The Neanderthal theory of Autism

Post Reply New Topic

double post

Last edited by alana on 07 May 2010, 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The significance of the BBC article is this: one can't dismiss the entire theory by assuming that crossbreeding didn't happen, because now there's evidence that it did happen.

If I understand correctly, what happens next is that the Neanderthal DNA will be compared to modern humans to look for all sorts of traits that might match. Hopefully this will eventually lead to some answers for the rest of the theory. Regardless whether these include autistic traits, it will surely be fascinating to find out.

Neoteny Web Site

Basically the idea is that some forms of autism are the result of maturational delay in males and maturational acceleration in females. Both these forces are believed to cause variance in a given species at a far quicker rate than if you simply wait for mutations and natural selection. Andrew Lehman (the purveyor of this theory) also believes that he has an answer for the 4:1 male / female autism ratio.

I know what you mean.

It's exactly like that. There is absolutely nothing disabled about aspies. It's simply about being so different that one is incompatibles with NTs.
I thought it was like we were two completely different species, so I was very excited when some months ago I saw that I wasn't the only one to think this.

I think this is largely a coincidence. Just because white people have neanderthal DNA it doesn't mean autism is caused by neanderthal DNA... white people also have a higher occurrence of blue eyes, does this mean that neanderthals had blue eyes and homosapiens didn't?

As for the aspie quiz information, it's a self fulfilling prophecy. Who's more likely to find the quiz or want to take it? And who's more likely to own a computer and be using that computer for researching autism? Because diagnosis rates are already biased towards white people, white people tend to be the ones flocking towards the aspie quiz.

Of all the aspies I've known in my life, 2/6 of them have been black, which is already defying the accepted statistic. And one of the aspies was a korean boy at my high school. I think that because middle class white people are more likely to seek diagnosis, get diagnosed, and thus spread awareness to further seek diagnosis, us white people tend to get diagnosed more than any other group.

Of course, genetics does favor certain traits in certain groups, so it's likely that there's a higher occurrence of autism in white people, but I think it's not necessarily as wide a gap as we think it is.

It just means homosapiens have moved to colder climates with less sunlight. Each generation born in such a climate tends to get lighter complected. Their eyes go from dark to light, too.

Last edited by ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo on 07 May 2010, 6:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm starting to think difference in general is a big deal, apparently blue is a different category than green or brown but I can't remember how right off the bat, I think these genetic mutations probably fascinate the tribe as long as they aren't disabling (and maybe even if they are) and are sometimes considered desirable just out of uniqueness. So the first blue eyed people must have been pretty prized, though this seems like it would make a difference only in societies with a low survival rate/lifespan. I know that there are pets whose features started as genetic mutations (like peke faced cats) that are now highly prized features, and animals bred by humans to accent certain traits that are actually detrimental, like collie-type dogs that are bred with skulls too small for their brains or bulldogs that are incapable of breeding naturally.

I would rather think of aspergers as being a different way of being rather than a defective way of being. Because NTs differ from me in ways that I am not all that impressed by.

I know, I know. I wasn't being serious, I was just trying to think up a quick example showing how just because white people have something, and neanderthals and caucasians interbred, it doesn't mean that the traits came from neanderthals.

Oh, I agree with you, Wendi! Where is legitimate proof this Neanderthal Theory has any validity to it whatsoever? So far, what's been presented appears dubious at best.

Maybe you are semi-remembering the proposed inheritance pattern? Blue eyes are considered "recessive" which is to say that to have blue eyes one must inherit two copies of alleles coding for blue eyes. So in theory two parents with blue eyes, each only have alleles coding for blue eyes and so can only produce blue eyed children, whereas brown or green eyed (or one of each) parents could have one allele each coding for blue eyes and so could produce a blue eyed child together.

Blue eyes might also have occured due to loss of pigmentation along side the loss of pigmentation from skin. This would not be selected for as strongly as pale skin in areas with less sunlight (where the pale skin mitigates against low vitamin D levels by allowing for more effective vitamin D synthesis) because it would not have the same bearing on an issue significant to survival (as being able to effectively synthesize vitamin D). I actually do not know much about blue eyes so I am entirely speculating I should add.

What I do know is that because they are largely "recessive" they are under less selective pressure in either direction. Because an individual has to have two alleles in most instances to have blue eyes, a lot of people can carry and perpetuate one allele without it having any influence on their survival whatseover (because it is not expressed). So any pressure in either direction only has any effect when a single person gets two alleles for blue eyes, leaving a lot of uneffected "carriers" of the genetic material.


The eugenics movement that culminated last century in the attrocities perpetrated by the Nazi regime was premised on the notion that some humans were "atavistic", everything from "feeble mindedness" to "recidivist criminality" was construed as being the result of atavism. So the idea that some people might have "throw back" traits from "less evolved" ancestors is not new and in fact was the founding and core premise of the eugenics movement and "eugenics science".

The Neanderthal theory is positing that traits currently deemed undesirable by most people, are an atavistic "throw back" to what is currently very much widely thought of as a "less evolved" and worse "unfit", "redundant", "failed to make the grade" life form. The average person hearing that is going to think AS is not just a difference, but a disorder resulting from having defunct DNA from a less evolved, less human species. Furthermore, it's difficult to see precisely how such a conclusion would be wrong if incidents of Autism are simply freak occurences of Neanderthalism.

I have spiritual beliefs that are in contradiction to the way that some people interpret evolution and natural selection (this is in response to the 'post about 'atavisistic' traits). So it doesn't matter to me about atavistic traits or that label because those people who are doing the labeling are clearly morons.


It's really not surprising to me at all that NT traits would outlast spectrum ones in some cases. It seems only when you get a large enough population together in one place is it possible for that population to value anything that in my opinion makes life worth living. Tribal cultures are innately about breeding and survival of infants. Gays and women seem to fare better in large cultures with cities than in tribal cultures. I suppose it could be because that culture already has a significant population. And of course this is not true across the board as some polynesian cultures practice polyandry and there are still some matristic cultures around. But anyway, this is one location or dimension. It doesn't mean, to me, anyway, that the species members that win the game of evolution are actual winners, for all we know they may be losers, in a spiritual sense. It may be that when circumstances get too brutal more evolved souls opt out via death and go somewhere else.

Actually, I read somewhere that there was an Indian tribe who worshipped a cross-eyed deity, and as a result of their view on beauty, they hung a string down the foreheads of their kids in an attempt to make them cross-eyed as they'd watch the string. Don't ask me which tribe, I can't remember.


It is. And we're sure not inferior to NTs.


?

Evolution is a branching tree, not a hierarchy. There's no such thing as "less evolved". Neanderthals were just a different species of human, they weren't lesser. Perhaps they didn't really die out, maybe they became assimilated into homo sapiens?

QFT. I hate when people talk about things being "less evolved."
If anything, viruses are just as evolved as we are, and in a pretty genius way! They've become more efficient over time, not by adding on new complicated structures, but by shedding organelles until they're just RNA in a protein shell. They don't need a body, they use a host cell to replicate themselves and survive.
(I love viruses...sorry...)



Also second-ing this. We're not defective, we just work in slightly different ways. If the majority of people were ASD and NTs were the minority, they would be the ones having a hard time. Because NTs control and design society to fit their needs, we are the odd ones out.

The "Neanderthal theory" is obviously ludicrous. "Neanderthal genetics" could possibly be the source of some neural dysfunction, but it is certainly not the primary or sole source of neural dysfunction.

I am not claiming that "less evolved" exists other than conceptually. Why did you think I took the time to type in quotation marks around the phrase if not to imply that the commonly accepted meaning of the phrase is dubious in reality?

The fact remains that we all must deal with the wider public perception of AS and unless there is some good reason (aka substantive evidences supporting the proposition) to construe that AS is caused by left over Neanderthalic DNA, then I would rather not put this idea into the minds of the wider public.


Does being morons make their eugenic activities any less catastrophic to the targets? My understanding is that morons or not, when it comes to eugenics, human beings are more than capable of "getting their game on". Just ask anyone with Down's Syndrome, although finding such a person is becomming increasingly harder as many of the "morons" choose to not let them be born.