Austism as Genetic Specialization via on/off genes

Post Reply New Topic

I'm working on some thoughts in my mind, that I really am no where near being able to put into a coherent form yet... but really what i'm asking here, is if anyone knows of any research already done on the topic, either in support or against.

Okay.. here's the basics.
Bees and Ants are the species that come most to mind... There are genes that turn on and turn off, sometimes during life, sometimes during embryology. These genes determine the role of that member of the species, such as worker ants, Queen Bees, Drones, etc.

I've been wondering if certain issues with Autism and the spectrum could have some connection to human DNA having similar capabilities... if a gene has an x% chance of being turned on, because the gene pool itself benefited from this overall occurrence, without significantly hurting the chance of that individual reproducing. Now, if there are a series of these genes with x1, x2, ... xn% chance of activation, each one of those genes defines an individuals overall roll in the social order. say one is the inventor gene, one the artist gene, one the craftsman gene, one the historian gene, etc.
Now, what happens in that unusual chance when multiples of these genes are activated in a single organism?

I don't know that i really have a theory or hypothesis or anything of the like yet, it's more just a kinda desire to look into and think about the idea. I've done a bit of searching of the forums, but any keyword that i've come up with, either hits too many non-related issues or nothing at all.

Any input greatly appreciated. Either comments or links to research.

classic example someone who's a computer programmer. Certainly seems to be specialized.

----------------------------

myself, I tend to be more of a social studies/history/philosophy nerd. I remember being surprised in a very good way that after reading the philosophy article twice and/or taking notes, or occasionally if it was something I was currently studying and keenly interested in, I could pretty much remember the entirely article and review it at my leisure, say while showering or taking a walk.

i'm fascinated by this idea. i've often wondered something similar about homosexuality. like could it be a response to overpopulation? there is an island somewhere with a huge population of birds and some of them appear to be homosexual when the population of the birds gets too high. (can't find an article about it - too many off topic hits when i search)

i would never talk about that theory around anyone who might be marginally homophobic though, as i'd be afraid it would be a short logic leap to "then they aren't meant to procreate" and i'd hate to have put that idea in anyone's mind.

anyway, i'd like to hear more if you have anything else to say on it?

I have considered the idea re: homosexuality.
I have a bit harder time finding the genetic path to it via competitive advantage though.
On the flip side... In overpopulated, under food-supplied areas many species exhibit homosexual tendencies... But from my looking into the topic, it is not manifest in such a way as an exclusive preference in a single individual, rather as individual acts in what would otherwise be considered a heterosexual individual.

If one was able to find a competitive advantage to having that gene be present, but not always active in what up until now has NOT been an overpopulated world, there would be great merit in the idea... I think the only place (in time) one may find an answer would be in the ice ages, which in effect were extended famines. Normal famines would not be long enough to allow such a gene to take hold. Would ice ages be long enough?

There is also the other approach... genetic mistake, erased by history.... with the vestiges still in tact in our genome... only one on/off marker away from being re-activated... doable by a random mutation or a simple quantum fluctuation at the right(wrong?) time.

I think if the on/off gene for it does exist in our genome... it LONG LONG pre-dates anything that would even resemble humans. maybe quite early in our foray into the sexually reproductive species. Certainly at least back to our amphibious ancestors (as frogs can show these tendencies.)

I don't know a whole lot about genetics, but it certainly seems possible. Genes do work by turning on and off.

And then there's the observation that two geek parents (atypical neurotypicals), with a few spectrum traits apiece, are more likely than average to have a kid on the spectrum. (Still controversial, but I do believe it and I think it'll be proven at some point). I'm not sure if that's what you meant by "what happens in that unusual chance when multiples of these genes are activated in a single organism?" But that's how I interpreted it.

"say one is the inventor gene, one the artist gene, one the craftsman gene, one the historian gene, etc."
Given that these are evolutionarily recent, culturally defined roles, I don't think it works like this. But maybe there are particular personality traits or ways of perceiving information that are genetically influenced, that could predispose someone to be an inventor, or an artist...or an aspie.

Over six billion served, 22 Haplogroups out of Africa, and no two alike.

Any pattern, useful or not, can be found.

We have passed the DNA basic number of tickets, but now find that there are epigenetic switches that mean a lot more possible combinations.

The main driving force seems to be survival of the lucky. When the asteroid strikes, the gene pool changes.

Behaviors have more to do with where you live. Mom and Dad taught at the University, pushes you toward that life.

Talent is rare, but of little use in some places. Classical Music, maybe in New York, but the same in rural Mississippi will turn out different.

Some great scientists turned sci fi writers, for the technology needed was lacking in their time. Jules Verne was fifty years or more ahead of his time.

Then there is the Asexual-Allsexual curve. Somehow both ends survive.

Autism has always been around, but most had the good sense to understand they could do nothing about it.