Board index › Coping in life › Love and Dating

RE: Aspie men and the chase

Page 4 of 6 [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,096
Location: Sweden

31 Jul 2018, 3:12 am

Fnord wrote:
Thanks, Boo!

The variations that affect the human genome are insignificant when compared to the genomic differences between species. What makes a creature human is well-defined within genetic parameters.


I think you will need to provide some reference for this. The species concept is pretty fuzzy, and so the differences between two species have an enormous range, from small to very large. For instance, you might compare Bonoboo and Chimpanzees, which have a comparable divergence as modern humans and Neanderthal. Also, people believed for a long time that Bonoboo and Chimpanzees were the same species.

Fnord wrote:
How we answer this question can mean life or death for a lot of people. Why? Because with personhood comes entitlement to rights and civil protection. Declaring that certain social groups are not people enables those in power to treat these "non-people" as property, animals, or worse. To say that autistics are not people is to de-humanize them and deny them basic rights -- even the right to live.


The diagnosis also de-humanizes them, puts them outside of discrimination laws and make it possible to ignore them in educational and job settings. The motivation is the disorder. If we instead define the whole neurodiverse group (not just those diagnosed), which is some 15% of Eurasian populations, as non-human and Neanderthal, this will have considerable benefits. The discrimination laws would have to at least equal being Neanderthal with ethnic minority, and so it would no longer be possible to discriminate against the group. This would mean that the school setting can be questioned on the same basis as it is for ethnicity, and it would be much easier to advocate for education methods that works for neurodiversity. The same argument can be applied to the workplace.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,072
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

31 Jul 2018, 3:19 am

Peacesells wrote:
rdos wrote:
I doubt it. Not according to modern scientific definitions of human or people.

Actually, I think that scientifically Neanderthals are usually considered human but just a different species. I also don't think that "people" is a scientific definition of humans.
Peacesells wrote:
It's tempting to think that it works that way, and I must confess, I once believed that was how it worked too, but empirical findings tell me that a huge majority of Neanderthal behavior is still in our gene-pool. Even some highly maladaptive things. So, people that are high on neurodiversity actually are more similar to Neanderthal than to Sapiens.

I see no evidence whatsoever of what you say, and especially the idea that neurodiverse people are more similar to Neanderthals seems particularly ludicrous. Are you saying that if we take the DNA of a neurodiverse individual, it will be more similar to that of a Neanderthal than a Sapiens?


rdos is loosely basing his non-peer-reviewed little hypothesis on this finding: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... l-dna.html


Japan has the highest autism rate, and Asians have the highest % of Neanderthal DNA:
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/cou ... utism.html

But Autism diagnosis is BS anyway and unscientific, it's so subjective like the rest of the DSM diagnoses, they're totally socially construct, what may be be considered unsocial in some culture may be considered social in another.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,096
Location: Sweden

31 Jul 2018, 3:30 am

Booyakasha wrote:
rdos wrote:
Booyakasha wrote:
rdos wrote:
Peacesells wrote:
Human behaviour is not something that is always the same, it's actually a spectrum of many possible different behaviours. Neurodiverse traits are part of this spectrum.
I bet you are one of these guys who think that neurodiverse people are some sort of evolved form of humans. :lol:


Nope, I think neurodiversity is the natural behavior of Neanderthal. We know that humans are a hybrid species, so the only thing lacking is where is the behavior of the other species (Neanderthal), and the answer is neurodiversity.


actually the gene commonly connected with the autism, aka 16p11.2 or BOLA2 is what distinguishes us from the Neanderthals:
Quote:
Using whole genome sequencing (WGS) data from 2,551 humans, 86 great apes, a Neanderthal, and a Denisovan, we observed extensive copy number variation in BP4 and BP5 in human populations and identified BOLA2 as a gene duplicated in Homo sapiens after our divergence from ancient hominins.

Quote:
"When we compared the genomes of apes and humans, we found that the humans had evolved complex structural changes at 16p11.2 associated with deletions and duplications that often result in autism. The findings suggest that these changes emerged relatively recently and are unique to humans," explained study author Xander Nuttle, BS, BSE, a graduate student in the Department of Genome Sciences at the University of Washington School of Medicine.


Quote:
In addition to BOLA2, the mutations within the copy number variant regions appears to have created new protein formed by fusing two regions of the BOLA2 gene with three regions of another gene. This new gene may be the first completely new gene that distinguishes humans from our Neanderthal and ancient hominin cousins, Eichler said.

http://abstracts.ashg.org/cgi-bin/2014/ ... =140122421
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-08- ... utism.html


Seems like the peer-reviewers did a bad job on this article. It's impossible to determine copy-number variation in the Neanderthal genome because it is comprised of short sequences only. It's similarly impossible to determine this in the Denisovan genome. Which means they have not made a comparison with the Neanderthal or Denisovan genome, rather have assumed it originated in modern humans based on the estimated age. Which, of course, is a completely invalid method. It is even possible that the gene originated in Neanderthal / Denisovans and actually was introgressed which make it look "recent".


can you provide some proof for your claims?


Search the literature for Neanderthal + CNVs (or copy number variation). There is not a single article that describes CNVs in the Neanderthal genome. As for the small size of the fragments, this is documented here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583069/

Quote:
The small average size of these putatively ancient Neanderthal fragments (52 bp) is similar to results we previously obtained from two Pleistocene cave bear libraries, in which the average library insert size was between 100 and 200 bp, whereas BLAST hits to reference carnivore genome sequences were on average 69 bp (Fig. 2) (10).


With a fragment size of 52 bp, it's only possible to detect CNVs that are in this range, and it would be impossible to detect large duplications.



Last edited by rdos on 31 Jul 2018, 3:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,072
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

31 Jul 2018, 3:30 am

rdos wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Thanks, Boo!

The variations that affect the human genome are insignificant when compared to the genomic differences between species. What makes a creature human is well-defined within genetic parameters.


I think you will need to provide some reference for this. The species concept is pretty fuzzy, and so the differences between two species have an enormous range, from small to very large. For instance, you might compare Bonoboo and Chimpanzees, which have a comparable divergence as modern humans and Neanderthal. Also, people believed for a long time that Bonoboo and Chimpanzees were the same species.

Fnord wrote:
How we answer this question can mean life or death for a lot of people. Why? Because with personhood comes entitlement to rights and civil protection. Declaring that certain social groups are not people enables those in power to treat these "non-people" as property, animals, or worse. To say that autistics are not people is to de-humanize them and deny them basic rights -- even the right to live.


The diagnosis also de-humanizes them, puts them outside of discrimination laws and make it possible to ignore them in educational and job settings. The motivation is the disorder. If we instead define the whole neurodiverse group (not just those diagnosed), which is some 15% of Eurasian populations, as non-human and Neanderthal, this will have considerable benefits. The discrimination laws would have to at least equal being Neanderthal with ethnic minority, and so it would no longer be possible to discriminate against the group. This would mean that the school setting can be questioned on the same basis as it is for ethnicity, and it would be much easier to advocate for education methods that works for neurodiversity. The same argument can be applied to the workplace.



rdos, the % of Neanderthal DNA found in some populations are too tiny (at most 2.3 to 2.6% among Asians) for their carriers to be considered a separate species. The 95+% of dna in every individual is homo sapien.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,096
Location: Sweden

31 Jul 2018, 3:36 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
rdos, the % of Neanderthal DNA found in some populations are too tiny (at most 2.3 to 2.6% among Asians) for their carriers to be considered a separate species. The 95+% of dna in every individual is homo sapien.


Note that the Neanderthal heritage estimator works with SNPs (mutations), and to date, no research study has found more than 1% relevance of any SNP to autism. Which means that SNPs are not relevant for the causes of autism or neurodiversity. There are CNVs with up to 10% relevance for autism, but this is still far from anything significant. So, the problem is that autism and neurodiversity don't have any valid basis in genetics if we only use single SNPs or CNVs. Because of this, we cannot associate it genetically with Neanderthal either.



Booyakasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Oct 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,898

31 Jul 2018, 3:43 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
rdos is loosely basing his non-peer-reviewed little hypothesis on this finding: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... l-dna.html



this article is misleading, the original article in the Scientific reports only deals with the shape of the cranium - from the abstract of that article:
Quote:
the amount of Neanderthal-originating polymorphism carried in living humans is related to cranial and brain morphology.First, as a validation of our approach, we demonstrate that a greater load of Neanderthal-derived genetic variants (higher “NeanderScore”) is associated with skull shapes resembling those of known Neanderthal cranial remains, particularly in occipital and parietal bones. Next, we demonstrate convergent NeanderScore-related findings in the brain (measured by gray- and white-matter volume, sulcal depth, and gyrification index) that localize to the visual cortex and intraparietal sulcus. This work provides insights into ancestral human neurobiology and suggests that Neanderthal-derived genetic variation is neurologically functional in the contemporary population.


They say absolutely nothing of neanderthal genes affecting or causing human's propensity towards autism.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-06587-0

the only autism-related disorder the previous article mentions is Williams syndrome anyway. They're mostly dealing with the brain's audio-visual system, and not with the autism spectrum disorders.



Booyakasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Oct 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,898

31 Jul 2018, 3:45 am

rdos wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
rdos, the % of Neanderthal DNA found in some populations are too tiny (at most 2.3 to 2.6% among Asians) for their carriers to be considered a separate species. The 95+% of dna in every individual is homo sapien.


Note that the Neanderthal heritage estimator works with SNPs (mutations), and to date, no research study has found more than 1% relevance of any SNP to autism. Which means that SNPs are not relevant for the causes of autism or neurodiversity. There are CNVs with up to 10% relevance for autism, but this is still far from anything significant. So, the problem is that autism and neurodiversity don't have any valid basis in genetics if we only use single SNPs or CNVs. Because of this, we cannot associate it genetically with Neanderthal either.


Since you won't show any proof of your claims, I did some searching and couldn't find anything that would suppthem. Where from do you get all these ideas?



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,096
Location: Sweden

31 Jul 2018, 3:49 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
rdos is loosely basing his non-peer-reviewed little hypothesis on this finding: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... l-dna.html


Japan has the highest autism rate, and Asians have the highest % of Neanderthal DNA:
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/cou ... utism.html

But Autism diagnosis is BS anyway and unscientific, it's so subjective like the rest of the DSM diagnoses, they're totally socially construct, what may be be considered unsocial in some culture may be considered social in another.


Actually, I'm basing it on a research study we did recently with 500,000 participants in Aspie Quiz. It's possible to create dendrograms based on ancestry that looks similar to known migration patterns. However, these don't have Africa at the root, rather the divergence between Asia and Europe. Africa is derived from the Near Eastern population, which is back-migration of Neanderthal ancestry into Africa. IOW, the variation in neurodiverse traits is similar to the known migration routes in Eurasia and to probable introgression sites.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,096
Location: Sweden

31 Jul 2018, 3:52 am

Booyakasha wrote:
rdos wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
rdos, the % of Neanderthal DNA found in some populations are too tiny (at most 2.3 to 2.6% among Asians) for their carriers to be considered a separate species. The 95+% of dna in every individual is homo sapien.


Note that the Neanderthal heritage estimator works with SNPs (mutations), and to date, no research study has found more than 1% relevance of any SNP to autism. Which means that SNPs are not relevant for the causes of autism or neurodiversity. There are CNVs with up to 10% relevance for autism, but this is still far from anything significant. So, the problem is that autism and neurodiversity don't have any valid basis in genetics if we only use single SNPs or CNVs. Because of this, we cannot associate it genetically with Neanderthal either.


Since you won't show any proof of your claims, I did some searching and couldn't find anything that would suppthem. Where from do you get all these ideas?


You need to fix your literature search skills. The genetic situation of autism and SNPs and CNVs are well-known, and I've even cited this in my own work. I certainly won't bother to find this evidence for you.



Peacesells
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2014
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,915
Location: Anzio, Italy

31 Jul 2018, 4:15 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
rdos is loosely basing his non-peer-reviewed little hypothesis on this finding: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... l-dna.html


Japan has the highest autism rate, and Asians have the highest % of Neanderthal DNA:
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/cou ... utism.html

But Autism diagnosis is BS anyway and unscientific, it's so subjective like the rest of the DSM diagnoses, they're totally socially construct, what may be be considered unsocial in some culture may be considered social in another.

Hey, maybe we finally know why you're so hairy! :lmao:



Booyakasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Oct 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,898

31 Jul 2018, 5:48 am

rdos wrote:
Booyakasha wrote:
rdos wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
rdos, the % of Neanderthal DNA found in some populations are too tiny (at most 2.3 to 2.6% among Asians) for their carriers to be considered a separate species. The 95+% of dna in every individual is homo sapien.


Note that the Neanderthal heritage estimator works with SNPs (mutations), and to date, no research study has found more than 1% relevance of any SNP to autism. Which means that SNPs are not relevant for the causes of autism or neurodiversity. There are CNVs with up to 10% relevance for autism, but this is still far from anything significant. So, the problem is that autism and neurodiversity don't have any valid basis in genetics if we only use single SNPs or CNVs. Because of this, we cannot associate it genetically with Neanderthal either.


Since you won't show any proof of your claims, I did some searching and couldn't find anything that would suppthem. Where from do you get all these ideas?


You need to fix your literature search skills. The genetic situation of autism and SNPs and CNVs are well-known, and I've even cited this in my own work. I certainly won't bother to find this evidence for you.


if it's so well known, why don't you show some proof?

I'll take that as you not being able to find any proof since there's nothing to support your claims.



Booyakasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Oct 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,898

31 Jul 2018, 5:56 am

rdos wrote:
Booyakasha wrote:
rdos wrote:
Booyakasha wrote:
rdos wrote:
Peacesells wrote:
Human behaviour is not something that is always the same, it's actually a spectrum of many possible different behaviours. Neurodiverse traits are part of this spectrum.
I bet you are one of these guys who think that neurodiverse people are some sort of evolved form of humans. :lol:


Nope, I think neurodiversity is the natural behavior of Neanderthal. We know that humans are a hybrid species, so the only thing lacking is where is the behavior of the other species (Neanderthal), and the answer is neurodiversity.


actually the gene commonly connected with the autism, aka 16p11.2 or BOLA2 is what distinguishes us from the Neanderthals:
Quote:
Using whole genome sequencing (WGS) data from 2,551 humans, 86 great apes, a Neanderthal, and a Denisovan, we observed extensive copy number variation in BP4 and BP5 in human populations and identified BOLA2 as a gene duplicated in Homo sapiens after our divergence from ancient hominins.

Quote:
"When we compared the genomes of apes and humans, we found that the humans had evolved complex structural changes at 16p11.2 associated with deletions and duplications that often result in autism. The findings suggest that these changes emerged relatively recently and are unique to humans," explained study author Xander Nuttle, BS, BSE, a graduate student in the Department of Genome Sciences at the University of Washington School of Medicine.


Quote:
In addition to BOLA2, the mutations within the copy number variant regions appears to have created new protein formed by fusing two regions of the BOLA2 gene with three regions of another gene. This new gene may be the first completely new gene that distinguishes humans from our Neanderthal and ancient hominin cousins, Eichler said.

http://abstracts.ashg.org/cgi-bin/2014/ ... =140122421
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-08- ... utism.html


Seems like the peer-reviewers did a bad job on this article. It's impossible to determine copy-number variation in the Neanderthal genome because it is comprised of short sequences only. It's similarly impossible to determine this in the Denisovan genome. Which means they have not made a comparison with the Neanderthal or Denisovan genome, rather have assumed it originated in modern humans based on the estimated age. Which, of course, is a completely invalid method. It is even possible that the gene originated in Neanderthal / Denisovans and actually was introgressed which make it look "recent".


can you provide some proof for your claims?


Search the literature for Neanderthal + CNVs (or copy number variation). There is not a single article that describes CNVs in the Neanderthal genome. As for the small size of the fragments, this is documented here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583069/

Quote:
The small average size of these putatively ancient Neanderthal fragments (52 bp) is similar to results we previously obtained from two Pleistocene cave bear libraries, in which the average library insert size was between 100 and 200 bp, whereas BLAST hits to reference carnivore genome sequences were on average 69 bp (Fig. 2) (10).


With a fragment size of 52 bp, it's only possible to detect CNVs that are in this range, and it would be impossible to detect large duplications.


I don't think that i should search to prove YOUR claims :lol:

btw, that article proves nothing, you just randomly quoted first thing that came in your google search.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

31 Jul 2018, 5:57 am

I just can’t envision a bunch of autisticNeanderthals trying to catch a woolly mammoth.....

Or sitting around the fire after a hunt.

Survival in the Ice Age required cooperation. And being social.

If there were many Aspie Neanderthals, I’m sure there what have been more innovation, say, in the Neanderthal tool kit. The Neanderthal tool kit remained pretty static for tens of thousands of years.



Booyakasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Oct 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,898

31 Jul 2018, 6:04 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
I just can’t envision a bunch of autisticNeanderthals trying to catch a woolly mammoth.....

Or sitting around the fire after a hunt.

Survival in the Ice Age required cooperation. And being social.

If there were many Aspie Neanderthals, I’m sure there what have been more innovation, say, in the Neanderthal tool kit. The Neanderthal tool kit remained pretty static for tens of thousands of years.


if neanderthals actually were autistic, they'd be able to invent something and survive....yet they didn't.

but i found rdos' site lol.

http://www.rdos.net/eng/asperger.htm



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,096
Location: Sweden

31 Jul 2018, 6:21 am

Booyakasha wrote:
if neanderthals actually were autistic, they'd be able to invent something and survive....yet they didn't.


Invention is a two-step process. First, you invent something and then you spread your invention to a large population. Inventions that are not spread don't make much of a difference, and if you lack inventive people, you won't have anything to spread. Which kind of summarizes why neither Neanderthal nor modern humans invented anything new. Neanderthals lacked social networks and modern humans lacked inventive people.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,096
Location: Sweden

31 Jul 2018, 6:30 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
I just can’t envision a bunch of autisticNeanderthals trying to catch a woolly mammoth.....

Or sitting around the fire after a hunt.

Survival in the Ice Age required cooperation. And being social.


Neanderthals hunted with close combat hunting. They used a passive technique and sneaking up on their prey. It doesn't require a large band to work, and in fact, works with only two people (like a man and a woman). This is probably the reason why forming mind-to-mind connections is part of the natural neurodiverse courtship process. This connection can be used to coordinate hunting without the use of sounds or visual signals that would alert prey.

kraftiekortie wrote:
If there were many Aspie Neanderthals, I’m sure there what have been more innovation, say, in the Neanderthal tool kit. The Neanderthal tool kit remained pretty static for tens of thousands of years.


Well, the modern human toolkit remained static for 100,000 years. In fact, it was static until the first interbreeding with Neanderthal. :mrgreen: