AS an Evolutionary Condition?

Post Reply New Topic

*snipped and taken to PM*

Nonetheless, while my knack at grasping geometrical concepts is useful for my work, it is not something which a person without AS would be unable to do.

That being considered, I recognize that the inherent difficulties related to socialization from my AS, would likely prove a near insurmountable barrier against selecting for these traits, and attribute my success at finding a mate to the "even playing field" of the internet, combined with simple physical attractiveness (I'm aesthetically pleasing), and effort applied to the process.

My attempts "offline" were often thwarted by something outside of my understanding, that being social cues which I simply could not observe.

I find it odd you would address these comments to me. I hoped all along that the most obvious interpretation of your words was not what you actually meant. Discussing eugenics in the context of evolution does not make advocating eugenics anymore acceptable in my view but since I had some doubt as to whether you actually intended to advocate eugenics, I chose to not presume that you were probably advocating eugenics. You do realize that gestalt and I are two entirely different people?

Aha, but you seem to have overlooked the fact that what you know is probably insufficient to make a good judgement about the issue. Your comments taken as a whole indicate that your assessment of your level of knowledge in this area is unrealistic, and that this is probably because you do not know enough to reasonably assess your level of knowledge about evolution and the theory of evolution (this overestimation of competency in an area one knows little about is actually a well researched cognitive bias that all humans are prone to).


It might be preferrable to you if those who know a great deal more in this area based their belief on dogma rather than the facts and information that you personally lack, but you appear to have no means by which to reasonably assess that this is the case. If you choose to assume as much because it is convenient and makes you feel better, that's fine I guess, but do not be surprised if no one else considers that an opinion based on convenience and making yourself feel better is as worthwhile as opinions based on a relatively objective assessment of a much more complete and accurate body of facts and evidence.

A not particularly apt sound bite is not really a reason to disbelieve the theory of evolution. Survival of the fittest is a gross oversimplification either for the benefit of those who do not want to think too deeply, or made without thought for those who think overly-literally (I am uncertain which of these alternatives best fits; they probably both apply to at least some extent). The reality is more nuanced and is better summed up as "survival of the fit enough", where "fit enough" is determined/measured by survival.

As for why Down's Syndrome might not happen in another species, you need to understand the cause of Down's Syndrome. It is excess genetic material of a particular kind in the context of a particular kind of genome. How many other species share the specific cluster of genetic material involved and have a genome where an excess of that specific cluster of genetic material is not fatal during gestation? Most anomalous excess duplications of a relatively large cluster of DNA in the context of the human genome are fatal during gestation. Down's Syndrome is an exception in that it is one of the few significant duplication errors that does not result in fatality early on in gestation when it occurs in the context of the human genome.

As for what other species might do if their offspring could and did have Down's Syndrome, that they would reject and not care for the offspring would require that they can distinguish such offspring, and that such offspring are common enough, and putting effort into their nuturing is a sufficient drag on reproductive fitness that the species would evolve an instinctual response of rejection toward such young. None of this inevitable.

A gammy leg is probably more obvious to most land based organisms than Down's Syndrome, and also more common, such that there is a much greater prospect of an instinctive response to such a defect developing.

Why would we do this when we have no means of confirming that other animal species have all universally developed an instinctual rejection of intellectually handicapped co-specifics? Why would we assume a model applicable to a non-human animal is applicable to humans without first examining whether or not humans are characterized by some difference that is significant to the applicability of the model?


Birds and humans are very different. For most bird species being unable to fly would render an individual utterly unfit, this is not the case with humans is it? What is fit for birds is not necessarily fit for humans. In fact there are species of flightless birds so even what is fit or unfit for one kind of bird is not necessarily consistent with what is fit or unfit for other birds.

We have an entirely different survival strategy to birds. Our survival strategy depends on traits that run contrary to abandoning and excluding our own. So while there are influences that would promote rejection of less fit members of a human group, there are also pressures that influence the opposite. History confirms that it goes either way in respect of humans.

Evidently there is no reason to assume that rejection of "unfit" cospecifics in animals is necessarily universal of any species. In some species it might be, in others it might be partially penetrant, and even where universal rejection on the basis of one "unfit" trait may be close enough to the truth, that does not mean rejection on the basis of another "unfit" trait will also occur.


The human survival strategy is social through and through. Things that promote sociality and social cooperation entail things that render compassion plausible and likely. Empathy, identification, bonding and a sense of justice are good for social cooperation and not entirely disassociated with compassion. Compassion might be selected for, or (as seems very likely) could be a secondary effect of characteristics that are selected for.

I wonder if you actually believe that people who believe in evolution are too stupid to think of such an objection, or if you think they choose to ignore it. You see, it seems to me that the sensible assumption would be that there might be an answer to your objection since it is such an obvious objection yet people who know more about evolution than you do continue to believe it. It would seem to me that the sensible course of action is to investigate if there are plausible answers to such objections before one invests their belief on their basis. Has it never occurred to you that part of the information experts in the area of evolution have that you do not, gives them cause to think evolution and compassion are not inconsistent with each other, or do you just assume if your knowledge base does not answer this question, then obviously everyone who believes in evolution is an idiot who did not think of this objection that you have come up with, or are kidding themselves by ignoring such an obvious objection? I am genuinely curious about this.


No, because nature is not a person or organism and does not have an attitude at all. Nature does not have beliefs, or a plan or any other such. This is an important point because personification of nature and attributing an attitude to it is not merely a linguistic phrasing but actually is a notion that interferes with understanding the theory of evolution. "Nature" simply describes a bunch of processes and has no more attitude than the mechanical processes that occur when you turn the key to start your car engine. It makes as much sense to describe cars as having an attitude of wanting to move places and expecting that anytime you turn a key in the ignition the car will start because it wants to, and never mind the material reality of the current state its engine. That's not how cars work and it's not how nature works either.


Seems to you maybe. But if you are objective and realistic it must seem odd to you that these very obvious "objections" you posit would not have occured to just about anyone who thought about evolution even briefly. How do you reconcile this in your mind with continued support for evolution? Do you assume, knowing so very little about the subject that those who know more than you are blindly ignoring the evidence and completely dismiss the possibility that the things they know that you do not know might answer these objections you raise? If not, perhaps that is why you believe there is some dogma attached to belief in evolution?


Evolutionary principles do not foster such attitudes per say. In fact since variation is an advantage (as you never know what the future will bring and what will be adaptive in the unknown future) evolutonary principles would suggest that variability be promoted rather than minimized.

That you direct these comments about being offended by the bare mention of the word "eugenics" to me does not make sense to me unless you have conflated me with gestalt so I'll just assume you meant to direct these comments at gestalt (just as I assumed you did not mean to advocate eugenics even if it appeared you were doing so) unless and until you confirm otherwise.


Your guess is incorrect. The theory of evolution never actually claimed to explain how life began. From the outset it has always been an explanation about variability amongst life forms and has never been about how life started in the first place.

The theory of evolution is simply that variability produces varying rates of reproductive fitness and this shapes the characteristics of future generations. What aspect of that has anything to do with how life came to exist in the first place? Do not confuse "origin of species" with "origin of life".


Yes. Evolution is a set of processes and ongoing occurences. Darwinism has no solid meaning, in some contexts it is a shorthand for theories pertaining to those most commonly attributed to Darwin and in others is an attempt to associate belief in the theory of evolution with some kind of cultism, while natural selection refers to one of the processes of evolution.

It is not uncommon to differentiate the modern synthesis between the core premise of evolutionary theory and modern genetic knowledge and understanding by prefacing "Darwinism" with "Neo" (as in "Neo Darwinism"), due to the huge advancements that arose as a result of the discovery of the structure of DNA and subsequent knowledge generated as a result of this and other advancements in the area of genetics.

I have no idea why though. Species are simply a human cognitive categorization of the world around us. We keep having to tinker with the definition of species because it is too simplistic and unnuanced to accurately match up to reality consistently. The concept of species is a human cognitive interpretation of reality rather than reality itself. Persistent small changes over time can turn a mountain into a molehill. I see no reason to expect it cannot transgress our imaginary categorizations of reality.