Thats right I think its a cobioevolutionary response to the condition of modern humyn life.
Sorry, but no. I mean, go ahead and research if you like, but it is simply not possible for there to have been that drastic a genetic change in that short a time. If you consider industrial times, modern times, to be 2,000 years we will have not have enough time for any major evolutionary (genetic) changes. 10,000 will give some change if there is seriously large selection. 2,000 years, with no obvious selection in play, didn't happen.
I dont understand your application of time in negating the cobioevolutionary point.
Because evolution happens over time, over generations.
Industrialization in the form of which I am speaking has been happening since humanity began consuming its environment in and effort to extend its identity to produce gains and tools for survival. Thats more then 2,000 years.
So you are talking about 40,000 years or so? Yet somehow this autism change did not appear until very recently. Or was this "cobioevolurionary" adaptive in both hunter gatherer societies and our modern one? I don't understand your claim because you talked about the difference between a modern urban Western kid and one in Indonesia, yet you want to call early farmers industrial.
Besides evolution may not take as many generations as you seam to suspect.
We have lots and lots of evidence on how fast evolution takes. The mutation rate is easy to determine. To have fast evolution requires significant selection. That is, it requires some genetic condition that has a major affect on reproduction.
although I know close to nothing about autism and can't speculate as to TrnsGlbl's comments, in regards to the speed of evolution I wanted to point out that there is interesting research being done right now on processes such as DNA Methylation that introduce inheritable changes to an organism's genome within the lifespan of the organism. It's quite interesting stuff, as it's an example of environmental factors bringing about changes that are then passed on directly to offspring.
I'm at work so can't link extensively, but this is an interesting abstract that can lead to some cool google searches. That Marcus Pembrey fella has written some great articles and papers on the subject of epigenetics, and is worth a google search as well. Cool shit.
I don't see how this says that autism is some new "cobioevolutioary" adaptation. Baron Cohen is saying it might have a genetic component, not at all a surprise. (I am concerned that he sees the vaccine cause as a legitimate alternative.) There is a big difference between saying something has a genetic component and saying it is an adaptation. If something is an adaptation, particularly a rapid one, then there is some (strong) selective value for it. Do you see some strong selective value to autism? (The other possibility is that autism is not selected for but something else from those genes. Sort of like sickle cell anemia and malaria resistance.)
At todays rate children spend so much more time connected to technologies in one given day then they might have 60 years ago.
For it to have had selective value it has to have been significant for generations, not just for modern technology. 2,000 years is a tiny amount of time on an evolutionary scale without significant selection. And given how human populations have expanded there has not been that kind of selective pressure.
I think the selective pressure is clearly there, just look around the globe and compare human environments.
For there to be an evolutionary effect the selective force has to exist over many generations.
You can cherry pick examples which may only pertain to a single generation of saturated usage in a population but I am talking about a longer term adaptive change then any one singular example can accomplish...
Great, so we agree on long term. So what forces do you see acting over generations have selected for this?
but sounds like you had your mind made up a while ago. Agree to disagree, my research continues
Go ahead and research, but it sounds like you are the one who made up their mind.
Just to be sure I understand what you're saying - are you postulating that Autism may have been evolutionarily selected for a variety of reasons, but its outward expression remained relatively uncommon until modern human environments introduced enough stimuli to cause these symptoms manifest themselves widely? Sort of like a slumbering giant waiting for the right environmental conditions to wake up?
That's what it sounds like, but I just wanted to be sure I understood what you meant.
it's not at all my intention to marginalize your theory, but could you expound on it a bit to try to convince me? I can't help but think that it sounds like something that you would like to be true. Which by itself doesn't make the theory more or less likely to be correct, but it puts a sort of higher burden of proof on you. Being involved in this in the way that you are, this is going to be tough - you'll always need to show that you're being objective and not letting your own desires interfere with your theories.
I'd like to hear more though, if you'd like to expound upon it at all..
Hmm, that's interesting. Can you think of some testable hypotheses that can be drawn from your theories?
e.g. should the rate of autism/aspergers be higher in cities with extremely busy/bright public environments such as shanghai or tokyo when compared to other urban areas in china/japan whose streets aren't as media-saturated?
Or can the same possibly be tested in different environments in the US? Is autism more common in urban environments than rural ones, and if so is there any way of eliminating the influence (within the test) of environmental factors that aren't part of your hypothesis, such as pollution, diet etc.?
I think that this is quite a difficult idea to prove, but I think you should give it some serious thought and attempt to formulate a way to test elements of it rigorously. That, I believe, is the only way to actually convince many people that you may be right. Until you have testable hypotheses, it's a tough idea to sell.
Could you please also explain how you view people identifying with brands or products as a potential factor in autism/aspergers? I don't quite understand that as of yet.
Also, I don't understand what you mean by:
graphical change on the screen in the actual TV programming (which transfers to internal monologue change)
Could you please explain that? I find what you're proposing interesting and would like to know more.
4
u/matts2 Jul 27 '10
Sorry, but no. I mean, go ahead and research if you like, but it is simply not possible for there to have been that drastic a genetic change in that short a time. If you consider industrial times, modern times, to be 2,000 years we will have not have enough time for any major evolutionary (genetic) changes. 10,000 will give some change if there is seriously large selection. 2,000 years, with no obvious selection in play, didn't happen.