Neanderthal theory of Asperger-Adhd

[delete]

I have understood that there are quite a few aspergers people here on the Phora, diagnosed or not.

I wonder what your take on this theory is?
Abstract

In the past there have been numerous theories for the cause(s) of autism, Asperger's syndrome, ADHD and Tourette syndrome. Most of these theories can at best explain small parts of these diverse syndromes. Many of them extend their findings in spectacular ways to be able to claim to explain larger parts of the autism spectrum with little success.

This theory approaches the problem from a new radical viewpoint. Instead of approaching autism as a disorder, brain defect or the result of poor socialization or parenting, it claims that autistics are fully functional.

All the areas that are central to autism are related to species-typical adaptations that vary widely between species. These include nonverbal signals, social organization, sensory acuteness, motor skills, general preferences, sexuality, physical traits and biological adaptations. Some of this diversity in autistics is poorly understood and virtually unresearched and therefore is not published in peer-reviewed journals. Because of this lack of research, Aspie-quiz, an online questionnary, is heavily referenced for these traits.

Recent genetic research have demonstrated that the Out-of-Africa (OoA) model with no interbreeding fails to explain nuclear DNA diversity in Eurasia. Several models of interbreeding that do explain this diversity exists today. It therefore is quite likely that Neanderthals contributed to the Caucasian genome. Aspie-quiz have demonstrated in a large survey in the US population that Afroamericans have only 1/6 of the autism prevalence of Caucasians. The same survey also indicates that Asians and American Indians have about 1/2 of the autism prevalence of Caucasians.

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of Aspie-quiz yields axises that seems to be related to the first Eurasian Homo, the formation of modern humans in Africa or South Asia and the hybridization between modern humans and Neanderthals in Europe. These axises seems to be 1.8 million years, 150,000 years and 37,000 years, which fits pretty good with the archaeologic evidences available.

http://www.rdos.net/eng/asperger.htm


I think this theory is sound, as it is refutable, and it comes up with numerous of testable hypothesis.

How to prove or refute the theory

Any serious theory needs some ways of proving or refuting it. Since this theory is based on things that happened a long time ago, this is not very easy too do. However, genetics offer some promising possibilities.

Autism and psychiatric genes

The most important task is to identify autism genes. Without them, there is very little possibility to prove anything. David Comings is actually working on the genetic basic of Tourette (and therefore also autism and co morbid conditions). Essential for the validity of this theory, is that many genes are involved. This seems to be the case too, as David believes there are 600 genes behind.

Age of autism genes

Central to this theory, is that the majority of autism genes should be 30,000 to 50,000 years old when measured for diversity, and many times older when comparing haplotype differences. This would be the effect of rare hybridization, and the following positive selection of Neanderthal genes. The diversity of these Neanderthal genes would be lost in the hybridization process, as well as any intermediate forms of them. The result is haplotypes that have many mutational differences, and no intermediates. The DRD4 7R gene fits this description, but more genes need to be researched.

Population distribution of autism genes

It's also essential for the validity of this theory that the majority of autism genes are most common in Caucasians, less common in Asians and Amerindians, and least common in black Africans.

Prevalence studies of autism and other psychiatric conditions

Analogue with the gene argument, it would follow that autism, ADD, Tourette and other psychiatric "disorders" should be most common in Caucasians, less common in Asians and Amerinidians, and least common in black Africans. However, research on this must be made using population studies, and must include more than mentally disabled individuals.

Faceblindness and Neanderthal faces

A real possibility is to check if faceblind people with autistic traits can recognize Neanderthals faces better than modern human faces. This would refute or confirm that prosapagnosia is caused by hybrid genes from Neanderthals

Population based studies of late onset autoimmune disease

The idea of this theory is that autoimmune disease is caused by gene incompabilities, and that autistic individuals will get these more often than others, especially if one or both of the parents are non-autistic. Psychiatry claims autism is caused by autoimmune disease, while this theory claims autistic genes combined with non-autistic genes causes autoimmune disease. Which of these interpretations is correct can be verified by studying prevalence of late onset autoimmune disease in the autistic population. In this case, autoimmune disease cannot cause autism, and if prevalence is significantly higher, this would tend to support this theory. Online survey's indicate prevalence is 5-10 times higher, but larger random-selection surveys are needed to confirm this finding.

Prevalence of known Neanderthal traits in the autistic population

Online surveys indicate that probable Neanderthal traits / genes like flat foot, crooked tooth / underbite, Rhesus factor, hair color, freckles, factor V leiden and hemochormatosis are several times more prevalent than in the non-autistic population. Random, controlled, survey's could confirm or reject these findings.

Animal domestication

Genetic studies could be used to date remains of wolves / dogs in Neanderthal settings. If it's found the genes of these animals are closer to today's dogs than to wolves, this would indicate dog domestication happened in Neanderthals. Similar procedures can be used with other now domestic species that can be found in Neanderthal "prey".
http://www.rdos.net/eng/asperger.htm#ProveRefute

[Kodos]

What in summation is the theory?

Doesn't seem to state that but to jump around various diffrent topics.

[Brechun]

That paper was one of the biggest pieces of shit I've ever seen.

[delete]

Here is an interview with a jew with a fancy name who thinks it it in the genes as well. :)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cambridgeshire/content/articles/2006/03/02/interview_simon_baron_cohen_feature.shtml
There is more info about aspergers in the link.

Gifted Scientists and Autism: Is there a connection?
Interview with Professor Simon Baron-Cohen
Do the genes for autism and scientific ability run in the same families? Professor Simon Baron-Cohen explored this theory as part of the Science Festival...

First off, what is 'autism'?

Autism is a spectrum of conditions that result in social and communication difficulties as well as strong narrow interests, also called 'obsessions'.

What are the defining characteristics of autism?

The two big subgroups on the autistic spectrum are classic autism and Asperger Syndrome (AS). They both share the features above, but in classic autism there may also be language delay and learning difficulties (below average IQ). In AS, the child speaks on time and has an average or above average IQ.

Would you agree that typical characteristics of classic autism - the need for order / systemizing / non direct eye contact - display a kind of 'safety' mechanism? If so, why so?

People with classic autism have difficulty predicting the social world because it cannot be systemized but can only really be understood via empathizing, a skill that they find challenging. The non-social world can be systemized. So, the social world causes them anxiety in its unpredictability. One can either see their withdrawal from the social world as a way of managing their anxiety, or one can see their attraction to the non-social world as their way of concentrating on what they can do well: systemizing.

Are people born with autism or do they develop it?

Both. Autism is genetic, so the predisposition is there from before birth, but autism is developmental so it means that children with this genetic make up will miss out on a lot of the important social experiences that other children receive.

How and when is autism picked up in a child?

The earliest autism can be picked up is about 18 months old, by looking for reduced 'joint attention' behaviours such as following where others are looking or pointing.

Is it something that can be 'cured' (or indeed, should it be 'cured')?

There is a need for support, including helping the child develop social skills, but not all autistic characteristics need 'treatment' or 'cure'. For example, their excellent attention to detail, their ability to focus on a topic for hours, and to see patterns in how a system works are all gifts which should be nurtured to allow the child to fulfil their potential.

Is it a myth that it mainly affects boys?

More boys are diagnosed so that part is not a myth. Whether girls have autism in equal numbers but are somehow not being detected is a possibility.

'Boys are from Mars...' we all have a stereotypical image of boys being collectors, liking order (toy cars in long, long lines arranged by boys, under 10, is a common sight), favouring one project / problem at a time etc. The field of science is dominated by the necessity for order, methodical approach and extreme examination of the subject and tends to be mainly populated by males. Is this more than just a
coincidence?

No - this is not a coincidence, according to the extreme male brain (EMB) theory of autism. According to this theory, autism differs from typical maleness only by degree.

Tell us about your hypothesis on the possible link between autism and gifted scientists.

As you say, gifted scientists are gifted systemizers. If autism is characterized by strong systemizing, then the genes that underlie autism and systemizing may in some way be linked. We have family genetic data supporting this, showing, for example, that autism is more common among mathematicians (who, by definition, are good at numerical systems), and that autism is also more common among the siblings of mathematicians.

Autism is sometimes regarded as a disability. Should we, in fact, view it as a gift?

I think autism doesn't neatly fit into either the medical model of a disability or the educational model of giftedness, because it is both.

[Kodos]

Cohen's (Borat's relative apparently) has an actual theory, I can't even tell what the theory is in the other paper.

And the social world can be systematized empirically (logic isn't much good) to some degree... thats where my rudimentary social skills come from.

[delete]

He basically thinks white people are the result of some mix between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens, and that that Asperger and ADD is an indication of this, and the same could be true with other unikly caucassian traits.

He even says how his theory could be refuted.
Autism and psychiatric genes

The most important task is to identify autism genes. Without them, there is very little possibility to prove anything. David Comings is actually working on the genetic basic of Tourette (and therefore also autism and co morbid conditions). Essential for the validity of this theory, is that many genes are involved. This seems to be the case too, as David believes there are 600 genes behind.

Age of autism genes

Central to this theory, is that the majority of autism genes should be 30,000 to 50,000 years old when measured for diversity, and many times older when comparing haplotype differences. This would be the effect of rare hybridization, and the following positive selection of Neanderthal genes. The diversity of these Neanderthal genes would be lost in the hybridization process, as well as any intermediate forms of them. The result is haplotypes that have many mutational differences, and no intermediates. The DRD4 7R gene fits this description, but more genes need to be researched.

Population distribution of autism genes

It's also essential for the validity of this theory that the majority of autism genes are most common in Caucasians, less common in Asians and Amerindians, and least common in black Africans.

[New Scientist]

Here is an interview with a jew with a fancy name who thinks it it in the genes as well. :)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cambridgeshire/content/articles/2006/03/02/interview_simon_baron_cohen_feature.shtml
There is more info about aspergers in the link.


Most here will know i'm a systemizer. May have aspergers. Highly sensitive to sounds. (This really got worse after getting mercury fillings.) My mother is a scientist, she also suffered electrosensitivity. Her father won prizes in mathematics. Her brother is a hypnotherapist who has spent his entire life in a tiny room spinning vortex discs at his patients.

I have one younger brother and two cousins with full blown autism, all occuring at the time mercury was introduced into vaccines. Although the younger brother, unlike all the scientific ashkenazi talent is from the italian side.

Looks genetic from here.

..

[New Scientist]

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3842

Toxic metal clue to autism
19:00 18 June 2003
Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
Richard Lathe and Michael Le Page


Thimerosal, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Stephen Haswell, University of Hull
JABS
International Journal of Toxicology


A study of mercury levels in the baby hair of children who were later diagnosed with autism has produced startling results. The babies had far lower levels of mercury in their hair than other infants, leading to speculation that autistic children either do not absorb mercury or, more likely, cannot excrete it.

[delete]

Most here will know i'm a systemizer. May have aspergers. Highly sensitive to sounds.

So you have them in your family as well. :)

I think a society where people who are on the autistic spectrum can prosper and find meaningfull lives, will outcompete the other communities.

I have no problem attributing the rule of law, and the initial search for rules in nature, to Asperger people trying frenetically to make some order to what they percieve to be a chaotic world.

[tyciol]

That's an idiotic theory, the neanderthal, while a cousin, is a distinctly different species. We were not able to breed with them. There is some evidence we coexisted for a period but then we either outbred/outfed/outstabbed them.

That they're saying they're ancestors shows their lack of knowledge of evolutionary study.

Anyway, I do agree that autism can be functional and is mainly classed as an abnormality due to being different and unable to get along with the average personality type, much like many meme-based differences in culture like punk or whatever. This is especially in savante-like cases such as Aspergers. They can be very intelligent, and suited for a technology-based world.

Rather than taking drug approaches, rationalization approaches are probably better.

[New Scientist]

So you have them in your family as well. :)

I think a society where people who are on the autistic spectrum can prosper and find meaningfull lives, will outcompete the other communities.

I have no problem attributing the rule of law, and the initial search for rules in nature, to Asperger people trying frenetically to make some order to what they percieve to be a chaotic world.

Being systematical doesnt mean you are not chaotic. Half of my systemizations encompass non-linearity and the science of chaos. I am quite at ease in chaotic environments. Noise can be a problem. I went through a phase of getting drunk and shouting at cars to drown out their noise. Sticking an earplug under a walkman earphone and getting a loud engine car helped deal with that.

Guess in that way aspergers is quite male, manifestating in the need for loud stereos, shouting and straight through vehicle exhaust systems.


..
..

[delete]

Being systematical doesnt mean you are not chaotic.

I don't think you understood what I meant. Let's pretend that there are a number of ways different people read and process information surrounding them. Different persons may value different type of information differently, for instance if they were to judge somebody, on wether he is telling the truth or not.

We could call these evolutionary strategies, as they are connected to the genes in some way. Neorotypicals will most probably cluster around trying to read facial expressions and listening to the voice, and try to feel if the situation is true or not.

People on the slightly autistic spectrum tend not to pick up on this information as well, so they develop other methods to tell truth from fiction. One strategy could be to use previous history, and rules on how one can pick out trustable people. One radical strategy is to kill anybody caught telling lies.

I am not sure that neurotypicals in the Asperger sence, is one cluster at all, but I think it is more likly that we will find that allmost all people can be given some mild form of almost any syndrome out there.

Also if you look at the diagnosis for Asperger, one sees that it is mainly used as a tool for diagnosis and treatment used with children. If you get the diagnosis Asperger, you will most likely get some personally adjusted help in school, so it don't matter that much, if it really is one syndrome in reality or not, for the individual getting the diagnosis.

Lets say the mean for any trait in the population is 100 and lets call these traits
a, b, c, and d, and lets say you have asperger if you score 500 or higher.

If a,b,c,d is normally distributed, a lot more people would have the same traits in a less developed state, so basically what consists of a huge amount of people, has some form of Asperger light. As Asperger, ADD, dyslexia and some other 'disorders' runs in families, there must be some advantage to the conditions, as many of the individuals are highly successfull as adults.


Half of my systemizations encompass non-linearity and the science of chaos. I am quite at ease in chaotic environments.

Bringing order to chaos, or trying to find the pattern in some chaotic data, sounds uncommon to me. :)


Noise can be a problem. I went through a phase of getting drunk and shouting at cars to drown out their noise. Sticking an earplug under a walkman earphone and getting a loud engine car helped deal with that.

I think people are born with their volumcontrols from ears to brain preset on different levels. One way for evolution to force people into being anti-social, and spend some time thinking about stuff, would be to make them anoyed at the chatter and noice of others.
What is funny, is that this trait also connects to Aspergers and ADD etc.


Guess in that way aspergers is quite male, manifestating in the need for loud stereos, shouting and straight through vehicle exhaust systems.

Being load yourself, is something quite different than being pissed at other people being for load. The noice you make are the correct one. :)

[New Scientist]

[QUOTE=delete]I don't think you understood what I meant. Let's pretend that there are a number of ways different people read and process information surrounding them. Different persons may value different type of information differently, for instance if they were to judge somebody, on wether he is telling the truth or not.

We could call these evolutionary strategies, as they are connected to the genes in some way. Neorotypicals will most probably cluster around trying to read facial expressions and listening to the voice, and try to feel if the situation is true or not.

People on the slightly autistic spectrum tend not to pick up on this information as well, so they develop other methods to tell truth from fiction. One strategy could be to use previous history, and rules on how one can pick out trustable people. One radical strategy is to kill anybody caught telling lies.

Thats what i do. I read peoples tempraments. Their hands to asses their brain structure. Behaviour patterns for laterality, upbringing and values. Not that i do this all the time or i am useless at reading expressions or voice, just that experience has taught me, i tend to make better judgements from systems. Now I find i kind predict peoples finger ratios from looking at interactions. The reason i do this, is that there are certain combinations of these that predict untrustworthy or psychopathic people at the extreme end. At the mild end, whether i'm going to waste time and energy by trying to engage someone in a particular topic or pursuit.


Bringing order to chaos, or trying to find the pattern in some chaotic data, sounds uncommon to me. :)

Not order or patterns, but shape and spatial structure. These are stronger in chaos than order.

I think people are born with their volumcontrols from ears to brain preset on different levels. One way for evolution to force people into being anti-social, and spend some time thinking about stuff, would be to make them anoyed at the chatter and noice of others.
What is funny, is that this trait also connects to Aspergers and ADD etc.

Aspergers is an extreme male brain. Less connections more neurons. Neurons operate on sensory emergence from spatial noise (chaotic). So they are sensory sensitive. Not that this precludes your evolutionary point but it simplifies things in evolutionary terms to think of aspergers as an abstraction of male processing.

..

[delete]

Thats what i do. I read peoples tempraments. Their hands to asses their brain structure. Behaviour patterns for laterality, upbringing and values. Not that i do this all the time or i am useless at reading expressions or voice, just that experience has taught me, i tend to make better judgements from systems. Now I find i kind predict peoples finger ratios from looking at interactions. The reason i do this, is that there are certain combinations of these that predict untrustworthy or psychopathic people at the extreme end.


One could also choose the evolutionary explanation and say that the reason that you did it was that the genes coding for this behavior have to give an advantage in some environments.


Not that this precludes your evolutionary point but it simplifies things in evolutionary terms to think of aspergers as an abstraction of male processing.

But Asperger is not the only extreme male brain?

I see Aspergers as the ultimate male brain if you want a society buildt on technological progress and hard work, but if you want a macho society, built on social games, Aspergers will have a harder time.

[Jake Featherston]

A study of mercury levels in the baby hair of children who were later diagnosed with autism has produced startling results. The babies had far lower levels of mercury in their hair than other infants, leading to speculation that autistic children either do not absorb mercury or, more likely, cannot excrete it.

Interestingly, the prevalence of autism among local children in these parts (the so-called "Silicon Valley") has been cited as evidence its some sort of genetic defect that correlates to high levels of cognition among the parents, however, people often fail to take into account that I'm sitting within five miles or so of one of the world's largest mercury mines. The biggest mercury mine in the world is in Almaden, Spain; its no coincidence I live in the Almden district of San Jose (nor is it any coincidence the local newspaper is called the San Jose Mercury News). Mercury was used extensively around here in silver mining as well, and so you can't eat fish from any of the streams. That could well have something to do with the frequency of autism here in the Santa Clara Valley as well.

[New Scientist]

But Asperger is not the only extreme male brain?

I see Aspergers as the ultimate male brain if you want a society buildt on technological progress and hard work, but if you want a macho society, built on social games, Aspergers will have a harder time.

What other kind do you have in mind.The African/European difference angle ?

Googled this

Race Differences in the Age at Diagnosis Among Medicaid-Eligible Children With Autism.

Articles
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 41(12):1447-1453, December 2002.
MANDELL, DAVID S. SC.D.; LISTERUD, JOHN M.D., PH.D.; LEVY, SUSAN E. M.D.; PINTO-MARTIN, JENNIFER A. PH.D.

Abstract:
Objective: To examine racial differences in the age at which Medicaid-eligible children first receive an autistic disorder (AD) diagnosis and to examine time in mental health treatment until an AD diagnosis was received.

Method: Philadelphia Medicaid specialty mental health claims identified 406 children who received services in 1999 for AD. Claims from 1993-1999 were used to identify the date of first mental health visit, first receipt of AD diagnosis, and number of visits occurring between those dates. Linear regression was used to examine the relationship among race, age at first diagnosis of AD, time in mental health treatment, and number of visits until the diagnosis was made.

Results: On average, white children received the AD diagnosis at 6.3 years of age, compared with 7.9 years for black children (p < .001). White children entered the mental health system at an earlier age (6.0 versus 7.1 years, p = .005); however, after adjusting for age, sex, and time eligible for Medicaid, black children required more time in treatment before receiving the diagnosis.

Conclusions: Important disparities exist in the early detection and treatment of autism. These disparities may be the result of differences in help-seeking, advocacy and support, and clinician behaviors.

Really non conclusive then for race differences.

[New Scientist]

Interestingly, the prevalence of autism among local children in these parts (the so-called "Silicon Valley") has been cited as evidence its some sort of genetic defect that correlates to high levels of cognition among the parents, however, people often fail to take into account that I'm sitting within five miles or so of one of the world's largest mercury mines. The biggest mercury mine in the world is in Almaden, Spain; its no coincidence I live in the Almden district of San Jose (nor is it any coincidence the local newspaper is called the San Jose Mercury News). Mercury was used extensively around here in silver mining as well, and so you can't eat fish from any of the streams. That could well have something to do with the frequency of autism here in the Santa Clara Valley as well.

SO the mercury could be affecting those in the populations who cant excrete it well ? From the basic amount i know about neuroprotection, non excretion of mercury indicates a general lack of neuroprotection. Which is one the biggest factors in ashkenazi IQ. Studies on people who contracted illnesses due to poor neuroprotection found most had high IQ occupations. Kind of like how your computer runs faster when you disable half the components on the virus checker.


//

[delete]

What other kind do you have in mind.The African/European difference angle ?

I was among them thinking about the ultra horny, look how lovely I am males. Often found among the negro and muslim population.

I think you could put the two types into one of your r/K scheems. The american concept of cads and dads also covers the the difference in some way.


[B]Race Differences in the Age at Diagnosis Among Medicaid-Eligible Children With Autism.


I don't think that autism is best wieved as one single disease anymore, just like one stopped to look at fever as one disease as medicine progressed.
If you continue the analogy, you will see that fever is common all over the world, in all races and at all developmental stages, but that the causes of fever, and the result it has, is different all around the world.

One last funny aspect of the fever-autism analogy, is that fever proved to a part of the immunesystem in the end, so that today, we only fight it in cases where the immunesystem needs help.

What all this boils down to with the autists of different color, is that it hard to say if it is the same thing that is diagnosed in the black and white children.

[New Scientist]

[QUOTE=delete]I was among them thinking about the ultra horny, look how lovely I am males. Often found among the negro and muslim population.

So vanity is an aspect of autism. Then anyone exhibiting too much masculinity is autistic.

I think you could put the two types into one of your r/K scheems. The american concept of cads and dads also covers the the difference in some way.

I kind of put aspergers into K systems, but its not that simple. Really we need to be clear on the labels. If a person is up to getting a life, reproduces and these genes are progressing why give them a label at all ?


I don't think that autism is best wieved as one single disease anymore, just like one stopped to look at fever as one disease as medicine progressed.
If you continue the analogy, you will see that fever is common all over the world, in all races and at all developmental stages, but that the causes of fever, and the result it has, is different all around the world.

You could make the point that autism could be the result of poor nervous system immunity if it clustered with other disorders of the nervous system. Saying its different between races widens the argument too far. Its quite a specific illness which inflames brain white matter.

[delete]

I found this on stormfront:

The following article, while not attempting to reconcile the two theories, have done so in my mind.

It suggests that humans not only bred with Neanderthals but Asians may have bred with Homo erectus.

It has to do with several genes one of which is PDHA1. If humans evolved from a small isolated group, why did the PDHA1 halotype diverge 1.8 million years ago and again 200,000 years ago? They suggest that it is because modern humans bred with Neanderthal.

"RRM2P4 comes in two basic types that diverged 2 million years ago - around the time that Homo erectus first moved out of Africa into Asia. Crucially, one type is found almost exclusively in people of east Asian origin."

----------

The Neanderthal within

03 March 2007
Dan Jones
Magazine issue 2593

Did our ancestors interbreed with other species of human? We might be more of a hybrid than we’d care to believe, as New Scientist discovers

AFTER the boy died, he was buried in a shallow grave along with some pierced shells and red ochre, as was customary among his people. There he lay for 24,000 years until his near-complete remains were unearthed by anthropologist João Zilhão at Lagar Velho in Portugal. He was expecting to find the remains of an early modern human - Neanderthals were thought to be long extinct by that time - but the boy’s skeleton was different. Realising that he had something unusual and potentially significant on his hands, Zilhão called in Erik Trinkaus, an expert on Stone Age humans at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri.

In 1999, Trinkaus and Zilhão, who is at the University of Bristol in the UK, published their analysis of the Lagar Velho child. They argued that his bones provided the answer to a long-standing and delicate question about human evolution: did our ancestors interbreed with Neanderthals? The child, the team argued, was clearly a human-Neanderthal hybrid. He had the prominent chin and facial features of a Cro-Magnon, but also the stocky body and short legs of a Neanderthal. The only possible explanation was that he was the product of long and extensive interbreeding between early Europeans and the Neanderthals.

This interpretation was - and still is - controversial. While the possibility of interbreeding between our direct ancestors and other human species has long been recognised, there has never been much evidence to support it. Since the discovery of the Lagar Velho child, however, new lines of evidence have started to emerge, largely from genetics but also from new fossils (see “Wisdom of bones”). As the findings stack up, researchers are edging towards the conclusion that interbreeding not only happened, but that it played an important role in our evolution. Like it or not, we may have to accept that our species is, to some extent, a hybrid. There’s a little bit of Neanderthal in all of us.

For the past 20 years the prevailing view of the origin of modern humans has been fairly straightforward. About 160,000 years ago a small, isolated population of archaic humans, most likely in east Africa, evolved the anatomical characteristics that define modern humans. According to this “single origin” or “out of Africa” model, their descendants spread across the globe, completely replacing existing species, such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus, that were widespread at the time. If there was any interbreeding, it was insignificant.

That picture replaced an earlier consensus called multiregionalism. Multiregional theories propose that humans evolved towards modernity in a more distributed manner, with modern human genes arising in various sub-populations across Africa and Eurasia and then spreading throughout the entire human population through regular breeding between these sub-populations. Until the mid-1980s most palaeo-anthropologi sts were multiregionalists, based on fossil evidence hinting at widespread, parallel evolution towards modern forms.

Then genetic evidence entered the debate. In 1987, a team led by Allan Wilson of the University of California, Berkeley, published an analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences from 147 people from five geographically distinct populations. Mitochondria are very useful for tracking evolutionary history: their DNA passes directly down the maternal line, remaining unchanged unless a mutation occurs. Measured over thousands of years, these mutations occur at a regular rate, ticking like a molecular clock. Each new mutation gives rise to a new lineage of mtDNA, like the branches on a family tree. By analysing the mtDNA sequences of a large number of people, geneticists can build a “gene tree”, working backwards in time and eventually converging on a common ancestor. The gene tree can also tell you where the ancestor probably lived.

Mitochondrial Eve The one Wilson and colleagues drew up came out strongly in favour of the single origin model. It pointed to a recent common ancestor for all modern humans - a single woman, the famous Mitochondrial Eve, who lived in Africa about 170,000 years ago. Later studies on the Y chromosome, which passes exclusively down the male line, told pretty much the same story, converging on a single man - Y-chromosomal Adam - who lived about 100,000 years ago. “Subsequent genetic data either backed this up or at least didn’t refute it,” says Dan Garrigan, an evolutionary geneticist at Harvard University. “By the mid-1990s the ‘out of Africa’ view had become the dominant view of human evolution,” adds Chris Stringer, a palaeontologist at the Natural History Museum, London, and an early proponent of the model.

The story told by mtDNA and the Y chromosome supports the single origin model, but these are not the only source of genetic information about patterns of human evolution. In terms of size, the nuclear genome dwarfs mtDNA and the Y chromosome, making it a potentially richer resource for reconstructing human history.

Nuclear DNA is harder to work with, though. Unlike mtDNA or the Y chromosome, which are both passed down intact, the nuclear genome is chopped u p and recombined into novel combinations every generation. This genetic shuffling makes it very difficult to build gene family trees: you can’t be sure whether sequence differences arose through shuffling or mutation. For a long time that made it all but impossible to derive information on evolutionary history from nuclear DNA.

In recent years those hurdles have been overcome. It turns out that there are small chunks of nuclear DNA called haplotypes that tend not to be broken up by recombination, and so, like mtDNA, pass from generation to generation intact and can be used to build gene trees. In recent years sequencing technology, and the computational tools for analysing sequence data, have improved to the point where haplotypes can provide useful evidence about human history - evidence that is at odds with the single origin model. “There are patterns of variation in the genome that don’t really fit,” says Michael Hammer, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

The first such odd pattern was discovered in the late 1990s, when anthropologist Eugene Harris and geneticist Jody Hey at Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey, looked at a haplotype within a gene called PDHA1. By sequencing DNA samples taken from 35 men across the world, they found that there were several versions of this haplotype in the modern population. So far, so unsurprising. But when Harris and Hey constructed a gene tree for the sequences, something stood out.

They found that the sequences could be clumped into two basic types, or lineages, which last shared a common ancestor a whopping 1.8 million years ago. Then 200,000 years ago one of the lineages split again (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 96, p 3320). But if humans evolved from a small, reproductively isolated group about 160,000 years ago, how could the PDHA1 haplotype have diverged 1.8 million years ago, and again 200,000 years ago? “The pattern is completely incompatible with a model in which modern humans derive from a single population,” says Garrigan.

In the parlance of population genetics, PDHA1 shows “deep ancestry”. This poses a big problem for the single origin model. If the model is correct, all our genes should converge on a single common ancestor who lived fairly recently - that is, they should show shallow ancestry. On the whole, they do. But PDHA1 does not, and it isn’t alone. “We’re repeatedly finding genetic lineages with deep ancestry that stick out from other areas of the genome,” says Sarah Tishkoff, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Maryland in College Park. “The tough part is explaining these patterns.”

One solution is to revive the multiregional model, which Harris and Hey proposed doing. But there is another, more dramatic explanation: interbreeding. In this model, modern humans did evolve from a single population in Africa, but occasionally acquired genes from other human species by having sex with them.

Interbreeding would explain why our genome contains some chunks of DNA with deep ancestry: they evolved in archaic species and “introgressed” into us. If that’s true then we are, to some extent, a hybrid species - a mosaic of “our” genes, Neanderthal genes and possibly even Homo erectus genes too.

To some that’s a step too far. Surely our direct ancestors would not have been remotely interested in inter-species sex. And even if they were, what are the chances of such dalliances producing viable, fertile offspring? Many experts, however, think human-Neanderthal mixing would have been entirely possible. “They were very closely related, so there could be interbreeding,” says Stringer, even though he thinks the biological significance of this is likely to be low.

“They were very closely related, so there could have been interbreeding” Until recently, the available evidence suggested that there was no interbreeding. All Neanderthal mtDNA genomes sequenced so far are distinct from our mtDNA. But that still left plenty of scope for finding introgressed genes in the nuclear genome. Last year, dramatic and compelling evidence emerged for this type of gene flow.

For the past few years Bruce Lahn, a geneticist at the University of Chicago, has been studying genes potentially involved in human cognition, in particular one called microcephalin. Mutations in microcephalin cause the condition microcephaly, characterised by a small head and various neurological symptoms.

Like many genes involved with brain development, microcephalin has evolved rapidly in humans. In previous studies, Lahn showed that one variant of microcephalin appeared about 40,000 years ago and has since swept through the population, propelled by the power of natural selection. The new variant is found in 70 per cent of living people. “We don’t yet know exactly what this variant does or why it is being selected for - it could be something to do with cognition,” says Lahn.

The obvious interpretation is that the new version arose 40,000 years ago via a chance mutation in the microcephalin gene. Lahn thinks otherwise. In a paper published last year, he looked at a haplotype within microcephalin. On the basis of sequence differences between the old and new versions of the gene, he concluded that the two are so different that they must have diverged at least 1 million years ago (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 103, p 18178).

This combination of deep ancestry on one level and shallow ancestry on another suggests that something very unusual might have happened. It is as if the new version of microcephalin split off from our evolutionary lineage a million years ago, then jumped back in 40,000 years ago. According to Lahn, that is exactly what happened. By far the most likely explanation, he says, is that the newer version of the gene evolved in a separate species of human - probably Neanderthals - and then entered our lineage through interbreeding.

“These dates roughly correspond to human-Neanderthal divergence 1 million years ago, and the time when they coexisted in Europe 40,000 years ago, which naturally leads to the hypothesis that the new microcephalin gene introgressed from Neanderthals to humans,” says Lahn. “Once in the human gene pool, the new variant was selectively favoured and now represents about 70 per cent of the worldwide frequency.” In this case multiregionalism cannot explain the pattern: the gene is so strongly favoured by natural selection that if it arose in a subpopulation of humans that was in regular sexual contact with others it would have spread throughout our lineage much earlier.

There’s an irony here. If Lahn is right, a gene potentially underpinning the power of the modern human brain originally arose in Neanderthals, popularly portrayed as our intellectual inferiors. With the Neanderthal genome expected within two years we may have confirmation of this introgression.

Microcephalin and PDHA1 are hardly anomalies. “These are just two of a growing list of regions of the genome that do not fit with a strictly single origin model,” says Hammer, whose lab has found several other cases and is searching for more.

Hammer is taking a different tack from Lahn. Instead of looking at genes like microcephalin, Hammer is concentrating on haplotypes in non-coding, or neutral, regions of the genome - “junk” DNA that can accumulate mutations without any biological effect.

The reason for taking this approach is to move the introgression story another step forward. A gene like microcephalin can tell you that interbreeding probably happened, but it can’t tell you how often. Because it has been strongly selected, microcephalin could have entered the human population from a single copy that introgressed 40,000 years ago. In other words, its presence could in theory be the result of the only human-Neanderthal sexual encounter ever.

Neutral regions, by contrast, are much more informative about how much sex our ancestors had with archaic Homo species. Natural selection is blind to these regions, so their frequency in the gene pool drifts up and down by pure chance. Any introgressed sequences will be few in number, and the vast majority will at some point drop out of the gene pool altogether. Just a few, however, will win the genetic lottery and persist in modern humans. The more interbreeding occurred, the more introgressed neutral regions remain.

Hammer’s group has already found several neutral regions that look like they are introgressions. “It doesn’t seem that it was a particularly rare event - it looks like it’s happening enough that neutral regions can introgress into the genome and persist in modern populations,” says Hammer.

One example even tells a possible story of interbreeding between humans and an even more distant ancestor, Homo erectus. The pseudogene RRM2P4 - a remnant of a now-defunct gene - shows even deeper deep ancestry than PDHA1. RRM2P4 comes in two basic types that diverged 2 million years ago - around the same time that Homo erectus first moved out of Africa into Asia. Crucially, one type is found almost exclusively in people of east Asian origin. According to Hammer and Garrigan, the most likely explanation for this deep ancestry and geographical distribution is that the pseudogene evolved in the Asian branch of Homo erectus and introgressed into Homo sapiens (Molecular Biology and Evolution, vol 22, p 189). That event is certainly not ruled out by the fossil record: recent finds suggest that Homo sapiens and Homo erectus coexisted in Asia for several thousand years (see Map).

While most biologists accept that interbreeding was possible, introgression is not the only way to explain patterns in the genome that don’t fit in with the single-origin view. Multiregionalism is one alternative. Another is that natural selection has acted on what we wrongly believed are neutral regions in the genome, distorting the frequency and distribution of genes across the globe.

“We have a lot of different models,” says Tishkoff at the University of Maryland. “The real challenge is trying to distinguish between them.” Hammer is also wary of jumping to conclusions. “When we find a region of the genome that shows this pattern of introgression we really have to argue that the pattern didn’t arise by some form of selection, which might also produce similar patterns.”

Even so, a broad consensus seems to be emerging about our ancestry, and it includes interbreeding as an important element. “There was a great genetic contribution from one African population, but the genetic material that existed in other localised archaic populations was not lost forever - it was integrated into the modern human genome,” says Garrigan. Trinkaus, who has long argued that humans picked up genes from other archaic humans, sees a similar picture. The extremes of single origin on the one hand and global multiregionalism on the other are “intellectually passé,” he says. “The basic model is ‘out of Africa’ - with admixture. The issue is how much, where, and when.”

“Genetic material that existed in archaic populations was not lost forever” As always in science, the answer to those questions lies in gathering more data. With the advent of $1000 genome sequencing, predicted to be a reality within five years, it will be possible to sequence vastly more genomes than are available today. Researchers can then seek a complete picture of the puzzling patterns of ancestry locked away in our genomes. Then, at last, we may know whether the Lagar Velho child was part of a hybrid population heading down an evolutionary dead end, or an ancient reminder of the Neanderthal in all of us.

Dan Jones is a science writer based in Brighton, UK From issue 2593 of New Scientist magazine, 03 March 2007, page 28-32 Wisdom of bones The Lagar Velho child unearthed in Portugal isn’t the only skeleton that has been identified as a possible human-Neanderthal hybrid. In the past few years Erik Trinkaus of Washington University in St Louis, Missouri, has amassed more fossil evidence that he says tells the same story.

In 2002, a team of cavers discovered a human jawbone in a cave called Pestera cu Oase (”cave with bones”) in south-west Romania. Carbon dating put the remains at about 40,000 years old, which made it the earliest unambiguous modern human specimen found in Europe.

Even a single bone can contain features characteristic of either Neanderthals or modern humans. According to Trinkaus, the Oase 1 jawbone has a mixture of both. Though less dramatically a hybrid than the Lagar Velho child, the find still suggests interbreeding.

Further exploration of Pestera cu Oase has yielded even greater treasures. In January, Trinkaus and colleagues described a human skull which they called Oase 2 (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 104, p 1165). This seems to be the remains of an adolescent who also died about 40,000 years ago and, like the Oase 1 sample, has a mixture of modern and Neanderthal features (see below).

Trinkaus has also reanalysed some 35,000-year- old human bones discovered in 1952 at another site in Romania, Pestera Muierii, and says that these too show a mosaic of features.

To Trinkaus, these finds paint a fairly clear picture of the evolution of humans in Europe. “Early European humans are basically modern - their anatomy is overwhelmingly like that of the ancestral African population - but in individual specimens you find features that are absent from or have already been lost from the ancestral African group,” says Trinkaus. “By far the easiest way to explain this is through interbreeding.”

This is not to suggest that the Lagar Velho boy or the Romanian specimens are the product of occasional, one-off meetings between Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons. Trinkaus suggests a more radical notion: the hybrids come from a population of humans that regularly interbred with Neanderthals. In other words, they are the result of generations of sex between Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons.

Not everyone agrees with his argument. Human ancestry, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. For instance, Chris Stringer, a palaeontologist at the Natural History Museum in London, is not convinced that the Lagar Velho boy is evidence of hybridisation. “In many respects, including face and teeth, it’s a modern human; the only place where it might look archaic is in the body proportions, but to me they overlap with those of other modern humans,” he says. “I just don’t see the Neanderthal influence that Erik does.”

Stringer believes more fossil evidence is required. “When we have a reasonable sample of early moderns dating from the same time period as the main sample of Neanderthals in Europe - 40,000 to 70,000 years ago - from regions such as western Asia or north Africa, then we will be able to see what their morphology was and will be able to better determine whether features have come from Neanderthal admixture.”

Source: NewScientist
http://www.newscien tist.com/ article/mg193259 31.300?DCMP= NLC-nletter&nsref=mg19325931.300

[delete]

I was among them thinking about the ultra horny, look how lovely I am males. Often found among the negro and muslim population.
So vanity is an aspect of autism. Then anyone exhibiting too much masculinity is autistic.

Ultravanity is considered feminine or homosexual where I live. I also think autists are less vain than their ethnic average as a rule of thumb, as they are both more introvert, and less socially focused.

I think you could put the two types into one of your r/K scheems. The american concept of cads and dads also covers the the difference in some way.
I kind of put aspergers into K systems, but its not that simple. Really we need to be clear on the labels. If a person is up to getting a life, reproduces and these genes are progressing why give them a label at all ?

It is not easy to be clear on the labels, as the diagnosis ASAIK boils down to getting extreme deviations on traits that one would find in the general population to a lesser degree.

Mutations can have the same effect [socially interesting, biologically disadvantageous phenotypes] , but they're less common. People with achondroplasia, classic dwarfism, used to play socially important roles in European courts. Microcephalics and India-Rubber men ( Ehlers-Danlos syndrome) helped keep many a circus alive. People with Marfan's syndrome, a connective tissue disorder, are vastly overrepresented among top-rank volleyball players, but are subject to aneurysms in midlife. XY individuals with androgen insensitivity look female but are infertile - they have an unusual look that causes them to be greatly overrepresented among actresses and models. You know who I'm talking about. Male-female mosaics played an important role in the Olympics, before they were eliminated by genetic tests and before substantially equivalent outcomes in women could be achieved through the use of anabolic steroids. There is a particular family in Finland that has unusually high levels of red cells - they've produced an Olympic-quality cross-country skier, but they stroke out. These last few examples make clear how biologial weirdness can put you over the top in highly competitive situations.
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/special/germs.html

I suspect that there is some social handicap with having Asperger, but that overall benefits of being adept to plan ahead, had a greater payoff in some cultures and environments.

[B]Its quite a specific illness which inflames brain white matter.

Is this true for all Asperger, Autists, slighly autistic people?

[New Scientist]

I suspect that there is some social handicap with having Asperger, but that overall benefits of being adept to plan ahead, had a greater payoff in some cultures and environments.

I guess now you mention it, my one big thing is the ability to make way more elaborate plans than i can carry out.

Its quite a specific illness which inflames brain white matter.

Is this true for all Asperger, Autists, slighly autistic people?[/QUOTE]


Just to degrees from what i have read. Seems to be a reaction to various toxins, which could be gut related. The result at the end affects white matters ability to heal. (testosterone also does the same thing, as does mercury. So the brain is just getting disconnected internally, which in development stage damages brain areas, but if not so badly affected and IQ is good, aspergers is like a male brain on steroids.