymorph mutations has the potential to answer the question whether, and to what extent, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens interbred.

Sorry but all this Aspie evolutionary/different race stuff is pure and utter garbage. Its quite simple, the extraordinarily complex brain has in our case not quite formed correctly and the result it ASD, same as any other brain disorder. The cause is unknown, same as many other disorders, but I am bloody certain it is not because we are the missing link.

I don't care what anyone says. I still love the theory.

The Neanderthal Theory
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt77896.html
http://www.rdos.net/eng/

The Crazy Ones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e_J62Nnry0

me too & how about this:

http://www.luckysearch.nl/results.aspx? ... &mkt=nl-nl

Sorry - this is an old, previously disproven theory.
Coincidentally, if what we know of Neanderthal cultures is correct, many aspects of those cultures are appealing to an Aspergers mindset. But, coincidence is about all it is - there is a small possibility of so-called "minor" genetic components from interbreeding; but "major" components - nothing known in science suggest that a functional intermarriage of grand divergent genes. In lay mans terms; a genetic component from one species may adversely effect another species.

It is an interesting theory, no doubt. I don't think it is correct, but I like in anyways.

Plagnol and Walls results are not particullary old. Ref: PLoS Genet 2006.



And, indeed LFAs are just that.

Absolutely. We have to remember that Homo sapiens formed about 150,000 years ago. Neanderthals finally disappeared at 28,000 years ago, and this is when the higher pace of Homo sapiens technological evolution began. IOW, during 80% of the existence of Homo sapiens, basically nothing happened to their culture. They clearly needed the Neanderthal traits to get anywhere.

Total bunk. Since when do we have a Neanderthal brain we can study regarding folding?

Skulls give indication. Although, more recent theories suggest that Neanderthals were indeed smarter. None live to be certain. But simple brain mass, even surface area, are no clear indicators - we'd need soft tissue to be 100% sure, but for the time being, skulls suffice.

Brain volume have clearly been shown to correlate to IQ-measures. Besides, if a species have large brain volume, it is also pretty likely this larger volume has some substantial function, otherwise it would simply not be larger as a large brain requires more energy. The functions might not be measurable with standard IQ-tests, but I think it is pretty safe to say it had some kind of function.

it has parts that i agree and disagree with....i could probaby survive in harsh conditions if forced to but otherwise i wouldnt choose it

There may be something to RDOS's neanderthal theory after all, crazy as it sounds.

There is emerging genetic evidence that maybe neanderthals and humans intermixed (see this month's Scientific American, all about neanderthal's')

Also, neanderthals aren't our more primitive predecessors, as was once believed. They are an offshoot of the hominid line - the SA issue calls them "the other humans".

Their brains were larger than modern humans, and grew faster - a trait observed in autism. It is possible that
neanderthal brains developed too fast for socialization to take place normally.

Neanderthals may well have been more intelligent, but less efficient and socially organized tribal killers.

Evolution favors the vicious.