Why the Autism Spectrum is Not the next evolutionary step.

Post Reply New Topic

I don't think there is going to be a singular next step. I think the human race will diversify into... well, "breeds", for lack of a better word, like cat breeds or dog breeds, specialized but still human and capable of reproducing with each other, and probably meant to work in an interconnected fashion. That's possible now as it's never been before because the advance of efficient communication has allowed extreme specialization.

Anybody still saying "next step" needs to get one fact: Evolution is not linear.

How could we throw backs to primitive people? Most high functioning Aspies are far more intelligent then the average NT. Considering that I have an ex Pilot, Nasa Engineer, several teachers, and a Nuclear Technician in my family I hardly think these are inferior genes. I just got the toxic parts that inhibit my functioning. Many people with Aspergers have very successful parents. The problem with society's breeding isn't just an Aspie issue. The problem is the most uneducated, criminally prone, poorest section of the population are having the most children. Woman are picking bad boys and creating a reverse natural selection favoring reprobates.

Are these genes being successfully passed to the next generation. That is the only thing the counts as far as evolution is concerned.

ruveyn

Evolution is also an anticipation of the future
any adaptation involves some anticipation of a future
beside,
the term "now" is much less understood than what u and most ppl think it is
things r not that simple when dealing with time which is a concept no one should be pretend to really understand

the problem i see with your view and most other views in this thread is that no one seemed to be able to think beyond high school biology,
i wish that at least in forums like this ppl will dare to think a bit and not just quote what they have learned in school or books,
could u at least imagine that not every thing u'v been taught is the absolute truth?

perhaps there is a connection between the "intelligent design" view to Darwin view of things,
the AS i know r not afraid if seeking knowledge and making unconventional observation and connection and maybe that one of the factors that gave rise to the notion that they r in some way a next step.

The biggest misconception about Aspies is that they are significantly different from NTs. It's not so. There are differences but it is definitely possible for an Aspie to pass their genes to offspring. Aspies who are intelligent or have savant like abilities are often held in high esteem by others. People who are highly regarded often marry and have children, regardless of other features of AS. The abilities can offset them to some extent.
Those with AS can find decent, understanding partners like many here on WP have done. So, it's entirely plausible to consider AS as part of the evolutionary process. Not an evolutionary step, but part of the process: yes.

It is with this statement that demonstrates the lack of difference of ND with NT. In the end, we're all homo sapiens.

Evolution also does not happen over night. It takes time...like a few million years time. Neandrathals probably didn't have that great of a start at first and modern day people probably did not have it so easy in the beginning. There are people with autism or Asperger's who get married and have kids and so the AS genes ARE being passed on for future generations. Maybe people with AS are the next step in human evolution and then maybe they are not. Truthfully we will not be around to see what happens.

Yes. I have a very large family and I'm the one shining failure of the group.

There is other possibility: perhaps autism and AS are similar to the sickle-cell disease.

If you inherit the gene for SCD from ONE of your parents you are immune to many blood diseases, like malaria (what is a evolutionary advantage, at least in some countries).

If you inherit the genes form SCD from BOTH of your parents, you get SCD and probably you will die of it.

Maybee a similar thing culd occur with AS: AS being a evolutionary disadvantage but the genes that cause AS being (in a more moderate level) an evolutionary advantage.

The theory of evolution is at least reasonably coherent and explains a lot which wasn't rationally explicable before. The problem isn't that we're not able to think outside the box, the problem is that there is nothing coherent outside the box. What do we have that's beyond the received wisdom? Intelligent design by the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Or some wacky blend of evolution and religion? I hold with lots of independently-conceived explanations about other phenomena, which fly in the face of conventional wisdom, but that's because those explanations make sense to me. But not with evolution, because of what makes sense and what doesn't. No doubt the Flat Earth Society thinks everybody else has a blinkered view of reality, but it doesn't make their view one iota more valid. The problem with being extremely open-minded is that your brains tend to fall out.

One common concept on this thread is that evolution has no goal and consequently that evolution is just about what is happening now and while this is certainly true, I feel that not enough has been mentioned about random mutations which make this sort of question legitimate.

Evolution works by random mutation of genes makes an occasional organisms of a species have different traits. These different traits then allow natural selection to play out, with either the mutations being more fit for their environment or the not mutated organisms being fit for their environment. The crucial point is the random mutations. Some biologists believe they are purely random, others feel that there is something more fundamental guiding them, that biological and genetic constraints mean that random mutations manifest in a set number of patterns. If the second is true, as I believe, then this is probably what mental illnesses are, random mutations creating specific similarities to form within people divergent from NTs, and Aspergers is one of these random mutations. So my point is that even though evolutions is in no way goal orientated, since what causes evolutionary change is random mutations and since Aspergers is probably a random mutation, speculation of this sort is not bad biology.

As for my own thoughts, I'm inclined to not to see much evolutionary possibility for Aspergers in a biological sense because of the decreased likelihood of reproduction. However, if you measure what affect Aspergers has culturally then I think it's fair to say we will have a greater impact on human evolution than is proportional to our numbers. Consider how great affect science has had on evolution, and if you believe that many key scientists were Autistic, such as Newton, then it is certainly possible that human evolutionary potential has been hugely influenced by Autistic people.

AS is but one of the evoultionary changes in mankind. Who's to say future sexual desires won't shift. There used to be a time women with "Large" figures were seen as desireable. Now, such is no longer the case.

To the extent AS symptoms hamper survival in a highly social and competitive enviorment, I do think that AS is something that needs a specialized enviorment to thrive in. Like any organism, there is niches where we prosper and sectors where we often fail. We may never gain widespread "Acceptance", but that doesn't mean we don't have evolutionary worth when applied to the right areas....

also, the intra-mating of Aspies as a result of social discrimination may actually accidentaly keep the AS gene far more alive and potent than otherwise.

the evolution theory have presented us with some very nice, coherent,even proven theories of how some aspect of life evolve,
it doesn't in any way attempt the "why" and contrary to some of the extreme views ppl tend to take it doesn't eliminate the "why" or declare there isn't a goal behind all this,
it simply doesn't deal with such question.
Darwin wasn't against religion,it is the narow minded ppl of his time,and our time, who mistake in what he described an anti "intelligent design" approach because it didn't conform to their narrow perception of an what intelligent design should be and they mistook his views as a threat to their status or claim to power,not so different from what u do when pretend to be scientific and logic and all that while in fact u fall to the same old trap of politics and prestige and all that crap which had never anything to do with real science.
natural selection is very intelligent and the word "natural" in itself is not very scientific but serves as relative term to the perception of what was known then.
it is certainly not impossible to read from history or science a coherent view of steady progress in all fields of human existence and it is not beyond sensible thought to connect lines between the dots in order to infer some meaning or views into the goals or goal that control or inspire or any other word u choose ,our existence.
do u really think that we r here just to reproduce ?
naturally,out of the box thinking require u to dare into the unknown and into what is considered incoherent ,
the attempt to bring coherency into the incoherent is part of the human nature and maby an evolutionary drive but u seems to step back from anything that wasn't proven yet,
for me that's a big waste of life,
i didn't say i have the answer but i was disappointed by the conformity and lack of guts that was displayed here by most .

Yes. Natural selection is not incompatible with intelligent design.

No one can know what the next outcome ("step") will be, because nature dictates the terms of what is adaptive by dictating the scenarios within which we exist. Some feel we will vanquish nature, but I feel this is a foolish attitude and one that has already gotten us in a lot of trouble. Simply, it is impossible, as we as well as our technology come from and are part of nature. Certainly some giant egos will be tempted by this challenge, but the phrase that comes to mind is Carlin's, "a ringside seat as humankind goes down the tubes." (paraphrased)