A girlfriend is not a lost puppy.

Post Reply New Topic

Not every individual in a population will have only adaptive traits and not every phenotype that persists needs to be beneficial but only the genes that cause the phenotype need to be stable in the population.

For example, in some regions sickle cell anemia occurs and is relatively stable from one generation to the next. It's a severe illness. The reason why it persists (albeit it's not extremely common) is not that people with sickle cell anemia reproduce as well as the general population but that people heterozygous for the gene that causes it when you are homozygous for the sickle cell allele, have an advantage via being relatively immune to malaria.

Autism or any other condition that could be seen as ND is not a monogenic trait. It is likely at least partly genetic but caused by a combination of many genes and likely no single one of them has an allele that's necessary for being ND. Some alleles that may contribute to autism could be advantageous in combination with some gene-variants and disadvantageous in combination with others. That would make them persist in a population at a rate where the rate between advantageous to disadvantageous combinations that occur will be good (unless recent changes in environment make them maladaptive). But in that case there will be individuals that get a combination that's less favorable for their biological fitness and in some cases that could cause asexuality.

I'm fairly sure people with type 3 autism reproduce at a much lower rate than the average. I won't guess about type 1 autism and it may be hard to get exact numbers as the ones who cope best will be the ones least likely to be diagnosed. Either way people with any sort of condition don't necessarily need to reproduce as much as the general population for the condition to be stable within the population if individuals without that condition can pass on the relevant gene-variants.

Therefore severe genetic diseases that are monogenic and dominant traits are extremely rare, because they're rarely passed on and mainly occur by de-novo mutation.
Monogenic recessive diseases will be rare, but not necessarily extremely rare if heterozygosity is an advantage.
If a trait is polygenic it gets messy because there can be selection against some combinations and selection for others.
I'm not saying that every condition that's neurodiverse has to be maladaptive, but that a condition exists and persists doesn't prove that it isn't.

Sure, like anything else that can be used for surveillance it'd come with a risk. My point about making it measurable, if it existed, was purely about what would need to be done to make it subject to scientific research, not about what would be desirable for society as a whole.

If asexuality was only common in diagnosed ASD, then your reasoning might be valid. That is not the case. Asexuality is just as high in NDs that are not diagnosable, and those contribute some 15% of the population.

I think a better explanation is that not liking one-night-stands and disliking having sex with many people outside of relationships, has never been a problem. For much of human evolution, it was illegal or morally wrong to have sex outside of a marriage/relationship, and contraceptives were not available. Thus, I would even claim that being able to plan reproduction was an advantage during much of our evolution, so asexuality never was a problem until fairly recently.



I think a "side-effect" of mind-to-mind communication, detecting direction, would be a better candidate for scientific research. I already did some "measurements" based on this that has resulted in two places that I wouldn't know of otherwise. I also have detected when she leaves with the train in the morning, and I could pin-point this to a very specific one. Not to mention that we now end our morning walk at this specific train, and she tells me when it is time to head for the station (I don't have a watch with me).

... What I’m seeing here over and over is that you have wild guesses about how things work in relationships and biology and then you write a “report,” or post in order to give yourself the confirmation bias you need to argue an incorrect point.

Wrong. Marriage/monogamy are relatively new man made constructs. Humans have evolved to have multiple sexual partners to the point that males have a variety of different sperm cells that perform different functions, much like a football team. There are sperm that block other’s sperm, others that attack other’s sperm, and others yet that make a sprint for the egg - as the strongest, fastest, swimmer gets to procreate. Humans have evolved to bang away and have multiple sexual partners just like many animals & then it’s survival of the fittest when the best man’s sperm impreganates the egg while the others get blocked or killed off.

What I’m seeing here over and over is that you have wild guesses about how things work in relationships and biology and then you write a “report,” or post in order to give yourself the confirmation bias you need to argue an incorrect point.

We're on to you, rdos! It's gonna take some really fancy back-pedaling for you to get outta this one, for sure!

I don't think so. That's how our primate ancestors worked, but they didn't have highly dependent children that needed protection for many years. It might be plausible that in some societies (most notable in Africa where we got the NT genome from), women in a tribe would rear children together, and this could allow for more competition between men, but this never was the norm in Eurasia.



It's just you that have bought the incorrect "man the hunter" stereotype. It simply has no validity.

It doesn’t matter what you think. Facts don’t lie.

This whole thread is mud slinging at the expense of people you perceive as behind or somehow lesser than you...