Why Asperger’s is not evolution in process

Post Reply New Topic

Mental illnesses share common DNA roots, study finds (clicky)

Read the article first, funny name don't you think? Is Autism a "mental illness"?

The bottom line with what this article is stating regarding DNA is the fact that DNA mutates randomly, there is no underlying purpose behind these random mutations, the simple fact of the matter is that we are at the mercy of these random mutations. According to Jerry Coyne, a Professor from the University of Chicago department of evolution who studies evolutionary genetics, states that the random indifferent processes of random genetic mutation are followed by a "lawful" process of natural selection, but for us humans evolution has taken us on an entirely different "evolutionary" path because evolution has endowed us with the capacity to change the evolutionary equation, specifically the lawful process of natural selection. For the past quarter of a million years humans have evolved the intellectual capacity to change the evolutionary equation for the entire planet, we are no longer at the mercy of the normal evolutionary pressures, the "natural" process involves being eaten or succumbing to environmental pressures. Humans on the other hand are adaptable, we also have culture which requires us to care for the weaker/ill or injured members of our species/society, which according to this study includes those of us on the spectrum.

Basically Asperger’s in not evolution in process because we humans have ruined the process of evolution.

Yes. In order for it to be evolution in practice there would need to be some advantage to having Autism or Aspergers that allows us to mate more successfully than everyone else. That is not happening.

I think it is true that humanity has for the moment overcome the natural selection process and so are not really evolving, we are just becoming more numerous and diversifying. If in the future there is some catastrophe that results in a certain section of humanity being able to survive more successfully than others remains to be seen.

You're not rational because you reject the idea of autism and evolution.
In fact, authors of the intense world theory have hypothesized that autism is at the pioneering of brain evolution.

And the evidence you cite is not really contradictory. In fact, what you're saying may even support autism and adaptation:
"Basically Asperger’s in not evolution in process because we humans have ruined the process of evolution."

It may turn out that autism because of our more ethical society now days is easier to survive in.

Just picking a few nits:

Perhaps fifty thousand years would be closer to accurate. Prior to that, there is apparently no evidence of tools or artifacts at all.

Right now, we are in a particularly great climate for the advance of mankind. If the Holocene interglacial period were to end and extensive glaciation were to renew, we'd find just how well we can avoid "enviornmental pressures".



That is really quite recent. It wasn't long ago at all, for example, that the eskimo would leave the elderly members of their group on the ice to freeze to death.



We haven't ruined it, but we have changed a few parameters.

Last edited by eric76 on 28 Feb 2013, 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

...is there a point in opening up another thread discussing the exact same topic as the other one?

No, we're rejecting the claim that autism is an evolutionary advance, due to a lack of valid empirical evidence to support that claim.


In fact, you have provided no links or otherwise identified these "authors" whose ideas you accept as fact.


This is a fallacy - While his statement may beg the question of human intervention in the evolutionary process, you have made the erroneous assumptions that: (1) it is a valid statement; and (2) it supports your claims.


This statement is a Non Sequitur - it presumes that ethical behavior is solely responsible for survival of Autistic people. It also begs the question of whether or not our current society is any more or less ethical than any other or previous society.

There is no valid empirical evidence to support any claim that Autism is an advancement in human evolution. To believe otherwise is to believe in a myth; and believing in myths allows the comfort of having an opinion without the discomfort of having to think.

My only point was that their is no evidence against the notion of autism and brain evolution. And like you said their isn't much evidence that autism is future brain evolution.

I think this is a gross oversimplification--all we would need to select for autism would be cases in which certain mutations convey an advantage that results in higher reproductive rates. Take, for instance sickle cell anemia--the mutation is an advantage if it is carried from either one of the parents, but a disadvantage and illness when carried from both. Because the more common mixed state protects against an endemic disease in equatorial Africa, evolution has selected for the gene in local populations... Some individuals get the illness, but more are given the advantage. In reproductive terms, it's a net positive and so the mutation persists.

There is an emerging consensus that the genetics of autism are extremely complex and heterogenous--I think the "discovery" cited does little to add to this picture. All these disorders are not the same and noting that there are some areas of overlap does not put them on a continuum. The researchers need to step back and look at the populations they are studying again before they get lost in the data.

No, I said, "There is no valid empirical evidence to support any claim that Autism is an advancement in human evolution."

I said nothing about brains.

I also do not often confuse a pronoun used to introduce a sentence or clause with a pronoun form of the possessive case.

I actually love your response! Exactly what I was thinking Autism is a mutation. Some mutations can allow characteristics of an individual to be appealing;however the reality is Autism is a neurological disorder. Therefore, it is not generally seen as an evolutionary advantage. Some traits of autism can be helpful in life, for example obsessive interests. But, that also has disadvantages such as isolation from society due to obsessive fixation in some circumstances.

I just think that this article illustrates very well just what a messy business evolution is, we are after all the result of billions of years of genetic mutation shaped by the environment, evolution does not "advance" it is simply how selfish genes, as Richard Dawkins puts it, have blindly programmed us to want to reproduce. This begs the question what is a genetic aberration in the first place if all we are is the end of a mindbogglingly long sequence of genetic mutations, we are merely the end result of the blind and pitiless process of evolution. Saying that we are somehow broken and in need of fixing is missing the point of why we even exist in the first place, now scientists are unraveling the mystery of the most fundamental aspect of our existence (or is evolution unraveling the mysteries of its own existence?), if we start mucking about with our genetic makeup and using our intellect to shape the future of humanity as we see fit, or eradicate the natural process of ageing, or autism, like in Gatica, I wonder where all of this is leading. The implications of all of this are staggering, first of all there is nothing wrong with us, we are simply at the mercy of our genetic makeup, some genes are better at reproducing than others, there is no good or bad, there is only variation, just pick the two best humans and start cloning them, problem solved.

But I don't want to be cloned.



Just kidding. But it would be a very dull world.

No?

On a separate note. future brain evolution does not need to be "improved" to be a true. Any mutation is evolution is progress. Me being left handed means I had a small mutation which means I have "future brain evolution"

Evolution does not happen as fast as it seems you guys are letting on. The notion that humans have halted evolution is just ridiculous. You're saying we have the power to stop 2 billion years of evolutionary progress?" Evolution doesn't know were here"

Evolution does not have an inherient purpose or move linearly. Also how would you know what traits will be advantegous for the population in the future when born? you do not .

Evolution has nothing to do with selecting traits that will be advantageous for the future. It selects for traits that helped you get to breeding age and produce offspring. That these same traits will likely be useful for the next and future generations is besides the point.