Theory on evolution

Post Reply New Topic

I studied Evolution in Biology earlier this year, and how natural selection basically covers the whole lot of it. So here's my theory:

We, people with Autistic Spectrum Disorders, are different compared to "normal" people. I will call them normal, as opposed to NT.

I think that people with AS (such as myself) seem to gain large benefits from our perceived "disorder".

We tend to be (but aren't always) more intelligent, more able to concentrate, more able to complete tasks when we want to than other people. Out of the AS people I know, all of them have impressive vocabularies, remarkable memory, genius-level knowledge of one or more areas. In addition to our overpowering awesomeness, we're supremely modest!

Perhaps most importantly, we are able to learn nearly anything. Some people will argue "Oh, Aspies have no social skills" but, contrary to that, I believe that we have a DIFFERENT set of social skills when compared to normal people. Not only that, but, in my experience, we tend to be able to learn the social skills used by normal people. Sure, we may never be as adept as them at these social endeavours, but we certainly can be able to function socially in spite of what teachers and therapists and books have to say.

My theory is that we could be evolution at work. We seem to be superior (for want of a better word) to the normal ones. So, over time, natural selection will mean that we end up being the "normal" ones while they have the disorder. Not only that, but AS seems to be inherited from one's parents; my father seems to have it, and it may be that my sister does as well. These are both observations, rather than cold, hard fact.

Just a theory, but could we be the next step in human evolution? I mean, most of the pioneers in various fields (Einstein is probably the best example) that have advanced the human race considerably display symptoms of AS. And, really, who wrote better music-Mozart or Billy Ray Cyrus? That's what I thought. I'm fairly sure that an AS individual would be ideal to land on, say, Mars; he or she might be, say, a geologist, and he or she would only pick up their rocks and observe them without succumbing to distraction.

Just a theory. I don't necessarily believe it, but it seems to be valid. I'd like your thoughts on the matter.

You obviously didn't pay any attention in your biology class. The entire principle of natural selection is based on who produces the most viable offspring. Given that Aspies tend to have difficulty finding a mate, we certainly are not be selected for.

I won't bother with the other outlandish, self-contradictory, and outright false claims in your post. It suffices to say that Aspies most certainly do not represent the "next stage" in human evolution.

I also do not think we are "the next stage". Thats a little presumptuous.

If anything we (those with ASD) are more on an anomaly. We me be growing in numbers so to speak, but that does not represent evolution.

Also in what ways are we "Superior"? You state in most cases we are more intelligent. Maybe, but most people with AS have a focused intelligence to an area (sometimes our "obsession").

Focus is also subjective to the individual. I often personally have a hard time focusing on many things.

The assumption "someone with AS could pick up a rock on mars and not get distracted" is also subjective to the person. You may not. I may. He may not. She may. Etc.

As for music: Mozart is superior to Billy, I think we all agree. But most music is not done by someone with ASD, and a decent amount of music (there is so much) really is not crap. Plus now the moment someone with ASD makes crap music it completely nullifies your argument.

If we DID end up out populating NT's, it would still be a disorder, just not a minority.

Also, it seems many people with AS CANNOT pick up social norms so easy. If we could, we would. Or I would. I don't think ASD also has arrogance as a symptom >.>

First of all, the only form of evolution out of the 6 supposed forms that can be scientifically proven is micro-evolution. I believe but cannot prove that autistic people have been around since near the beginning of creation. History shows that most people known to have invented or discovered many things have been peculiar. This includes Marie Curie, Thomas Edison, Isaac Newton, Wolfgang Mozart, Emily Dickerson, Albert Einstein, and many, many others. I am not saying they are or were autistic, but I believe it is worth a try to look into this possibility.

Autistic people are not the next step in evolution. As far as natural selection goes, the function of autism genes is to benefit the population as a whole, not to replace NT genetics.

Consider:
1. Autistics are less likely to reproduce than NTs. Lowered social skills ensure that.
2. Autistics are more likely to have splinter skills and extreme specialization which benefits the species as a whole.

So, for an evolutionary advantage to the human species, the best possible state is to have some autistic people in the population--but not too many. Each autistic that is produced means fewer children in the next generation, but there is also a chance of more innovation for that same next generation. The balance is at the point where the loss in children that the autistics don't have, is balanced by the survival of other children because of the new technology.

For example. Bob, the Autistic Caveman, invents fire. Because he is too nerdy for the cave-women, he has no children. However, Alice, his sister, takes advantage of the fire he invented to successfully raise five children to reproductive age. Even though Bob has no children, Alice, who shares half his genes, passes on her half of his DNA to her children. What's more, Bob's autism had a permanent effect: Not only do Alice's children benefit from the invention of fire, but so does every generation thereafter. Because even one innovation can confer a very large survival benefit to the entire society, Bob's autistic DNA sticks around, mostly recessive and occasionally expressing itself. Even though the vast majority of the autistic cave-men who result don't manage to invent the wheel, the small number who do make permanent changes are enough to keep Bob's clan successfully competing against all the other cave-people clans, and enough to make up for the small decrease in overall reproduction.

If Bob had not been autistic, Bob might have had two children, but Alice would not have been able to take advantage of fire, and so only two of her children survive to adulthood. In this case, Bob passes on his genes; but he does not give his group of cave-people any permanent advantage. Soon, Bob and his tribe of NT cave-men are assimilated or crowded out by other tribes, where autistic genes have allowed technological innovations.

This only works, though, if the majority of the cavemen are neurotypical. Taking advantage of a trait that lowers reproduction, like autism does, is only possible when that trait is not expressed in the majority of a society's members.

Study sickle-cell anemia and sickle-cell trait to observe a similar effect.

there could be a bigger demand for our skills in the future which would put us in a better position to compete for the ladies. meanwhile, the lady aspies keep us from extinction.

I think they have difficulty teaching evolution in schools, people remember survival of the fittest but that is hardly correct.

Evolution is solely dependant of having offspring. No children = no evolution.

The animals that survive and reproduce are the animals that continue the evolution of the species.

Humans as a species have evolved to be social creatures with a natural group limit somewhere around 100-200, ask an NT how many numbers he has on his phone + how many "friends" he has not listed + relatives he visits and lives with. Anyway this social structure is bound by social rules, although some are arbitrary and cultural, others are definite and common to the human species. Now as AS people have trouble with these rules they don't naturally fit in, thus are less likely to reproduce, thus less likely to be involved with human evolution. Sort of weird then that (presumably) a lot of AS people's inventiveness has benefit the group as a whole.

While the comments on women waiting till their 30s are true there are still plenty of people marrying young. This is also a cultural thing and when that culture disappears so will that habit, also this is not a part of the culture in other countries. Also remember that the stupid people that have 8 kids and live their simple lives are probably the ones to carry our species forward