Although the Neanderthal theory (http://www.rdos.net/eng/asperger.htm) really isn't an environmental theory, it still explains the environmental vulnerabilities. As partly another species, autistics have a different metabolic system, which results in various vulnerabilities to environmental insults. One key is the European Hemochromatosis gene, which results in iron overload. Another key is the high meat diet of Neanderthals, which leads to different dietary adaptations that are not necesarily supplied by our modern diet and NT-adapted supplements. Vitamin A deficiency might also be quite common, and cannot be fixed by betacarotine supplements because this cannot be broken down without a specific enzyme that might be lacking in some/many autistics. There is lots of work that could be done in this area, if one just uses the correct premises.

Interesting article--and it’s given me an idea.

It seems to me that most if not all aspies have creative ability; we appear to have a far greater creative potential than is found in the general population.

In the past I’ve looked at the relationship between aspies and creativity.
I considered the possibility that the introduction of aspie traits into the human genome may have led to the birth of creativity--the origin of science, spirituality and art.

But this doesn’t make sense. Aspie creativity appears to be highly  specialised. We’re not good at all creative activities. Few aspies can dance, play sport or do drama. We tend instead to better at drawing, painting and creative writing.

If creative consciousness existed before the emergence aspie traits--and if  these traits came from the genetic influence of Neanderthals--what would their impact be on the human genome?

I suspect it would have led to a fragmentation of the creative consciousness. A heightening of certain creative skills and a lessening of others--allowing us for the first time to specialise.

The superimposing of Neanderthal traits may explain the islands of exception ability we sometimes see in aspies--while also explaining our inabilities.

Aspies should perhaps be seen as ‘creative specialists‘--focusing there creative energies on a single specialist creative subject--leading to possible mastery of that subject. While the NT’s would have a more general diffused creativity--being quite good at everything from dance to drawing--but never achieving the level of expertise of an aspie specialist.

It’s just an idea--and rather depends on whether or not ‘modern humans’ and Neanderthals actually interbred--which I believe is still a matter of conjecture.

While I hesitate to shoot anybody's ideas down in flames, I have to ask how anyone can be "partly another species".  Isn't that rather like being a "little bit pregnant"?  Surely you either are or you aren't.  

Personally I don't think AS people are related in any way to Neanderthal humans; research done on DNA stored in recovered bones is indicating strongly that Neanderthal and Modern humans were too far apart genetically to breed together successfully; apparently you wouldn't even get a sterile human from the mix, as you would get a mule with horse/donkey pairings.  And since those of us who marry NTs manage to produce children, I'd say we're not related to Neanderthals.  

However, that doesn't mean I don't think we're beginning to "split off" the main population to ultimately become a sub-grouping.  Rather like the Galapagos Island finches, adapting to their individual environments until eventually the finch populations at each end of the chain can't interbreed, although every other link in between can.   I just don't think we're there yet.  

Alison

You seem to skip right past the fact that there are many areas where Aspies are severely deficient in creativity; most of us seem to be very lacking in social imagination (spontaneous expression in groups, etc.), others wouldn't have the first idea how to fix a window without being shown the specific steps of how to do it (several times over.)  It seems information gained from specific tasks (for some Aspies) does not always "carry over" to other, related tasks the way it does for NTs.  This to me looks like a serious deficiency in creativity, as many of us can't "spontaneously" do things as we go along, intuitively.

I suppose it all rather depends on what you consider as creativity. I don’t see having social imagination as creative; nor would I see being able to fix a window is creative--practical yes--but not really requiring much originality.

Also I don't think spontaneity has much to do with creativity--A painter plans to paint--a writer plans to write. And isn't going "along intuitively" what creativity's all about.

Anyway, I still not completely convinced of the human-Neanderthal interbreeding thing--just an interesting idea.

Hybrids are the crosses of two species, and they are partly different from both of their ancestral species. Partly in this context means Aspies have *some* Neanderthal ancestral traits (often the traits are different in different individuals).

No, the species concept is fuzzy. It is convinient to talk about species as exact entities, but the reality is not so easy.

This is only because the wrong premises have been used in the research. Paleoanthropology and geneticists have believed in regular mixing between Hs (modern humans) and Hn (Neanderthals) in Eurasia, and such scenario is bound to be easy to detect with mitochondrial DNA. However, this is not how it was. Hn genes were introduced by introgression and not by uniform mixing. It was introgression not because it was hard (in the physical sense) to produce fertile offspring, but because of the same mechanism that still operates between NTs and Aspies. Communication, mating and social behaviors were vastly different, which meant that few individuals would find individuals in the other species interesting enough to mate with. In these discussions the stereotype that Hs males would sometimes rape Hn females is frequent, but this seems rather implausible. The Hn group structure were such that this was almost impossible. Instead it was Hn males that occasionally mated with Hs females, and this was possible because of the more open social structure of Hs. Because introgression happened into Hs it was Hn that went extinct and Hs that survived.

The only theory that has ever made sense to me IS the Neanderthal theory, frankly. You need to read the entire study (Oxford University). It is quite long, but fascinating.

One thing for sure: the Neanderthals were strictly N. European and an interesting aside- had red hair and freckles. I have often heard teachers and doctors say redheads are disproprotionately ADHD for example.

Also, there seem to be few if any black Aspies- have you noticed this? And I have heard that there are NO Aspie or autism websites in Africa(at least as of several years ago).

Ellen, NT Mom to Aspie daughter, 15
and both of us are redheads!

AS being more common among Europeans would fit with the theory--but diagnosis is always a difficult. It could be that Africans are undiagnosed for social reasons.

I have a recessive 'ginger gene' and some freckles--my second born son is a red head--but then so is my wife and she's very much NT.

Correct me if I am wrong, a two of a species by definition can always breed.
There is no difficulty with reproduction if one is AS or autistic and the other is not.
Strictly speaking we are still of the species homo sapiens sapiens.

Elsewhere in this site somebody suggested that over the course of many generations any species can break off and become a subspecies, Darwin and the finches, but a separate homo sapiens aspergerus subspecies is yet to come.

Perhaps it only looks like we cannot have children with NTs because of a strong human tendency toward endogamy.

Sociology 101: Endogamy, one group breeding only within itself,
Application to Asperger: The NTs might believe, even in some cases correctly, that AS cannot have intimate emotional relationships with them.

Myself, I am not prepared to accept that I cannot give and receive that kind of nuturing.  I feel too NT, as though the AS is so very mild.

I say across the board we all have feelings.

Did Neanderthals have a more open social structure and is that to say they were more tolerant?  
I have always perceived people as equals, perhaps due to parenting.  
I have actually practiced inter-racial dating.
To a limited extent inter-faith dating, which I do not think is a sin on the par with King David (in the Bible) having an affair with the wife of one of his best soldiers (who trusted him and whom David arranged to have killed in battle).

I think inter-faith marriage is acceptable within Christianity but is a mistake, because you could change your future....

a. you could marry within the Christian faith, be oh so grateful to Jesus for His blessing, have someone concerned about your spiritual life and able to help, you can look forward to eternity together, and there is no tension between the Son on one side and the moon on the other side (no tides)

b. or you could choose not to, be upset at Jesus at only making you wait, stay single, and to no end.  Best case, your spouse wants to help you in your faith but doesn't understand your faith.  Worst case, you might listen to some negative rantings because of your own hurt feelings over Jesus.  Can you look forward to eternity possibly without that person?  To say nothing of the kids.

Basically I don't want Jesus to be the God that failed.  My feelings could go down one road or the other.  

That is not to say that I'm not impatient with Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, though my Bible does tell me the Jews waited 400 years as slaves in Egypt.  (400 years is the entire time English-speaking people have permanently settled in North America, from Jamestown to today)

I think there is still debate as to whether or not Neanderthals were a separate species--we were certainly both members of the Homo genus.

This theory seems very good, and I have to admit that it seems pluasable that Aspies could be descended from Neanderthals. Many of the things said about Neanderthals seems to relate to us, such as Aspies tending to climb and jump (I crawl / climb the staircase at home, and sometimes I do get the urge to jump about a bit), being more into cold weather (Neanderthals adapted for colder climates), and the fact that (I at least) am not really very aggressive, unlike other men. It makes a good point that many autistics feel like they're the wrong gender (Girls being tomboys, and Boys being more passive), which the link says is due to Neanderthal groups being female-dominated (unlike NTs, where it's more male dominated).

You really do have to read the whole thing to get it, but I think it makes good sense.

I'd agree with that…its really does seem to make sense. But evidence is physical evidence appears to be scant and genetic evidence inconclusive.