I wonder, are we the start of a new "homo" species

Post Reply New Topic

Unfortunately, the idea that one day Aspies will diverge into their own species is still flawed, because Aspies interbreed with NTs all the time--and Aspies pop up amongst children of NT couples, like me! For Aspies to break off into their own species, you'd have to have Aspies ONLY breed with Aspies, with no intercrossing between NTs allowed.

And Aspies are not "more evolved" than our NT counterparts. Technology and culture change so very quickly that humanity has had NO time to adapt to them. To give you an idea--we've been humans as we know it for something like 20,000 years. We've had writing--never mind technology!--for barely 6,000.

You also seem to be falling into the fallacy that evolution heads toward a specific ideal/goal, so that it's possible for a species or group to be "more evolved" and so "better" than another. THIS IS UNTRUE. As Zamzara pointed out, selection occurs on an individual level, not a species level--the only goal of an organism, evolutionarily speaking, is to produce as many offspring as possible. I would also like to point out that Social Darwinism sprang from this fallacy in the eighteen-hundreds, which led to eugenics--again, not a good thing.

I never said aspies were more evolved than NTs. In fact, I was specifically being clear that this is not the case - that there is merely a distinct difference. I don't believe NTs are genetically inferior, and am in fact quite against such a notion to the point where people that believe in it make me quite angry. I care a lot about my family, all of whom are NTs.

I realize that it is quite common for interbreeding to occur, but that is under the logic that the gene originated from a single person. I don't believe that is so for the reasons I've mentioned.

And how does how long we've had writing have anything to do with it? Like I said, I'm talking about a start in the process, not completion. I'd say we're far from even 1% of the way there, but it's enough that I don't feel completely human, as I've said. I agree the idea that an entire species evolving in the short time computers have been around is completely silly, but that is not at all what I am suggesting.

As far as natural selection, I don't believe in it for the reasons I've described. For one thing, my parents and all their ancestors as far back as we can know are NTs, yet somehow, I ended up an aspie. Natural selection would be a random change that has nothing to do with the current dilemmas faced by the species, and more importantly, if something helpful did turn up by sheer coincidence, it would have only a single source, and would need to spread to the rest of the population. Austim, by contrast, seems to be appearing at random everywhere with multiple starting points. What I am trying to say is that some force we don't yet understand is causing genetic changes in a way that specifically helps certain species rather than something random.

At any rate, I've been up all night yet again, and will have to wait until I sleep to participate in this thread any farther, as I tend start having difficulty communicating ideas if I get to tired. I'd say I'm already there now.

If I remember correctly from when I studied biology in college, one of the common definitions used to seperate two species was the capacity for interbreeding. If two groups were sexually reproductive with each other, they were considered the same species. One of the flaws of this were organisms that did not need to sexually reproduce (like amoebas) or those who were sexually dimorphic (some lizards and fish). But anyway, in the looser application of the definition, at this point, we would be the same species as NT's because we can interbreed, physically.

My problem with the definition comes because of personal preferences. I don't date much because I'm so damned uncomfortable around NTs in close relationships. The only friends who haven't managed to inadvertantly screw me over are my AS cousins. So it seems that if I'm to find happiness with another person, (even though I'm very happy in my life as it is. I'm not really asexual, because I enjoy sex after a fashion) it's probably going to be another AS person who is able to function in an intimate relationship.

Since AS seems to have genetic predisposition and since other AS persons are leaning thes same way I am, sexwise, we could be at the beginning of a different evolutionary path. In a few hundred, we may be another species. But right now, I don't think we are.

I was using that as an example as to the short time civilization anything like as we know it has been around, in terms of human evolution.



Well, for one thing, natural selection is by no means all of evolution. In addition, what genetic link to autism there is is almost certainly polygenetic and tending towards receditivity--that is, Aspie children are far more likely to pop up from NT parents than NT children are to pop up from Aspie parents. Do you understand what genetic drift is? Do you understand how mutations work? This does not appear to be the case.

The increasing prevelance of ASDs may simply derive from the fact that more mental health professionals are aware of the disorders and can better recognize them. In that case, it would be increasing awareness that is driving up the number of diagnosises, not an actual increase in ASDs. A less benevolent theory that I have heard relates the number of increases to America's supposed growing hyperchondria. Also, since autism genes seem to be multiple and recessive, your 'multiple unrelated starting points' more accurately reflect this than some unknown power triggering mutations. In a large enough population, you're going to get quite a few pairs of NT adults with the genes necessary to throw ASD children. Saying ASDs are "appearing at random with multiple starting points" is analogous to saying that hemophiliacs are doing the same thing.

Also, species do not change simply because there is a pressure upon them. Changes are purely random, resulting from mutations which are essentially errors in translating DNA during meiosis. For example, look at sickle cell genes. Had this particular mutation occured in a society that did not have malaria as a local illness, it likely would have died out or become much rarer than it is today. However, since the gene happened to mutate in an individual living in West Africa, where malaria IS an issue, it became quite widespread despite the fact that a child homogeneous for the gene has a giant handicap to pass on his or her genes--because the more common offspring that are heterogenous for the gene happen to be protected against malaria. The gene did not appear specifically to combat malaria--don't you think a more efficient gene would have popped up if it was?--nor did malaria's prevelance in the population affect the mutation in the genes.

There is no evidence in science for intelligent design. Please do more research on how evolution actually works before suggesting this.

There is no evolution for humankind as such.
The gene pool is so limited and within these limitations are more and more dilutions of desired qualities.

Flawed gene sets are allowed to survive and reproduce with greater and greater ease due to medical applications.

Even making the stupid and generally fatal mistake of playing with dynamite may not result in the stupid gene from being transmitted and given scope for future generations.

We have lost our genetic locomotion and are currently wallowing in the accesses of modern technology. This is why we have evolved the science of genetics, It is our ouly way out of the sick mess we have made of the human genome.

I do feel that the current ignorance levels found in modern civilisation are attributable poor gene distribution. modern man is not smarter then early man, we just have a greater library of learned skill available to us.

I also feel that in large societies such as big cities, that AS is a positive trait.

I agree with the last post, generally. Different tribes, or races if you like, of humans have been isolated for thousands of years, but are still able to interbreed with other humans. We appear to have lost a lot of genetic material for variation, and I'm not convinced a new species could arise from humans, no matter how long they're isolated. Different tribes often split off due to a shared difference from the 'norm,' and form their own societies but none of these have yet formed a new species.

Just my (probably very flawed) opinion here.

Hi Kamex

Thanks for starting up an interesting thread.

If you believe the statistics, there does seem to huge increase in the number of AS/ASD people. This could be seen as the emergence of a new type of people.I used to believe the 'autism explosion' idea myself and blamed mercury/MMR/whatever for having ASD children when I was 'normal'.

However, when I looked into AS/ASD, I found that I was on the spectrum myself and didn't even know it. My Dad is even more Aspie and frankly a lot of the people I used to work with (I was a software developer) were probably Aspie too. Now I'm of the opinion that there always were plenty of Aspie people around, if you looked in the right places, but that the world has become less Aspie friendly and better at identification.

When I say less Aspie friendly, I'm probably going to sound really old, but when I was young, people were allowed to be different/eccentric without immediately being sent to a doctor for a diagnosis. There seemed to be more small businesses where people could be their own boss and most shops did not have horrid flourescent lights and loud music.

There may well be a greater number of less able autistic people around now (possible because of AS men and women meeting through University/work) but I don't think that is necessarily a good thing.

Two points...

Don't 2 people on the spectrum have a higher incedene of producing a lower functioning child?I may be missinformed about this...cant quote a source...just think I have read this some where and not sure of its accuracy.

Also,I cant see how the positive aspects of AS outway the negative aspects when functioning in our current civilization.As most AS people have found in their daily lives...ie...reality,not being able to communicate in appropriate social context seems to out weigh ones intellegence or ability to do productive work.Perhaps this is less true in nonwestern societys(where alot of tech jobs are being out sourced)?

I live in America....so my perspective is based on my observations of this society.Seems to me that
alot of the people who are successful financially,are those who have no retraints regaurding human empathy,they are good liars and smooth socializers.Our entire social structure appears to be the objective of..."dumbing down the masses" and creating wage slaves.Unless aspies can create an effective method of overturning this class warfare,I think the species of "humans" will revert back to
ruling class and serfs...aspies make lousy "ruling class" and worse "serfs" but if we could get over our social phobias we might be good "revolutionaries"?Just some absurd rantings by a paranoid left-wing,foil hat wearing aspie...

Breeding is for the primitives. We'll use robots.

As for the original post - wouldn't the great recent increase in AS and autism spectrum disorders not be related to the fact that AS is only diagnosed since the early nineties or so? Besides, a lot of AS people who have never visited a psych for a diagnosis hear about it recently through the Internet etc., and suddenly find an explanation for a lot of things...

Also, I don't think that an evolutionary explanation for Autistic spectrum disorders would necessarily have to entail the emergence of a new species. The ability to focus, think in patterns, etc. might make an Aspie "useful" for his or her tribe even if the breeding doesn't go that well - but perhaps those of her genetic relatives would go all the better for it.

It is true that i don't try to learn about computers, outher then what i need to to do whatever i want them for at the moment. And no offence taken.

I think we have always been there. Maybe in ancient times they just ate us.

lae...lol.... ....aspie on the barbie anyone....

Possibly in ancient/prehistoric times, you needed to have the desire to be part of a group. If you were not part of the tribe you were not able to survive.

Now you don't have to be so close to the "tribe". AS may be part of a higher evolution. I sometimes wonder whether aspies are less affected by post traumatic stress? Are aspies more able to cope with disasters and trauma in a "Mr Spock" type way?

Possibly--sensory issues might have been more useful in hunter-gatherer societies, and the encyclopedic knowledge of some Aspies--can you imagine what would happen if an Aspie got started on plants? Hunter-gatherer peoples need to have a very detailed knowledge of plant and animal species to survive without eating poisonous things. Those traits may have helped to ensue the gene's survival.

As for Aspies making good revolutionaries--you never know. Personally, I think Thomas Jefferson might have had some Aspie traits--at the least, he was very introverted and much preferred written communication to speaking with people--and he was certainly a large player in my country's history.

I agree in hunter-gatherer societies AS would be very useful due to the heightened senses, ability to easily keep your bearings, ability to survive alone for an extended period if needed and oftenly associated photographic memory for landmarks.

Its probably an adaptation thats always been part of the human genome it just never became dominant.

Adaptions--that is, mutations--do not 'become dominant.' They may, however, become prevelant if they help an individual with them to reproduce more widely or to survive to reproduce more widely.