Has anything at all been scientifically proven about AS?

Post Reply New Topic

Humans look a lot more like baby chimps than the adults. While the poop slinging rage centers of the brain are about the same, the human babble center is stuck in childish mode. While some say their lack of fur is sexually exhibitionist, others say it was cause by epidemic mange.

Located on Gene Two, Cromozone 23, is a twist that causes humans to cheat at tennis.

What all of this brain slicing proves is, there are several development paths, and final outcomes.

Until equal tests are done on football fans, lawyers, and those who watch anime, we will lack a baseline to compare. Comparing to a normal human brain, which is what was said. The normal human has an IQ of 100, and a functional education of half way through the eighth grade with a C-. Being compared to that is an insult.

Most areas of the brain are not used by most people for anything. From the old days, it was thought that 11% usage was the absolute peak.

Considering Lego Addictions, other ASDs, perhaps it is over usage.

The dangers of overclocking an ape brain, which leads to Tweekers on crank with a shotgun, and Aspies talking about their Special Interest. At least with Tweekers you can take the drugs away.

AS could be described as, The Seven Habits of Really Annoying People.

It could be fatal. All of the sub species that had larger brains than modern humans, CroMagnon, Neanderthal, are no longer around. A large hat size is common in ASDs.

While head size can vary with body size, and hat size does not follow intelligence, the raito of shoe size over hat size does.

This is the only known Scientific proof.

Autism's not simple Mendelian inheritance (the dominant/recessive thing). Genes aren't really "the gene for" any particular condition; they're actually more like recipes to build proteins. Genes interact with each other in ways that can be different from a simple combination of those genes; they can turn each other on and off; they can even react to environment. So, in very many cases, it's more complicated than dominant/recessive.

One idea is that there are certain genes that are found more often in autistic people; maybe hundreds of such genes; and that, once you have enough of them, you turn out with autism (that would be the genetic loading theory). In small numbers, those genes probably make really beneficial stuff, which is why they're still around; but in the wrong combination, you could end up not learning to speak until you're six, or becoming fascinated with windshield wipers. (On the other hand, if you invent a new kind of windshield wiper, that could actually be to your benefit after all.)

Autism is almost certainly polygenic--that is, more than one (probably many more than one) gene governing the same characteristic. All those genes that code proteins used to do sensory processing, brain growth, and nerve development probably play into it; and that's an awful lot of genes. Genetics is primary; but very early environment can play a role. It has to do with genes interacting with each other, and with the environment; so that all sorts of different things come into play to make an autistic baby.

You're right on with skin color, actually; skin color is polygenic, too. Multiple genes govern how your child's skin turns out, and there's some evidence that skin color actually adjusts itself, over a few generations, to the environment that people live in.

If that's true then I'm wrong saying that pale-white European Jews obviously aren't 100% pure Jewish blood.

This link has been pasted here before : http://archneur.ama-assn.org/cgi/conten ... 945?ck=nck

This is the current overview in this , and it is technical, but explains some of the mechanisms involved if you have the interest and patience with the language .

Thank you for posting a scientific reference. Evidence and speculation can be very interesting, but the original question specified "scientific proof", which is in a different category.

I have only glanced at the paper and may already have read it on a different site, but I wanted to thank you for your contribution before the thread moves on. If it is the paper I previously read, it contains no conclusions regarding neurological differences common to all autists.

And I think people often forget this or haven't thought this through enough.

There seems to be an assumption among many here on WP that all autists have a fundamentally different brain architecture or wiring than someone who is "neurotypical." This is often tossed about as if it were fact, yet there is really nothing out there to indicate that this is indisputable and universally true.

Furthermore, there also seems to be this perception that you either have an autistic brain or a neurotypical one, and that there all shades of grey can be explained by relative success at coping and adaptation. I'd say that's a fairly bold assertion. Where is the scientific evidence to suggest that this is true?

The reasoning with "brain wiring" is:

a.) We know there are physical, both macroscopic and microscopic differences between autistic and non-autistic brains.

b.) We know that autistic and non-autistic people consistently test differently on specific cognitive tests.

c.) From what we know about the brain, especially from cognitive testing of people with specific brain injuries and congenital conditions with specific areas affected and different microscopic and macroscopic arrangements, the physical arrangement of the brain has an effect on the results of cognitive tests.

So, if autistic and non-autistic people have different brain configurations; and if people with different brain configurations tend to test differently on cognitive tests; and if autistic and non-autistic people tend to score differently on cognitive tests, you can show that there is a correlation between the autistic thought pattern and the autistic brain difference.

Conclusion: Autistic people have different brain wiring, specific to autism.

There isn't any; in fact, there's evidence to the contrary. The shades of gray have been documented as a group of people on the fringes of the autism spectrum, blending smoothly into the typical, who have non-disabling autistic-like traits. These people are often found surrounding fully autistic family members. (There are probably quite a few of them on WP--the people who say things along the lines of, "I'm a spectrum cousin," or, "I have mild autistic traits".)

Looking at the total mish-mash of replies so far, combined with a total lack of references to anything conclusive (the linked article does not contain the word "Aspergers"...) , I'd say the answer is "No, nothing has been scientifically proven yet". The key word being: "proven". It's not even proven that AS is a disorder, rather than a difference. The relationship between Aspergers, Autism and HFA (and possibly even ADD etc) is still frontierless territory, you can make up the border as you go along.

All that has ever been found in brain scans is "tendencies" in "some" cases. I am eternally grateful that the people who find these 'tendencies' and those who market grandiose theories based on these supposed trends, are not the same people who design and build the buildings I depend on to stay up "all the time". A building that "tends" to stay up in "some" cases, like an airplane that "tends to fly" just doesn't impress me, for some reason.


Yes, because "Jewish" isn't a blood type. The choices are: A, B, AB, O, AS and NT

PS Inventor: post of the century!

PPS There are no wires in the brain. They exist only as metaphor.

Last edited by ManErg on 27 Oct 2009, 8:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

Callista wrote

I have seen no study that isolated a single macroscopic or microscopic difference common to ALL autists.



Again, I have seen no information on cognitive tests on which ALL autists test differently.



Yes, there is ample evidence suggesting that autistic neurology is different. But the question posed in the title thread is "Has anything at all been scientifically proven?". To my knowledge, and unless someone can demonstrate otherwise, we have as yet been unable to isolate any brain or genetic differences common to ALL autists. In other words, we don't know what causes autism (other than that it is largely genetic).

QFT

I allways had read that AS is usually inherit from the side of the father (not necessarly from him).

Inheritance and Inhimitance topic

I have a hunch that AS/autism and other spectrum disorders are inherited from both sides in that both parents contribute to the person's brain difference.

In other words, a person needs "bits" from both the paternal and maternal sides, and of course they need to be expressed. (It is possible my children could be carriers, marry an NT spouse who is a carrier, and have a Spectrum child. I hope so.)

I am AS, but my three children are NT. The fathers of my three children are from families where there is no known AS/autism at all, whereas from my side of the family, there are traits and AS persons. My father was AS.

I would agree with this.

I do believe such trends in different structures are significant enough that it is a mistake to ignore them, but also that we have to remember people with clear autistic symptoms but completely different brain structures (like Kim Peek, who has no corpus callosum - correct me if I am wrong).

But those trends in structural differences may be useful diagnostically - not to rule out autism in a person, as that method would clearly have its flaws, but introduce or solidify its possibility. It makes me think of schizophrenia; my adopted brother was diagnosed a few years ago, and the decision was strengthened by the fact that his fMRI showed degradation consistent with the disease.

In terms of genetic inheritability - both my parents have AS, my grandfather also, and I do as well. I see a lot of patterns in families, and have formulated my opinions around that, but I realize that it is anecdotal and not proof.

Proof is for maths, not biology. Evolution and gravity are not proven, they are just strongly supported - so much so that they are taken as fact, but not "proven".

The reason there hasn't been any absolute answer to the question of "what causes autism?" is the same reason there are no absolute answers to any mental "illness". For instance, in depression they know the gene that encodes the serotonin transporter is somehow involved, as a particular mutation is commonly found in depression sufferers, and mice with the mutation tend to be depressed, etc. But they don't know exactly how it results in depression, since the serotonin system interacts with the dopamine and noradrenaline systems, and is also involved with the Hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis, which is triggered by environmental factors. Plus not everyone with the mutation is depressed, and not eveyone who is depresed has the muation.

So basically, there are so many variables involved that it's not surprising that they don't have a real answer yet.

wblastyn wrote

If your comment is directed at me, I would point out that I only used the term "proof" in quotation marks indicating that it was used in the original question. I understand very well the concept of proof, but the point is that researchers have yet to identify evidence (either weakly or strongly supported) of any differences common to ALL autists.

Our knowledge of neurology is still extremely limited because tools to carry out study of the brain have only very recently become available, and are still in the process of being developed and perfected.

Well it wasn't directed at anyone in particular, and I was just being a bit pedantic, since I knew what you meant I agree with your second paragraoh