Evolution of the brain

[docbaker]

Is it in the best interest of our species to, *devolve*, such as to
value intellect less in favor of compassion, honesty, and empathy? I
consider this in terms of my own children and the 'evolution' of their
genome toward Fragile X syndrome (they can successfully reproduce and
have no medical issues except mild mental retardstion) sa well as the
skyrocking prevalence of autism. Autistic individuals (especially high
functioning, and those with exceptional gifts) are able to function in
a simpler society and likely would lack the intellect necessary to
construct or implement anything other than crude weapons. Unclear to
me whether concepts of faith would be prevalent in such a society
(faith in a creator, that is).

[Harvy Brans]

> Is it in the best interest of our species to, *devolve*, such as to
> value intellect less in favor of compassion, honesty, and empathy? I

If you call what you possess intellect, then I am all in favor of
genocide, abortion, euthenasia, you name it.

Harvy

[Corpus Callosum]

Interesting post, docbaker. Actually, you really got me thinking
about co-evolution and societal evolution with your post. You see, we
do not evolve atomically, individually. All life co-evolves with it's
biosphere. For predators and prey, that means that,
anthropologically, the phenotypic distribution of features within the
predator and prey population evolve toward maximal efficiency for both
populations. This is much more complex that it may at first sound;
without predators (or by being to efficient at escaping predators),
prey often over-reproduce and lay waste to their natural environment
leading to starvation and possibly even extinction, so it is
beneficial and efficient for the prey to evolve in such a way as to
ensure that some part of it's population will fall victim to
predators. For predators, it is much the same, but in reverse; if
predators are too efficient, they will lay waste to the prey
population and equally starve and go extinct.

Evolution itself is tuned to these types of co-evolutionary
parameters. It could be said that the genome itself mutates through
recombination errors and other methods with a frequency that is tuned
by co-evolutionary efficiency. In this way, offspring of prey
population have statistically random variations in a wide variety of
phenotypes, as do the predators. This ensures that some predators and
prey are less efficient in some ways, more efficient in others, but
all different; ensuring that some prey will be easy to catch, keeping
the predators fed, and that some predators will be inefficient,
keeping the prey from extinction. Again, a shallow treaties on the
subject, but one to get you thinking.

In human populations, we have entirely different evolutionary
pressures. I won't spend too much time dealing with them
specifically, as they are deep and broad and we could spend years
arguing about them. But one thing is certain; as the population of
human beings increases and our civilization becomes more advanced,
there become uses for super specialists such as idiot savants and
autistics with narrow and deep mental abilities. It could even be
that our DNA is already coded for the emergence of super-specialists,
and our particular evolutionary pressures are causing these normal
phenotypes to become more successful (bringing a reproductive
advantage that was traditionally absent). This could explain why such
things appear to be more common today. It also evokes many
interesting questions.

I'll leave my post here for now. We can take it in many directions.
Let's see what happens.

[Harvy Brans]

You are such a big, idiot blow-hard.

Harvy

On Jan 25, 1:21 am, Corpus Callosum <patternsof-relig...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

[Drafterman]

Define: "devolve"

[Neil Kelsey]

Seems to me the handicapped are batter cared for in the modern world
than they wre in "simpler" societies. But I'm mostly interested in how
you answer Drafterman's question.

[Turner Hayes]

ARE WE NOT MEN?!

WE ARE DEVO!

[Bob T.]

On Jan 25, 9:21 am, Turner Hayes <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ARE WE NOT MEN?!
> WE ARE DEVO!

Best possible response.

- Bob T.

[Al]

<<<Doc: "Is it in the best interest of our species to, *devolve*, such

as to value intellect less in favor of compassion, honesty, and

empathy?...">>>

I suspect you are trying to say more compassion and less materialism,
but I'll start this way.

First, it is difficult to understand what you mean by "devolve", but
no matter, I disagree with your premise to devalue intellect.
Compassion, honesty and empathy are desirable traits, but untimately
dependent on 'intellect', especially from a standpoint of leadership.
The problem here is which direction 'intellect' takes, will it lead to
desirable traits or to undesirable ones. The direction is basically
determined by leadership, both in the family and society. If
leadership, from family onward, is a function of 'wisdom'' (sound
reason and right thinking; honor and nobility - the highest degrees of
which are dependent on higher intellect) the direction will be towards
justice (which includes your desired traits), if from ignorance and
apathy (without proper use of intellect) then the direction will be
towards injustice, selfishness and egoism.

Habits and traditions play a great role in fundamental 'programming'
of young minds as social indoctrination. Indoctrination forms brain
patterns, for better or worse, which form a social conscience. When
violated this causes an individual to 'feel' not ok. However, the
conditioning is subject to change with environmental changes, again
for better or worse. My point is that if you forego use of greater
intellect and rely on habit to engender compassion, honesty and
empathy, then the result is fickle and merely pretense. This
foundation, although a good place to start, will not bring the results
you desire. It will be a 'hit and miss' trial and error outcome
dependent on environmental influences.

I'll use compassion as an example since true compassion will
incorporate your other desired traits, as I will endeavor to explain.
Socially 'programmed' appearances of compassion are pretensious at
best and are readily atlered in life as an individual seeks his own -
human nature is predicated on the principle of hedonics (basically to
seek pleasure and avoid pain). True, moral social programming will
have an initial effect, but it is insufficient to sustain 'morality'
unless one is sheltered in an environment such as that of a dedicated
monk.

True compassion is the result of blood, sweat and tears. It is about
understanding the self through the trials of life; such understanding
formulates compassion for the self. This 'compassion' is the result of
understanding and the intellect is necessary to provide that
understanding (which does not necessarily have to be conscious, but
best if it is; this understanding is 'something' one becomes, it is an
integral part of a person). This results in self-respect which is
unshakable (in sufficient quanity) and is extended to others. (The
empathy acquired is not fickle like empathy without understanding, the
latter often misrepresents what it is 'feeling' and responses may well
cause more harm than good. The meanwhile, empathy with understanding
will be beneficial and fit the situation.)

True compassion comes about through honest, sincere introspection,
along with a desire to be a better person and a good conscience. Such
a person 'becomes' compassion - no pretense... and it takes intellect
to get there. I think your main point of desiring a better society can
only be accomplished by wise leadership knowing the true meaning of
compassion. My opinion is that so goes social leadership, so goes
society. Not that there won't be individual exceptions, but as a whole
the endurance of a society will be dependent on the intellect and
wisdom of its leaders. True compassion knows when to say 'No' as well
as 'Yes', and is capable of defending either position - those with
wisdom are not "reeds swaying in the wind".

If your idea was to say less materialism and more compassion, well,
the same principle applies - it comes down to the quality/character of
leadership and role models. The principle is one of creating an
environment where examples of good character are ubiquitous and
desirable. For there to be true compassion and true justice it takes
wisdom... and that takes intellect. In this manner, the material
benefits of intellect will not lead to greed for the majority, but to
a better life.

As an example: Say a selfish person with the pretense of social
etiquette is placed in an environment with only wise, compassionate
people - their 'yes' is a clear 'yes' and their 'no' is a clear 'no'.
He will 'feel' out of place. Sure, he will make attempts to serve his
pleasures at the expense of others, but they will be unfruitful. He
will be looked upon with compassion and sympathy, but his tactics will
be unexceptable. In order to get along he will comform at least in
appearance, but won't fool anyone. Wheather or not he 'learns' (from
within himself) true compassion is another story, but the environment
for him to do so is there and he will need to use his intellect to do
so. Self-examination takes intellect and the greater the intellect the
greater the understanding.

Al

[Medusa]

On Jan 25, 11:21 am, Turner Hayes <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ARE WE NOT MEN?!
> WE ARE DEVO!

Exactly what song started running through my head when I read this!

Excellent!

Medusa

[Medusa]

On Jan 25, 2:54 am, docbaker <ejmue...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Is it in the best interest of our species to, *devolve*, such as to
> value intellect less in favor of compassion, honesty, and empathy?

So you are saying that valuing intellect less is better for our
species? Please explain.

Medusa

[Dev]

He got a response: "Booo...you asked a question I can't answer...one
star, damn you, one goddamned star!"

[Trance Gemini]

In my opinion, our society requires intellect to advance as well as to look after those who are not advanced intellectually but can make a contribution in some other way.

On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 3:54 AM, docbaker <ejmu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

--
Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
"When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion." --Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865), (attributed)

[Trance Gemini]

On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

In my opinion, our society requires intellect to advance as well as to look after those who are not advanced intellectually but can make a contribution in some other way.

 

Just to clarify, we require (and I believe we do have to some extent) a balance of Intellect and Compassion, Honest and Empathy.

 

They all should have equal standing.

 

On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 3:54 AM, docbaker <ejmu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Is it in the best interest of our species to, *devolve*, such as to
value intellect less in favor of compassion, honesty, and empathy? I
consider this in terms of my own children and the 'evolution' of their
genome toward Fragile X syndrome (they can successfully reproduce and
have no medical issues except mild mental retardstion) sa well as the
skyrocking prevalence of autism. Autistic individuals (especially high
functioning, and those with exceptional gifts) are able to function in
a simpler society and likely would lack the intellect necessary to
construct or implement anything other than crude weapons. Unclear to
me whether concepts of faith would be prevalent in such a society
(faith in a creator, that is).

--
Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
"When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion." --Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865), (attributed)

[Medusa]

On Jan 25, 4:16 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In my opinion, our society requires intellect to advance as well as to look
> after those who are not advanced intellectually but can make a contribution
> in some other way.

I can't remember who said this, but the worth of a society can be seen
on how it treats its weakest members.

This is also my opinion, and it's my understanding that this is how
you feel also.

Medusa

[Trance Gemini]

Exactly. I tried to find the source of that saying too but wasn't able to but it expresses it exactly.

 

Medusa

[philosophy]

With all the work on the neuroplasticity of the brain, it may
not be that long before we know more about the evolution of it.
I do not think we need to devolve. Individuals like Daniel Tennant
will help us understand the mechanisms whereby we can
"think" differently, and hopefully "evolve" an even better system.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=AbASOcqc1Ss&feature=related
It is my personal belief that religious faith will not be a requisite
in our future society, if we are able to think more efficiently -
unless the "them and us dichotomy" gets even wider.

[docbaker]

"Devolution:"

Slow gradual change of traits within a species, involving *regression*
of traits considered vital for success of the species (mean IQ/
intellect in my example, given the complexity of the industrialized
world) in favor of traits considered clearly positive but arguably
less vital for survival; caused by a change in environment and natural
selection (societal evolution favoring the value of savant skills,
special gifts and emotionally valuable traits: "feel good" traits like
childlike innocence, gentleness, kindness, etc.). These are common
traits of high-functioning autistics with IQs below the median. I get
the sense people here consider high-functioning autistics to be
handicapped and unable to function independently. I am defining this
shift as a gradual change in mean IQ in response to a simplification
of society, one filled with independently functioning individuals. The
advantage of this shift is a world scenario less likely to end in
nuclear holocaust in my opinion.

I defer discussion of the particular environmental pressure(s) which
might occur to to cause this gradual shift. I can imagine scenarios in
which these traits would be highly valued (likely involving less
complex requirements for survival) along with a decrease in the need
for superior (or even above average) intelligence. I think the
physical scientists here might comment on the role of toxic
environmental factors inherent in industrialized societies increasing
DNA damage significantly. Not as an environmental pressure, but rather
the primary etiology for these genetic variants. Autism rates are
indeed skyrocketing.

You may or may not have noticed the lack of discussion regarding a
theist's perspective regarding these issues. That might change as the
discussion progresses related to the 'biologic fallacy' which is the
devolution described on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_devolution

[OldMan]

If I understand you correctly, you are asking if it would be better
for us to have a simplier society focused around the family and the
traditional family values, or the high tech rat race that much of the
western world is running today?

If I understand your question correctly, I guess I would like a
combination of the two. There is going to be a trade-off which ever
way you go. The simplier life has a lot of appeal as an escape from
the frenzy of today. But it also had a lot of hard backbreaking work,
real hunger and disease. I would like to have a pastoral life
surrounded by family and friends with an indoor desk job, a good
medical program and a guarenteed retirement at 55.

But I would suspect that faith would be more prevalent in the simplier
society because there would be less reliance on science and the
technology it spawns as well as more unknows that folks would have no
answer for.

[Drafterman]

The answer is, of course, no. It is not in our best interest to lose
more vital traits for less vital traits.

If you are arguing that it is, somehow, in our best interest to lose
trait A for trait B then you are, essentially, arguing that trait B is
more vital to our survive and are, actually, promoting evolution,
rathern than de-evolution.

>
> On Jan 25, 6:40 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Define: "devolve"
>
> > On Jan 25, 3:54 am, docbaker <ejmue...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Is it in the best interest of our species to, *devolve*, such as to
> > > value intellect less in favor of compassion, honesty, and empathy? I
> > > consider this in terms of my own children and the 'evolution' of their
> > > genome toward Fragile X syndrome (they can successfully reproduce and
> > > have no medical issues except mild mental retardstion) sa well as the
> > > skyrocking prevalence of autism. Autistic individuals (especially high
> > > functioning, and those with exceptional gifts) are able to function in
> > > a simpler society and likely would lack the intellect necessary to
> > > construct or implement anything other than crude weapons. Unclear to
> > > me whether concepts of faith would be prevalent in such a society

> > > (faith in a creator, that is).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Treebeard]

On Jan 25, 3:54 am, docbaker <ejmue...@yahoo.com> wrote:

The interesting thing here is that autistics tend to be WORSE at
empathy and there is some evidence that high-functioning autistics
replace their normal emotional and empathic processes with reasoning
about emotions in order to come to about an average understanding of
the emotions of others.

[docbaker]

Trait A was more vital than Traits B, C, and D for dinosaurs' survival
over millions of generations, and evolved accordingly (the expression
of the trait became more complex and more effective physiologically).

Trait A evolved such as to put the species in "long-term danger" of
extinction (due to rapid development of byproducts of expression of
trait A causing rapid environmental changes putting them at risk
largely dependent on continued expression of trait A), but not
necessartily generational danger.

Assuming extrinsic factors (toxins? disease?) developed which put the
species en masse at risk of extinction over a few generations
(independent of stated byproducts of expression of trait A), might
they have survived if there had been *streamlined evolution* via DNA
methylation of trait A (which can occur generationally, rather than
over millions of years). Simultaneously, If traits B, C, and D
increased in value as a result of this streamlining, would this
process have been in dinosaurs' best interest (keeping in mind the
biological fallacy of devolution: that evolution moves in the
direction of a species *best interest*).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_methylation

[Drafterman]

I'm not sure what this has to do anything. In any event, if you are
aruging that an increase in certain traits is vital to our survival,
then you are arguing for evolution, not devolution, even if that
increase causes us to resemble, more closely, previous stages in our
past evolution.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[docbaker]

True. Empathy is often too complex for autistics to understand and
often is replaced with childlike unconditional love and trust due to
immaturity of understanding others' experience, motives, emotions.
Hugs rather than "why are you sad? oh, I understand..."

[Treebeard]

On Jan 26, 10:01 am, docbaker <ejmue...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> True. Empathy is often too complex for autistics to understand and
> often is replaced with childlike unconditional love and trust due to
> immaturity of understanding others' experience, motives, emotions.
> Hugs rather than "why are you sad? oh, I understand..."

Actually, many autistics avoid physical contact with other people,
which may be related to them not seeming to see other people as actual
people. There's also evidence that autistics may be emotionally
colder instead of warmer, as you suggest here. But this depends on
the type and degree of autism.

>
> On Jan 26, 8:36 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 3:54 am, docbaker <ejmue...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Is it in the best interest of our species to, *devolve*, such as to
> > > value intellect less in favor of compassion, honesty, and empathy? I
> > > consider this in terms of my own children and the 'evolution' of their
> > > genome toward Fragile X syndrome (they can successfully reproduce and
> > > have no medical issues except mild mental retardstion) sa well as the
> > > skyrocking prevalence of autism. Autistic individuals (especially high
> > > functioning, and those with exceptional gifts) are able to function in
> > > a simpler society and likely would lack the intellect necessary to
> > > construct or implement anything other than crude weapons. Unclear to
> > > me whether concepts of faith would be prevalent in such a society
> > > (faith in a creator, that is).
>
> > The interesting thing here is that autistics tend to be WORSE at
> > empathy and there is some evidence that high-functioning autistics
> > replace their normal emotional and empathic processes with reasoning
> > about emotions in order to come to about an average understanding of

> > the emotions of others.- Hide quoted text -

[docbaker]

I am arguing that the human trait of intellect, if it continues at the
current pace, will lead to inevitable nuclear holocaust and the end of
the human species. This is my opinion/prediction. History has time and
time again shown the inevitability of conflict. There is no reason for
me to believe anything other than conflict occurring with more and
more powerful weapons, engineered and deployed as a byproduct of human
intelligence. There are no genetic mechanisms known to rapidly change
understanding, tolerance, love.

Fragile X syndrome is a known example of DNA methylation of genes to
rapidly change a trait affecting intelligence. Autism is skyrocketing.
i am interested in others interpretation of these simultaneous
phenomenon with regard to what is in the best interest of the human
species.

[Drafterman]

On Jan 26, 10:12 am, docbaker <ejmue...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am arguing that the human trait of intellect, if it continues at the
> current pace, will lead to inevitable nuclear holocaust and the end of
> the human species. This is my opinion/prediction. History has time and
> time again shown the inevitability of conflict. There is no reason for
> me to believe anything other than conflict occurring with more and
> more powerful weapons, engineered and deployed as a byproduct of human
> intelligence. There are no genetic mechanisms known to rapidly change
> understanding, tolerance, love.
>
> Fragile X syndrome is a known example of DNA methylation of genes to
> rapidly change a trait affecting intelligence. Autism is skyrocketing.
> i am interested in others interpretation of these simultaneous
> phenomenon with regard to what is in the best interest of the human
> species.

Not devolving by the definition you posited. Swapping out more
successful traits for less successul ones will reduce our
survivability now.

So essentially you are asking if it is better to reduce our
survivability in little increments over a large period of time or to
reduce it in a large increment in a short period of time.

No. It is not.

[docbaker]

Predict, then, what occurs if autism hypothetically increases from a
current incidence of 0.67% up to 51% (at which point the absolute
population of nonautistics *decreases* over time), and then higher,
thereby meaning society becomes ultimately dominated by the autistic
population.

Why is DNA methylation mediated streamlined evolution occurring?
Incidence of autism is increasing, yet autistics have traits which
arguably decrease their reproductive success.

"A person with fragile X syndrome has a mutation in the FMR1 (fragile
X mental retardation 1) gene in the DNA that makes up the X
chromosome. That mutation causes the cell to methylate a regulatory
region of the FMR1 gene. The methylation turns off the FMR1 gene.
Since the gene is turned off, the person doesn't make FMRP. That lack
of a specific protein triggers fragile X syndrome."
http://fragilex.org/html/molecular.htm

"These results suggest that the aberrant MECP2 methylation in autism
brain DNA samples is due to locus-specific rather than global X
chromosome methylation changes." http://www.epidna.com/showabstract.php?pmid=19132145

"Methyl-CpG binding proteins (MBDs) are central components of DNA
methylation-mediated epigenetic gene regulation. Alterations of
epigenetic pathways are known to be associated with several
neurodevelopmental disorders, particularly autism."
http://www.epidna.com/showabstract.php?pmid=19132145

Lots more information at epidna.com

[Drafterman]

On Jan 26, 11:48 am, docbaker <ejmue...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Predict, then, what occurs if autism hypothetically increases from a
> current incidence of 0.67% up to 51% (at which point the absolute
> population of nonautistics *decreases* over time), and then higher,
> thereby meaning society becomes ultimately dominated by the autistic
> population.

I would predict some sort of cure, treatment or prevenative measure to
be developed an enacted by society before it ever got to that point.

>
> Why is DNA methylation mediated streamlined evolution occurring?
> Incidence of autism is increasing, yet autistics have traits which
> arguably decrease their reproductive success.

Off the top of my head:

1. Some sort of break down of our genetic code. In small increments it
has no, overall, effect on our survivability, until it's too late.

2. Environmental causes.

I still don't know what this has to do with the fact that either such
a thing isn't actually in our best interests (as you stated) or isn't
actually devolution as defined (as you stated).

So, which is it?

[Harvy Brans]

> If you are arguing that it is, somehow, in our best interest to lose
> trait A for trait B then you are, essentially, arguing that trait B is
> more vital to our survive and are, actually, promoting evolution,
> rathern than de-evolution.

You can't be serious. Who is this bait for? There are morons more
intelligent.

Harvy

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Drafterman]

On Jan 26, 12:17 pm, Harvy Brans <harvybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If you are arguing that it is, somehow, in our best interest to lose
> > trait A for trait B then you are, essentially, arguing that trait B is
> > more vital to our survive and are, actually, promoting evolution,
> > rathern than de-evolution.
>
> You can't be serious. Who is this bait for? There are morons more
> intelligent.
>
> Harvy

Do you ever post anything useful at all? If you see something wrong
with my post, point it out and refute it. Otherwise shut the fuck up.
Alternatively, you can die in a fire. It's up to you.

[Sketch System]

On Jan 25, 12:54 am, docbaker <ejmue...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Is it in the best interest of our species to, *devolve*, such as to
> value intellect less in favor of compassion, honesty, and empathy?

A false dichotomy. Why not value them all? Why assume intellect is
somehow at odds with the others?

[docbaker]

What is the problem with what he said? There are all kinds of examples
where vital traits (vision) evolve away (takes a very very long time),
with others becoming more vital (the other senses besides sight), in
an environment completely devoid of visual input (pure black dark
environments). Do you deny that?

My contention is that intelligence is *always* a vital trait. All
species evolve as they are able via natural selection of the
intelligence trait toward better 'problem-solving ability,' because
being *smarter* is always an advantage in any environment. My belief,
however, is that the human species will exterminate itself via nuclear
holocaust or via the byproducts of industrialization (global warming?
excessive use of resources?), which is a function of the intelligence
of the species. If somehow our species could evolve toward less
intelligence and less complexity/technology, in favor of emotionally
valuable traits, we have a better chance of not killing ourselves off.

My supposition is that possibly epigenetic factors are at play which
bypass the need for millions of years to pass for this to occur. A
human model of this currently exists (Fragile X syndrome autism in
which individuals are significantly below the mean intellectually but
often display emotionally valuable traits and savant talents). Autism
rates are rapidly rising. Is this built into our genome to counteract
the problem?

[Drafterman]

On Jan 26, 2:27 pm, docbaker <ejmue...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What is the problem with what he said? There are all kinds of examples
> where vital traits (vision) evolve away (takes a very very long time),
> with others becoming more vital (the other senses besides sight), in
> an environment completely devoid of visual input (pure black dark
> environments). Do you deny that?
>
> My contention is that intelligence is *always* a vital trait. All
> species evolve as they are able via natural selection of the
> intelligence trait toward better 'problem-solving ability,' because
> being *smarter* is always an advantage in any environment.

Seriously? Bacteria seem to be doing fine for the billions of years
they've been around without even the remotest sense of intelligenc
while humans, being around for little more than 100 thousand years are
poised to wipe ourselves out in the next few centuries.

Traits are not simply a benefit calculation. They are a cost vs.
benefit calculation and the cost of intelligence is quite high.

[docbaker]

Yes. I guess I was implying species with brains.

[Drafterman]

Then replace bacteria for insects.

[Harvy Brans]

You are a moron if you think this is the way species evolve. There is
just no way to contribute to this type of discussion--it is falsely
premised.

Harvy

[Answer_42]

On Jan 25, 3:54 am, docbaker <ejmue...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Is it in the best interest of our species to, *devolve*, such as to
> value intellect less in favor of compassion, honesty, and empathy? I

Compassion and empathy are the very reason why we have more of those
special-needs children you are referring to.

What do you think a neolithic tribe used to do with kids that needed
attention 24/7 in order to survive?
Do you seriously think that on average they made it to be old enough
and reproduce?
Did the tribe people show compassion and empathy?.
Do you think they had more of those qualities than we have today?
______________________________________
Religion hides many mischiefs from suspicion.
-- Christopher Marlowe

[docbaker]

Then choose *not* to contribute, sir.

[Drafterman]

Again, if you have some specific objection, state it. Otherwise,
begone.

[Harvy Brans]

No I'll label you as a moron, and someone to be wary of, because of
either your imbecility or immoraltiy.

Harvy

[Harvy Brans]

Yes I do. For one thing you are offending my sense of intellect. And
the other is, someone may actually by into your bullshit.

Harvy

[docbaker]

Yes. I guess I was implying species with frontal lobes lol.

[Drafterman]

Which tells me precisely nothing in regards to what about my statement
you find wrong. Try again.

[Harvy Brans]

I already told you, it's the premise--organs don't evolve, species
evolve. Nothing else "evolves", literally, only species. Your playing
a semantic game here. You are trying to derive an ethic, from a
function. Saying that the brain or genetics works a certain way does
not define behavior, or justify and action. Clear enough? And besides,
it doesn't even work that way.

Harvy

[Dev]

Mirror neurons, read, have a substantial discussion, you nothings.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Dev]

Drafterman did, despite being kind of an idiot sometimes, ask the
right question: define "devolve". Moreso, I would be interested in
what thetards think the biologists think regarding "de-evolution".
It's really a non-sequitor. I'm not an expert on biology, but I know
that the concept of "devolving" is not a scientific concept. docbaker
needs to shut the fuck up and go the fuck home. Evolution has never
been attached, by real scientists, to ethical considerations regarding
"betterness". Like gravity, it happens for better or for worse from an
ethical perspective.

[Drafterman]

On Jan 26, 7:39 pm, Harvy Brans <harvybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I already told you, it's the premise--organs don't evolve, species
> evolve.

It's not far fetched to talk about the "evolution" of certain organs.

> Nothing else "evolves", literally, only species. Your playing
> a semantic game here. You are trying to derive an ethic, from a
> function.

Really? What ethic am I trying to derive?

> Saying that the brain or genetics works a certain way does
> not define behavior, or justify and action. Clear enough? And besides,
> it doesn't even work that way.

What is "it" and what "way" do you perceiving I am saying it "works"?

[Drafterman]

Thanks for the compliment, asswipe.

[Harvy Brans]

> It's not far fetched to talk about the "evolution" of certain organs.

I've seen a few different explanations of evolution. How many biology
doctorals do their thesis on it? The explanation can only be done in a
very general way, because it happens over so much time. No one is
really sure how it works, and it certainly can't be proven. We have
some old bones, and the hypothesis seems to work better with simpler
species, but not too many explanations are that successful once you
get into the higher level species. It just gets too complex. Now, if
you want to take a shot at explaining it, be my guest. But I wouldn't
be starting with the brain. How can you say that one species brain,
say h. erectus, evolved into another species brain say h. sapien, when
the two species are completely different. Do you use the same general
theory to extrapolate to inter-species "evolution" of the brain, and
over what period of time, and what evidence do you have to support it?
Do you have some old brains lying around that are thousands of years
old so you can prove it? And what functions can you observe even if
you did?

Harvy

[Dev]

Very welcome, ChexMax. :)

> > > somehow at odds with the others?- Hide quoted text -

[Harvy Brans]

>> Is it in the best interest of our species to, *devolve*, such as to
>> value intellect less in favor of compassion, honesty, and empathy?

> Really? What ethic am I trying to derive?

The foregoing statement contains the value, which you and docbaker are
debating. There is no way you can make a conclusion about what should
be done, by deciding what is poossible. It is called a fact/value
dichtomy and it is a logical impossiblity to make this determination
because of the intrinsic semantic difference between these two types
of statements.

> What is "it" and what "way" do you perceiving I am saying it "works"?

The way you are discussing how brain evolution might work, is not how
evolution works. No-one knows if someone 2000 years ago may have had
the same intellect to deal with the modern world, givin the same
background and conditions.

Harvy

[docbaker]

*As I posted,* devolution is a biological fallacy. *I posted a link*
explaining that. Did you read it? The link *which I posted* explains
that evolution does not progress toward what is better. My original
question was would our species have a better chance for survival if an
evolutionary phenomenon were to occur causing a decline in intellect
such that massive scale weaponry would not cause extinction of our
species. I think probably everyone here, including HB, understand that
evolutionary processes aren't too aware of current political tensions
in the Middle East and the nuclear arsenal stockpiled in the hands of
lunatic hatemongers. I am well aware that evolution has never been

attached, by real scientists, to ethical considerations regarding

"betterness." That very concept was *in the link which I posted.* Did
you read it?

[Harvy Brans]

> What is the problem with what he said? There are all kinds of examples
> where vital traits (vision) evolve away (takes a very very long time),
> with others becoming more vital (the other senses besides sight), in
> an environment completely devoid of visual input (pure black dark
> environments). Do you deny that?

Where have you seen this type of adaptation in humans? And it may have
been an adaptation, but was it "evolution". Remember, evolution is the
theory that other species of animals are descendent from a different
species of animals. So while this species of fish adapted to live in
caves, was the adaptation due to a mutation causing a new species of
fish? And so now your going to come up with a new evolutionary theory
specific to inter-species organs?

> My contention is that intelligence is *always* a vital trait.

What you and I consider intelligent may be two vastly different
things, as it might be for any number of people. Many people don't
hold to the traditional IQ test as a valid measure of intelligence.
And it may not be the people with high IQ's that are causing the
problems. Was it actually the scientists making the "bomb" who were
making the decision to develop and utilize the weapon? There are many
successful, powerful people who make decisions that kill people every
day, who have average IQ's. Maybe people who have high IQ's and make
immoral decisions are abnormal, and most people with high IQ's do not
make those kinds of decisions, or even put themselves in that position
to make a life-determining decision.

> All species evolve as they are able via natural selection of the
> intelligence trait toward better 'problem-solving ability,' because
> being *smarter* is always an advantage in any environment.

Maybe it is the technology that evolved, and not intelligence. The
resources, information, education, infrastructure, modern life is all
geared towards technology. A person with the same genetic make-up as
there was 2000 years ago may be quite successful in todays world were
they born in these times. How smart was the 20th century with all the
world wars and the mass slaughter? People may have lived better lives,
but maybe they were just longer lives overall, and not really that
challenging or "good".

> My belief, however, is that the human species will exterminate itself via
> nuclear holocaust or via the byproducts of industrialization (global warming?
> excessive use of resources?), which is a function of the intelligence
> of the species. If somehow our species could evolve toward less
> intelligence and less complexity/technology, in favor of emotionally
> valuable traits, we have a better chance of not killing ourselves off.

Have you ever considered if it is religion that is causing all the
problems? I think there is more evidence to support that religion is
causing people to make stupid choices and not necessarily because of
increased intelligence. Just look how detached from reality the
doctrine of religion is from real life. A religious mind is an
abnormal mind, and can cause people to make poor decisions because
they don't consider all the evidence and possiblites, or consider Non-
existent evidence and possiblities when they make their choices. That,
and they are not even accustomed to making any decisions at all--they
just leave it up to God.

Harvy

On Jan 26, 11:27 am, docbaker <ejmue...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Corpus Callosum]

Evolution does not improve species, generally (although it can).
Evolution simply molds a species to it's environment such that all
species inter-relating in a biosphere optimize the operation of that
biosphere.

If a predator is too effective, either the prey will advance in some
way, or that predator will die off.

If a prey is too effective, either the predator will advance in some
way, or that prey will die off.

If a parasite is too effective, it will spread and kill all of it's
hosts and go extinct.

Evolving towards improvement often leads to extinction. For this
reason, evolution often works sideways, rather than forward. If it
marched relentlessly forward, we would have had dinosaurs in space
ships and racoons playing chess.

[Corpus Callosum]

On Jan 26, 11:12 pm, docbaker <ejmue...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Fragile X syndrome is a known example of DNA methylation of genes to
> rapidly change a trait affecting intelligence. Autism is skyrocketing.
> i am interested in others interpretation of these simultaneous
> phenomenon with regard to what is in the best interest of the human
> species.

Office buildings full of autistics analyzing marketing data, doing
statistics, programming computers, running actuarial simulations, ....

It seems like evolution to me.

[trog69]

For predators, it is much the same, but in reverse; if
> predators are too efficient, they will lay waste to the prey
> population and equally starve and go extinct.

Not necessarily. The July, 2008 edition of National Geographic has an
article about two very different coral reefs in the Line Islands. At
one end, the reef at Christmas Island has very few predators, due to
human presence/overfishing. The reef is dying, and prey is abundant.
On the other end, Kingman Reef, is uninhabited, and the predators
vastly outnumber the prey, so fear reigns, and snapper brought up and
examined showed almost no food in their stomachs. This reef is
pristine; The waters are crystal clear, and the corals are variegated
and massive, with none of the bleaching seen at the inhabited one.

On Jan 25, 2:21 am, Corpus Callosum <patternsof-relig...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Interesting post, docbaker.  Actually, you really got me thinking
> about co-evolution and societal evolution with your post.  You see, we
> do not evolve atomically, individually.  All life co-evolves with it's
> biosphere.  For predators and prey, that means that,
> anthropologically, the phenotypic distribution of features within the
> predator and prey population evolve toward maximal efficiency for both
> populations.  This is much more complex that it may at first sound;
> without predators (or by being to efficient at escaping predators),
> prey often over-reproduce and lay waste to their natural environment
> leading to starvation and possibly even extinction, so it is
> beneficial and efficient for the prey to evolve in such a way as to
> ensure that some part of it's population will fall victim to
> predators.  For predators, it is much the same, but in reverse; if
> predators are too efficient, they will lay waste to the prey
> population and equally starve and go extinct.
>
> Evolution itself is tuned to these types of co-evolutionary
> parameters.  It could be said that the genome itself mutates through
> recombination errors and other methods with a frequency that is tuned
> by co-evolutionary efficiency.  In this way, offspring of prey
> population have statistically random variations in a wide variety of
> phenotypes, as do the predators.  This ensures that some predators and
> prey are less efficient in some ways, more efficient in others, but
> all different;  ensuring that some prey will be easy to catch, keeping
> the predators fed, and that some predators will be inefficient,
> keeping the prey from extinction.  Again, a shallow treaties on the
> subject, but one to get you thinking.
>
> In human populations, we have entirely different evolutionary
> pressures.  I won't spend too much time dealing with them
> specifically, as they are deep and broad and we could spend years
> arguing about them.  But one thing is certain;  as the population of
> human beings increases and our civilization becomes more advanced,
> there become uses for super specialists such as idiot savants and
> autistics with narrow and deep mental abilities.  It could even be
> that our DNA is already coded for the emergence of super-specialists,
> and our particular evolutionary pressures are causing these normal
> phenotypes to become more successful (bringing a reproductive
> advantage that was traditionally absent).  This could explain why such
> things appear to be more common today.  It also evokes many
> interesting questions.
>
> I'll leave my post here for now.  We can take it in many directions.
> Let's see what happens.

[Corpus Callosum]

This was a good example. Humans over-fished the predators, the prey
overproduced and layed waste to the environment, killing the reef. On
the other side of the island, there are both predators and prey and
the reef is healthy.

What was your point?

[Multiverse]

> Alternatively, you can die in a fire. It's up to you.

Can we pick for him? I vote fire. Ring of fire. That burns burns
burns. When he goes down down down. So yes, sounds familiar somehow
but I vote fire!!


On Jan 26, 12:55 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 26, 12:17 pm, Harvy Brans <harvybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If you are arguing that it is, somehow, in our best interest to lose
> > > trait A for trait B then you are, essentially, arguing that trait B is
> > > more vital to our survive and are, actually, promoting evolution,
> > > rathern than de-evolution.
>
> > You can't be serious. Who is this bait for? There are morons more
> > intelligent.
>
> > Harvy
>

> Do you ever post anything useful at all? If you see something wrong
> with my post, point it out and refute it. Otherwise shut the fuck up.
> Alternatively, you can die in a fire. It's up to you.
>
>
>
>
>

[Answer_42]

On Jan 27, 9:09 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> > Alternatively, you can die in a fire. It's up to you.
>
> Can we pick for him?  I vote fire.  Ring of fire. That burns burns
> burns.  When he goes down down down.  So yes, sounds familiar somehow
> but I vote fire!!

Great song!
_____________________________________
If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature is made
for their destruction.
-- Percy Bysshe Shelley

[rappoccio]

On Jan 25, 3:54 am, docbaker <ejmue...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Is it in the best interest of our species to, *devolve*, such as to
> value intellect less in favor of compassion, honesty, and empathy?

No. Intellect has drastically increased our life expectancy. Your
children who have Fragile X syndrome would be at a complete
disadvantage without the intellect of people around them and who came
before them to protect them, and they would have already have died,
most likely. For the record, I (who am very near-sighted) would also
most likely have already died long ago, without the aid of intellect
generating technology to fix such issues.

[Al]

Doc,

Really, you're foolin', right? Whatever your motive... I'll play along
one more time.

I think you are attempting to treat a symptom rather than the disease,
the symptom rather than the cause. Perhaps we should devolve to the
level of gorillas - they seem to do alright..... that is until there
is a squabble. We have film of them killing each other; of chimps
killing each other as well as other monkeys; add your own here. Did
lower intellect prevent these 'tribal' wars - as in chimps attacking
and killing nearby bands of chimps? Of couse not.
.....Let's suppose you put the 'nuclear button' in the hand of a
moderate to severe autistic..... hmmmm, depends doesn't it? Bet he is
far more likely to push the button (especially is he's angry and
frustrated as many are) than one with high intellect and concern for
social welfare (autistics do not share that concern). The autistic
person may well push the button simply because it's there - after all,
ignorance is ignorance. I will also say that if you put the button in
the hand of one with low intellect it would not be difficult to
convice him to push it. I'd far more trust the button in the hands of
one with high intellect and sound reason.
.....Again, your problem has to do with the direction of intellect -
wheather self-serving or towards compassion.


<<<Doc, "I am arguing that the human trait of intellect, if it
continues at the current pace, will lead to inevitable nuclear
holocaust and the end of the human species.">>>

And you may be right, but devolving intellect will not solve your
problem. Don't forget, it was the intellect of great men with concern
for humanity which through time laid the foundation for our
constitution. Our forefathers laid a foundation of freedom governed by
laws to moderate human nature - and we apparently have failed as you
point out. There have been six great powers and (agrueably, but true
in principle) each one has led to an empire with more compassion. The
Greeks showed promise. Even in the Roman Empire it was great to be a
Roman - ask Paul of Tarsus.

You mentioned the opinion of a theist, this leads to a question. If
the role of religion is (or was!) to foster 'loving' folk, you
apparently think it has failed and think we should devolve intellect
to correct the situation (seems you are close to one of the
temptations of Christ coming off forty days in the wilderness). I do
remember Jesus talking about the "narrow gate", that few there be that
enter, that most will enter through the broad way and wide gate to
destruction. So, if the church can't 'fix' the problem, what's next?
Devolve the intellect?

It is my opinion that all comes down to leadership (and that goes for
leadership in the church), and if you are able to convince folks to
vote for those persons with a quest for truth, sound reason and the
welfare of all in mind, then you will be able to 'fix' the cause of
your problem. Fix the symptoms and you will create a load you cannot
carry, fix the cause and the symptoms will disappear.

Al


On Jan 26, 9:12 am, docbaker <ejmue...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am arguing that the human trait of intellect, if it continues at the
> current pace, will lead to inevitable nuclear holocaust and the end of
> the human species. This is my opinion/prediction. History has time and
> time again shown the inevitability of conflict. There is no reason for
> me to believe anything other than conflict occurring with more and
> more powerful weapons, engineered and deployed as a byproduct of human
> intelligence. There are no genetic mechanisms known to rapidly change
> understanding, tolerance, love.

>
> Fragile X syndrome is a known example of DNA methylation of genes to
> rapidly change a trait affecting intelligence. Autism is skyrocketing.
> i am interested in others interpretation of these simultaneous

> phenomenon with regard to what is in the best interest of the human
> species.
>
> On Jan 26, 8:49 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm not sure what this has to do anything. In any event, if you are
> > aruging that an increase in certain traits is vital to our survival,
> > then you are arguing for evolution, not devolution, even if that
> > increase causes us to resemble, more closely, previous stages in our
> > past evolution.
>
> > On Jan 26, 9:38 am, docbaker <ejmue...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Trait A was more vital than Traits B, C, and D for dinosaurs' survival
> > > over millions of generations, and evolved accordingly (the expression
> > > of the trait became more complex and more effective physiologically).
>
> > > Trait A evolved such as to put the species in "long-term danger" of
> > > extinction (due to rapid development of byproducts of expression of
> > > trait A causing rapid environmental changes putting them at risk
> > > largely dependent on continued expression of trait A), but not
> > > necessartily generational danger.
>
> > > Assuming extrinsic factors (toxins? disease?) developed which put the
> > > species en masse at risk of extinction over a few generations
> > > (independent of stated byproducts of expression of trait A), might
> > > they have survived if there had been *streamlined evolution* via DNA
> > > methylation of trait A (which can occur generationally, rather than
> > > over millions of years). Simultaneously, If traits B, C, and D
> > > increased in value as a result of this streamlining, would this
> > > process have been in dinosaurs' best interest (keeping in mind the
> > > biological fallacy of devolution: that evolution moves in the
> > > direction of a species *best interest*).
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_methylation

> > > > > > On Jan 25, 3:54 am, docbaker <ejmue...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Is it in the best interest of our species to, *devolve*, such as to

> > > > > > > value intellect less in favor of compassion, honesty, and empathy? I

> > > > > > > consider this in terms of my own children and the 'evolution' of their
> > > > > > > genome toward Fragile X syndrome (they can successfully reproduce and
> > > > > > > have no medical issues except mild mental retardstion) sa well as the
> > > > > > > skyrocking prevalence of autism. Autistic individuals (especially high
> > > > > > > functioning, and those with exceptional gifts) are able to function in
> > > > > > > a simpler society and likely would lack the intellect necessary to
> > > > > > > construct or implement anything other than crude weapons. Unclear to
> > > > > > > me whether concepts of faith would be prevalent in such a society

[Al]

<<<Doc, "There is no reason for me to believe anything other than

conflict occurring with more and
more powerful weapons, engineered and deployed as a byproduct of

humanintelligence. There are no genetic mechanisms known to rapidly
change understanding, tolerance, love. ">>>

So....... devolve the intellect! Or if available, use genetic
mechanisms to accomplish your mission.
Are you trying to create automatons??? What happened to freedom and a
decision making process within an individual governed by reasonable
laws which moderate human nature??? I guess it's a good idea to
control folks and the way they live???
.....I should ask what Iacocca asks in his recent book, "Where have
all the leaders gone?" And I might add, it's a good question, seats in
congress have become a prize of power and inflluence and relegate
power to themselves never intended by the constitution. For my
opinion, our governing bodies are filled with persons philosophically
bankrupt and we've become a 'feel good now' society, led by greed,
shirking our responsibilities. But I digress and probably should not
have mentioned politics, even though it holds the fix for your
problem.

You want to bring about compassion? Teach the process of truth by
voice and example, tell the church they teach the habits and
traditions of man instead of what Jesus intended - "The truth shall
set you free." Jesus taught the process of honest, sincere
introspection with a good conscience and a desire to be a better
person (and called it the keys to the kingdom of god). Tell folks to
follow Truth instead of men, tell them to trust themselves and the
spirit of truth within - "Seek (within) and you shall find" - the
kingdom of truth is within. "I am the way, the truth and the life,"
the way is honest, sincere introspection; the way leads to truth about
the self... and in turn... freedom from the primeval forces which
drive us. We are talking about true self-awareness, true individuality
and the making of true compassion.
.....Did he, Jesus, not say to put him first before all things? He was
not saying to put Jesus the man first, he was saying to put the TRUTH
first before all things. Did he not say he was the truth and the
spirit of truth???

You want to fix your problem, "THROW THE BUMS OUT!" Both the gov't and
the church. Was this not one of Jesus' temptations - to be head of the
church (the pinnacle of he temple)? This was a serious temptation,
after all, if he was head of the church he could "throw the bums out"
and put reliable teachers in power!

Of course you can't do these things... and I don't think it will
happen. So.... you are probably correct, we will destroy ourselve. But
you will do no good with hypothetically reducing the intellect of man
either, besides, you'd only be fixing a symptom.

Well, did I play the game well enough?

Perhaps I should get into another prophesy of Jesus, those about the
latter day organized church and the many false prophets which
masquerade as 'angels'/messengers of light? We could talk about how
men find a way to commercialize anything good and how men are abe to
alter truth to promote ingorance and a following for themselves.....
but I won't.

[Al]

<<<Doc, "A

> human model of this currently exists (Fragile X syndrome autism in
> which individuals are significantly below the mean intellectually but
> often display emotionally valuable traits and savant talents). Autism
> rates are rapidly rising. Is this built into our genome to counteract
> the problem?">>>

Well Doc, what's "built into our genome" is that we as a 'wise,'
superior race with all our so-called compassion are the only species
on this planet which pass on weak genes. Are we protecting and
preserving the weak at the detriment of our entire species??? I don't
pretend a solution, but do you suppose the rise in autism might have
anything to do with passing on weak genes?

Hospitals and health care in general spend much resources protecting
the weak. Even in times of was our strongest are chosen to die while
protecting the weak. Does this increase the pool of weak genes? I'm
just pointing out how ridiculus your hypothesis is and not worthy of
anthing but rejection. My bewilderment is trying to imagine what is
going on in your mind with such foolishness. A healthy mind is one
coming to understand compassion... and in leadership, the greater the
intellect the more able such a person is to pass it around.

On Jan 26, 1:27 pm, docbaker <ejmue...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What is the problem with what he said? There are all kinds of examples
> where vital traits (vision) evolve away (takes a very very long time),
> with others becoming more vital (the other senses besides sight), in
> an environment completely devoid of visual input (pure black dark
> environments). Do you deny that?
>
> My contention is that intelligence is *always* a vital trait. All
> species evolve as they are able via natural selection of the
> intelligence trait toward better 'problem-solving ability,' because
> being *smarter* is always an advantage in any environment. My belief,
> however, is that the human species will exterminate itself via nuclear
> holocaust or via the byproducts of industrialization (global warming?
> excessive use of resources?), which is a function of the intelligence
> of the species. If somehow our species could evolve toward less
> intelligence and less complexity/technology, in favor of emotionally
> valuable traits, we have a better chance of not killing ourselves off.
>
> My supposition is that possibly epigenetic factors are at play which
> bypass the need for millions of years to pass for this to occur. A
> human model of this currently exists (Fragile X syndrome autism in
> which individuals are significantly below the mean intellectually but
> often display emotionally valuable traits and savant talents). Autism
> rates are rapidly rising. Is this built into our genome to counteract
> the problem?
>
> On Jan 26, 11:17 am, Harvy Brans <harvybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>

> > > If you are arguing that it is, somehow, in our best interest to lose
> > > trait A for trait B then you are, essentially, arguing that trait B is
> > > more vital to our survive and are, actually, promoting evolution,
> > > rathern than de-evolution.
>

> > You can't be serious. Who is this bait for? There are morons more
> > intelligent.
>
> > Harvy
>

[Harvy Brans]

> pretend a solution, but do you suppose the rise in autism might have
> anything to do with passing on weak genes?

I think there is more evidence to suggest that the rise in autism is
behavioral rather than genetic. Think about how much different our
culture is now, than is it was back in the 1920's? Now think about all
the speak-easy's and wierdness of that era. And most of the "white
stock" anyway, in this country is descendant from that era. There is
many an American, with many a "gansta" in their bloodline. And so why
weren't the 1930's and 1940's filled with autistic children?

Harvy