is autism/aspergers a sign of evolution?

Post Reply New Topic

any sort of variation is indicative of evolution

It's an interesting theory. I doubt autism itself is the 'next step' in evolution, but in a world of increasing technology, where logical skills are valued more and where it is possible to virtually 'live' online, maybe NTs who possess these traits will be more successful. An increased rate of autism could be a side effect of these genes combining more often... There is evidence of higher rates of autism in families with backgrounds in engineering etc, but I don't think the whole human race is heading towards this direction as I don't think the birthrate differs any more than the general population.

Perhaps evolution's heading the opposite way and that's why aspergers is now an 'illness'- I always felt waay too much credit is given to empathy and communication skills, but they're forever going on about them these days...

Evolution/natural selection occurs over millions of years. Some part of a species is born with a trait different than the rest of the species (some fish developed barbs to ward off predators for example), and slowly that subset becomes the dominant part of its species because it managed to survive and pass on its genes (so, the species "evolves", even though technically its really individuals and not entire species). Some members of a species are born with defects or a mutation, but that is hardly evidence of "evolution" occurring. If anything, autism would discourage the passing of genes due to the fairly obvious reasons compared to normal humans. It is also debatable if humans will continue to evolve anymore at all (since the advent of technology a few thousand years ago, it has become somewhat unnecessary some say).

No, just a sign of genetic diversity, among a million other things.

Go read about Crystal children...then read about Indigo children...interesting...maybe a bit new-agey...hehe...but, interesting nonetheless...

Evolution is nowadays defined as "gene frequencies in populations changing with time."

Following the standard view of evolution, differences in reproductive output between individuals, I can't see any possible way to consider aspies anything except a dead end, since aspies obviously produce fewer offspring than non-aspies.

The possibility that asperger's might be adaptive in some future world where an appealing personality doesn't affect the probability of breeding is about as relevant in evolutionary terms as a Devonian fish evolving feathers because they will be useful to it's descendants in the future.

I'm personally not certain the standard view is the complete and final story. Don't get me wrong, I love science, it's a kickass mythology and about the only one we've got, but it's a country I travel through carrying the near certainty that a thousand years from now, people will look at our science with amused condescension mixed with occasional grudging respect, the same way we look at the science of a thousand years ago.

The physicist Werner Heisenberg, in Physics and Beyond, raised a point I've never heard of anybody following up on. He went to a lecture on evolution. He said he didn't know much about it and he thought it might be interesting.

Heisenberg said that what struck him was that biologists figured quantum mechanics was okay for physicists, but when it came to the biological processes they study themselves, biologists still thought of atoms as little billiard balls.

Heisenberg said that it seemed to him that the processes involved in the reproduction of the DNA molecule, and thus evolution, occurred on a small enough scale that quantum mechanics would be involved, and the eventual outcome of a process could influence the earlier stages of the process that led to that outcome.

I wish he had gone on, but he dropped the subject.

To orwell, i no enough of evlolution that its false. i read a book that informed me of some "disturbing" info. for exsample, they keep all the supposed links , even though many eveolution and people have proven they were acually hoaxes. I hard believe that in the beginning that one day the universe decide to appear on its own for no reason, some how make galaxies, some how makes solar system, and etc. Alot of Evolution idea just conlict with basic science. Mabye, just mabye, people are satified that no matter what they do, there just going to be ash to cup or a rotten body in coffin. See, if you believe in God, and your right, you win! if you belive and and wrong, your morally better. if you don't belive in God and he's real, you go to Hell. If you don't belive in God and hes not real, you still lose cause your a stiff, entering what most intellgent people should avoid: NOTHINGNESS!
I say, at least if i belive in God, it would be a better bet then either burning or rotting.
P.S. Nice name orwell, mabye evolution like that kinda world...hitler sure did. that how he justified the killing of the jews...to EVOLE the ARAIN race

yes, in a way i think it is the next step. the warring classes are actually no longer necessary, AS folks are less likely to get involved in a war and more likely to be the ones who solve disputes due to our logical less emotional brains. Warring instincts are a detriment to a civilized society.

Social differences are only a problem because we are expected to be or become something that is unnatural to us. If all AS children were raised and schooled in an environment that made sense to them, they would be way above and beyond other children of their age group, imho. "common sense" is only common because some group of people decided everyone should know this or that. (i would like to be on that committee)

Also socially our societies have become much more tolerant of differences and many folks with AS are marrying and procreating. Again, if this were a much more AS friendly environment/society AS folks wouldn't feel socially awkward.

You are basing your arguments on the assumption that christianity is the right religion... You may end up in hades or neifhelm just as easily as i may end up in hell, or as a rabbit. Saying that god created the universe provides no more answers than the big bang, who made god? Did he just appear? Also no scientist is going to say that nothing caused the big bang, we do not know what caused it, but it certainly had a catalyst. Also plenty of people have been killed in the name of religion, in fact i would say hitler killed in the name of religion. He based most of his beliefs off of faith not science.

Onto the topic of this thread... How do we know that autism hasn't already been a step in human evolution? Indirect selection allows for genes to be passed on without directly passing them down. If two parents have the recessive genes for autism and they are activated by whatever activates them(if they require activation) and together they produce two children, one with autism, one without. If the autistic child somehow increases the family's chances of survival and passing on of its relatives genes, its genes will also be passed on. There has been some research into the functioning of human society as being more like bees than dogs, that i find interesting. We know there are various 'types' of humans, 'normal','sociopathic','psychopathic','altruistic','autistic', and so on. These are accepted as either normal or abnormal, functioning or broken, but what if they are all parts? Certain environmental conditions could activate certain genes that make offspring more likely to have a specific trait or personality type, having a few members of a family unit or tribe that have autism or are sociopaths could be helpful. Maybe that is why autism rates seem to fluctuate, perhaps conditions are simply more suitable for autistic individuals.

This is pretty far out and i have read nothing to support it but i think it is interesting. What if the entire human population could shift between 'modes'? Under certain conditions we could be either nt,asd,altruistic,empathetic,sociopathic,etc. Maybe we can regulate how much of each type our species is at the time so we function optimally, right now it could be 85% NT,20% altruistic,2% autistic, 5% psychopathic,8% sociopathic, and whatever else. It is just a though....

Which do you think would be more successful out of the following. A group of 20 nts or 20 autistics or a group of one or two sociopath/psychopath(leading the group),one autistic, one homosexual,one to four extremely altruistic individuals, and 12-16 nts.

I would be careful about saying autism is a sign of positive evolution.

Though autism does fit in quite well with the concept of genetic diversity, no one has claimed that autism is a superior evolutionarily trait.

In fact it's probably quite difficult to show what evolutionary traits are good for the survival of humans at this point in time. We've eliminated natural selection from our evolution some time ago so the gene pool is quite muddied with all sorts of things. As the saying goes, everybody has something now.

Silent chaos, you have no clue what you talk about, do you? God isn't an object, he doesn't fall under the law of physic. He outside the need to be created for because of he there is exteisne. Second, why shouldn't i assume christianity right when it cleary is. If you add up the facts, you see that certain relgions could never work, like the foolsih hindu belief. Hindu may be affect by the argument of "who created god" because there gods are "definable". You can't see that lord is undeifable, for he is being, that is not in are universe. Only someone who alter the world from outside the universe could do something like create exsitence.
my message: if you try to put God in a 8 ounce bottle, you'll see that he all the water in unverse, and endless sea, never ending. Saying who created God is the darwinist way to trick you into amitting that god is small and definable.