4 ms·
So are Asperger / ASD mutations, a step back, step forward, or a step in a different direction (evolution?)
by noipv4 10y ago
So are Asperger / ASD mutations, a step back, step forward, or a step in a different direction (evolution?)
- dragonwriter 10y agoEvolution isn't directed.
- Spellman 10y agoAnd if there's no pressure to remove a particular trait from being in the reproductive environment...
- ricksplat 10y agoIt sounds as though you are speaking from the standpoint that genes mutate at random in all and any "directions" (net). However, non-successful genes are eliminated, so in the effective sense it is (gross). The direction of evolution is towards being "more suitable" for a particular environment.
- nickpsecurity 10y agodragonwriter is right in general sense. We can evaluate it, though, from our own perspective. It's a step forward in terms of intelligence and stability in world. It's a giant leap backward in terms of success or happiness in a world of non-autistic people. Evolution would also consider it a negative in that autistics get laid and reproduce less than non-autistics. They also are more likely to loose in competition in corporations, battlefields, and jungles. So, it's a net loss overall for evolution's main function but autistics persist for one reason or another.
- lets-tryagain 10y agoThese comments are simply unbelievable. Autism is not a super power. Visit families with meaningfully autistic children and come back and tell me if you think it is a "step forward" in "intelligence and stability". These children will need to be institutionalized as adults.
- gertef 10y agoThere's a lot of rampant speculation in the comment here.
- nickpsecurity 10y agoJust opinions like most interpretations in that field of study. That's all.
- CuriouslyC 10y agoMy guess is that the mutations are retained as variation in the population because having some small subset of them probably results in divergent thinking which can increase overall group survival. Autistic spectrum disorder individuals result from having too many of these mutations, such that neural activity patterns find a stable equilibrium outside of "normal" (think strange attractors in system dynamics).
- azakai 10y agoA reasonable theory, but as a minor note most evolutionary biologists wouldn't focus on group survival. Group selection remains controversial. But your point still stands, and has clear parallels in other cases, like sickle-cell anemia: one copy of the gene is helpful, so it remains in the population, but two copies is harmful, so its spread is limited.
- jawarner 10y agoI'm not an evolutionary biologist, but this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_game_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_game_theory) mentions Hamilton's rule: A given altristic gene will propogate if "the genetic relatedness of the altruistic donor exceeds the cost-benefit ratio of the altruistic act itself". Is this not widely agreed upon?
- empath75 10y agoEither genes survive or they don't. There's no forwards or backwards.
- ricksplat 10y agobackward: these traits are a disadvantage to host organism. forward: they are an advantage, and thus survive. Are they aligned with natural selection processes in the environment.
- empath75 10y agoevolution doesn't care about organisms or species, only genes.
- ricksplat 10y agoI'm not sure why you're anthropomorphising evolution. It's a process, not even a thing. It's a consequence of interacting environmental conditions, and it doesn't "care" at all in any sense of the word. No more than point-charges "care" about electromagnetism.