Neanderthal theory and race

Post Reply New Topic

That is a nice escape-way, but I find it unwarranted. IMO, things are not as complex as we want to believe, and humans are not at all as diverse and mallable as we want to believe. We are an ordinary species on an insignificant planet in an insignificant solar system, nothing else. The only odd thing about us is that we are a hybrid species. Once we stop putting ourselves above ordinary life as we know it on earth, we will start understanding how human diversity actually works, with two disctinct sets of trait groupings that make us believe we are incredibly diverse when we are not.

Actually, from a genetic point of view, humans are extremely inbreed with very little diversity compared to most other species.

well i know that in my field of study it really is far too complicated that to come up with detailed highly linked theories is just unheard of. I study molecular genetics and i'd say that is not to dissimilar to what you are talking about.

Sorry i've not really read much of the thread but i suspect you have too much interest/bias in the subject to propese anything i see as accurate. Science is very much a one step at a time process in terms of research. I'm not saying your wrong but it sounds like you have quite a strong belief in your proposed theory. Sorry i really need to read the whole thread. This might be unwarranted

I'd agree with you that things are not that complicated but to come up with a multifaceted theory with dependencies and little or no evidence is purely a flight of fancy. The reality is likely not so complicated but figuring it out and proving it really can be that complicated!

yep that is quite true. i think the effective population size (a population genetics variable) is roughly 10000 outwith modern day people from africa

what i think plays a larger role is epigenetics. epigenetics are far more labile than changes in DNA. I am guessing though!

So saying we aren't Homo sapiens x Homo neanderthalensis is like saying Ashkenazim are Europeans because they don't look Semitic, and similarly evidence of ongoing hatred and genocide?

I want 40 acres, a mule, and 40,000 years worth of interest.

generally increased nonsense mutations will be concurrent with higher sense mutations (ones that change amino acid sequence and often protein function) unless selection pressure is higher. i'm not going to pretend i know whether it is or not

Rdos, i may be confused but are you claiming non African people have higher genetic diversity than Africans, you seem to have contradicted yourself by saying also that the effective population size of non africans is small.

effective population size is a function of genetic diversity and population size

No, I claim that non Africans have higher functional genetic diversity than Africans. This is because how introgression works. When whole genomes are introgressed into another species at rare occasions, most of the negative and neutral genetic material will get lost. It is only the functional genetic material that is retained. We only have 1-4% of Neanderthal DNA, but this tiny amount of DNA codes for most of human diversity. When you increase the Eurasian genepool with 1-4% new mutations, this is not noticable in the big picture, which is why Europeans my well have lower overall diversity while still having more functional diversity. Also remember that there are only a few percent DNA difference between Pan and humans, which makes a big difference.

The traditional genetic population models cannot be used in presence of introgression.

in what fashion do you think that introgression happened? (i had to look up the term introgression as it is not commonly used amongst biologists anymore) was there a polyploidy event or were the chromosomes similar enough that they did not arrest cell cycle on early development? The latter make sense to me. I think what you are describing is termed hybrid vigour. is that a good description?

Now i think i understand why you think that non africans have higher "functional diversity"
What evidence do you have to support your claim?

What would you define as functional diversity? for me to understand your point this needs to be defined.

you may be aware of this but what was once considered junk DNA is not necessarily that. non coding DNA can play a role in gene regulation and chromatin structure, those are the two i am aware of. There is probably far more function to it than that.


I'm not sure i agree with it but i don't really have any evidence either way. I will though have a look

I don't think there is any debate what so ever as to whether neanderthal genes influenced genetic variability in humans. It is just a fact and there is ample evidence to show it.

what else are you claiming? i found your original post hard to understand

The three definitions I provided are just three types of point mutations. I think what you are referring to is non-coding DNA, some of which is considered non-functional.

However the function of non-coding DNA is hugely complex, and not understood well in science. When you state functioning genetic diversity, it is likely going to be understood in the context of what is understood in science as DNA: non-coding and coding that has a function.

There is no significant difference between the percentages of functional/non-functional DNA among indigenous Africans and anyone else on the planet, however differences in the function of non-coding/coding DNA likely results in many physiological/cognitive/behavioral differences among individuals, some of which are of advantage and some of which are of disadvantage.

The type of functional diversity you are speaking of is not well understood in general terms of genetic diversity among human beings; my understanding is that you have determined it is a result of the admixture events between archaic ancestors and homo-sapiens.

And if I may, in an attempt to better understand what you mean by functional diversity, I believe you are using it as a synonym for Aspie/Neurodiverse traits, that you have determined to exist as a result of data analysis of the results of the quiz you devised and revised several times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity-function_debate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_diversity

Functional Diversity is as a term associated with bio-diversity in science, as linked above, but it is also used as a politically correct term to describe disabilities of all kinds, per the second term.

Since you are proposing a Neanderthal Theory of Autism, and Autism is technically considered a legal disability, the use of the term functional diversity in your theory, could likely be understood as a reference to all disabilities rather than what you have determined are Aspie/Neurodiverse traits that have been positively selected since the admixture events between humans and archaic ancestors.

The problem is just a matter of semantics. If you suggest that the neurotypcial traits that you measure in the Aspie quiz are a result of non-functional DNA, that makes no sense. Neurotypical traits are the result of functioning DNA as much as any aspie trait you measure.

You consider the Aspie traits diverse and you consider the Neurotypical traits as not diverse, however that has nothing to do with whether or not DNA has functionality.

It's best to leave the functionality or non functionality of DNA completely out of the terminology. It is neurodiversity you have measured, but not a lack of functionality in DNA.

There are likely differences in the functionality of DNA that result in cognitive and behavioral differences in human beings. Scientists determine neurological differences in ASD's through observation of behavior and cognitive testing, however they can neither provide specific information on what the physiological or genetic differences are that lead to those traits.

You have developed a criteria through the results of a test to measure what you define as neurodiversity/aspie traits/functional diversity.

When people are tested for ASD's it assumed they have genetic differences associated with the condition, but it is not known specifically how they work together to result in ASD's.

The only reasonable way to test your theory is through the same process that science uses to test for ASD's, since very little is known about the relationship between behavior, cognition, and genetics.

The tool you have devised is a unique one that measures what you define as neurodiversity. The only way to determine if Indigenous Africans or those of Arabic descent don't have the traits that you measure is to randomly sample the populations by testing them with the quiz.

A genetic test on it's own will mean nothing definitive, because the specific genetic relationships are not understood.

The cost of having someone take a quiz is negligible as compared to genetic testing.

You have already found that the African Americans score the same as others whom take the test in the US. The interest aspect can be explained away by too many other factors. So the only option left is random sampling of the actual populations in Arabic countries and Indigenous African Countries.

This could be feasible. However I think you might want to leave the functional diversity aspect of it out, because it is referenced to disability, not neurodiversity. Neurodiversity is what you contend to measure, and it is unique in the way you define it. It defines much more than Aspergers, or functional abilities.

I like the latest revision of your racial aspect. Perhaps a few wording tweaks for clarification that I will address in a post referenced to it. It does not make nearly the impression of either white supremacy or Eugenics that the former version did. This is crucial in gaining the cooperation from someone from an Arabic country or an Indigneous African country in administering your test to a suitable demographic.

If you get a result correlated to neurotypical. that will be an interesting finding, and could gain the interest of someone to reasearch the factor of causation, just as a finding of no autism or aspergers would likely spur research into causation as well.

The Aspie quiz is a respected tool, and it is currently not significantly associated with the neanderthal controversies associated with supremacy. I think you are moving in a good direction here that may lead to findings that could result in publication of the theory.

You might want to leave the middle east out of the testing, it is likely going to be harder to gain cooperation in that area than indigenous African countries. Those peoples are known to have Neanderthal Ancestry, so I don't see a major significance of going to the trouble to random a sample population there, in hopes of gaining results that may eventually be associated with Neanderthal ancestry.

There are many missionary organizations, that are comprised of people who are college students that have interest in science, in Africa. It could be possible to gain interest from some of those individuals in missionary organizations, to help you to administer a paper version of the test translated into their language. That's just one thought off the top of my head; there are probably many other avenues as well.

I like the Aspie Quiz, and I think there is the potential that different cultures would measure significantly different on the test. But so far you haven't really reached those cultures, or peoples, nor has any other organization. You might find a way to do it, that would not be too labor intensive.

Ok. Seems like I would need another term in case I use this in a future update of the theory. I haven't used it yet AFAIK.



Of course. Neurodiverse and neurotypical functional diversity is about the same. In fact, the two seems to be mutually exclusive since Aspie score and neurotypical score correlated -0.96. Rather, the argument is that genetic diversity does not determine functional behavioral diversity. Africans probably has no more neurotypical diversity than Europeans or Asians, despite of a difference in genetic diversity. That's because neurotypical function is a well-defined "standard" that is species-typical. If we were a non-hybrid species, it would be the definition of how our species behaved, and we wouldn't expect that to differ between individuals in a non-hybrid species.



Ok, good.

No, I didn't see the term functional diversity in the current version of your theory.

Of course, there is a great deal more research that has occured since your current version, that, I'm sure you already have plans on updating as you move into the future with it.

I just saw a link where they think they may have a way to identify autism by an MRI, in children as young as 6 months of age; new information, is constantly coming in.

To fully update the theory, if you haven't already considered it, by the time you want to submit it for publication, you might want to consider googling all your current facts, to ensure that they haven't changed with new research, since your last revision.

I saw a few things that have changed looking through it again, that caught my eye, but Google, can provide the most current answers for you, on all your facts, as you proceed through the process.

Google really makes research easy, compared to the old days of card catalogs and shelves of books and journals. I hated research in college, but now it's fun because the answers are so easy to find.

That thread here on autism and paleontology was an excellent resource for new information, in regard to this topic and many others. I think he probably is still collecting research information on the scribed.com site under the user name autismepidemic if you want to check there. He's proficient at finding full research articles, with sources that don't require a fee.

A couple of interesting books that relate to topics in this thread:

"The Mis-Measure of Man" by Steven Jay Gould discusses the history of the development of the g factor concept and IQ tests, what it does and does not do, and how politics and prejudice entered the equation.

And, "Man's Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race" by Ashly Montagu, which talks about the idea that "race" is an un-scientific concept that is too corrupted by social prejudice to be a real tool for examining population differences.

DNA analysis, neurological mapping and understanding of neuro-peptide receptor distribution in the body will one day (soon, I hope) deliver us from the Dark Ages of ignorance about what makes us different, what makes us the same, and what makes us tick (or tic).

If this whole argument comes down to results on the Aspie Quiz, then maybe those racial groups who are under-reported are simply not as self-absorbed as Westerners.

And regarding Americans of African descent... (do not read further if this may offend, but I'm not sure the OP is aware of this...) many African Americans also have Caucasian ancestry (slavery in their background and many women becoming impregnated by their white masters. sorry if this upsets anyone, just trying to hammer some knowledge into the OP)......and thus would possess Neanderthal DNA, which is what apparently makes white people so much more neurodiverse than anyone else.

Last edited by -Skeksis- on 18 Feb 2012, 2:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Race, is undefinable.

I read the MRI on babies article. Again, they looked at autistic families, and claimed they would fix it?

Stop seeing me as a Lab Rat, I might have a better view of you.

What it proves and does not mention, is Sub Species. We are different, provable, which results in A Difference of Thought and Perception, common here.

European styles of Thought, Art, Music, differ from the rest of the world, Should we seek a Cure?

I do not have a problem with most of the world, just the Eurocentric.

I tolerate them, but they are Autistphobes!

We are a small Sub Species, but we do outnumber the Followers of Siggy the Coke Head, who died of sucking a tit turd cigar constantly.

Back in the day, Psych Major was not a term of respect. It referred to a small group on campus that you did not want to meet. I think the modern term is, Major Head Case.

In an experiment a few years ago Psych Majors were sent to a mental hospital. Not even the staff knew they were there to study the other inmates. The other inmates got released, the Psych Majors were kept.

Staff knew a nut case when they saw one. The people that sent them had to claim they were acting a role to get them out, they were being themselves, spying on everyone else, seeking to "Get Over." It was the same on campus, they were called, "Creepy."

Of the two Storefront Religions of the 60s, Scientology has gained some respect. Psychology lead to the largest ever Drug Bust, when they were turned in by the Medical Profession for taking kickbacks from drug companies for pushing pills off lable that were doing great harm.

Autist Rights! We are the 1%!

W. T. F.