Evolution and AS

Post Reply New Topic

Perhaps that sound non-democratic, elitist, or just cynical: At the end they really do not count. The elites do determinate societies. It was never the wide masses how were leading. Even not in revolutions, in which the elite was just exchanged. Look at the French, the Russian or English Revolution. It may be the workers or peasants who make the fighting: The leaders were all well educated people. Here is no difference between Robespierre, Cromwell or Lenin.

Many gene's have been implicated in autism, but most of the gene's singularly give the individual an advantage (For example, a higher IQ). When the gene's are present together, that's when autism develops. Any gene that is negatively selected against must appear de novo from mutations.

I think a car engine would be a good analogy, you can constantly improve the fuel you supply to an engine, you can increase the pressure of the fuel and air, but you'll eventually get to a point where any further improvement will reduce the performance without basic fundamental changes being made to how the engine works.

While I have noted that it is popular here to claim autistics have higher IQ's, I must admit I have never heard anything of the sort elsewhere. Can anyone get me a citation?

I believe something is mentioned here. In general any condition that causes an impairment in function is selected against, hence the reason most genetic disorders are extremely rare. For any condition to affect 1 in 100 people and cause such an impairment the gene's that cause it must be positively selected. Note that i am not claiming autistics are smarter, i'm saying that some gene's implicated in autism provide an advantage when they are present on their own. Such an individual would not have autism. However, when the genes are present together that is when autism presents and the positive effect of the gene is either lost or counteracted, hence the car analogy. The link also has another explanation, that some gene's that provide an advantage can provide a disadvantage in certain environments.

You can see similar "positive selection" in sickle-cell anaemia, cystic fibrosis and schizophrenia.

[quote="anna-banana the only genes that win are the ones that reproduce and let's face it- they are not the genes of those who do best on the job/intellect market :p[/quote]

They are not the genes that win since they don't do well in the job/intellect market. The power belongs to those that do and even though they're rarer, they're the ones in control, and the ones in control have more influence in directing the course of history.

DNA doesn't care about power. all it cares about is quantity- of its reproduction. in our societies people of power are rarely those who have the most children.

Yes but say, if they have pretty contraining methods, they can limit the fertility rate of others =D (for example, see China? ;P )

Nothing is imperfect about it. But there are missing pieces (Remember, scientific theories dare to say "we do not know" - unlike some other theories/fantasies).

Missing link for example. And yes, it may now have been found, but i'll wait till i hear a scientist say it on, say, discovery channel. Newspapers have zero credibility and when it comes to scientific news, they are usually just passing on "maby" truths. Journalists rarely have any scientific education and can be VERY loose on the details, and details can be critical for agreeing/disagreeing with something.

That "missing link", while interesting for a primatologist, is overhyped stuff largely meant to sell books, I think. A missing link between lemurs and simians - not so much amazing stuff.

But the Discovery Channel does???

I don't know if this has been disproven since, but last I heard the more autism genes one nabs up from their parents its like alcohol - sober is ok, buzzed is actually better as added cleverness is added in, too much more and your stumbling (well ok...I didn't hear it phrased like that but rather the more autism genes clump together the lower and lower functioning the individual who inherits those genes).

Because of that I have a real problem with calling us an evolutionary leap forward, I think it could be maybe closer to sickle-cell anemia where it has pros and cons as long as too many of the same genes don't pool. We have something that's helpful to the human race, its stayed with the human race because of that, though it also shows where if your nature deviates too far from the animal basics - its a problem (and Anna, like you've mentioned many times - the people who could care less about having 8 kids and how they'll feed them or what kinds of lives they'll lead - that's exactly it, its an ignorance = strength regime, part of what I think the whole God/Satan allegory is about is dealing with evolutionary fallout where society abrogates nature and flips natural selection on its side as well as having 'natural strength' and dominance applied directly as very undesirable in an organized society).

Good point. As I understood it aspergers is a disorder where the individuals involved have an average to above average IQ. In other words it is a disorder that doe not have an obvious association with low IQ. This has been distorted by many on WP to mean aspergers requires a high IQ for diagnosis, which is plainly nonsense as there are many members of WP with diagnosed ASD who are below 100.

Your comment has prompted me to look for evidence regarding a relationship between IQ and Aspergers and there really isn't much.

The only time IQ is often mentioned is in relation to Aspergers vs Autism. In this case it is believed that Aspergers have a higher verbal IQ and Autisitics and then I found this.

http://www.tonyattwood.com.au/articles/chilldren4.html which disputes this.


So unless the 'aspie supremacists' can come up with some evidence I am going to treat them with even MORE contempt than I usually do.

If you'd read both my posts carefully you'd realise i am not suggesting that people with autism have higher IQ's, if you have already realised this and i've misunderstood you're post then disregard this one.


Exactly what i was saying, but said in a much easier to understand and elegant way. It will never be disproved by the way, although the question of "how many cases of autism are caused by this method?" is very applicable. The answer will lie in how many case of autism are caused exlusively by the environment vs. how many have an underlying genetic cause.

As far as I'm concerned AS is a disorder, despite some claims from people on here about it being an evolutionary step.

We don't adapt well, in fact, with the current state of society I suppose you could say we're regressing. A society that largely depends on interaction and cooperation, and we're here with no social skills?

Plus, let's not forget that the ultimate goal of nature seems to be to reproduce and carry on the species. Something Aspies, due to poor social skills, aren't adapted to do compared to NT's.

As far as we stand on evolution, I guess you could say we're actually behind.

Michjo I was responding to twoshots post. I will go back and read yours, sorry for any misunderstanding

G'day Mr Foley, good to see you here, youll find the madness of PPR far more stimulating than Banal (often) rantings of General