Is autism the next human evolution?

[HidinginPlainSight]

It seems we were both wrong. According to several other sources such as the one below neither of our interpretations above are correct. It's the 0.83 that is the significant figure. 95% is their statement of certainty it seems. The heritability quoted in that most recent study is 83%.

Autism Heritability Estimate Updated in New Analysis of 2014 Swedish Study

Once again, this is not the question either study is asking. (The question being, do autistic people have autistic children?)

Read it completely.

 

[HidinginPlainSight]

What they're doing in twin studies and sibling studies is creating a circumstantial case where no direct case can be made.

They do not know the genetic mechanism and there are many variables which are difficult to isolate. One of the troubles, which is widely acknowledged and represented in these studies, is that non-autistic people have autistic children.

One of the failing of the circumstantial case is that the relation between twins and autism is not 100%. This is to each other and not their parents. This is not a comment on whether or not the twins will both have children who are autistic. This is simply trying to isolate whether or not autism is genetic.

This still leaves the door open to germline mutations. They are attempting to further isolate it by finding cases of autism that occurs multiple times in the same family. They also acknowledge that this is rare. This makes their sample skewed and somewhat unreliable. This means that other methods may yield other results. This is a problem in science when you do not know the mechanism.

They are simply saying that autism is more likely genetic as opposed to environmental. They are not saying that autistic adults have autistic children and they are not suggesting a certain gene that would give rise to autism. It is simply a case study to provide means for speculation.

 

[HidinginPlainSight]

Here is what a quote from this Wikipedia article on the heritability of autism.

So, yes, yes it does. Also, it can be caused by drugs used by the mother during pregnancy. These drugs can either be legal or illegal drugs, too.

That is not actually what that quote says. It only says that the mechanism is not known to science and that there are still possibilities. There is no scientist anywhere who can define the mechanism, whether that be genetic, mutations (different sort of genetic), environmental etc.

There is strong circumstantial evidence for genetic, but until the mechanism is defined and well understood the door is open for other possibilities. This does not mean all of them are an actuality.

 

[Joshua the Writer]

That is not actually what that quote says. It only says that the mechanism is not known to science and that there are still possibilities. There is no scientist anywhere who can define the mechanism, whether that be genetic, mutations (different sort of genetic), environmental etc.

There is strong circumstantial evidence for genetic, but until the mechanism is defined and well understood the door is open for other possibilities. This does not mean all of them are an actuality.

I'd say, that depending on the circumstances and if one or both of the parents has autism/carry the genes for it, then it can be any one of the three likely mechanisms. Just my theory, though.

 

[HidinginPlainSight]

I'd say, that depending on the circumstances and if one or both of the parents has autism/carry the genes for it, then it can be any one of the three likely mechanisms. Just my theory, though.

There is no mechanism described as likely. Only that the probability of a genetic basis is high. Not sure how to explain this with an analogy but I'll try, saying it has a likely genetic basis and actually identifying the mechanism aren't just different ballgames, they're different sports.