• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

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

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.

Of course your biology textbook doesn't mention autism. I very much doubt there are many high-school textbooks that do. Autism is a subtle variation in the human genome that affects behaviour - a "phenotype" and therefore a bit beyond the scope of such a book. Neither it is a subject that would normally be discussed in an evolutionary context which is the point of the article.

The idea discussed in the article is that autism is not "the next step in evolution" as some people like to speculate. The reason being that evolution does not work in the simplistic way those people suggest. Evolution has no direction, no drive for perfection - it's a process of survival in an ever changing world. Those best adapted to the environment of the time survive and reproduce whilst the weakest perish. It takes hundreds of generations for even tiny mutations to make an impact on evolution which in human terms means tens of thousands of years. That's why Drosophila have been so important in biological study, because they reproduce so quickly we can observe the pace of change over hundreds of generations.

Autism has been a variation in the human genome since the first modern Homo Sapiens walked this Earth approximately 315,000 years ago. That it still exists today demonstrates it has some value to our survival as a species or we all would have died out by now.

How about we talk about the differences between wolves and beagles? That difference has taken about 10,000 years to occur, since dogs were first domesticated. That's not evolution. That's selective breeding. In human terms you would call it "eugenics". Humans specifically bred wolves with similar traits together to propagate those traits and exaggerate them over time - often incestuously - inseminating mothers with the gametes of their sons. Since most wolves and dogs achieve sexual maturity at about 3 years (compared to 13/14 average for humans) that means there have been approximately 3,300 generations of dog/wolves in that time, all the while being manipulated by their human owners/breeders. Domestic dogs, of every breed, are not the result of evolution, they are a human creation. It's the most primitive form of genetic mutation and is exactly the same principle the Nazis wished to apply to human biology. And it still goes on. Look at all these new breeds that are becoming popular - cockerpoos, labradoodles and the like.

The only way that Autism COULD become the next step in evolution would be to sterilise everyone who is NOT on the spectrum and only allow autistic people to bear offspring. Considering we number somewhere between 1/100 to 1/30 of the current population, that would cause a massive reduction in our population and therefore our viability as a species, not to mention being unspeakably evil.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Selfish-Gene-Anniversary-Landmark-Science/dp/0198788606

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blind-Watchmaker-Cover-image-differ/dp/0141026162

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Evolution-Beginners-Guide-Guides/dp/1851683712

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Genetics-Beginners-Guide-Guides/dp/1851683046
 
Of course your biology textbook doesn't mention autism. I very much doubt there are many high-school textbooks that do. Autism is a subtle variation in the human genome that affects behaviour - a "phenotype" and therefore a bit beyond the scope of such a book. Neither it is a subject that would normally be discussed in an evolutionary context which is the point of the article.

The idea discussed in the article is that autism is not "the next step in evolution" as some people like to speculate. The reason being that evolution does not work in the simplistic way those people suggest. Evolution has no direction, no drive for perfection - it's a process of survival in an ever changing world. Those best adapted to the environment of the time survive and reproduce whilst the weakest perish. It takes hundreds of generations for even tiny mutations to make an impact on evolution which in human terms means tens of thousands of years. That's why Drosophila have been so important in biological study, because they reproduce so quickly we can observe the pace of change over hundreds of generations.

Autism has been a variation in the human genome since the first modern Homo Sapiens walked this Earth approximately 315,000 years ago. That it still exists today demonstrates it has some value to our survival as a species or we all would have died out by now.

How about we talk about the differences between wolves and beagles? That difference has taken about 10,000 years to occur, since dogs were first domesticated. That's not evolution. That's selective breeding. In human terms you would call it "eugenics". Humans specifically bred wolves with similar traits together to propagate those traits and exaggerate them over time - often incestuously - inseminating mothers with the gametes of their sons. Since most wolves and dogs achieve sexual maturity at about 3 years (compared to 13/14 average for humans) that means there have been approximately 3,300 generations of dog/wolves in that time, all the while being manipulated by their human owners/breeders. Domestic dogs, of every breed, are not the result of evolution, they are a human creation. It's the most primitive form of genetic mutation and is exactly the same principle the Nazis wished to apply to human biology. And it still goes on. Look at all these new breeds that are becoming popular - cockerpoos, labradoodles and the like.

The only way that Autism COULD become the next step in evolution would be to sterilise everyone who is NOT on the spectrum and only allow autistic people to bear offspring. Considering we number somewhere between 1/100 to 1/30 of the current population, that would cause a massive reduction in our population and therefore our viability as a species, not to mention being unspeakably evil.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Selfish-Gene-Anniversary-Landmark-Science/dp/0198788606

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blind-Watchmaker-Cover-image-differ/dp/0141026162

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Evolution-Beginners-Guide-Guides/dp/1851683712

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Genetics-Beginners-Guide-Guides/dp/1851683046
Oh, I must have misunderstood. I thought you were saying that Autism was an evolution. Thanks for clearing everything up.

Also, stuff like what you said in those last two paragraph happens because humans belong to an arrogant species. We think perfection, though unattainable, is possible, and then force it on each other. Example: Most of my middle school classmates.
 
Oh, I must have misunderstood. I thought you were saying that Autism was an evolution. Thanks for clearing everything up.

Also, stuff like what you said in those last two paragraph happens because humans belong to an arrogant species. We think perfection, though unattainable, is possible, and then force it on each other. Example: Most of my middle school classmates.

I accept your apology. It was clear you misunderstood and thank you for acknowledging that. I have a lot of faith in your potential for the future Joshua, please don't think otherwise. You & I don't always agree but my intention with anyone and everyone is not to rebuke, simply to inform.

Yes I agree - Man is an arrogant species in many ways. Some of our greatest achievements are also our most shameful ones. Much as they are cute and adorable - there is no way an animal like a french bulldog would ever have evolved naturally. Similarly the technologies we have created to make our lives better and easier have also wiped out thousands of species and may well destroy us as a species too.
 
I accept your apology. It was clear you misunderstood and thank you for acknowledging that. I have a lot of faith in your potential for the future Joshua, please don't think otherwise. You & I don't always agree but my intention with anyone and everyone is not to rebuke, simply to inform.
Thank you, but jeesh. I'm probably not as much as a prodigy as you are making me out to be. Don't get me wrong, I am flattered, but I am not someone to put on a pedestal like that.
Yes I agree - Man is an arrogant species in many ways. Some of our greatest achievements are also our most shameful ones. Much as they are cute and adorable - there is no way an animal like a french bulldog would ever have evolved naturally. Similarly the technologies we have created to make our lives better and easier have also wiped out thousands of species and may well destroy us as a species too.
I agree. You know how many oil slicks have been caused by one engineer's mistake? A ton. We have destroyed so many aquatic environments by those types of catastrophic accidents. Who knows how many other natural environments could be completely ruined from us humans' "accidents?"
Sorry Aaron
Also, I have to come clean on this: my last name is not actually Aaron. Aaron is actually my middle name. I use my middle name in place of my last name to increase online anonymity while still using my real name. This is because, for some reason, you have to put your first and last names into the info required to create a Gmail/Google account (excluding alternate YouTube channels created under your gmail). This is from one of your previous replies to me on this thread.
 
No pedestals mate, and no you don't come across as a prodigy, but I have faith that you've got the tools at your disposal to make something of yourself.
 
Not too long ago I read an article by an NT anthropologist/archaeologist type that came to somewhat similar conclusions. They speculated that the autistic cave person could have different skill sets or strengths that added to the groups survivability. Heightened alert sense was also a possibility they predicted. Others they surmised were being good at certain tasks that required extended patience or that were repetitive/tedious. Examples they gave were spear fishing and collecting tiny berries. I think your idea on thinking outside the cave quite valid, and useful, whether its 20,000 BC or 2100 AD.
I’m having some difficulty with your premise that because the NT environment is unsuitable for our high functioning, that invalidates the idea our neurology is a natural evolutionary occurrence.

First because it does not explain why then it happens and because with an ND designed world we would likely thrive and NDs would thrive along with us due to the very livable less intrusive and unnatural environment.
 
For evolution to occur, there must be a gene mutation that is advantageous. Therefore, it mustn't have an downsides to it.

No, it doesn't work like that -- the "mustn't have any downsides to it" part.

For a gene mutation to persist as part of an organism's evolution it merely has to be more advantageous than disadvantageous in the context in which the organism lives -- the advantages simply need to have enough value to survival. It can confer both advantages and disadvantages at the same time, so long as the disadvantages don't outweigh the advantages or make the advantages irrelevent as far as survival is concerned.

Also, a mutation that produces multiple potential effects (i.e. depending on how it is influenced by other genes and environmental factors) may persist at a population level despite it conferring mostly/only disadvantage sometimes at an individual level. It only needs to confer advantage some of the time at the individual level to persist within a population.

As has already been said, evolution is not as tidy, simplistic and linear as it is often presented.
 
Last edited:
Evolution doesn't actually work in any way suggested in this thread. There is no reductionist principle in which to understand it, regardless of the general person's need for reductionist answers to the complex.
 
No, it doesn't work like that -- the "mustn't have any downsides to it" part.

For a gene mutation to persist as part of an organism's evolution it merely has to be more advantageous than disadvantageous in the context in which the organism lives -- the advantages simply need to have enough value to survival. It can confer both advantages and disadvantages at the same time, so long as the disadvantages don't outweigh the advantages or make the advantages irrelevent as far as survival is concerned.

Also, a mutation that produces multiple potential effects (i.e. depending on how it is influenced by other genes and environmental factors) may persist at a population level despite it conferring mostly/only disadvantage sometimes at an individual level. It only needs to confer advantage some of the time at the individual level to persist within a population.

As has already been said, evolution is not as tidy, simplistic and linear as it is often presented.
That was implied.
 
I didn't catch that implication because you said "Therefore it mustn't have any downsides" -- I believe you but for future reference, to me that clearly states the opposite of what (as I understand it) you meant to imply.
Oh, sorry for the confusion! I didn't mean for it to come across that way. My brain isn't with it all the time, I guess.
 
Evolution doesn't actually work in any way suggested in this thread. There is no reductionist principle in which to understand it, regardless of the general person's need for reductionist answers to the complex.

This is a generalist forum so things are almost always discussed in some form of reductionist manner.
The light-hearted article in the OP is not intended to be a "theory" but an easy read. It's not a definitive treatise on a subject.
Since there is discussion herein as to the validity of evolution in itself we can only speak in the broadest of terms and the most basic of easily relatable concepts. The minutiae are available to those who are interested and some accessible works which will help on that journey have been suggested. Perhaps you'd like to recommend some more?
 
This is a generalist forum so things are almost always discussed in some form of reductionist manner.
The light-hearted article in the OP is not intended to be a "theory" but an easy read. It's not a definitive treatise on a subject.
Since there is discussion herein as to the validity of evolution in itself we can only speak in the broadest of terms and the most basic of easily relatable concepts. The minutiae are available to those who are interested and some accessible works which will help on that journey have been suggested. Perhaps you'd like to recommend some more?

Assuming you haven't already, I would start with the theory of Wallace and Darwin. This may sound condescending, but it really isn't. The theory really is Wallace's theory and should have never been announced as a joint theory, but Darwin's position and ego would not allow otherwise. This may also sound archaic, and it is but with purpose. As a starting point, one should always understand the beginning and throughly understand the difference between Wallace and Darwin's theory. This would help anyone understand the division which still persists today within the overall framework. The difference is subtle and not easy to catch, but it is very extreme in its divisiveness.

Once that is fully understood, genetics is a good place to go next (although there are plenty of other classic works that are worth getting sidetracked with). Once again start with the basics of Mendel from primary sources. Move on in this manner to understand the basic framework of how evolutionary thought has, well evolved, over time. (Synthesis, gradualism, punctuated equilibrium.....etc.)

Getting into the modern view points, and having a detailed understanding is going to require technical ability. Biochemistry is essential. From my own perspective, once you have the basic technical background, is to start with viruses. There is a wealth of information on the mutations that happen in these relatively simple pieces of genetic material. They are intensely studied and the debate is quite lively. (They also provide the opportunity to examine evolution in real time)

For more complex organisms, well the more you know about the field the more you will realize just how poorly understood they are.

A key concept to remember about evolution is that it is not a theory. Evolution is an observation. The theory of evolution is a framework for an ongoing discussion that is far from settled.We have come a long way since Wallace. So when reading journal articles, to properly disseminate the information, always read the critiques. Follow-up and make sure the authors adequately addressed the shortcomings in their work. Simply because something is allowed into the discussion (published) does not mean that it has withstood the test of peer review. If an article is not peer reviewed it can be dismissed.

Evolution is a highly contested area of discussion, not because anyone doubts the observation, but because it is extremely difficult to test models. Science has a desire for parsimonious solutions, having such solutions is a bedrock. However, when you are dealing with models that can't be tested directly, the least number of assumptions could still be a heck of a lot of assumptions.
 
Last edited:
You do come across as extremely condescending in this case I'm afraid. Your phrasing suggests you don't wish to be so, so please take my forthcoming comments in an objective manner.

By offering critique to those of us who offer condensed interpretations in an effort to help people understand the basics of a subject from a standing start, you appear to assume that our understanding is lacking and that we require enlightenment. That assumption is based on next to no data and could easily be interpreted in an extremely negative fashion. It could also confirm a number of the demeaning stereotypes we battle against with outsiders daily.

I would like to think this is done from a standpoint of innocence rather than an intention to offend. Only you can confirm whether that is the case.
 
Take it however you want. There are a lot of misunderstandings here and not ones which can be addressed on such a platform. It's a complex subject. Nobody will get to the root of it through popular science.
 

New Threads

Top Bottom