Published on 12, July, 2020
Hello all
I was musing the other day on the roots of autism and two things struck me:
So both are potentially controversial theories and please we are trying to only look at scientific information and not conspiracy theories, my reason for saying this will become very clear in a moment.
Looking at the first point, whilst it had been comprehensively shown scientifically in multiple studies that there is not a direct link between vaccines and autism, and the original "research" that started that whole controversy was unscientific and unethical, there are still some important questions that remain. Autistics for instance, are far more likely than the neurotypical population to have a range of autoimmune medical conditions, such as Rheumatoid Arthritis, which is interesting as there is a small risk with every vaccination of an autoimmune reaction. Hence there is an interesting question as to why autistics are more autoimmune disease prone and does this make them more disposed to a vaccination reaction? So whilst they already had autism do the traits come out post vaccination due to an autoimmune reaction or is there not link or something more sinister?
As for two species, we know that all, but people of direct African decent, modern humans contain some neanderthal DNA. IS it possible though that autistics contain some other neanderthal DNA that makes them more neanderthal than human, hence two species in effect. We know that humans and neanderthals did copulate ad have cross-species babies, so its possible that they "live on". Think also what happens when one crosses a horse and a donkey, so what happens if one crosses a neanderthal and a human? Before dismissing it, think about it, think about the possibilities and what we could represent.
Cheers
Andy
We are evolution in process.
The best comparators lie in plants. NT=F1 ND=Landrace.
F1 plants are created to exclude diversity and create almost identical progeny, think of the rows of crops you see in fields all standing the same height, same branch structure giving the same yields in same environs. This is achieved by taking 2 plants with favourable traits you would like to retain, breeding them, collecting seeds then back crossing (backwards cross breeding, yes 'in breeding') the progeny with the parents, this then locks those traits into that line and provides homogeneity with succesive generations.
Landrace plants are more genetically diverse having grown wild and never gone through a selective breeding process, the progeny of these plants tend to throw up different cultivars (genetic variations that sometimes create unique traits just to one plant), because of this genetic diversity, evolution is speeded up in comparison to F1 who left to nature will get weaker and weaker as they in breed. Not all of these genetic variations are positive, but i'd say the vast majority are allowing the genus to thrive and adapt in its natural environment.
We (ASC folks) are not in our optimum natural environment generally, we are not delicate flowers, we are being suffocated by surroundings that are toxic to us.
What is your hypothesis though, as you have given us a very interesting simmaly, but have not said where you think the mutations come from, particularly given the statistics that show its passed on through families rather than as single occurrences. The simmaly would also imply that it could be breed out of a population, but I do not see that that has ever occurred. What is interesting is those tribes that have had limited outside contact and have low or non-existent autism rates.