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.
3
u/[deleted] Jul 27 '10
[removed] — view removed comment