AS an Evolutionary Condition?

Post Reply New Topic

I go to the school of life's program and it has taught me that unless someone can back up their assertions with a more substantive and relevant argument than "I went through the Navy's nuclear program" constitutes in this context, I should not bother to pay them much heed.

It strikes me as unlikely.

AngelRho:

start at section 5.0

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Some more.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

LOL! I enjoy reading everyones thoughts. Maybe its that I'm wanting to see my AS as something positive - currently the genetics clinic I'm with want to scan my brain and do other tests. I'm listed as disabled with my local council yet I achieve so many things and I don't feel disabled - i feel like the local world around me needs to change. AS feels like a defect when presented from an NT's point of view. AS feels like a negative aspect of me when I'm not doing the right kind of NT expected thing. But the amount of positive stuff that I'm able to do because my mind is so focused (obsessed to some) I'm able to create things which surprise and amaze people.

So maybe evolutionary was the wrong proposal. But I don't think I want to be NT if I was given the chance now even though I do moan on occasion. But I'll always keep thinking about it.

Yes, I could go into great detail of why I believe that radiocarbon dating is based upon assumptions if you would like. Which form of radio dating would you like to debate? In order to accurately date a particular sample, several things must be known as fact. One, the initial sample of radioactive material must be precisely known. Two, decay rate can change depending upon nearby radioactive sources, moderators or other conditions. Three, one must also know if any of the radioactive material involved in the dating has been diluted at any time between the initial sample and the date of the test. Unless a person has been around the sample for the entire life of the sample, one does not know the facts. One can only conjecture.

Something which ostracizes you from the rest of a highly social species is unlikely to be selected for by evolutionary pressures.

No, it is obviously not "the next step in evolution", especially considering evolution doesn't follow a straight line, AS is merely a branch which is unlikely to produce many new branches. Is it possible that it benefits the rest of the species at times? Sure, but it is not unique in that sense, and again, it is impossible for something which reduces your likelihood of having offspring to be a benefit in an evolutionary sense.

As for not believing in evolution, happily science doesn't care about belief, it is based on something far more important: reality.

Evolution is a part of reality, if you wish to preserve some sort of faith based argument, do you think it is better to use the grandeur of the world to better represent the magnitude of whichever deity you choose, or to deny that grandeur, making both you, and your faith, appear blind?

Interesting comments. What we all should remember is that this is a SELECTION process, a trait will be selected in or out depending on it's relative advantage for the reproduction of the species' DNA. A trait may provide an advantage over those without it and the individual survives to reproduce; the more successful the trait the greater the injection of the trait into the wider gene pool over multiple generations, of course the reverse is also true. Earlier pyzzazzyZyzzyva commented on Sickle Cell Anaemia and the Peppered Moth, good examples but unfortunately not quite correct in the explanation: the genetic mutation that causes the blood condition just so happens to protect against malaria, i.e. accidentally - this provides the individual with an advantage hence the trait is concentrated in a population. The moth example also shows how quickly a change in environment can actually change a species; The moth went from generally white to generally black and then back again (when the air cleaned up) in a period of a few dozen generations. Viruses and bacteria, due to their simpler and more rapid reproduction can change very fast.

How this fits within ASC is anyone's guess, it will be a long time before the world is ready for the research. To my mind it is clearly showing evolutionary trends as I believe the incidence is increasing, of the "higher functioning" regions at least. By this I mean there seems to be distinct advantages in the modern world to those individuals who are blessed with some of the traits and considered to be on the ASC. Strict organising, attention to detail, perhaps even obsession can, in certain areas be very advantageous more and more so in the information age, even the medium we are communicating through wouldn't be where it is without individuals who would fit very well within the ASC characterisation. The natural collection of these individuals would also improve the chances of mating thus both concentrating and expanding the proportion in the gene pool; So (@ruveyn) I'd say it probably does promote reproductive success both in terms of providing a survival advantage and increasing the overall prevalence in the species.

Evolution is not really supported by reality or even the scientific method any more than any other religion. Evolution is just another religion. Religion is merely a set of beliefs concerning why we are here, where we come from, and what will happen to us in the future. The religion of evolution attempts to do these very things therefore is common to Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Shinto, etc.

I just look at it as we are who we are. Some of us are supersmart, some of us are in the middle, some are just normal smart. We're just trying to make sense of everthing. The NT's just live there lives but never really ask the kind of questions we do.

Sickle Cell Anemia is a genetic defect that risks killing a person. One would think that the principle of "natural selection" would have killed it off. Yet there are many with this disease.

Everything else you mentioned has to do with adaptation, not generating NEW DNA code or NEW body parts. There has never been to my knowledge any evidence of that happening.

Sickle Cell Anemia is beneficial. It protects the bearer from malaria. While it is generally fatal (like uncured malaria) it differs that death longer than it takes the bearer to reproduce. To put it more bluntly, malaria causes infantile and juvenile mortality. Sickle Cell Anemia sometimes causes premature death in middle aged people. Thus it is actually selected for and not against.

I gave you two links filled with samples of observed plant and animal speciation. These often involve extra DNA and a barrier to cross breeding. This is the tip of the iceberg and I could provide pages more. With use of the names provided you could find pictures giving clear examples of how those plants are sometimes very different in form from both their scions.

Plants are an interesting example because they are less prone to speciation, but it is easier to spot.

Speciation does occur. It has occurred, and in controlled lab conditions.

Gestalt, please use quotes like these when referring to previous posts. Its easier to see the white-background quote and your rebuttal vs. you putting it in the middle of a paragraph.


I don't see how it is A) incorrect, and B) could be incorrect, because I supply you with links to more information. Either I'm wrong and the article I'm paraphrasing is wrong, or I've misrepresented the article. Which one is it, and what is incorrect?



If you've taken an uncensored biology class, you would know that evolution and adaptation are completely dependent upon DNA. A Zygote will have some genes from both parents; however, neither the zygote, nor its DNA is identical to that of either parent, which technically makes it 'new' DNA. Mutations as part of genetic recombination can result in DNA that neither parent had initially. One such mutation is Down Syndrome, is a genetic condition caused by an extra chromosome 21.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation


If you don't think that an individual of a species can grow an extra limb from parent to child, read about Polydactyly and Polymelia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydactyly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymelia

In fact, there are human populations such as the Family of Foldi in Saudi Arabia, all of whom have 24 digts. They kill offspring with 10 fingers because it is a sign of adultery. The French village of Eycaux had this same feature while it remained isolated.
http://thehumanmarvels.com/?p=107 or google "Family of Foldi" or Eycaux

You mean the peppered moth article in wikipedia? Then you must be aware of the problems that have been already been pointed out with that study.

Sickle cell anemia is a problem because there's been no way to test for it over a long period of time. It's only shown up relatively recently because the microscope is a relatively recent invention (1590, not REALLY used until nearly 100 years later, and even then people still didn't know exactly what is was they were looking at) and we're still finding new stuff every day that for all we REALLY know have been around for thousands or millions of years (depending, of course, on whether you believe old earth/young earth creationism, but that's hardly the point). Science is less concerned about what it can't test for, so you can scientifically "prove" evolution about as well as you can scientifically "prove" God.

Speciation has occurred in "controlled" lab conditions? You mean "artificial" lab conditions? Man-made retroviruses and gene therapy is hardly evolution. That is, and this is strictly MY OPINION here, closer to creationism and ID because those kinds of things have a human, intelligent creator that has designed those things or manipulated those things with some specific purpose in mind, if for no other purpose than to observe it and document the results. I'm not meaning to suggest here that creationism has a human origin, but human beings certainly have the capacity to create as we're sure to see with the gradual promulgation of nanotechnology.

Even if it can be proven we came to be through evolution, it certainly seems to have abruptly halted.

Not likely, as AS could almost certainly be shown to decrease fitness.

Individuals with AS, in my opinion, tend to be brilliant not because AS causes brilliance but one has to be brilliant to be reproductively (or otherwise) successful with AS. Or really physically attractive I suppose. More so for men then for women, but even so the theory still holds.


Evolution deniers in this thread, oh boy .

Edit:brilliant is probably a bit much, above average or better is more sensible.

Last edited by Darkword on 27 Apr 2010, 9:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

My mistake on what I said on speciation. I had your quote mixed up with someone else's. Sorry.

In the case of plants and fruit flies, all that proves is that certain species have varying ways of promoting genetic diversity within the species and hence better avoid complete extinction.

Human beings often have genetic anomalies that makes them practically unfit for breeding--for example, Down's Syndrome and Turner's Syndrome just to name the two I'm familiar with. These are, as far as I'm aware, spontaneous anomalies that might (we think, anyway) be influenced by age or environmental factors. Mutations in cells that aren't stopped by, say, apoptosis often result in cancers that kill the host. It seems to me that dramatic genetic changes are more dangerous to the survival of the species than beneficial.

Being born with 24 digits doesn't prove anything either, because it just shows that SOME people inherited a gene that would produce such. It's extremely rare, I'm sure, but it doesn't mean that extra digits can't vary in populations over time. Also, it just shows that some human populations involve themselves in selective breeding. We do this with cattle and sheep all the time.

NT's are the average population, without any neurological disorder. So it makes sense that we are looked at as 'disabled'. But I agree, I do not want to be an NT. Definitely not one in their 18-late 20's, unless someone can find me a group that are slightly individual; no slang, dressed differently, didn't gossip or use disability terms in a hurtful way. Oh and most important: shared my 'nerdy' hobbies.