Is Asperger's human evolution?

Post Reply New Topic

So these people claim that Asperger's makes people more likely to reproduce? Somehow I doubt this.

It's a shame that quack Lamarckian ideas about evolution have embedded themselves so firmly in the public perception- evolution is purposeless and directionless, it does not seek an end goal. Evolution is driven by one organism producing more viable offspring than another, not by some imaginary force that coordinates the improvement of a species.

Not trying to be offensive but can't evolution also be damaging. It makes me wonder about the mammoth and other creatures that were once plentiful among the ones we still have now.

This is true. To be completely honest, Asperger's does not seem like a trait that is evolutionarily favorable. Obviously it has it's advantages, particularly in focus, but it's major detriment is impaired social skills, something that would be counter-productive to producing the most offspring. High intelligence (and it's importance to note that AS/HFA is defined as having an "average range" IQ, not necessarily greater intelligence than the general population) does not always correlate to special longevity. The cockroaches are doing just fine.

I think it's possible, but then again I thought I was evolution for a while.

Not really, though I suppose it would depend on your definition of "damaging," which you have not given. Generally speaking, evolution produces organisms that are better suited for their parents' environment than their parents' generation was. The mammoth and other creatures disappeared because they were no longer well suited to their environment, and other organisms have filled their niche.

Of course, it is almost pointless to discuss evolution as it relates to modern humans, as we are essentially freed from the pressures of natural selection- the main force acting on us now would be sexual selection, which certainly puts Aspies at a definite disadvantage.

My thoughts exactly. People misunderstand the idea of fitness in the context of evolution. In evolutionary terms, fitness is simply the ability to produce offspring who survive to produce their own offspring. The more descendants you produce, the greater your genetic impact on your species.

Possibly, but as the world is right now it isn't working too great. I think maybe if we could work in the fields of our interest without having to worry about paying bills etc then the world would advance in many ways maybe. It's possible but incompatible with todays world to be viable... if you know what i mean.

I know. However, to most people, evolution is the same as good, as inaccurate as it may be.

No, AS is not the next step of human evolution.

Others in this thread has already done a great job in explaining why it's not.

I suggest that you read these posts:

RainSong Orwell Phagocyte EvilKimEvil

No. Autistic Spectrum disorders are simply the extreme end of a group of traits that are good in some contexts and bad in others. This leads to a pattern of natural selection that stabilizes how common the traits are at a low but significant level, sickle-cell anemia has the same pattern, the main difference is that sickle cell anemia is caused by one gene while autism is caused by several.

Other posters have been correcting the various misconceptions about evolution out there already. I just would like to add that a lot of these misconceptions stem from lingering notions of human-centered evolutionary progress popular 100 years ago that fused evolution with earlier views of a "scale of nature" with humans on top. In reality evolution has no goal, it is an emergent phenomenon that appears when you have a self-replicating system that can suffer mutations and an environment that changes.