Why the Autism Spectrum is Not the next evolutionary step.

Post Reply New Topic

I agree that NTs do tend to think that AS is backwards, but I don't think NTs are the only ones seeing things as a hierarchy. The differences between NT and AS with respect to hierarchy are the criteria they use to establish that hierarchy, and whether they are totally open about it instead of making hidden rules and such.

You guys are not even getting what "evolution" means.

Evolution--in this case, the mechanism of natural selection (you sure can't say we're a different species, so this isn't large-scale evolution we're talking about) is not "changing into a more complex life-form". It's "changing into a more adapted life-form".

That means that if it increases the likelihood of your DNA being passed on, a species will actually lose complexity. Case in point: Many parasites, which are thought to have been, at one time, complete organisms, but which now depend for life-support on their hosts. I've even read about a few that have only vestigial brains.

It isn't only "more likely to reproduce" that brings about changes. As you know, some species actually have individuals that do not reproduce, and these non-reproducing members increase the likelihood of other individuals passing on their DNA. Worker bees are a common example.

Evolution is not "smarter, faster, stronger". It doesn't even have steps. Look at it again, and you'll see it's a lot of branching out into diversity, to fill different ecological niches--not working towards some goal. Grab a bunch of bacteria, put them in different environments, have them reproduce, and they'll adapt to those environments (provided they're not killed outright). But they won't necessarily become "better". Just more adapted. (For example, the common cold is the most successful virus that affects humans--a lot more successful than more virulent viruses--simply because it doesn't kill its host, is easily spread, and allows its host to walk around. The common cold has adapted to its environment.)

That said, does any of this apply to us? Maybe. Maybe the human race is branching out into diversity, just like the bacteria. But that doesn't make us superior; it makes us more adapted to a very specific ecological niche. AS does prevent us from reproducing as much as most, so that means that to fit into the larger scheme of things, we must be providing some sort of benefit to the rest of the species, much like worker bees benefit their hive without reproducing.

yeah,perhaps the next step forward is the Chav,better known in America as the welfare mom (FEMALE VERSION) they are having the most sucess in propagating their genes....Chav

i believe that it is possible to "get" some sense of goal out of the "evolution" and it is only the artificial and uncreative hierarchical boundaries between science and religion that blocs our mind to the obvious,
again,NT tend to not see the connection between things because they tend to focus on power and status struggle,
even the subject of diversity itself light some interesting aspect of the AS existence as they r much more diverse even among themselves than the NT.

Yeah, it's natural selection. If the spectrum helped the species survive long enough to reproduce and pass on the genes associated with the spectrum, it would be considered part of the evolutionary process.
If random mutations appeared and were passed down to offspring, they would be considered part of the evolutionary process too.

Homo sapiens took a giant step forward 50,000 years ago, with the creative explosion. That probably marks the emergence of true language (though people argue that one all sorts of ways). Since then we've been adjusting to being more sentient than other species. Culture is still evolving, and I don't see any evidence for biological evolution in that time. Biologically, we appear to be the same as we were 100,000 years ago, before the creative explosion.

I think what has happened is that the industrial revolution created a class of people (autistic, learning disabled, intellectually disabled etc.) it didn't have a use for, and so we became disabled. But the industrial revolution is no longer the new thing, so things may change again. I guess we're in the middle of an information explosion right now. Who knows where that will go?

The other thing, too, is that a few centuries ago in Europe only 50% of babies reached age 5, so that's probably affected things as well. But, even so, I doubt there's been any real change to the gene pool in that time. Just cultural change.

Now if a natural disaster were to wipe out 99% of humankind, we might be more common among the survivors . . . (or less common, depending)

Maybe the problem with the original question was assumning that 'evolution' implied certain 'value' attributes that actually don't exist in nature.

Write to me when it happens.

ruveyn

I should have added that some people think society as a whole is actually 'devolving' with respect to raw intelligence compared to our ancestors but perhaps that needs to be a separate thread.

Natural selection occurs through differential reproduction and survival rates. Nature does not care how good we are, how pretty we are or how smart we are. The only thing that counts is how well we pass our characteristics on the next generation.

ruveyn

It is only an advantage if it promotes more successful reproduction. What advantage is it to be an ant. But the ants have been around a quarter of a billion years (that is with a "b"). Homo sapien has been around a quarter of a million years (that is with an "m"). Which species is more successful.

ruveyn

Natural selection takes place in the context of current reproductive fitness in the world as it is now. Evolution is not anticipation of the future. It is tracking of the present. There is no future projection to Darwinian evolution. Darwinian Evolution is a "now thing".

ruveyn

Evolution has no "goals" It is no more goal oriented then a sieve. With sieve some things pass through the holes, some things do not. From the sieve's point of view it has no goal to sort things into two different size classes. A sieve has that effect for physical reasons, and not for achieving a goal.

ruveyn

I agree that evolution has no goal as such. A goal is something one is attempting to achieve - how can a phenomenom (evolution) attempt anything, except in an allegorical sense? Intelligent design would fit the "goal" view a lot better, but the thread isn't about intelligent design.

i don't disagree with your point about AS being the next evolutionary step...i do however question the idea that we are not the next step because of reproductive advantage. i think, when it comes to the human species at least, that this reasoning is much too simplistic to encompass biodiversity and evolution. if, as you say, NTs have the social advantage and therefore the reproductive advantage, then it is not necessarily a given that they have the evolutionary advantage, or that we do not. what if they are just as adept at destroying themselves as they are at reproducing? there are too many other factors to consider to write it off based on reproductive or social advantage alone, IMHO.

If any group is supposed to be the next step in evolution, I'd say it's most likely to be psychopaths.