Asperger's Syndrome and evolution

Post Reply New Topic

I am new here and originally was not sure I had the syndrome but I took an on line test and it seems very likely I have it. What concerns me is the genetic aspect. It seems that AS appears in family lines which indicates it is inheritable. I put this speculation out not to inflate the ego of AS people but to indicate that many of the personality and mental characteristics of the group seem specialized to fit well into a world society with high technological capabilities and may be a movement towards an evolutionary change in the species Homo Sapiens. Evolution, counter to the common idea that it indicates a hierarchy of development, is merely a change to adapt to a new situation and human technology surely creates a new environment for the species. AS people are still human as there is no difficulty in breeding between AS individuals and other types of humans (and there are probably many minor variations other than AS extant which do not, at least as yet, have species differentiation) But it does seem to me to indicate a possibility of genetic change which may, in the centuries ahead (if we do not so alter the ecology that it will cease supporting human life) lead to a different human species.

Welcome to WP!

Tim

If AS is a heritable genetic mutation, it's not an entirely beneficial one. And if I may make the assumption that people with AS are generally less likely to breed, then this trait might have difficulty proliferating itself in the gene pool. That's my two cents anyway.

I agree with -

Who knows! TECHNICALLY, RH- women can't have RH+ kids. If there is any early blood sharing, there can be a miscarriage, and any blood sharing AFTER birth, which is relatively common, will probably cause a miscarriage of future RH+ kids! It is concievable it can even affect mothering kids of an RH+ father! Today, in many cultures, they try to guard against such problems, and give the woman a shot to allow her more tolerance. If she develops any antibodies, THAT'S IT! BTW A LOT of AS people apparently have RH- blood! Others MIGHT have a gene for it.

SO, who knows, maybe that species problem has started.

True. But the gene for sickle cell trait is another mixed bag. In areas where malaria has long been a problem, it can offer some benefits - a double dose is fatal, but having one sickle cell gene and one normal one makes the blood more resistant to the malaria parasite (good) and makes the blood more likely to clot or mess up the iron metabolism (not so good).

The AS gene is mostly dependent on the social environment - if a society can recognize the value of aspies, create jobs that utilize their talents, and educate others about how to play nice, then that society would benefit. In societies that favor brawn, the benefits of the ASD members would not be recognized or valued, and there would be a selective pressure against it.

Not all sociaeties follow the CURRENT west european model. Even west europe didn't always follow it. ALSO, women have the ability to pass on the genes ALSO, so even in areas following the current west european model, it can be passed.

As for it being bad, I don't know if that is really true. If everyone had mild AS, most of the bad stuff wouldn't be bad!

Anyway, it would be ludicrous to think that most evolution started out as being 100% good. And even some of the really good things can be bad.

But WHO KNOWS! I still remember saying I didn't want to have kids, even before I was SEVEN! NOT because of relationship problems, but because I thought the world was too crowded and not all that good.

Since AS is not digital, either on or off, I doubt it is a single gene that controls its presence. There is a whole spectrum of AS people from barely there to a massive display of characteristics so I assume it is a cooperative effort by a community of genes with a basic group necessary for a minimum display.

I like the sickle cell analogy. I think that a little autism is a good thing, and there are plenty of signs that it's been in the gene pool for a long time. The families of Thomas Jefferson and Albert Einstein are good examples.

When I was a kid, I was put into a special class. AS didn't even have a name yet, and wouldn't until I was in college, so I wasn't diagnosed, nobody would have known what to call me. So it wasn't intentionally an aspie class. It was a class for kids who had scored significantly over 140 on IQ tests, and who the school district felt would benefit from a more challenging academic environment. It was in a university town, and virtually all of the kids in the class were close relatives of faculty members. Most of them had aspie traits.

I know that to be an aspie, you have to be in or above the normal IQ range, so the average aspie will be a bit smarter than the average NT, but if you look at the top half of a percent in terms of IQ, you mostly find two kinds of people: the diagnosable, and the not quite diagnosable. Which doesn't seem like it could be purely coincidental.

Some of the genes they've looked at in autism have to do with brain growth, which makes sense, since the most autistic tend to have brains that are considerably larger than in NTs. A couple of those genes have gotten a lot of credit for the rise of homo sapiens. The more recent and mysterious one arrived in the gene pool from a related human species or subspecies (Rdos would probably say neanderthal, and researchers have made the same speculation) 37 thousand or so years ago. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0606966103v1

In case you're wondering, there is no specific point to this post, it was meant to be rambling and disorganized. But I do think that we have played a part in human evolution for some time, and continue to do so now. And while some parts of being an aspie may be no fun at all, others seem quite beneficial. It's not something I'd want to lose.

Actually, it seems like it IS on/off. Expression variants are certainly controlled by the EXPRESSION of other genes, but the actual syndrome, I FEEL, has to be created by some change that can be triggered by one gene. It's almost like the determining of male/female. the basic genes males need are present in even the ovum. but apparently one little piece of one chromosome triggers things just right to trigger everything else. Other genes, dumb luck, etc... could change expression of things.

I think you are completely off. Of course we are able to "breed" as you so crudely put it. Yes, it is inheritable. No, we aren't going to form some other class of human.

It has been proposed that many of the characteristics of being human as opposed to the general primate family is the extended immature period of growth wherein the tendencies for play and fantasy play a much larger part in the life of the individual. In effect a human remains relatively mentally flexible which permits the development and exploration of novel capabilities. Human immaturity is, in general, a very long period compared to other animals. I have noted, in descriptions of AS characteristics, that individuals remain relatively immature as compared to the general population which seems to me to be a further extension of what it means to be human. One article even noted that AS people even, generally, look younger than average people of the same age. I noted, in myself, that my fontanel had not closed completely until the age of about 40. Although this skull closure remains open in normal human infants for the first few years to permit the normal growth of the brain it has been mentioned that AS people in general seem to have larger than normal brains. I don't know if this has any significance since the recently deceased grew parrot, Alex, was said to have many of the mental capabilities of a chimpanzee which has a massively larger brain. So brain size may not be a significant measure of mental capability. Nevertheless the prolongation of the development period of an animal does seem to have some significance in its intellectual potential.

Sorry for the typo. Alex was a grey parrot.

Personally, I consider myself to be a member of a very different sub species right now.

If that was in reference to the stuff I posted above, the microcephalin gene didn't have any real impact on brain size, except that when it has a bad mutation it causes microcephaly (dinky brain). It does, however seem to have been selected for in the most drastic possible way, in around 37,000 years it has spread to 70% of the human race. That was why I referred to it as mysterious. The gene pool seems to think it's incredibly important, but we don't even understand its function.

I don't know where you get the idea of 70%. I didn't bother to google it. Still, in human culture, a lot of smart people wait and may have small families, opting to provide quality for their oen. Some dumber people just don't care, and may have dozens without a care and even by force. So I wouldn't see the proliferation as something done due to viability, etc... In fact, some bad traits are spread because of bad ideas.

My mother once overheard some woman saying that she was going to have another kid because she would get $50 from the government. I forget if this was one time, or per month. Either way, it is a STUPID idea unless they don't care about the kids. The kids will likely grow up with little education or attention. Food and shelter is provided through yet ANOTHER program.

BTW brain power is, to some degree, a function of brain mass and use. Autistics apparently have denser brains, so more mass fits in a smaller size. MOST people don't even TRY to use their brains. Obviously, a number here DO. BTW some "scientists" now claim dolphins are dumber than parakeets! GO FIGURE! I guess they aren't taking into account, communication, birthing, navigation, defense, etc....
They have a hard enough time trying to figure out how smart a human is. They have ALSO said a baby chimp is smarter than a human baby. HECK, dolphins have EVEN been known to save humans from sharks! HEY, maybe they ARE stupid!(sarc)