One Small Step for Autism...Autism & Evolution - a Perspective

[sidd851]

Not to be rude, but I kinda find this type of theory incredibly dumb. I know you have the best of intentions, but here is why it's poorly thought out.

Right here, you are completely ignoring low-functioning autistics, along with the many disadvantages that Autism brings to all on the spectrum.

For evolution to occur, there must be a gene mutation that is advantageous. Therefore, it mustn't have an downsides to it. However, Autism DOES have downsides. While some Autistics may have increased intelligence, those on the low end often have very serious and highly impeding learning disabilities. Therefore, Autism ISN'T an evolution.

This is not a evolution. This is elitism. Especially since you made up the word, "homo autisticus." Sorry, but no NT will take your theory seriously, whether they believe in evolution or not. You're basically saying that you're superior to everybody else, which, whether you like it or not, you're still a homo sapien.

So, what you're saying is that low-functioning autists have no redeeming values?
You're saying that a low functioning autist adds nothing to the gene pool?
That they should have died out as a malignant mutation. ...sigh...

That is the definition of elitism.

It's funny, sometimes, how true elitists throw that word around, isn't it.

Those trying to twist facts to fit their own theory carry the defective gene that should have been done away with long ago.
I'll take a low functioning autist any day over those without critical thinking skills, but a huge ego and a desire to make the world adhere to their own expectations to the inconvenience or detriment of others.

For example.

 

[sidd851]

For evolution to occur, there must be a gene mutation that is advantageous. Therefore, it mustn't have an downsides to it.

Therefore, Autism ISN'T an evolution.

Entirely erroneous and fallacious. Both.
A quick perusal of any 7th grade science text will confirm this.

What anyone thinks, is as a raindrop to a stone.
What matters is truth.

The successful genes live their lives by it.

"Insensibly, one begins to twist the facts to fit the theory, rather than twist the theory to fit the facts."

"In good speaking, should not the mind of the speaker know the truth of the matter about which he is to speak?'

 

[Joshua the Writer]

So, what you're saying is that low-functioning autists have no redeeming values?
You're saying that a low functioning autist adds nothing to the gene pool?
That they should have died out as a malignant mutation. ...sigh...

Trying to twist facts to fit one's theory is the defective gene that should have been done away with long ago.
I'll take a low functioning autist any day over those without critical thinking skills, a huge ego, and a desire to make the world adhere to their own expectations to the inconvenience or detriment of others.

For example.

Funny how true elitests throw that moniker around so freely, isn't it?

No, I am saying that low-functioning autistics are simple completely ignored in this theory, not that they are less valued. Along with many negative effects that all Autistics experience no matter what. Tell me how delays in social skills development are advantageous? What about delays in motor function? Speech? See where I am going with this? Also, evolution requires several physical, external changes to take place. You notice how different a Beagle looks from a grey wolf?

Apparently, IDK how evolution works though, care to explain what the truth is, along with proof from scientific studies? Links plz?

 

[sidd851]

Youre lack of knowledge is showing.

Everything above is fallacious.
Everything.

Every single adaptation there is, is both good and bad. Every gene mutation has unintended consequences.

Every science book you have(depending on where you live, there are still primitive, superstitious pockets here in the U.S.) has all of the information that you request. Unless it is 8th grade and up. 7th graders are tested on this material, and expected to remember it.

The burden of proof is on the asserter.

So. Link ME what YOU have on the above.

 

[H-Kath]

For evolution to occur, there must be a gene mutation that is advantageous.

No, the animal with the gene needs to pass it along through reproduction. If there is too heavy of a disadvantage it won't. If it reproduces and its offspring both carry the gene and reproduce then the gene stays.

While some Autistics may have increased intelligence, those on the low end often have very serious and highly impeding learning disabilities.

Many with low-average to high intelligence don't find out they're Autistic until one of their kids get diagnosed. Then there are the people with subclinical traits. They're not even considered impaired, and often a parent or sibling to an Autistic person.

This is elitism. Especially since you made up the word, "homo autisticus."

Yeah, that went a little far.

 

[Jojo_LB]

For evolution to occur, there must be a gene mutation that is advantageous. Therefore, it mustn't have an downsides to it.

Totally false. Apparently you're the one who doesn't know how evolution works.

The homo sapien gene for bipedalism has plenty of disadvantages. Just a couple of examples:

Our S-shaped spines and bowl-shaped pelvises make us prone to injury and pain.

We often can get circulation problems because it is actually physically difficult for blood in the veins in the legs to go back up to the heart, for various reasons.

Our discs in our spine degenerate as we get older.

We get feet problems.

There are many more disadvantages in our genes that were passed down, and yet here we are. They can be found by simple Google search, and observed in the experiences of billions of homo sapiens around the globe.

So, tell us how these disadvantages are actually not disadvantages, but are advantages with absolutely no "downsides" to them. You can make the claim that every single gene in our genome are only ever advantageous to us? If you can back these up with irrefutable proof, then I will stand corrected.

 

[H-Kath]

I think he gives a good explanation of variation and how natural selection works:
Introduction to evolution and natural selection

 

[Jojo_LB]

The genetics of ASD (the genetics of anything, really) are far more complex that any of us non-experts can comprehend, so it is extremely unwise to be so dismissive of the idea of the evolution of ASD genes.

I am not a(n) (evolutionary) geneticist, so I can't claim to fully understand all of this, but I know that due to the complexity of this subject, there is no reason at all to say that the idea of ASD genes evolving is "incredibly dumb."

Also, evolution is not merely passing down of advantageous genes with "no downsides to them." That is a gross oversimplification.

When you talk of evolution you talk about genes, variations, alleles, genotypes, phenotypes, populations, mutations, inheritance, natural selection, genetic drift, etc. etc.

It is not so far-fetched that genetic variants involved in the "genetic architecture" of ASD were present in our ancestors, and have thus remained in the human genome (or went through further mutations and recombinations to become new variants). ASD is concerned with human neural development, and neural development has evolved in greater and greater complexity over millennia. And yet, millions of us are autistic. So, we have these genes for a reason. Perhaps saying they are evolutionarily advantageous is also an oversimplification. But it's not dumb.

 

[Autistamatic]

Sorry Aaron but your post comes across as accusatory and highly presumptuous. I doubt it is your intent to be seen as so scathingly disrespectful, so I'll try to help you to understand.

"Homo Autisticus" is presented in quotes because it is made up. You may notice that Home Neanderthalensis is not in quotes because it is a recognised hominid genus. Note it is not a species since there is Neanderthal DNA in all modern humans, so Homo Sapiens & Homo Neanderthalensis reproduced together on likely multiple occasions, but that's a different debate.

Right here, you are completely ignoring low-functioning autistics, along with the many disadvantages that Autism brings to all on the spectrum.

Please don't use continue to use functioning labels as you have, it's outdated and many people find it offensive. I have used them occasionally in the past until I realised how much hurt it caused others.
But as to your point regarding "low functioning" - the principles behind evolution would mean their survival would be unlikely and their reproduction even less so. Although there is some evidence that primitive societies made some effort to care for those who could not care for themselves, this comes only from a later stage in our history when permanent settlements were established. At the point in our history that the fictional Homer existed, Homo Sapiens was a predominantly nomadic species and it is unlikely that anyone with pronounced disabilities of any kind would survive to adulthood in such a group. That's a basic tenet of evolution which I felt unnecessary to point out. The article is about why some of us survived, not why others died.

Evolution is a process of survival - "natural selection" not intelligent selection. Mutations which confer disadvantages as well as advantages will survive providing the advantages' contribution to survival is significant enough, therefore the less significant disadvantages are perpetuated too. It's not a black & white equation.

Pointing out that traits that are socially regarded as deficits in the modern world could be benefits in the primitive is not elitist. Suggesting that many of us have talents which are underused because of prejudice against us and our "deficits" is not elitist.

Finally - it's not a "theory" - it's a light hearted, simplistic article intended to provoke some thought and not expected to change the world, just a few minds maybe.

I appreciate you probably want to help, but gaps in your knowledge and a misreading of intent have led you down the wrong path towards harsh criticism, which some less tolerant people might take great offence at. Every biologist, zoologist, paleontologist and other bio-scientist that I know, under the age of about 60, was required to read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins in their first years as a definitive treatise on the basics of evolution ("The Blind Watchmaker" by the same author is also recommended reading on most bio-science courses too). Give it/them a read - they're very well written and highly accessible, so the next time you wish to offer advice on evolution or someone's writing/thoughts on it, you'll be better equipped.

 

[sidd851]

Entirely erroneous and fallacious. Both.
A quick perusal of any 7th grade science text will confirm this.

What anyone thinks, is as a raindrop to a stone.
What matters is truth.

The successful genes live their lives by it.

"Insensibly, one begins to twist the facts to fit the theory, rather than twist the theory to fit the facts."

"In good speaking, should not the mind of the speaker know the truth of the matter about which he is to speak?'

Huh. There's content missing from my posts. Makes this one sound petty.
Must be a glitch.

 

[Nitro]

 

[Progster]

In early stoneage societies, I believe that there certainly were autistic people. They might have been the one to detect an enemy from afar or to work on an new, faster and mor efficient weapon or tho perfect and hunting texhnique. Equally, they might have been to one to produce new sounds with instruments made from wood and animal hide, from reeds and hollow sticks. Or they might have been the one to produce wonderful paintings on caves or on stones (stereotypes about how stone age people lived, I know). Or experiment with heat and its effect on various substances. Or they might have been aloof and detached from the world, or nonverbal, needing help and support of the community to perform some tasks. Or they might have been punished or admonished (edit) by their parents, concerned about their standing in the community, every time they did something 'weird' to upset the elders or other tribespeople and learned to suppress their autistic tendencies. Or, they learned to cope and fit in by observing, analysing and imitating, masking their autism, and so passed as 'normal', but still found being with the others exhasting and needed to spend some time away from the others.

I guess what I'm saying is, they would have faced similar challenges to those of present time, and would have found similar ways to cope with those challenges.

 

[Autistamatic]

Or they might have been aloof and detached from the world, or nonverbal, needing help and support of the community to perform some tasks

There's plenty of archaeological evidence to support the idea that physically disabled people had a place and were supported in historical and prehistorical societies, once permanent settlements and stratified societies became established - around the same time as agriculture and animal husbandry replaced the hunter/gatherer lifestyle of our nomadic ancestors. Skeletal remains have shown that people who were unable to walk or had congenital deformities, lived to ages comparable to their able bodied peers. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the "feeble minded" would be similarly supported.
As touched on before, there is some historical evidence to suggest that in bronze & iron age societies people with traits we now regard as autistic (without ID) were often venerated and respected for their unearthly insight. Whether their second sight was attributed to magical powers, contact with the dead, spiritual attunement or a connection to God(s), their abilities and personality traits often align with modern concepts we now call autism.
A good example lies in the Viking Seers. There was one in most large settlements. Seers were credited with having a direct connection with the Norse gods and were consulted as augurs of the future and founts of wisdom. They also recorded the history of their people and were respected almost as much as kings. They supposedly "dreamed" of the future and spoke often in allegories of godly travails which were reflected in the real world. Once their talents for "second sight" were revealed in childhood and they were shown to be "chosen ones" they were often (consensually) blinded to sharpen their second sight. This was a holy gift. Odin/Grimnir/Wotan/All-father - the king of the Norse gods blinded himself in one eye in order to gain greater wisdom whilst retaining the other eye to allow him to fight.
Seers were well fed, protected and respected by the whole community and often only consulted with kings.
Like the prophets of surviving religions, they communicated their view of the present, the future and the necessary actions or adjustments required through parable. Many of these parables survive today as myths or legends.
As I mentioned before, their ability to understand details, and build them into a prediction of a likely future is the most ikely explanation of how they achieved their status - traits which are common amongst Autistics. The same is likely true of many wise men/women and prophets, both those recorded in history and "sacred texts" and those lost to the mists of time.

 

[Fridgemagnetman]

Seers were well fed, protected and respected by the whole community and often only consulted with kings.

I like the well-fed part. Sign me up.

Part time, obviously.

 

[Autistamatic]

I like the well-fed part. Sign me up.

Part time, obviously.

 

[Joshua the Writer]

Now I'm just hungry.

 

[Joshua the Writer]

Youre lack of knowledge is showing.

Everything above is fallacious.
Everything.

Every single adaptation there is, is both good and bad. Every gene mutation has unintended consequences.

Every science book you have(depending on where you live, there are still primitive, superstitious pockets here in the U.S.) has all of the information that you request. Unless it is 8th grade and up. 7th graders are tested on this material, and expected to remember it.

The burden of proof is on the asserter.

So. Link ME what YOU have on the above.

Well, my high school biology textbook is a resource. If you must, you may ask my Biology teachers. Actually, please don't ask my bio teachers. They'd think that is weird.

It's a funny thing how my biology textbook doesn't even mention Autism. Not in it's evolution chapter, not in it's genetics chapter. Not in any chapter at all, basically. It's almost as if scientists know that Autism isn't an evolution.

 

[Joshua the Writer]

I think he gives a good explanation of variation and how natural selection works:
Introduction to evolution and natural selection

Yo, I love Khan Academy! They explain it so well and in a way everybody can understand!

 

[sidd851]

Well, my high school biology textbook is a resource. If you must, you may ask my Biology teachers. Actually, please don't ask my bio teachers. They'd think that is weird.

It's a funny thing how my biology textbook doesn't even mention Autism. Not in it's evolution chapter, not in it's genetics chapter. Not in any chapter at all, basically. It's almost as if scientists know that Autism isn't an evolution.

I'm glad that we both agree, if it's not in a science book, it doesn't exist.
There've been some misunderstandings, there.

 

[Fridgemagnetman]

Sidebar - I am rarely impressed but am right now. I'm enjoying watching your videos.

Note : the videos are not related to the above image.

Looking forward to seeing what you do with your website.