Neanderthal Theory - any credibility?

Page 3 of 4 [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,561

10 Jun 2012, 8:23 pm

Sirunus wrote:
How could one know that autism was inherited from the Neanderthals when we know so little about autism in the first place? We know that autism is probably at least partly genetic, and we know that it's not just one gene that causes autism but a combination of different genes. But environmental factors also to appear to play an important role, such as the amount of hormones present when you were inside your mother's womb. So firstly, you would need to explain why environmental factors appear to have an affect if autism is purely genetic. Second, not only would you need to identify all the genes that cause autism, but you would need to trace them all back to the Neanderthals. Third, purebred Africans would not get autism at all if this were true.

A lot of the proponents of this Neanderthal-causes-autism-theory (and calling it a theory is giving it too much credit) appear to have a racist agenda. They imply that people with Neanderthal genes are genetically superior to purebred Home sapiens, aka Sub-Saharan Africans, aka black people. One such article on neanderthalproject.com makes comments like "we hybrids rule the planet," and makes disparaging comments about black people such as "just look at Sub-Sahara Africa and you tell me." He refered to black people as our "pure Home sapien cousins", almost like as if they were a different species from us. The guy even had the gall to claim that because of Neanderthal genes, white people's brains work more efficiently than black people's! There seems to be some underlying autism supremacy movement behind all this too. Because they believe the genes that cause autism that was inherited from the Neanderthals made us superior, they believe that autistic people are genetically superior to neurotypicals. They believe that because white neaurotypicals carry Neanderthal DNA and thus autistic DNA, that they are superior to pure neaurotypicals, the people that don't have any Neanderthal genes and apparently never get autism. And who are these pure neurotypicals? Black people.



There appears to be clearly a racist agenda behind some of the proponents of this so-called theory.


Children of those Indigenous Subsarahan Somalians whom lived among Indigenous Africans in the Subsarahan desert sampled for archaic dna, whom are suggested to have little to no archaic neanderthal DNA, are diagnosed at high levels of Autism Disorder both among those whom are refugees in the US and Sweden. So obviously this isn't an issue of individuals among Subsarahan Africans, that are immune to the potential of Autism Disorder because they lack archaic neanderthal DNA.

While it was mentioned earlier in the discussion that there were limited numbers of archaic neanderthal dna sampled, there was a later study done last Summer, studying over 6000 genomes world wide, that is used as the basis of the 23andme test that estimates archaic Neanderthal DNA.

1 to 4 percent archaic DNA was sampled across the globe, with little to no archaic neanderthal DNA sampled in the Subsaharan, but those differences in archaic DNA run mostly in the range of a median percentile range of 2.2 to 2.8. The 23andme estimates are based on ancestry per the samples that have already been taken per different geographical locations. The actual archaic DNA per individual is not measured, in the 23andme estimate, it's just an estimation based on the greater, but still limited samples taken across the globe in select locations.

It wouldn't be surprising for the 23andme test to report an estimate of 2.6 from a person from, Finland and the actual percentage to come out as 3.0, if a test was actually done, which is the difference between close to a median score and what is considered close to the 99th percentile. And of course it could go the other way too with a lower score of 2.2 if someone was actually measured.

Beyond this autistic like traits, and similiar genes that have been associated with autism disorder in humans exist in other species in the animal kingdom. Neanderthals did not breed with mice but both humans and Neanderthals share a common rodent like ancestor that lived about 75 million years ago. Autistic like traits have been reported in Bonobos, so it's possible they could be reported in neanderthals if we had any actual neanderthals, whose behavior we could study, but we don't.

The disorder of autism is a human construct, but the autistic like symptoms can be observed in other animals. Unless Neanderthals could speak as modern humans do, per inherent ability and culture, they could not be diagnosed with autism, as well as any other animal, because it is a social/communicative disorder per human construct, that is measured by studying the behavioral impairments defined specific to human Social/Communication Impairments and Restricted Repetitive Behaviors.

We have no way of knowing what the specific social/communication skills were that neanderthals or Cro-Magnon man possessed, but since Bonobos are studied as having autistic like traits, as well as mice, we can probably safely say if we could go back in time we might observe similar autistic like behaviors in Neanderthals, and Cro-Magnon man, if for no other reason than the fact that all those species shared a common rodent like ancestor, 75 million years ago.

But, we will never know the specific social/communication impairments that any of these archaic hominids had issues specific to a modern human diagnosis of the human construct of Autism Disorder, because we have no idea what their specific normal abilities in social/communication skills were. We understand those behaviors to a degree in Mice and Bonobos, only because we can observe them.

The Neanderthal Theory of Autism, is a bit confusing, because the data used in an attempt to provide evidence for the theory, from the Aspie Quiz, is limited to a registration process that does not provide a clear registration category for classic autism. The categories are PDD/HFA/Aspergers. Logically PDD would be shorthand for PDD NOS, since otherwise it would be an umbrella category covering the other two categories listed.

The theory attempts to extrapolate lack of interest among ethnic groups that take the test, as evidence that aspie traits are not as likely among those groups. While African Americans that actually take the test score close to as high as caucasians, the fact that they are not equally represented per US census demographics, among those that either aren't familar with what the word "Aspie" means or haven't come across it in the limited venues of links available on the internet, is used as evidence of a lower likeyhood of Aspie/Neurodiversity traits.

This inference is extrapolated to indigenous Africans, per an ancestry link, as evidence that indigenous Subsarahan Africans have a lower level of neurodiverse traits as well. Since that "interest" information is based on a subjective methodology, I don't accept it as partial evidence for the theory, that relies on the hypothesis that the neurodiverse traits will be found at low levels among indigenous Africans, with little to no archaic Neanderthal DNA.

Per the children of Indigenous Subsarahan Somalian refugees diagnosed with high rates of autism in Sweden and the US, that genetic aspect that the theory relies on has been refuted, per the data as it actually exists.

It's much stronger data to refute the hypothesis, than a suggestion that because African Americans aren't particularly interested in taking the Aspie Quiz, that one is going to find lower results of Aspie/Neurodiversity traits among Indigenous Subsarahan Africans, whom are studied as a geographical group as having little to no archaic Neanderthal DNA.

Beyond this the author suggests that since there is no interest of a request among Middle Eastern countries for a translation of the internet quiz, that they also likely do not possess strong Aspie/Neurodiversity traits .

Not likely many in those cultures have any idea what an "Aspie" is, or what neurodiversity is because it is not part of the cultural languages. In fact awareness of those terms is restricted in the US, as limited to a significant degree to online autistic communities.

There is a cultural stigma of any type of psychological diagnosed disorder among those in the African American Culture as a whole, reported by the National Association of Mental Illness NAMI, for a variety of cultural reasons. It is part of the reason that some individuals in that subculture would not likely be interested in a quiz associated with self diagnosis of any disorder associated with a psychological diagnosis.

And of course there is not much if any realistic opportunity, at this point in time, for actual indigenous Subsaharan Africans to take the test whom have low access to the internet, as well no translations for the many languages that exist among those in various Subsaharan African Countries.

The Aspie Quiz is a respected measure of what it measures, but at this point in time there is absolutely no evidence that the collected results, provides data for evidence of a reduced measure of Aspie/Neurodiversity traits among Subsarahan Indigenous Africans.

The behaviors associated with Social/Communication impairments and RRB's have been identified in all cultures studied in the world. At present per actual community wide scans, the Amish are studied in the US as having the lowest prevalence rates of ASD's per a 1 in 295 prevalence, and when statistics were reliant on actual medically diagnosed cases, the prevalence levels were estimated at 1 in 15,000.

Access to diagnosis and/or screening methodology makes a difference, but apparently culture may make the biggest difference, in an actual autism spectrum disorder, not archaic neanderthal DNA, or Northern European Heritage, since those in Amish country are mostly of Northern European descent, as well as likely having high levels of archaic neanderthal DNA, per the estimates provided by the 23andme organization.

The school wide prevalence scans of 1 in 38, in South Korea, are one of the few comparable statistics to the 1 in 295 statistic in the prevalence scan in Amish Country. It is dramatic in difference. The difference in ethnicity is apparent, but the differences in cultural environments, appear to be the factor that may have the largest impact per actual prevalence numbers.

Somalian children diagnosed at high rates with Autism Spectrum Disorders in the US and Sweden certainly provide evidence of either the difference that access to diagnosis makes, or cultural environment. A scan could be done in Somalia to attempt to determine in part, how much the two cultural environments impact that indigneous population, per autism spectrum disorder diagnoses.

An aspie quiz if adapted and language translated as a peer reviewed tool, could be used as an interesting tool, as well, to measure behavioral differences among similar aged demographics of these Somalian children and adults living in each culture, beyond the standards of an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis.

There is definitely an element in Northern Europe of disdain for migration of those in the Middle East and Subsarahan countries, which obviously in part is a conflict in cultural differences, some of which are religious in origin.

However there is no evidence that it is an issue specific to genetics. As mentioned in another thread, per those that attempt to blame crime and violence on darker skin color/ethnicity/genetics/ and or geography, Anthropolgoists/Sociologists have defined 25 societies in the world as peaceful ones per their lack of internal and external violence as well as their ability to share resourcess.

Among those 25 societies, 6 were among Indigenous African Societies. The rest were spread out evenly across the world, however 24 out of 25 had one thing in common. There were all individuals living in developing countries with dark skin. Only one society identified per caucasians living in the US, not too suprisingly the Amish.

For those individuals that may attempt to make these problems of cultural conflicts as one of genetic/ethnic/geographical basis per violence, crime, and productivity, the 25 "pro-social" societies rated by anthropologists/social scientists in the world as peaceful provide greater evidence that these conflicts identified in Northern Europe have cultural instead of genetic/ethnic/geographical origin.

http://www.peacefulsocieties.org/



Dan_Undiagnosed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 645

13 Jun 2012, 8:24 pm

McAnulty wrote:
I don't think it's racist either, there are many genetic differences amongst different races, just because until recently we were all split off into our different corners of the world, exposed to different environments and passing down the same genes all the time. In the end we're all still human, but genetic differences amongst people from different places on the planet exist.


But the interesting thing that the Human Genome Project has been showing since 2003 is the inconsistent, non-discrete nature of 'races'. Races are reified when you compare a Sub Saharan African to a Western European. But if you randomly select a native human being every 500km or so between the two (where possible) then put them in a line representing the physical journey between them you would see a slow blend of colour and facial features correlating with UV and weather exposure. But that's just the superficial physical appearances. More damming to the concept of race is the genetic overlap between all human groups. Of course we all have the same genes (except between male/female and Down Syndrome has a whole chromosome copied) but even on the differing gene alleles (the different ways that one gene can be expressed in different groups) there is no single 'race' on the planet that has even one gene allele in common to all its members and no gene allele that isn't shared by some group considered a different 'race' to them. Given this allelic diversity within a 'race' it's hard to see how any but the most basic features are near universal attributes (like skin colour but even that isn't 100% hereditary because white people can have a rare instance of an African looking child who is definitely genetically theirs and African people can have albino children etc, plus the phenotype of skin colour changes through life with sun exposure even in black people).
This idea that the last tiny remnants of Homo neanderthalensis have acted on non-Africans to create a racial intelligence hierarchy is laughable at best (and racist if only by accident) especially when you consider how little genetic material would be supplied from the now extinct neanderthal. It takes hundreds, maybe even thousands of genes, to work with the SLC24A5 skin colour gene just to do something as mundane as the 'make skin black' or 'make skin copper' or 'make skin white' function in our genome. So it's a joke to think that a tiny amount of recently added neanderthal DNA could explain the difference between societal development between Africa and the rest of the world when the iron working, cattle and chicken domesticating, kingdom ruling West Africans 'developed' more than the part neanderthal natives of Australia, the Pacific and parts of the Americas. Access to rainfall and domesticatable plants and animals explains it all perfectly well without this neanderthal gibberish.
Ultimately saying 'there is a genetic difference between the races' is as redundant as saying 'there is a genetic difference between brown eyed autistic people over 6ft tall who were born with diabetes and left handed redheads between 4 and 5ft with green eyes and born with heart arrhythmia'. If you called the brown haired group 'Group A' and the red haired group 'Group B' then of course there is genetic difference between them because we're not clones and there might be a few gene alleles more common to each group than the other but no gene allele would be universal to that group nor would it be unshared with other groups outside Group A or B. In this sense if you kept being more specific in defining Groups A and B they end up being no more or less impressive than 'races'.



Moonpenny
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2012
Age: 65
Gender: Female
Posts: 121
Location: UK

14 Jun 2012, 12:46 am

Good post, Dan-U – agree with everything you say.



Chloe33
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Mar 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 845

01 Apr 2013, 6:20 am

My gf just brought this theory to my attention, here is more info upon it:

http://www.rdos.net/eng/asperger.htm



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,873
Location: temperate zone

01 Apr 2013, 2:16 pm

Chloe33 wrote:
My gf just brought this theory to my attention, here is more info upon it:

http://www.rdos.net/eng/asperger.htm


That site has been posted on wp before in the last couple years.