Is Asperger's Evolution in Process?

Post Reply New Topic

Bzzzzzt. Wrong. Devolution or de-evolution does occur. Easiest example are the species that had eyes and get 'trapped' underground and lose their eyes or they become useless. The ones without eyes still have the sockets and vestigial orbs.

It does happen. It has happened. It will happen again and again and again.

Yes, that's called regular old evolution. Evolution doesn't select only for traits that humans think are valuable. They didn't need them, so they became vestigial.

Evolution may cause traits that humans think are undesirable, but dubbing it "de-evolution" is unscientific and utterly subjective. It's just the same process, it's not going backwards.

Evolution doesnt work that way, there is no set way evolution is going. So technically yes but not in the way you may think. Blue eyes is technically a result of evolution, being born without wisdom teeth=evolution. Humans are constantly evolving in some way, ultimately it depends how well these mutations and changes will survive and affect the subject overtime.

Autism on the other hand though doesnt seem to have many upsides aside from focus and independence.

Its also pretty ignorant to say all people on the spectrum are smart, first of all intelligence is subjective and not all ov us have genius IQ and not everyone with a genius IQ is autistic

http://naturalcrooks.com/rambles/what-i ... eady-tail/ Here is an amazing example of evolution at work!

These wasps lay their eggs on the larva of wood-dwelling bugs. That means that the bugs started laying their eggs deeper to escape the wasps.

Wasps with longer ovipositors were more likely to have successful children, so long ovipositor genes were passed down. However, that means the bugs just buried deeper, so even longer ovipositors were beneficial.

Eventually, you end up with this clumsy thing.


Evolution only selects for things that are beneficial for mating, even if they are stupid-looking or detrimental in other ways.

Your pretty much 100% correct of course evolution doesn't necessarily select anything, basically we always have a bunch of mutations in a species and then when the environment changes, some animals will adapt easier with their mutations and others cannot cope and die or cannot reproduce and others are neutral. At least thats how i understand evolution.

WTF? The loss of something is going backwards. And, it violates the limited interpretation of evolution you are using. It is not the 'valuable traits' only. For instance, one trait that may not be valuable in one situation can be valuable in another.

It is not that a mutation is valuable. It is that mutation is valuable at some point as long as it does not cause the organism to go go extinct.

Just like a lot of people dying off is depopulation, there is devolution.

So ... people who can't work to support themselves, who can't establish and maintain relationships long enough to produce children, and who need help to manage their personal affairs ... they are somehow the "next step in evolution" ...

Either someone doesn't understand evolution, or they don't want to admit the fact that their disabled child may actually be a step backward in evolution.

Maybe both.

If by "limited" you mean "Commonly accepted by science," then yes, my definition is very limited. And yes, "valuable in that situation" was implied, sorry.

"In modern biology the term is redundant: evolutionary science deals with selection or adaptation that results in populations of organisms genetically different from their ancestral forms, where evolution has no intrinsic directionality.[1] The discipline makes no general distinction between changes leading to populations of forms less complex or more complex than their ancestors, and in such terms the concept of a primitive species cannot be defined."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_(biology)

I think we are just disagreeing with terminology. Yes, a trait may evolve out, but that doesn't mean evolution is somehow going backwards.