Evolution of mankind = Studs not Aspies

Post Reply New Topic

Meh. Let's say that for some reason aspie thinking became VERY beneficial. That would make the aspie genes more likely to occur.

Aspie genes more likely to occur More aspie children likely to exist More aspie grandchildren likely to exist and so on.

maybe, and maybe not.

you don't know that, and there is no scientific backing to prove that aspie parents will have an aspie child.

my parents are NT, and I'm aspie. my sister is very NT.......though sometimes I think she's a bit on the spectrum.

so when I get married, I could have an NT child. and possibly my child could have an NT child.

Chav, I don't know how many times I say this, but trying to figure this out isn't worth the time or effort. Live life and let come what will come.

You don't have to apply Occam's razor, I guess, but if you want a logically sound argument, then you do.

What places? That's such a generalized, anecdotal statement I can't even begin to see how it applies to this.


Aspie genes are only beneficial if they lead to the aspies having more children. In the near future, can you see any way that would happen? I'm not saying that it can't, just that is isn't.

AS is almost certainly genetic. It's not 100% likely that two black-haired parents will have a black-haired child- it could be blonde. That doesn't mean that if there was some reason why black-haired people could have more children, that black-haired people wouldn't become dominant.

Mother nature doesn’t care about the benefit of happiness, it cares only about survival. A poor man that has nine children who grow to adult hood is worth more then a rich family that has 3 children.

And unlike in the past, the amount of children that a man can have is not based on his ability to support and feed them, because the state will support them all until adult hood. So the value of money isn’t as important as it was in past.

Mother nature also doesn't provide much choice to those species of animal that don't have the human luxury of sitting around all day doing nothing without much fear about being killed by another individual/specie.

A poor man who has 9 children has a greater chance of having those 9 children die, if we were discussing "in the wild" which would mean that the reason this 'man' has 9 children is because its quite realistic only a few may survive. In THIS world, this is not a very accurate portrayal of westernized life style (which, in my opinion, is the most advanced society (ever, imo) so people not having 9 children and settling for 2 or 3 is what has changed in civilization itself). This also takes 'responsibility' that each individual must possess and trashes the argument completely. There seems to be a lot of referencing to 'nature' without any reference to the 'self' or 'conscious thought' which can 'change' the course of human nature, thought, and direction.

Having children is a choice we can consciously make. If we are poor, responsibility and logic would kick in to say 'look, there is no point in having children if I cannot afford to keep them around.' Of course, I am dreaming because responsibility in society is barely there, especially when people keep referencing that its simply 'nature' while offering no inclination to change themselves for the better.

I have a friend who had a child at 14 years of age. I didnt have a child at 14 years of age. Is she following 'nature' or am I following 'logic?' Who is in the wrong? Me, I consider her 'choice' to have children was based out of irresponsibility. She had sex, was not aware of the consequences, then she had a child. Nature? You bet - But why isnt it in my nature to run out and make babies? Why isnt it in my friends nature, who isn't an aspie, to have children? Why are my NT friends, who have dated each other for 3+ years not had a child? They aren't trying and you know why? Because they are responsible enough to realize that its irreponsible and that they cannot afford to look after this life - even with all the fall back charities we have. Nature tells us to have 9 children because nature will also have another creature try and kill those. Its the food chain. We made it to the top and now we control it. We are 'outside of nature' unless you still have to protect your babies from coyotes.

Please, people, stop referencing nature - if it were nature, then we wouldnt have a conscious thought and all we'd do all day is eat and have sex and procreate for the survival of our species. We have evolve enough to form a fully functioning society that SHOULD utilize areas of personal development such as 'responsibility.'

A deer has no choice but to procreate and survive. It does not have walls around it to protect it. We do. We've aloud ourselves the time to develop into something outside of nature, a new form of life, a conscious being, if you will. Nature is NOT a decision maker, you are.

After all, it started with the discovery of 'fire.' Now we have warmth, we have light, we have a form of protection - we now have additional time to better ourselves. The discovery of the wheel aloud more freedom and efficiency. The discovery of tools aloud great efficiency and more time to personally develop. The discovery of the car aloud faster travel and greater access to remote locations. The creation of the internet unites the world and allows for more time. All these things result in intelligence. Who knows whats next, but intelligence is always developing. Some philosophers, and myself included, belief that knowledge is peace and the pursuit and acquistion of knowledge AND wisdom is the key to peace and longevity (i added the longevity part in, myself, as life expectancies grow).

See, the number of children produced isn't all that matters. It accounts for a lot, yes, but it isn't all.




Say the stud DOES have 9 children
and the gent DOES have 3 children.


If the stud is diseased from an inherited condition (in some way we haven't managed to sort yet) and 8 of them die before being able to pass their genes on whereas the gent has 3 healthy children who ALL manage to pass their genes on then......

This could also work if the stud had an inherited disease where the faulty allelle was domiant e.g. Huntingons' Chorea but the gent had an inherited disease where the faulty allelle was recessive, e.g. cystic fibroisis.

You keep throwing in random variables. Why is the stud more likely to have cystic fibrosis than the gent? Has his studliness somehow weakened his immune system?

But, on the other hand, the gent could have cystic fibroisis instead, couldn't he?

'Fraid not. The poor are having more and more children while the rich have less and less.

I change my post (without actually making any changes, I'll leave it there). It is nature to procreate and not think of actions or responsibility. Thats what normal people do. Thats why its outside of nature to counteracts those 'feelings' and replace them with logics. Thats why I couldnt agree with the 'its just nature' aspect.

I was just thinking about a "love" of mine. I realized that, while in love with her, I made a lot of illogical decisions and my thinking was off. Love is a 'feeling' where as 'logic' is intellectual. There is talk of 'emotional' intelligence which I may think I am scoring lower on as the years go on. Emotional intelligence would be more 'feel' or more of a 'sensing' way of taking in information (so, dealing with issues such as violence, so you may become angry just be listening to it). Majority of people (70%) use sensing, 30% dont. In that 30% are the 2 most 'intellectual' personality types of INTJ, INTP (scientist, thinker) and they have little to no feeling or constantly question what 'feeling' should feel like... maybe its disappearing via evolution? As I made note, about myself, when I have feelings such as jealousy or love, I make illogical decisions. I'm not doing whats 'best' for the situation. Logic would replace feeling but in order for that to happen feeling must disappear.

Can we replace 'Mother Nature' with 'Logic?' Its Nature for a specie to constantly procreate BUT its also logical that a specie procreate because of other threats. A bunny has a low survival rate but a high procreation rate. Thats logical AND nature. The animals at the bottom of the food chain have a tougher time of achieving a 'now' state of existence since they are constantly worrying about a future attack. Higher up animals do enjoy the now, such as a cat or a crock sitting in the sunlight. Nature, or logic, dictate to animals that if you dont need to spend energy, dont.

Nature and the food chain and procreation and survival rate can potentially be explained or referenced with logic, no? Supply and demand.. My thoughts are going everywhere with this subject.. I just feel the 'feeling in me' but also the 'logical intelligence' I seem to be acquiring over the past while. When I think of 'feelings' I GET a feeling like they are disappearing

Your friend are a dying species, because if they decide logically that they should limit the amount of children, they are simply going to be outnumbered my the studs children, who intend in following the natural laws of evolution. As I said only in recent time is it possible to have multiple children and have them grow up to adulthood.

There are also other factors to take into consideration professional are leaving childhood so late that they have problems conceiving or the child has many genetic illnesses associated with an aging mother and father.

If Gents and upper-class are a bird of a feather and stick together, will only exacerbate genetic illnesses as the children born of older woman have children themselves later in life.

The children of studs will have children very young and healthy so the opposite effect will happen. In the near future mother will evolve to have children at a younger age.

Now here's the thing.

you're forgetting to factor in aids, and other STDs that the studs might have, verses what the Gents don't have.

Also, you're forgetting to factor in the stud men who are gay and go for men.

what else are you forgetting to factor in? oh yess......stud men who go for non stud women and vice versa. gents who go for stud women. see there is a coorelation here, but you won't find it because it's not studiable.

as much as I tihnk this is worth while study, it has nothing of absolute valeu.

Aids by itself cannot stop stud behaviour; I am sure that many children of stud will die because of it, but so many more will live.

Generally speaking the sum of these negative factors are not going to reduce stud children to that less then upper-class gents. Studs being rather like rats will evolve better and evolve quicker, due to shorter generation younger mothers, and genetically healthy children from those young mothers.

The anything that can curb this stud gene dominance is if the majority of children born from studs die before reaching adulthood consistently; I am talking dropping like flies big-time.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0_0/evo_15

In this example, we use beetles, brown and green. Brown beetles make up 10% and green make up 90%. A few generations later, brown beetles make up 70%.

"All of these mechanisms can cause changes in the frequencies of genes in populations, and so all of them are mechanisms of evolutionary change. However, natural selection and genetic drift cannot operate unless there is genetic variation — that is, unless some individuals are genetically different from others. If the population of beetles were 100% green, selection and drift would not have any effect because their genetic make-up could not change."

In other words, aspies would have this genetic difference. In the beetle example, the green beetles were losing to the brown beetles despite the fact that green beetles outnumbered brown beetles 9-1 at one point. Now its up to each of us to decide whether or not this would apply to us - evolution is tough

Did read the link and it brought about the fact species evolve to adapt to its environment. We live in an environment where there are few chances environmental factors that prevent a child from growing up to adulthood.

There are more single parents already and this is yet to continue. There is no factors anymore that stops the poor multiplying in large numbers not unless richer country America, Germany or Japan invades this island and wipe out all the Chav ,Pikies, Yardies and scousers and then populate this country with wealthier people from their own country. Unless that happens, this country is going to determinate into poverty big-time.

It sounds like what you're saying is that you don't want to debate this, have us accept that what you're saying is possible/we have to decide for ourselves, and then leave it at that.

My last sentence in what you quoted was poorly worded/placed on my part - I just wanted to get the point across that evolutionary theory is tough and whether or not the beetle example could apply to us was up to the reader to decide and take from there. I have my theories I strongly believe in as does the next person.

I'm a personal firm believer that 'thought' will dictate evolution, at least on a mental/intelligence level (and their are many areas of intelligence). Bodily, I do not know. I just cant comprehend how poor decision making (resulting from feeling and not logic decision making processes) can continue - We've already endured 2 massive wars from illogical reasoning, whats stopping us from wiping everyone out? Its stupid to even humour the idea but scarier that the idea can and may come into play in real life - what would that accomplish?

Generally speaking, I find their are 2 types of animals. Those who kill and those who are to be killed. I also view them as 'creative' versus 'non creative' in that those animals who kill must adapt to those they are killing. A killer must 'learn' its prey in order to kill it. All hunters have techniques such as a lioness forcing gazelle out into a trap where other lioness' can kill it. The Gazelle just runs to the best location, the Killer needs to be one step ahead or it wont be successful. My point is that intelligence plays a large roll in the success of the specie, humans being the most and brightest shining example. (I guess you could also state that being able to reproduce a billion babies can dictate success but generally, especially for larger animals, this is not possible because of food supplies and environment)

Of course, this is all my personal observation and theory subject to constant change (as new info becomes available). Take what your belief will allow you to, I cant make you believe or see anything that I do. Its hard painting a picture I have and putting into a few words for people to fully grasp and understand nor am I 'right' or the next person. I just constantly fine tune what I know through logic and observation.



This ones for Chav
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... etcrickets
Mutant crickets that are 'mute.' Those who make noise during mating calls may be killed so these mutant crickets come in silent mode. However, while they wont be killed as a result of making noise, they also cannot make 'mating calls' to procreate. Instead, they adapted and hang out with 'noisy' crickets and then attract a female on its way to mate. (I found this funny because I thought of 'aspies' as the 'mute' crickets)

There are always other factors involved. As for 'aspies' being the future, who knows, but I think the 'form of thinking' can be and this is what I personally focus on. If its just 'studs' procreating with 0 differences then there will be no change but since a mutant gene is present, we are subject to change and do change

Last edited by Corvus on 11 Dec 2006, 4:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.