AS an Evolutionary Condition?

Post Reply New Topic

This has probably been discussed many times - so sorry if this is a repeat on this forum.
When I look at all the historical figures who potentially had AS and those of incredible influence in the world today and of the 20th Century, it makes feel that AS is an evolutionary condition. The world without us would be so drastically different and possibly backward.

I also thought from my own educational experience that I wonder if its ever been considered to have a school especially for people with AS so they can excel and contribute even more to humanity.

Anyway these are just my early afternoon musings, I won't be writing a paper on it anytime soon and I'm biased towards AS 'cause thats wot I 'ave and wot I no

Right back to website building.

Hmmm are you trying to say that people in the autistic spectrum are one step further evolutionary? Which is an interesting way to look upon it. I like the idea of neurodiversity, I picked the word up in an article I didn't read, so I am not sure what the author meant by it, but I can form my own picture of it. There is no good or bad in diversity

I think that people are, what they are, no matter what their brain structure is, and that variety is the spice of life.

I think it far more likely that the old trappers and hermits living in the bush were AS, contributing little to nothing to society.

This

Personally, I don't buy into evolution at all. Religious biases aside, I think we'd notice if evolution was at work in changing species beyond simple adaptations to different environments. Never once in recent history have we witnessed any new species develop from existing ones.

That said, I have two different attitudes towards AS. On the one hand, it is a curse if one looks at it's socially debilitating effects. On the other hand, it is a gift that we may use to benefit the rest of humanity because of our unique ways of thinking.

Again, religious prejudices aside, I think AS is certainly an inherited condition and that certain traits are essential to human survival. We know, for example, the lack of biodiversity within the cheetah population has made that species especially vulnerable to extinction. Because human beings are creative animals, we'd be at severe risk ourselves if neurotypicality--that is, only ONE kind brain wiring--was THE only brain wiring. I think neurodiversity is a necessary part of biodiversity that allows us to adapt and survive.

The theory of evolution does not pretend that new species emerge quickly, certainly not in the tiny timeframe of human existence where word was not only written but also trustworthy. (e.g. in the past not only would a recording of a newly formed species not be very trustworthy, it might also simply be a newly discovered but quite lengthily-existent species) Therefore, while we do not see new species emerge if we study fossil records we can see it happening, or so goes the theory.

I believe I may be slightly derailing the thread...

Large-scale evolution is too long-term to prove or disprove directly, so we resort to digging through the fossils and, more recently, making mathematical models.

I think we don't know as much as people say we do about evolution. We don't know nearly enough about DNA and how it works; we don't know nearly enough about ecology; and most don't even think about the effects of interaction between individual organisms.

I've written about this on my blog multiple times--and no, we are not "the next step". For one thing, there is no such thing as a next step; for another, autism doesn't confer any benefits unless there are also NTs in the same society.
http://chaoticidealism.livejournal.com/tag/genetics

Two noteworthy examples of evolution in our lifetime are the cases of sickle cell anemia and the peppered moth. Sickle Cell Anemia is a red blood cell defense that effectively prevents Malaria. In those areas of the world where Malaria is more rampant, Sickle Cell Anemia is also more widespread. At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the peppered moth was a white moth that lived in the British Isles. As the Industrial Revolution progressed, pollution covered trees near factories in soot, killing off its lichen. Predators had a harder time spotting the moths against the sooty bark. Black peppered moths thrived near Industrial centers as a result.
see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_m ... al_changes
edit: put the same link twice-- this was supposed to be the other link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... 12_02.html


And to say nothing of Bacteria and Viruses that become resistant to vaccines and antibiotics...

Last edited by pyzzazzyZyzzyva on 27 Apr 2010, 9:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think that NT's and people on the autism spectrum have a symbiotic relationship. NT's in many cases take care of our physical needs, and we provide them with inventions, innovations, and take care of their other needs. I too am not a believer in macro-evolution. Some here have talke about the fossil record, but the actual fossil record provides little evidence of evolution. The fossils are used to date the layer of rock, and the layer of rock is used to date the fossils. This is circular reasoning.

To not "believe" in evolution is to not fully comprehend it.

Evolution is easy to explain perfunctorily and easy to understand perfunctorily, but I find that often times, a large period of time passes between an individual's "learning" about evolution to their "understanding" it, a period that's punctuated by an "a-ha!" moment when something clicks and the simple and universal beauty of the theory is apprehended in a way that seems to defy verbal expression.

The fossil record provides a great deal of evidence of evolution and your ideas about dating methods are inaccurate and incomplete.

Dating methods used to estimate dates of fossils are based upon many assumptions that may or may not be true. All we know as fact when we find a fossil is that the thing from which the fossil is derived lived and died. Just about everything else is based upon conjecture, and this includes radio dating (I went through the Navy's nuclear program, so I do have formal training in nuclear physics).

Does Asperger's or Autism promote reproductive success? If not, it is not an evolutionary change.

ruveyn

This very same case has been made about AD(H)D

There will always be slight variations in the genetical make up of the species. And sometimes these change confer an evolutionary advantage of some kind to the individual or to the species.

Its rather obvious that a genetical mutation that causes AS or ADD may not be beneficial to the individual but may have advantages for the species as a whole, provided there is a certain optimum mix of NT's and Neurodiverse individuals

I go to the school of life's program and it has taught me that unless someone can back up their assertions with a more substantive and relevant argument than "I went through the Navy's nuclear program" constitutes in this context, I should not bother to pay them much heed.

It strikes me as unlikely.