The Neanderthal Theory

Page 3 of 8 [ 121 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8 Next

Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,775
Location: Ohio, USA

22 Sep 2008, 5:02 pm

Hmm... well, decide for yourself.

Here's a skull from Europe...
http://www.skullsunlimited.com/human-ca ... skull.html

...and from Australia.
http://www.skullsunlimited.com/human-au ... skull.html

Both fully human, no real differences in cognition, no problem having babies... just two different human races.

_________________
Reports from a Resident Alien:
http://chaoticidealism.livejournal.com

Autism Memorial:
http://autism-memorial.livejournal.com

Eggman
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,676

22 Sep 2008, 8:36 pm

Tahitiii wrote:

I just love this picture. http://www.rdos.net/eng/
(Click on "The Neanderthal Theory," to the left.)
And I don't care whether it's true or not. It works for me.

We have lots of short-cuts in human society that make it easier to grasp a concept. Analogies, fairy tales, the classics, popular movies, religion, philosophy, folk tales, science, psychology...

The Little Red Hen, for example, is absolutely false, from beginning to end. Cute little animals do not talk. They don't interact between species. They don't consciously plan for the future. They don't moralize or condemn or reward. Every detail of the whole story is absolutely false. Still, it's a useful tool. It carries a message that otherwise would not get through at all.

Tools are not true or false. They are just tools and can be very useful if you don't take them too seriously. They all break down eventually. If your favorite tool doesn't work in any given situation, toss it back in the tool box and find a different tool. It will probably be useful again someday.

Such a tool only becomes a problem when you make it a part of your identity and feel that you need to defend it beyond reason, to the death.

As science, "The Neanderthal theory" is a little weak. As a model, which is not true or false, it works for me. I have a place to hook it in my brain. It just slid right in and, even though I just found it a few days ago, it already feels like it's been there all my life. Like the concept of Asperger's. It just feels right.

Mules and horses have different chromosome count and can interbreed, and every once in awhile prodce a fertile offspring.

Ishmael
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Jul 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 953
Location: Australia

22 Sep 2008, 9:12 pm

rdos wrote:

Ishmael wrote:

It's an impossible thing - anybody with rudimentary knowledge in genetics knows why,

Could you be a little more specific? Why is it impossible?

Well, what we understand as genes are really just chemical structures; in a different environment, such would have a different effect in relation to genetic interaction.
Hence, often deformed offspring of species with incompatible chromosomal balance. Any stable and fertile offspring are so because one gene set dominated the other; though that occurance is unlikely. Time between species has no real meaning, just degree of variance.
To claim that genes from neanderthals are responsible for autistic traits is an invalid argument. The genes could not interfere in that manner unless they achieved dominance - last I checked, I was not walking around with a Neanderthal skull in my head.

_________________
Oh, well, fancy that! Isn't that neat, eh?

rdos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

23 Sep 2008, 2:01 am

Ishmael wrote:

To claim that genes from neanderthals are responsible for autistic traits is an invalid argument. The genes could not interfere in that manner unless they achieved dominance - last I checked, I was not walking around with a Neanderthal skull in my head.

You do not understand how introgression and the following selection on advantagous genes work. You don't need to have a Neanderthal skull to have Neanderthal behavior. Totally different genes codes for these traits. It is in fact a finding in Aspie-quiz that communication & social traits acts to produce asortative mating. That is why all these traits are highly correlated to each others. Physical traits have almost no correlation with each others, but if you use huge populations (several thousands) it is still possible to link some physical traits to ASDs (flat foot, crooked teeth, red hair and a few others). Survival (huntinng) traits have intermediate correlation to ASDs.

The argument is only invalid if you believe in the "single-gene" story.

Ishmael wrote:

Hence, often deformed offspring of species with incompatible chromosomal balance. Any stable and fertile offspring are so because one gene set dominated the other; though that occurance is unlikely. Time between species has no real meaning, just degree of variance.

But we do see all these problems in ASDs. Autoimmune disease is much higher, and random gene-incompabilities produces LFAs. We also see bowel-diseases and mitochondrial disorders (which could be related to the loss of the Neanderthal mtDNA).

Ishmael
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Jul 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 953
Location: Australia

23 Sep 2008, 2:29 am

rdos; you don't much understand sarcastic humour in reference to the skull, do you...?
Clearly, you are a Believer. You've already decided the neanderthal theory is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT, IRREFUTABLEY TRUE.
It isn't. I don't believe that "single gene" nonsense; in fact, the argument holds that that is a large reason why this "neanderthal" theory is nonsense...
Yes; we do see other problems with ASD's; unrelated. Anectdotal evidence. It's a cute theory, but absolute nonsense...
Humourus, worth a laugh, but practical...? Hardly.

Those "huge populations"... also have associations with non-ASD's. Red hair? There's this country called "Ireland"...
It's nothing short of coincidence why Aspies hold similar characteristics to Neanderthals. It could almost be called "reclamation",
a random mutation across several chromosomes in homo sapiens sapiens bringing forth a new species similar to Neanderthals - though with fewer chromosomes overall. The idea does hold appeal... but it is simply not possible, no matter how much you want it.

_________________
Oh, well, fancy that! Isn't that neat, eh?

Danielismyname
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,565

23 Sep 2008, 2:38 am

Autism is most prevalent in Japan*; does this jive with The Neanderthal Theory?

*They think it's the seafood.

Tahitiii
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Jul 2008
Age: 68
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,214
Location: USA

23 Sep 2008, 2:48 am

Killjoy.

_________________
Occupy Everything!

donkey
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 May 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,468
Location: ireland

23 Sep 2008, 3:26 am

Danielismyname wrote:

Autism is most prevalent in Japan*; does this jive with The Neanderthal Theory?

*They think it's the seafood.

yeah i have read this as well...around 3.4%?

The japanese are known for their technical and engineering abilties.
they also have a very structured lifestyle with routine and cermeony littered with customs.

so it would suggest to me that it is AS friendly,
As tend to do well, have skills that are sought after, are successfull and get married and have kids who repeat same.

i been to japan.....the fastest hotel check in-EVER

_________________
a great civilisation cannot be conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within- W. Durant

ShawnWilliam
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,462

23 Sep 2008, 3:45 am

ryry85 wrote:

Neanderthals were a different species of hominid. Inter specie breeding is impossible as the male and female nucleii are imcompatibel between different species. i think it is the fact that they would have a different number of chromosomes and not enough matching/related genes. it would be almost as true to suggest that gorillas gave us the aspie gene.

as for the difference between prevalence between europeans, asians, indians, and african, it is an unfortuante adaptation that has been aquired by eurasians more than the others. just as other adaptations have been aquired, for whatever reason, such as skin colour, physical structure, etc.

The fact that primates went from 48 chromosones to 46, and we suddenly became 'smarter', and better, is impossible.. and this evolutionary standpoint was very sudden.. we suddenly went from apes to humans.. we suddenly lost 2 chromosones and became different.
Or were we genetically modified?

rdos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

23 Sep 2008, 7:00 am

Danielismyname wrote:

Autism is most prevalent in Japan*; does this jive with The Neanderthal Theory?

*They think it's the seafood.

Of course it does. The East African race formed in Central Asia, as a consequence of Neanderthal introgression.
It is only Africa that is expected to have low or non-existent Autism prevalence.

Callista
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,775
Location: Ohio, USA

23 Sep 2008, 7:05 am

...but it doesn't, does it?

Africa (the continent) has lower rates of autism diagnosis because of cultural and economic factors; but if you actually screen a large population of people with African ancestry vs. people with European ancestry, you get roughly the same rates. (I think this was done with African Americans, though, who might identify themselves as African American despite having Caucasian ancestry; so that could complicate things... Wish I could find that article again... something like "Autism Underdiagnosed in African Americans"...)

I personally think autism came from long before the current genetic "races". It really only takes a few thousand years to create a "race" from an isolated group, and autism is a complex, multigenic condition.

_________________
Reports from a Resident Alien:
http://chaoticidealism.livejournal.com

Autism Memorial:
http://autism-memorial.livejournal.com

rdos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

23 Sep 2008, 7:10 am

Ishmael wrote:

And you dislike the theory for emotional and / or political correctness reasons :roll:

Ishmael wrote:

It isn't. I don't believe that "single gene" nonsense; in fact, the argument holds that that is a large reason why this "neanderthal" theory is nonsense...

Introgression == large amounts of novel genes introduced into a new species in a few cases. How could this possibly be incompatible with the multiple-gene autism background???

Ishmael wrote:

Yes; we do see other problems with ASD's; unrelated. Anectdotal evidence. It's a cute theory, but absolute nonsense.

They are not unrelated. When they are correlated to Autism they are not unrelated.

Ishmael wrote:

Those "huge populations"... also have associations with non-ASD's. Red hair? There's this country called "Ireland"...

When you draw random Aspies and NTs from a mostly US-origin population you don't expect a correlation with red hair, and if you get one, there is some kind of relation between them.

rdos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

23 Sep 2008, 7:22 am

Callista wrote:

Africa (the continent) has lower rates of autism diagnosis because of cultural and economic factors; but if you actually screen a large population of people with African ancestry vs. people with European ancestry, you get roughly the same rates.

You don't. If you screen Africans (African Americans) for ASDs (including AS), they have much lower prevalence. When I have asked about ancestry in the last versions, I would have expected around 12% African American participation, but I get 1-3% all the time. For American Indians and Asians, I get the expected amount. Because Aspies are many times more likely to do Aspie-quiz than NTs, the only possible explanation for this is a much lower prevalence in African Americans.

Callista wrote:

(I think this was done with African Americans, though, who might identify themselves as African American despite having Caucasian ancestry; so that could complicate things...

That is probably why the autism rate is not zero. :wink:

Callista wrote:

Wish I could find that article again... something like "Autism Underdiagnosed in African Americans"...)

They'd wish. There is a prevalence study in Atlanta Georgia, that claims the prevalence of autism in special education is equal for African Americans and Caucasians, however there are big holes in this study. First, average African American IQ is much lower than average Causasian IQ, so many more African Americans are expected to end up in special education. Second, you cannot do a prevalence study using the "special education" population since it is biased and lacks the high-functioning end of the autism-spectrum.

Ishmael
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Jul 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 953
Location: Australia

23 Sep 2008, 7:43 am

O...kay...

New rule: ignore what rdos says. Did he actually say I only argue against the theory because I don't like the idea of it? Really? Really?!

Please... Buh-lie-ver! He can read, ya? Did notice how I wrote I like the concept but simply that there is no evidence but anectdotal and biased statistical? Right?

Gee, I must be getting rusty! And here I thought it was correct scientific form to question that with inconsistant evidence! Ho-hum. Guess I'll retire now...

_________________
Oh, well, fancy that! Isn't that neat, eh?

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

23 Sep 2008, 7:55 am

I agree with Ishmael. This is a fantasy idea. I'm sorry if that ruins the 'vibe' of the thread to the OP, but as far as the science it is anecdotal.

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

23 Sep 2008, 7:58 am

donkey wrote:

Danielismyname wrote:

Autism is most prevalent in Japan*; does this jive with The Neanderthal Theory?

*They think it's the seafood.

can I have the sources please?

Page 3 of 8 [ 121 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8 Next

Jump to:

The Neanderthal Theory Post Reply New Topic

The Neanderthal Theory