Is Asperger's Evolution in Process?

Post Reply New Topic

yes aspergers is evolution. the social aspect of humans is flawed. wars and such. to adapt to social flaws (group protests don't work)...a person has to create peace inside alone first... not the other way around. group thought can be controlled. aspies (who love truth) ( who are creative) humans will adapt. and yes aspies know how to love and be affectionate. nature always finds a way.

I think this is one of the biggest misunderstandings with Aspies. We are not cut off.....just processing it differently. But, we love and protect and care for the people we get close to. Sometimes much more so than NT's in some cases I have seen. I think we display a very stubborn loyalty compared to most.

Edit: I do consider the title question to be redundant though. Everything is evolution in progress.

The title of the thread contains the implication that people with Asperger's have "evolved" to a higher point than your typical, regular, run-of-the-mill Homo sapiens.

Yeah, I remember the original post and it was clear about that. However, the basic premise is flawed in that it takes thousands of years for things to 'be evolved' and many times, forward evolution is not always forward in the long run.

Besides, I think we's be around fer a loooong time, mebbe since da beginning.....Methinks we twould have evolvedst to be the majority hads all dis schtuff been true. Evolution always be in progress.

Yes, I am feeling silly today, hence the wording, not the meaning. I am positively overstimulated today. It is a pleasant change. LOL

Well, if we assume there is evolution, it must be in process, for if it had already stopped, it would require sentience (I have reached the peak of evolution and shall rest here!).

So evolution is in process and since all change and movement in nature is part of this process undoubtedly (for making a choice would again require sentience), I come to the conclusion: Yes, autism is evolution in process.

And in the case evolution is sentient, autism is here in growing numbers just because evolution likes it the same way it thought we look better with less bodily hair.

I have no idea if you are being serious or not, but evolution doesn't work that way (we look better with less bodily hair) nor are we growing in numbers.

That's kinda like saying you saw a few elephants at the zoo and then go to a wildlife park and see a bunch more. They were always there, you just never saw them before and we ain't even left the continent yet. They are just learning what it is and how it manifests itself, so, they too are just learning to see it.

Not too many years ago, you weren't Autistic unless you were nonverbal and/or banged your head on the wall.

Then they expanded those parameters and finally, recently, they threw Asperger's under the Autism spectrum and that will make the numbers grow. And, Asperger's is still a relatively new diagnoses.

So, no new numbers. Just better quantifiable numbers. There are certain segments that do not agree that Asperger's is Autism. So, if that gets removed, watch the numbers go down. Then, people can claim it's being cured since the numbers are going down.

As for less bodily hair, follicle by follicle, we have as much as the average chimp. Size and thickness are the only variables. And, it can get worn away or lost. But, we are hairy beasts. Just not so noticeable.

I just tried to be funny.

Less size and thickness --> less bodily hair. Less size and thickness in the chocolate bars than before --> less chocolate even if the amount of chocolate bars is the same. Just joking. I get what you mean.

The whole autism prevalence discussion is a tricky subject with many views even within the scientific community. I have no knowledge whatsoever on the matter, so I skip that discussion. But yes, parameters do play a role in the amount of diagnoses.

Nature generates random variety in a population.

And then nature selects from that variety what will be represented in the next generation.

Aspergers (since it seems to be largely genetic) is an example of the first thing (random variation). So in that sense it IS indeed part of "evolution in progress" ("process" must be a typo).

But I dont see much evidence that it is the later (that it is either becoming more common in the human species, nor do I see an obvious reason why it would be selected for to become more common in the human species).

naturalplastic, I am not a native English speaker, but aren't in process and in progress synonyms? Evolution is described as a process by which organisms have descended from earlier organisms. Hence couldn't it be in process? Or maybe it doesn't sound right?

I have learned alot in here - facts, ways to look at things and English. It's great!

Hmmm....

Evolution IS described as a "process".

When they interrupt your favorite TV show with newsbulletin they finish it with "lets return to the such and such show already in progress". They dont say "in process". So "in process" sounds wrong to me.

But now that I think about it if you're talking about evolution (or about geological processes, or other gradual things in nature) you could say it that way. In fact experts admonish you to not equate evolution with "progress" (ie things getting better-moving to a goal-like that). So thats probably why the OP said it that way.

So maybe it wasnt a typo, and I guess it does make sense to say it that way.

I wish I had something to contribute.

But,this has been an interesting read.

I think progress and process can be synonymous depending on the context.

A certain "process" could also lead to "devolution," which is the opposite of "evolution." Or it can cause things to remain the same.

and a process can be in progress while progress requires something to be in process.

One cannot exist without the other.

No process.....no progress.

No progress....no process.

I am still processing this.......I make little progress.....maybe we should conflate the two into progcess....

No such thing as devolution. There's this weird humanizing of the process of evolution in this thread.

If it doesn't help someone mate, it's not involved in evolution; evolution literally means mutations being passed down from parent to child, if it's not being passed down, it's just a genetic quirk.

If anything, it's more likely humanity will grow more and more attractive over the years, as people who are hotter mate more easily. This might even result in people getting "stupider;" After all, it's easier to get along and find a mate if you aren't arguing with people all the time.

Aspies could be smarter, better, more creative all they want, but if it doesn't help them mate and pass down their genes, it will not contribute to evolution. Survival of the fittest doesn't mean that the most deserving, smartest, or idealized creatures have their genes passed down, it means whoever is most specialized for society will propagate!

"The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."

Source: getting a natural biology degree, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest