Spectrum ??? Part of natural evolution???

Post Reply New Topic

No we know that evolution happens because the animal needs to adapt to its enviroment. If the ameba was so good at its job why would it evolve into a something with two legs? Because the water in the planet was turning into land and it needed to adapt. Evolution does have rungs, it is trying to improve itself. Just look at the eye, if you look at evolution it gets better and better for the animal because the animal needs to have better eyesight to kill the animals it feeds. Evolution is trying to get us better, and because we are good physically i think evolution is advancing us in the thinking thing. Why else would there be more and more people being born autistic if it wasn't evolution?

I believe that humans were at a much more highly evolved level in the past,
and we've become disconnected, and that's what autism is. We all have it because we're all disconnected at some level.

No, we do not know that. What you assert is contrary to mainstream views current in the scientific community. I'm not aware of any viable theory that asserts what you suggest.

An amoeba did not involve into something with two legs.

There is no evidence 'need' is a sufficient cause for De Novo point mutation, nor for recombination.
The environment is an important factor in determining which variations that have occurred result in a variation in reproductive success, but the 'need' of an organism does not appear to have any scope to cause genetic mutations that confer reproductive advantage on the organism or its off-spring.


There is no evidence of this. Evolution is not an entity that is premised as having intent, nor is there any indication that evolution is an entity that plausibly could form intent.

Traits that confer advantages in terms of reproductive success have an increased likelihood of being propagated in succeeding generations at a higher rate than traits that confer less advantages in reproductive success.
The occurrence of variation is not known to be responsive to the need/s of the organism. Many mutations do not confer any reproductive success whatsoever, indeed mutations can be catastrophic for an organism (and/or its reproductive success).


Whether or not evolution has intent, or mutations occur in response to an organisms needs, is not relevant to determining whether increased rates of autism are constitute evolutionary change. If the outcome results from a change of frequencies in the rates at which one or more heritable alleles occur in the human gene pool, then the outcome is a direct result of evolutionary changes and constitutes an occurrence of micro-evolution.

The increased height is generally recognized as resulting from better health conditions, and improved nutrition. It can easily be reversed in just one generation, so it's not evolutionary.

Negative qualities are slated for extinction? What do you base that statement on? Humanitiy's negative traits (violence, prejudice, etc.) have persisted for the entire length of our history. Wishful thinking isn't likely to change that.

Unfortunately, Wether nature is trying to make us better or if it is a enviromental toxin, a random mutation of genes, left over genes from prehistoric man... no one really knows... However, the one thing that binds us together is we all have a mutation of genes, to a greater or lesser degree... that is why we are here... on Wrong planet... it is our common thread. I would like to think (without any scientific proof) that this organism's mutation is there because if for no other reason I am helping to change mans DNA for the better for the far distant future. Even if this organism's mutation does not carry on into future generations... My DNA is carried forward for better or worse... My daughter's are alive an they can carry it for me.

HELLO.... it was just a thougth, an idea, a wondering, a musing... this thread was not a knock down drag out scientific debate of all things factual... Just a simple ordinary thought. Oye -Vay

Cursed Brunette, I am really not sure what the relevance of your comments about polar bears are. The facts you present about polar bears are not contrary to anything in my comments (which the polar bear comments appear to be replying to).

My position is that it occurred as a 'random happening', and was propagated because it was an alteration that did not negatively impact on reproductive success.
If things happened just because it was advantageous, then surely there would be less diversity since the most advantageous alterations would happen universally thus resulting in one universally same and most advantageous life-form type.


Why does a species need to survive? If need worked to effect advantageous changes because species need to survive, why would the dodo be extinct?
None of which is contrary to anything I have asserted in my comments. What is relevant, is that if all the high leafs disappeared overnight and were replaced with low-hanging leaves, giraffes would not spontaneously mutate out of a need to adapt to this change, nor would the genetic information contained in the gametes/sex cells (of giraffes) spontaneously mutate in response to environmentally derived need to change.


I understand your point, however, it's not the word that I consider to be an issue, but rather that the concept it expresses is flawed. Evolution is not (so far as I can see) an intangible concept; even if it is the metaphor/analogy of rungs on a ladder misrepresents evolution in my view. The notion of evolution being 'directed' (ie involving progress along steps or up a ladder) once prevailed in science but has since been shown to be neither productive (to scientific inquiry and understanding) nor likely to have any objective basis in reality. Notions of progressive or 'directed' evolution have been implicated in some less than desirable paradigms. Such thinking was an integral element in early racist paradigms about evolution and human diversity.

In short the concept the word I object to is expressing, appears to me to be unhelpful because it propagates misconceptions about evolution that can actually be harmful both for scientific understanding and for social reasons.


The occurrence of mutations is not known to be responsive to the needs of the species anymore than it is known to be responsive to the needs of individual organisms. I would wonder by what mechanism the DNA in gametes could be caused to re-arrange itself in ways that offer specific solutions to environmental change. How does the DNA know the nature of the change, what solution would address the need to change, how does it know what re-arrangement of itself could effect the solution, and how does it know how to arrange itself in order to achieve the reconfiguration? Further what stops this happening in all the cases where no mutation occurs in response to a particular need?


The mutations of the kind being discussed (changes in the content and composition of genetic material) cannot be in the DNA of an organism while also not being 'contained in the actual species'.


The occurrence of a mutation is a necessary condition to the mutation becoming fixed within the population's gene pool. The nature of any resulting change in phenotype interacts with the other characteristics of the organisms implicated and the characteristics of their environmental niche to determine whether or not the mutation will become fixed within the gene pool and if so the extent of its penetration.


Non-advantageous genetic traits can become fixed in a population's gene pool. Even a trait that is detrimental to the reproductive success of individual organisms and the species (as a whole) can become fixed within a gene pool.


I do not see that the genetic changes that cause stripes on tigers could have occurred for the purpose of breaking up their fur. My understanding is that the genetic characteristic that causes stripes, convey a reproductive advantage for tigers. This did not cause the genetic characteristics that result in stripes, but rather caused a reproductive discrepancy between those with and those without stripes that resulted in those with stripes being reproduced at a greater rate than those without, until the trait achieved a penetration level of 100% within the specie gene-pool. The genetic changes that result in stripes did not occur in response to any specific need.

I do not understand why a reason for the existence of variant alleles you might possess would matter to you one way or another (since the reason why it exists does not determine what effect it will have, it's plausible to suggest that you have played a part in reproducing an advantageous genetic variation on grounds that do not entail why the variation came to exist), but if it makes you feel better to think of it that way, I wish you happiness in that.

Mmm, I do not disagree with that opinion, I do fail to see why that requires misunderstanding, misconstruing or ignoring the information (about evolution) discovered to date.

You post the things that interest you in accordance with your interest/inclination. Others do the same. There will not always be a match in those interests/inclinations. Hopefully everyone manages to have a good time none the less.

A good time yes but it can cause quite a stir with in people's minds to try & get their heads around a new concept that completely shatters every concept they have been taught...

Thank you for the current information... I do not work in a scientific arena studying DNA or varient alleles and was just boggled by the info you supplied. As a lay person I will never fully understand apparently, as much as you do however, My interest in both the scientific area & the causal effects is still of interest.

Why would species be in different environmental niches if they began in the niche as identical organisms and all experienced the same mutation in response to the same needs? They would all be in the same niche with the same needs and no organism any better adjusted for alternative niches. There is no scope there for any differentiation since all have the same needs and none are equipped to move into alternative niches. It is because variation arises independent of any need it might meet, that the diversity that facilitated the occupation of a range of niches was possible.


An organism's niche is its planet. Identical organisms in a particular niche are adapted to the same niche, so exist in the same niche, ergo they experience the same level of stability or change and the same kind of change (of environmental factors). Unless we assume variation arises independent of needs within an environment, all the organisms would undergo the same change as needed, and so none would be adapted for any niche other than the same niche its cohorts were adapted to. In effect they would share a universal eco-system because none would be adapted for survival outside the niche. Why would they since their form would be dictated by the needs arising from the niche they already occupy?


Exactly. If we assume that species need to survive and this causes them to experience de novo alterations in their DNA in response to needs arising from environmental changes, then we would assume the dodo would change so that it could fly away, swim away, pick up a gun, a sword, a knife, or whatever else it would need to do to survive.

That evolution could only happen if and because as a matter of chance variation exists or arises that facilitates adaption. It would not occur because need caused the variation. Environmental factors influence the likelihood of a particular variation being propagated, it cannot cause the variation to occur in the first place. The interplay between the environment and variation only occurs once the variation already exists.

If a concept entails that some forms are more progressive, advanced or just plain better than others (rather than more or less adapted to particular niches), then the application of the concept entails differential valuation of the forms.

Scientifically there is nothing to be gained by considering that variant levels of pigmentation are more or less progressive, advanced or better or worse, because objectively no particular level of pigmentation is better, more progressive or advanced than others (for instance). Various levels of pigmentation are varyingly adaptive to various niches, so what is best in one niche is not best in another, and objectively one level of pigmentation is not better or more advanced/progressive than any other, merely more or less adaptive to particular niches. Valuations are generally subjective and not usually helpful to objective science.

Socially, I'm sure you can see the problem with the notion that variations in traits are more or less progressive; which persons/traits of persons are more advanced, progressive or just plain better than others? What ought we do about that? In times past eugenics was one solution. Early theories about variation between humans had a strong focus on efforts to determine which human 'races' were more advanced than others, and by how much. Racist, exploitive, and some just plain nasty ideas, policies and actions were justified on the basis that some traits (and the persons characterised by them) were more advanced and progressive, while others were comparatively less advanced and regressive.

If evolution is progressive and traits are therefore more or less advanced than others, necessarily individual people (and ethnic groups) are more or less advanced than others. There is no objective evidence that this is actually the case, and so both scientifically and socially there is good cause to avoid a 'progress/advance/improvement' paradigm and to instead employ a model where traits are considered in terms of how adaptive they are for a particular niche.

Mutations of the kind being discussed occur to DNA and either the mutation is in the DNA of one or more organisms in a species, and therefore is contained within that/those species, or the mutation is not extant.
Mutations that have evolutionary significance always happen in the genes. Traits that are caused by mutations in DNA from one generation to the next, are not mutations themselves.
With regards to sickle cell anemia, this condition occurs when a person has two copies of a particular allele that results in a variation in the beta chain of hemoglobin produced. Each and every person characterised by the typical number of chromosomes (46 in humans), has either 1, 2 or 0 copies of the allele. People who have 0 copies do not produce hemoglobin with the structural weakness that results in sickling of the red blood cells under oxygen stress. People with 2 copies do not produce hemoglobin without the structural weakness that results in the sickling of the red blood cells under oxygen stress (and hence suffer from sickle cell anemia). Persons with 1 copy of the sickle cell allele produce both kinds of hemoglobin (sickling and non-sickling) but the non-sickling cells will be in the majority.
So not everyone has the allele that results in the production of cells vulnerable to sickling, and those that do are differentially effected depending on whether they have one or two copies.


That's good, because in that case the premise that does seem to actually matter to you, is not excluded by scientific facts. In fact, the scientific facts better support the premise that you are contributing to your specie's gene-pool in a positive manner than they do the contrary.

All variation is a possible resource in the event of environmental change. Because DNA mutations do not occur in response to need arising from environmental change, when environmental change occurs, either variation that is sufficiently adaptive already exists, or no adaption can occur. So in reproducing, you are contributing to the 'store of resources' in the gene pool.


Just to clarify, the mutation occurs at the genetic DNA level, not the organism level.


I do not believe there was any intent on your part to do any of the above. However, comments within this thread did do these things, so I responded in an attempt to decrease misunderstanding and misconstruction and to propagate knowledge.


I cannot comment on 'animal planet', I'm not really sure what it is. Nor am I familiar with the role the particular education department you refer to has in disseminating accurate and/or inaccurate knowledge about evolution. I can state that of all the texts about evolution, that I currently own, (which range in copyright date from 1985 through to 2006), all are very clear in asserting that 'directed' evolution is not considered a viable hypothesis, and that needs arising from the effect of environmental factors cannot cause mutations to occur in DNA, and certainly cannot cause mutations tailored to meet the need to occur.


It certainly causes my mind to stir, it's interesting stuff.
I'm not sure that the distinction between directed evolution and modern conceptions is so vast that one must shatter all concepts arising from the former to get to grips with the latter. The primary difference is that changes are evaluated as more or less adaptive to particular niches rather than as more or less progressive/advanced, and the existence of variation is viewed as something environmental factors act on rather than the something that happens in direct response to needs arising from environmental factors.


You're more than welcome; thanks for reading it (the information)


This is probably because a lot of 'pop' sources of information tend to present information in 'simplified' form (apparently to make it more accessible to the 'average person').

I do not know that you will never understand as much as I do. The information is available, and nothing about your reasoning indicates that it would not be perfectly understandable to you if you had the opportunity to access it. It's not a reflection on your competency if you have only been exposed to information from which it is not possible to gain a full understanding.

Pandd is right about this stuff. I'd also like to add that sickle cell anaemia is a particularly interesting case. Two copies of the allele and you've got sickle cell anaemia, which is not good. However, if you only have the one copy you only become slightly anaemic and you have greatly improved resistance to malaria. This is why the gene carries on in the genepool. One copy is a good thing, if you live in an area with a lot of malaria; two copies are a bad thing for anyone. It's kept at equilibrium, but it's only really found in people who have their origins in places where malaria is/has been a serious threat to survival. Likewise Europeans sometimes have genes which make them more resistant to bubonic plague, which obviously has killed off a lot of Europeans in the past. This isn't, incidentally, because they got the genes in response to the plague. At some point, the mutation arose by chance quite independently of the plague. However, when the plague hit, the survival rate of those with the gene for resistance was much higher, so it reached a higher concentration in the next generation.

Sorry for the scientific waffle. The trouble is that some of us, like me (and probably pandd) have aspie obsessions with this stuff. This kind of thread makes me happy. I don't think it's beyond anyone to understand though: the concept of evolution by natural selection is deliciously simple. It's just that there's a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding about it in popular culture. If you don't want a big stack of textbooks on it I suggest you start with Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" which is spot on and very easy to read.

What a fine thread.
I think several people have surrounded the big problem with this line of inquiry - the assumption that evolution is a purposeful step in a forward direction, in some sort of race between individuals for the future of the gene pool. While it is not a legitimate scientific question to ask "why" the set of several mutations that together make up the autistic spectrum came into existence, we can legitimately ask why they persist in the gene pool, and why at this frequency of 1/4% to 1%.
I think a big part of the answer lies in population dynamics. The thought of a future human population with even a simple majority of aspies seems ridiculous or intolerable. But it does seem that the gene pool of a population is well-served if your average-sized tribe has a high probability of having at least one guaranteed "outsider's" point of view, someone who can (and must) think outside the box. A lemming who won't hesitate to shout out "don't go that way, you idiots!" In eras and epochs where this kind or creativity proves the most useful, then the aspies get lucky, get richer, get laid and get to make more babies. At times when the outsider's point of view serves no useful function, then we sad aspies return to being reproductively marginalized. Given this, the frequency of socially useful aspies might tend to vary around one per tribe of average size, when averaged across the millennia since these mutations occurred. Not coincidentally, I suspect, "Dunbar's Number" for the average size of human tribes is 150.

Oops. Error of fact and sloppy writing there. Dunbar's number is the population level where social interaction starts to get intolerably complex and tribes tend to divide in two. So average tribe sizes would be closer to 75-100.

You can't say anything is the next stage in evolution. This kind of thinking has more in common with the intelligent design way of thinking. Evolution happens in the present. It is not planned, it doesn't have consciousness. You can only say something was a stage in evolution.

Evolution is lots of minute random things coming together. To say ASD is a stage in evolution doesn't make sense. There will be DNA left over from a huge range. ASD genes have just as much probability of being resilient than others as far as we know.

I think what is misguided about things like this, such as Neanderthal Aspies, is it smacks of superiority complex.

i believe we are next step of evolution

I think that times are changing and people like us are affected harshly by it.. there is strange things going on in our solar system right now and it seems obsurd to think it doesnt have an affect on us, when it is proven that simple things like the weather have an affect on us..

Not only that, but perhaps we are sensitive to pollution, and to toxic things that most people can consume normally.. we are surrounded in toxic.

Nice thread, cursed_brunette I like your opinion.