Is Asperger's Evolution in Process?

Post Reply New Topic

Evolution tries all variables.

I mean look at animals. some animals are so territorial they will literally kill any other animals of their own species. besides when its mating time.

So you could easily draw something to us. I would imagine if there ever came another ice age or something whatever. some of our traits might suddenly be in demand.

When you think about the amount of human interaction and entertainment many normal people requires. They could go crazy if not dire of boredom.

For all my problems, i dont think i have ever been bored. I seem to have this ability to always find something odd to do. No matter how obscure.

Evolution is basically random choices, and those that works best will have most offspring.

So...

If aspergers were "evolution in action" then two things would be discernable:

1) a trend toward the human race becoming more aspergian/autistic.

2) Some reason that natural selection would be favoring autistic traits.

In all these pages no one has produced any evidence for either.

So the concensus is: aspergers is NOT evolution in action.

Though it IS part of the human race's genetic storehouse of variation -the stuff of evolution- and could become favored by natural selection in some future cosmic catastrophe.

i am sorry but i wish to digress. you and everyone else in this thread seem to equate the idea of "evolution" as a progressive process where only the fittest survive, but evolution is also responsible for the extinction of processes that can not compete and flourish in the world in which they exist.

things become extinct due to evolution as well.

evolution is not a subjectively positive progression through the vagaries of life's demands.
evolution also means that one's species may no longer be able to survive due to hostile environmental developments that spell their demise.

evolution will eventually lead to complete entropy wherein no identity of relative characteristics of various depleted realities exists. one day in the future there will be nothing that still exists, and opinions of long dead people are not even a factor of reality when reality itself is gone.

So ....

(A) that you warned us that you're about to talk nonsense. And (b) you then procede to talk nonsense.

Well I cant say you didnt warn us!

Lol!

But since you're admiting that you have nothing to say- why did you bother making this post?

Give me some grant money, and I will conduct a large survey to investigate whether autistic people have, on average, more, less, or the same number of children as non-autistic people. If they are having more, then I would count that as weak Bayesian evidence in favour of the hypothesis "Autism confers a selective advantage", and vice-versa.

From a strictly literal standpoint, I'd have to answer that yes, autism is part of evolution in process, just as every other gene-related trait is. Of course, nowadays humans have substantial control over their own evolution, by virtue of being able to choose their mates more.

you have not the intellect that you wish to fool others into believing you have. you may have a fan base that will reinforce your antagonism to me, but i would never want to be stuck in your mind. i am claustrophobic. i never said that what i was going to say is nonsense. you have (due to the resolution of your thought capacity) probably confused what i said in this thread with what i said in the random thread which is truly nonsense.

you are aiming way above your head trying to shoot me down in this thread.

you may try to discredit me with your haughty assertion that you have higher intelligence, but i know that you are not extremely intelligent and so your bullets just bounce off my sense of justification. i do not care how many people are your fans who would endorse your words and reinforce your resistance to what i said, what i said i will stand by.

if it is the case that you are a much loved member of WP, i may now expect some sort of resistance from other posters in my future posts. i think you are bright, but i do not think you are gifted like your often bugled assertions suggest.

i was never impressed by you like i was with ruveyn or fnord etc.
you are a nobody to me.

your fans are probably all cheering in delight for you , but any fans you have would be equally or more stupid than you.

i do not want to fight with you so i propose that you steer clear of anything else i have to say.

Depends on whether you are talking about quantity versus quality. Even IF there were fewer Aspie people, the unique accomplishments of those fewer might gradually shape the (figurative) world around us in a more Aspie-compatible direction.

Er, no. At least if you're talking about biological evolution, which it seems we are.

YOU may have been thinking within those limitations, but not everybody was and not even the OP. Go ahead, think "outside the box" for a change. Ideas legitimately procreate their offspring, any of which may have much greater impact than a few more or less human beings.

WTFRU talking about?

you're the one who steered in MY direction, and choose to pick a fight with me! Not the other way around.

But I promise.

Ill stop stalking you.

Lol!


Which is ez to do because I never stalked you in the first place. Rarely even crossed paths with you.

Lolwut are you on about? There's a difference between thinking outside the box and ignoring the need for clear communication in a discussion, and you have fallen on the wrong side. When talking about evolution, without any additional clarification, it usually means biological evolution (which is why people have been talking about the number of offspring people with autism have, because the number of descendants you have is the only thing that matters in biological evolution). If you wish to discuss technological or cultural evolution, please specify that clearly. But since asperger's is rooted in biology, I would disagree with asperger's being technocultural evolution in process. Now, the matter of whether Aspies are a significant force in technocultural evolution is a different one...

Ive rethought this actually.

Above I said (a) there is no obvious trend toward the human race getting more autistic, and (b) there is no obvious reason why nature would be selecting for autism.

I still go with A, but i will modify B.

I still see no evidence of any trend of more autistics being born than before.

But the issue probably is more complex than just saying " you cant say that trait X is evidence of evolution because trait X does not bestow a reproductive advantage causing the possessor to have more offspring making trait X more common in the population in the next generation".

Trait X maybe a secondary effect of trait Y. Trait Y maybe be the actual trait being selected for.

For example sickle cell anemia occurs in people whose ancestors lived for centuries in malaria infested areas. Individuals with a certain gene had resistence to malaria and survived to reproductive age when others died of malaria. Thus that gene became more common with each generation. But that gene also creates suseptability to sickle cell anemia.

So concievably autism might be some kind of 'side effect' of other genetic trends in the population in a similar way that sickle cell anemia is a side effect of local evolution of resistence to malaria. Maybe increased education and geographic mobility throughout the western world over the last few centuries ( and the premium on literacy) causing people to meet their future spouses in college instead of the local villages is causing some kind of reshuffling of genes that somehow is causing more autism. Not floating that as a specific theory, so much as giving an example of a type of thing to look for.

But even so- you would expect there to be a trend toward more autistics being born per population than in previous times. Ive never seen evidence of that.

I have been on this site less than a year, and I feel this is at least the sixth or seventh time I have seen this question posed in some form.

You are making that assumption (which not all of us were doing), so we are talking apples and oranges. I refer you to your own admirable signature line. ("The only universal message in science fiction: There exist minds that think as well as you do, but differently." - Larry Niven)

Its gotta be atleast that number per year every year.

Different people keep reinventing this same wheel over,and over, and over again.

Ok, I'm not very smart in this kind of stuff, and sometimes I tend to over simplify / generalize especially when my knowledge is lacking.

Aspergers is something that has only recently been categorized and labeled as such. It doesn't mean that it hasn't been around for as long as man has. If that's the case, it's hardly evolution. It's like finding a "rare" species of something that's been around as long as any common species, but since it was just recently found by humans who finally got around to getting to some remote part of the earth, it's classified as a new species when in fact it's hardly new to the earth.

Also, Aspies are not necessarily better at technology than NT's, and I really fail to see how that aspect would further the PROCREATION of Aspies over NT's. From what I can tell Aspies and Autistics have less chances of procreating than NT's due to social limitations.

Even in a society that is becoming more and more technical and there is less face to face time....social prowess is still needed for procreation.

If the argument is brought up that in some distant future sex is going to be obsolete and replaced by more scientific means of procreation....I fail to see how Aspergers and Autism would be a desired trait if you can effectively build your own baby how you want it.

I dunno, just a few thoughts.