I can hardly understand this article about autism, it’s about evolution and the brain. Can anyone explain it?

A somewhat hard to contain piece because it is not an article but gives a summary of an article.And and theories describes.

The first theory is discussed in detail.People and chimpanzees have more than 98% of their DNA in common – those little 2% in which we differ from each other has evolved in (evolutionarily) so high a pace that it has become susceptible to copy and weaving errors. ‘ Autism ‘, or the autism gene, would be in that 2%.

The second theory is briefly described.The Chimpanzee society is small and clear; People live in cities of hundreds of thousands or more individuals. And we are not built on it. Autism is then a logical corollary of our unnatural way of life.

What remains unclear: Suppose that autism is a genetic defect. What then?Nothing to do, seems to me.

TL: DR

What is it about?

We know which genes make the significant difference between people and chimpanzees.These are called ‘ HAR ‘ genes.

Scientists have investigated those genes in 2100 autists and compared with the genes of healthy people.

They found that if one or more HAR genes in the brain don’t quite knock, you can get autism.This was estimated to be the cause of 1 to 2 percent of autists.

And what goes wrong?

These genes put other important genes on and off where necessary so that everything is well developed, so that goes wrong.

And what research has been done for that?

In Those 2100 Autisten is found:

  • That they have 6.5 x greater chance of having a HAR gene too much or too little.
  • 43% have more recessive * gene mutations compared to healthy children.
  • It was already known that genes can be properly turned on with intensive training.

And autists often also benefit from intensive training. (not really a top argument, but it does have something to investigate)

* Recessive genes: we have of every gene and chromosome 1 of our mother and 1 of our father.When those genes that say otherwise, such as blond (recessive) or brown (dominant) hair, then lose the recession genes. (And so you get brown hair.)

This research group has studied 2 groups, American children and a group from the Middle East where the parents are related.In the latter group, recessive genes will be more expressed if they inherit from both father and mother. They looked at areas in T genetic material that seems to have a connection with human behavior and those areas are different from other beings. In that genetic material are pieces of DNA that encode for proteins but also pieces that cause arrangements on DNA. (I can’t explain you) What they saw is more different in those areas than in people without autism. BV by deletion or duplication of bits of DNA, which are new in those children (so parents did not have those changes). It is inferred that these changes occur more in people with autism than people without autism. I cannot follow the calculations about percentages related to autism, but roughly it comes down to seeing genetic differences in children with autism who were in the parents or recessive or not present. What those defects with evolution have to do is escape me but they hope to better understand how our brain compared to animals eg chimps differs under the influence of DNA. For the record: I am an industry pharmacist and work in vaccines, where I have colleagues who understand this better than me, but I am not a geneticist and have the balls wit of autism. Although I often recognize this. Success with further understanding.

From Oscar Wilde I learned: “All jargon is a conspiracy against laymen”.Perhaps unintentionally, it is the scientists that we do not understand.

A second point comes from Richard Feynmann: “Knowledge does not consist of knowing the words”.When someone uses the right words, it doesn’t mean, that (z) he knows how it works. You can know the name of a bird in all the talenb of the world, and you still know nothing about the bird. All descriptions consist of metaphors or models.

Contemporary biology and (brain) science always seeks to explain a situation (“autism”, “Drug use”, “puberty”,..) from causes.Evolution and genes can be considered as the causes of a situation. As a result, there is an unbridging gap between “genotype” (the set of genes) and “phenotype” (“The result”, the expression of the genotype), because you do not know what “the causes of the environment” are.

Scientists use statistics as a “solution” for this.But a statistical link is usually not a causal link.

They see the genes as “software” and the result as “hardware”.The machine metaphor. But people-and all living beings-are not machines.

I myself came to the conclusion (Robert Rosen, “Life itself”, also not easy to understand), that life consists of its own causes.Life creates conditions for its own survival. Life “finds out”, “experiments”, “investigates”. The acquired knowledge “remembers” life by means of DNA in the genes. These form a “memory”. Genes arose as a result of life.

However, our genes are not an algorithm – even Harari in Homo Sapiens makes that mistake – but a heuristics.In it you recognize the “Eureka”, “I found it” from Archimedes. Life has “found” genes.

But heuristics depend on coincidence and circumstances.As Archimedes who “accidentally” sits down in Bath. Life also works: A single autist delivers a usable raid.

Leave a Reply