Autism Research Breakthrough, genetic variation-could it be evolution?

[InsatiableCuriosity]

You know what they say, the plural of anecdote is not data.

Aaah yes but data believes that .2 of a person is a real number!

 

[teslashock]

Interesting presumption.


Autism Increase Not Due to Better Diagnosis


and this

Environmental Factor:February 2009:UC Davis Study Examines Rise in Autism Rates

If you want to cite actual articles (read: real evidence), then that's fine. I was merely speculating that the increase in numbers could be due to an increased ability to diagnose the disorder.

Originally, your only evidence to the contrary was your personal experience, and personal experience is subject to a whole slew of personal biases. Your only counter to personal experience being inaccurate was something along the lines of "well I know that my personal experience is not subject to bias." Circular a bit? Yes...

Anecdotes turn into case studies which become the basis of the decision of which (variables/parameters/observables) are gathered to form "data". If you pick the wrong parameter to observe, your data is meaningless.

We form hypotheses based off of anecdotes, sure. However, real science does not rely on personal anecdotes for evidence. It relies on repeated, controlled experiments and statistical analysis.

When observing something as complex as a human with a developmental disorder, mental illness or even a personality typing theory, the initial anecdotes form the foundation. Not many folks are better suited to (people watching/behavioral trend identification) than an ENFP. The error rate will end up fairly high, but an enfp will see things an NT will miss. Their anecdotal observations are (complementary/supplementary/essential) to pure analysis of gathered data.

Aside from the fact that I really don't agree with the bolded, this alleged skilled area of ENFPs (and lack of skill in NTs) has absolutely nothing to do with how credible GemPOP's assertion was. Until Gem provided actual evidence in the form of a cited article (which I've yet to really read, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming that it's credible), his/her claims that autism cases have indeed increased based on his/her own experience were completely off par with how science really works.

Perhaps he/she formed this theory that autism cases increased based on his/her own experience, but using personal experience as evidence is ridiculous.

Regardless of how good ENFPs or NTs or anyone is at behavioral trends through people watching, controlled, structured, scientific experiments are still better and thus the only reasonable form of evidence we can use in these kinds of discussions.

 

[Betty Blue]

It's very difficult to discuss something with someone who is being so presumptious and not reading the full posts.

If you want to cite actual articles (read: real evidence), then that's fine. I was merely speculating that the increase in numbers could be due to an increased ability to diagnose the disorder..

I did site a link as what you term as real evidence, i sited it just befor i spoke of personal experience as i like to combine the two... check post 10....
Study: Childhood Rise in Autism Cases Real

Originally, your only evidence to the contrary was your personal experience, and personal experience is subject to a whole slew of personal biases. Your only counter to personal experience being inaccurate was something along the lines of "well I know that my personal experience is not subject to bias." Circular a bit? Yes.....

See above

We form hypotheses based off of anecdotes, sure. However, real science does not rely on personal anecdotes for evidence. It relies on repeated, controlled experiments and statistical analysis.

Again presumption because i have theorizing all through the thread, infact the op poses a question, i have not once anywhere stated i know all the answers. The only thing i am sure of is a rise in cases, theres many many studies that can back that up, Including studies by the NIH who you mentioned yourself. I think that actually it's you who are insinuating you know all the answers when quite obviously you don't.

Regardless of how good ENFPs or NTs or anyone is at behavioral trends through people watching, controlled, structured, scientific experiments are still better and thus the only reasonable form of evidence we can use in these kinds of discussions.

Well now that would just make a huge proportion of all threads null and void.

 

[teslashock]

It's very difficult to discuss something with someone who is being so presumptious and not reading the full posts.

I did site a link as what you term as real evidence, i sited it just befor i spoke of personal experience as i like to combine the two... check post 10....
Study: Childhood Rise in Autism Cases Real

You cited a link that showed evidence that autism cases are increasing, but you never once cited evidence to counter Ivy's and my claims that ASD cases may be rising due to enhanced diagnostic abilities, not an actual increase in people with the disorder. Your initial response to that claim was this:

It used to be the case when my child was first diagnosed (5 years ago)that when we went to the playground (or anywhere out) it seemed that i was the only one around, with few exceptions, with a child with autism. Even in the last several years that amount has dramatically increased, i now see many children with asd, i talk to people and everyone i speak to now knows a child with autism.
I don't believe this is due simply to diagnostic criteria or indeed better awareness, it seems to me there is a boom, becoming ever more frequent.

along with:

So at age 15 i was aware of asd and had no other experience what so ever with anyone else with asd for many years. 5 years ago when i was most alert i met very few people with asd but did occaisionally meet parents of children with asd. Now 5 years on when i am not watching all the kids in the playground to see signs i meet them all over the place. This is not due to awareness this is due to a rise in asd cases.

I mean seriously, ?!?!???...

Until post #39, you gave no articles that tackled the issue of enhanced diagnostic capabilities. The article that you are referring to above even stated that they don't know why the numbers are increasing, implying that there is room for a number of different reasons/interpretations.

So, your original counter to us stating that it's due to enhanced diagnosis was indeed pure anecdote, subject to the biases that come along with your own perception.

The first real evidence, outside of personal anecdote was not until post 39, which I acknowledged. My main qualm with your argument is that you seemed to think that your narrow personal experience is evidence enough to form an argument regarding a widespread issue.

Again presumption because i have theorizing all through the thread, infact the op poses a question, i have not once anywhere stated i know all the answers. The only thing i am sure of is a rise in cases, theres many many studies that can back that up, Including studies by the NIH who you mentioned yourself. I think that actually it's you who are insinuating you know all the answers when quite obviously you don't.

The only thing I have claimed in this thread is that your anecdotal evidence is weak and not very convincing and that science does not work on personal anecdotes.

I have made zero claims about why ASD cases are increasing, and I will be the first to admit that I don't know much about ASD statistics at all; it's just not an issue I'm well-versed in. I have a completely open mind about this thread and the reasons as to why the cases may be increasing, but I'm not about to use one person's personal perception as evidence to help me form my conclusion regarding the issue.

Well now that would just make a huge proportion of all threads null and void.

Most people don't cite personal experience as evidence in a scientific issue. When science is concerned, often there are links posted.

I'm just saying that if you want to do any convincing here and have a solid argument, you shouldn't use the claim that you personally witness it so it must be true on a wider scale.

Anyway, you seem to be getting pretty offended, and that doesn't make too much sense to me, so I'm done.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

It can't be natural selection if the it's both true that the autism inducing genes originate with the autistic patients, and that autistic people are less likely to reproduce. Also, does autism pass on to children of autistic people? None of the necessary components for inheritance seem to be involved here.

This is something emergent. Likely a chemical influence of some sort.

 

[teslashock]

It can't be natural selection if the it's both true that the autism inducing genes originate with the autistic patients, and that autistic people are less likely to reproduce. Also, does autism pass on to children of autistic people? None of the necessary components for inheritance seem to be involved here.

This is something emergent. Likely a chemical influence of some sort.

If there is a genetic component, as is suggested in the OP's article, then there could be a hereditary one (though the genetic component that is referenced in the OP isn't necessarily associated with inheritance). Also, autistic people could be less likely to reproduce, and inheritance could still be involved and could still be causally linked. If the risk of being a parent to an ASD child is prevalent within a family tree, then this could be due to inheritance, and it wouldn't require that the ASD children themselves are reproducing. The OP in no way implies that inheritance is out of the question.

It could be something chemical with the ASD patients themselves (mutations can happen as a result of environment), but judging by the fact that we are talking about CNVs, it would likely be something going on (externally or not) with the parents that affects their haploid cells prior to conception or perhaps some genetic factor that causes parents to have issues with their haploid production.

Down syndrome occurs because the mother's eggs undergo faulty meiosis, and the risk of faulty meiosis to make haploid cells increases with age. This CNV thing could be something similar (or again, it could be genetic), whether it's due to age, chemicals, etc. Your post doesn't necessarily deduce down to "It's probably chemical", so if that's what you were going for, then it didn't work.

 

[Betty Blue]

Ugh, this is becomming complicated.

You cited a link that showed evidence that autism cases are increasing, but you never once cited evidence to counter Ivy's and my claims that ASD cases may be rising due to enhanced diagnostic abilities, not an actual increase in people with the disorder. Your initial response to that claim was this::

Did you read this part of the link in post 10
"Since the 1990s, there's been a dramatic increase in autismautism among school-age children."
I was countering an argument that Ivy stated just as many Adults are being diagnosed.

There was also this part of the link which counters the wider diagnostic argument

"Research has suggested that the rise in autism could be largely explained by changes in diagnosis, with children who might have been classified as mentally retarded or speech impaired before the 1990s now being classified as autistic.

Lead researcher Craig J. Newschaffer, PhD, says the Department of Education figures do not show this, but he adds that the increase in autism may never be fully understood."

along with:



I mean seriously, ?!?!???...::

As previously stated i used personal experience along with stats, hopefully that is clearer for you now.

Until post #39, you gave no articles that tackled the issue of enhanced diagnostic capabilities. The article that you are referring to above even stated that they don't know why the numbers are increasing, implying that there is room for a number of different reasons/interpretations.

Check again

So, your original counter to us stating that it's due to enhanced diagnosis was indeed pure anecdote, subject to the biases that come along with your own perception..

and check again

The first real evidence, outside of personal anecdote was not until post 39, which I acknowledged. My main qualm with your argument is that you seemed to think that your narrow personal experience is evidence enough to form an argument regarding a widespread issue. ..

Ugh, do i really have to say it...

The only thing I have claimed in this thread is that your anecdotal evidence is weak and not very convincing and that science does not work on personal anecdotes. ..

I have made zero claims about why ASD cases are increasing, and I will be the first to admit that I don't know much about ASD statistics at all; it's just not an issue I'm well-versed in. I have a completely open mind about this thread and the reasons as to why the cases may be increasing, but I'm not about to use one person's personal perception as evidence to help me form my conclusion regarding the issue. ..

But, You just said this

but you never once cited evidence to counter Ivy's and my claims that ASD cases may be rising due to enhanced diagnostic abilities, not an actual increase in people with the disorder..

Most people don't cite personal experience as evidence in a scientific issue. When science is concerned, often there are links posted...

There are links posted and i cited personal experience simply because it's relative.

I'm just saying that if you want to do any convincing here and have a solid argument, you shouldn't use the claim that you personally witness it so it must be true on a wider scale....

I'm really not trying to convince anyone, the idea of this thread was to discuss if there are evolutionary connections with autism.

Anyway, you seem to be getting pretty offended, and that doesn't make too much sense to me, so I'm done.

Yes i did get a little offended it's true, i don't have the cold rationalle many NT's possess. It was all your assumption which hacked me off to be honest, that and the fact you butted into something with a +1 without actually taking in the previous posts.
Oh and the comment regarding the NIH which was really silly considering their own studies (the last two links i posted) state there IS a real rise in rates amoung children which can NOT be due solely to wider diagnostics.

 

[teslashock]

Yes i did get a little offended it's true, i don't have the cold rationalle many NT's possess. It was all your assumption which hacked me off to be honest, that and the fact you butted into something with a +1 without actually taking in the previous posts.
Oh and the comment regarding the NIH which was really silly considering their own studies (the last two links i posted) state there IS a real rise in rates amoung children which can NOT be due solely to wider diagnostics.

Yes, but I guarantee you that the NIH went about their studies much differently than you and did not rely on personal experience/bias for evidence. :hi:

(clearly you still don't really understand my critique here, if that's one of your counters)

And regarding the things of mine that you've bolded, trying to make me appear contradictory, the key word here is "may." I claimed a possibility, not a personal theory of mine. The possibility that I "claimed" has nothing to do with what I believe, and it was not meant to be an outline of my general stance on this subject. I have remained open to any and all possibilities describing the alleged increase in ASD cases. Nice try though.

 

[Betty Blue]

Yes, but I guarantee you that the NIH went about their studies much differently than you and did not rely on personal experience/bias for evidence. :hi:

(clearly you still don't really understand my critique here, if that's one of your counters)

And regarding the things of mine that you've bolded, trying to make me appear contradictory, the key word here is "may." I claimed a possibility, not a personal theory of mine. The possibility that I "claimed" has nothing to do with what I believe, and it was not meant to be an outline of my general stance on this subject. I have remained open to any and all possibilities describing the alleged increase in ASD cases. Nice try though.

Ok so you have just avoided the whole point i made. If it makes you feel better, whatever.

 

[teslashock]

^Likewise

 

[Betty Blue]

^Likewise

The way i see it is your point was that i was basing an argument solely on personal experience. You said over and over again that i did not use a valid link.
My point was that i was using both a valid link and personal experience combined. Check the link, see the facts stop whining.

 

[teslashock]

The way i see it is your point was that i was basing an argument solely on personal experience. You said over and over again that i did not use a valid link.
My point was that i was using both a valid link and personal experience combined. Check the link, see the facts stop whining.

Or you could just learn to communicate your ideas effectively.

When your counter has zero links in it, and your whole response is "I think this because I experience this", then it makes your argument to appear as though it is indeed based solely on personal experience.

You do this in post 10 (though it does have a link, the link does not support your stance that it's not due to diagnostic critera). It's a link, and it's valid, but it does not tackle the issue that I'm talking about here: is there really a rise in ASD cases, or is it just due to an enhanced ability to diagnose the disorder?

You also do this in 23. No link, only anecdote.

Until post 39, you did not provide any outside evidence that diagnostic criteria is not the cause for the rise in ASD cases.

And again, I'm really not sure why you are making this personal and telling me to "stop whining." I'm not whining, simply pointing out a fact that your argument was pretty weak until about post 39, as until then, you provided us with zero data that tackled the diagnostic criteria issue; you only provided personal anecdote. Go back and look at your posts if you don't believe me.

 

[wildcat]

OMG! Where do you live?? That sounds like something out of an old movie! :steam:

I live in Finland. But then, Finland is like an old movie.

 

[ygolo]

Here are more articles to consider....

Autism on the Rise - Is Autism on the Rise (It is important to note the history of the research too. Articles from 2005 were before the CDC comprehensive study, for instance. Also, studies that look at dates before the decrease in incidents will also have to be put into perspective)

The Autism Epidemic (another brief history)


Of course, the U.C. Davis study (done in 2009 looking at 1990 to 2000) that GemPopGem linked comes to the conclusion that the epidemic was real.

This study in 2010 comes to the opposite conclusion
Study: Social influence playing role in surging autism diagnoses | e! Science News

The debate goes on.

 

[Betty Blue]

This study in 2010 comes to the opposite conclusion
Study: Social influence playing role in surging autism diagnoses | e! Science News

The debate goes on.

I found the actual study that that article was based on, it opens with this

"Despite a plethora of studies, we do not know why autism incidence has increased rapidly over the past two decades. Using California data, this study shows that children living very close to a child previously diagnosed with autism are more likely to be diagnosed with autism. An underlying social influence mechanism involving information diffusion drives this result, contributing to 16% of the increase in prevalence over 2000–2005. We eliminate competing explanations (i.e., residential sorting, environmental toxicants, and viral transmission) through seven tests and show that information diffusion simultaneously contributed to the increased prevalence, spatial clustering, and decreasing age of diagnosis."


Also this....

"but what is not really debatable is that the increase in autism incidence is very large"

The actual study is here

University of Chicago Press - Cookie absent

 

[Betty Blue]

Or you could just learn to communicate your ideas effectively.

When your counter has zero links in it, and your whole response is "I think this because I experience this", then it makes your argument to appear as though it is indeed based solely on personal experience.

You do this in post 10 (though it does have a link, the link does not support your stance that it's not due to diagnostic critera). It's a link, and it's valid, but it does not tackle the issue that I'm talking about here: is there really a rise in ASD cases, or is it just due to an enhanced ability to diagnose the disorder?

You also do this in 23. No link, only anecdote.

Until post 39, you did not provide any outside evidence that diagnostic criteria is not the cause for the rise in ASD cases.

And again, I'm really not sure why you are making this personal and telling me to "stop whining." I'm not whining, simply pointing out a fact that your argument was pretty weak until about post 39, as until then, you provided us with zero data that tackled the diagnostic criteria issue; you only provided personal anecdote. Go back and look at your posts if you don't believe me.

I am getting frustrated, i appologise if my responses echo this.

The article linked in post 10 states this

"The study does not answer the question as to why autism is increasing. But the national data don't show a decrease in other learning disabilities. Trends for mental retardation and speech and language impairment remained unchanged.

This suggests the increase in autism is not the result of an across-the-board increase in special education classification, say the researchers."

I put it to you again, that the link does respond to the questions you pose.


(link 23 was a response to Ivy's post regarding my earlier post of personal experience, i simply extended my personal reasoning in this post, it was a direct reply)

 

[Betty Blue]

Also the link in the op does address incidence rise in asd, it also addresses wider diagnostic criteria.

From the link in the op

"Autism spectrum disorder – which can range from mild to severe – affects nearly 1 per cent of children and the incidence has increased dramatically in recent years, partly as a result of wider diagnostic criteria and improved recognition of the problem. Autism tends to run in families and is known to have strong genetic and environmental components."

Autism and genetics: A breakthrough that sheds light on a medical mystery - Science, News - The Independent


Please note the second bolded which states "partly", the most recent studies show this could be up to 16% as indicated by the study in the American Journal of Sociology.
ygolo posted a link to an article referencing the study, i posted a link to the actual study.
So we now have a maximum percentage of which wider diagnostics can play a part in the incidence rates of asd. This certainly does not counter the evolution theory as i have always believed there are other factors which do contribute but do not account for the majority of the rise. I have said this in another thread but i should make it clear here also.

I'm not sure how to link the post but i'll quote it

"I'm interested in an entirely different theory. Autism has risen by approx 600% in the last 20 years. You can account for prehaps a 100-200% increase due to diagnosis becomming easier to access, the range of ASD that is now being diagnosed and the fact that many people are more willing to get diagnosis for themselves or children."

It was in the RF and Autism thread post 17. I quoted approx 600% in the last 20 years as opposed to 400% in the last 10-15 years in my op in this thread.
Reports vary because they are localised or to specific counties/countries and also the dates of the studies and what time period they cover.

 

[sculpting]

We form hypotheses based off of anecdotes, sure. However, real science does not rely on personal anecdotes for evidence. It relies on repeated, controlled experiments and statistical analysis.

"Real Science" with controlled studies is the perfect tool to study very specific, explicitly defined problems. Nobody makes ancadotal claims about
bacterial growth rates on highly dextrose containing media spiked with amp or if a .2M NaCl solution enhances crystallization rates of GDP:CMP cytidylyltransferase in the ligand bound form.

But the more complex the system becomes, the harder it can be to define exactly what needs to be observed or controlled when collecting data. In studies of medicine of disease states, there can be massive influence based upon genetic heterogeneity of the population under study for instance.

Aside from the fact that I really don't agree with the bolded, this alleged skilled area of ENFPs (and lack of skill in NTs) has absolutely nothing to do with how credible GemPOP's assertion was.

Regardless of how good ENFPs or NTs or anyone is at behavioral trends through people watching, controlled, structured, scientific experiments are still better and thus the only reasonable form of evidence we can use in these kinds of discussions.

I am ambivalent about this particular discussion-but what caught my eye was the overt dismissal of gem's observations as not being "data". It interests me on a more meta level.

I would argue that the individual observations become increasingly important, the more complex the system under study becomes. The more fuzzy and ill defined the problem, the more people contaminated it is, the more likely the parameters used to define the collected "data" were flawed-thus the more room for error.

Also-Fi and Fe will view a system under study in a way that Ti and Te will not-evenly a technical problem. If your problem is a people problem, NFs will find those trends before an NT will, very often. Not bashing NTs in anyway, just suggesting to use caution before overt dismissal of an NF observation. Ti will find it a bit repulsive and try and push it away as it is "messy", yet it could be the key to understanding the problem.

But yes, once the problem has become very well defined-I also would then default to controlled studies with large numbers. But it is a continuum and you need to understand where you are on that scale and have an in depth understanding of the flaws in your data before making that call.

 

[ygolo]

I found the actual study that that article was based on, it opens with this

"Despite a plethora of studies, we do not know why autism incidence has increased rapidly over the past two decades. Using California data, this study shows that children living very close to a child previously diagnosed with autism are more likely to be diagnosed with autism. An underlying social influence mechanism involving information diffusion drives this result, contributing to 16% of the increase in prevalence over 2000–2005. We eliminate competing explanations (i.e., residential sorting, environmental toxicants, and viral transmission) through seven tests and show that information diffusion simultaneously contributed to the increased prevalence, spatial clustering, and decreasing age of diagnosis."


Also this....

"but what is not really debatable is that the increase in autism incidence is very large"

The actual study is here

University of Chicago Press - Cookie absent

I think everyone agrees that there was an increase in incidence. The questions are: why there was an increase in incidence, in what time frame it happened, and whether or not the increase has stopped.

I frankly can't decide because studies come to different conclusions.

The 2010 sociological study suggests that 16% increase was due to spreading social awareness of autism. But that does not really rule out diagnostic critireon.

Also, note the dates they were researching were from 2000-2005. This contradicts somewhat the about.com article's mention of the CDC study.

All I am trying to say, is that the research seems inconclusive at best.

 

[Betty Blue]

I think everyone agrees that there was an increase in incidence. The questions are: why there was an increase in incidence, in what time frame it happened, and whether or not the increase has stopped.

I frankly can't decide because studies come to different conclusions.

The 2010 sociological study suggests that the increase was due to social awareness of autism.

Also, note the dates they were researching were from 2000-2005. From 2000-2005, there was an increase in incidents, but in 2006, according to the CDC, in the about.com article, there was a decrease.

All I am trying to say, is that the research seems inconclusive at best.

No, there were people debating weather there was a rise at all. Their argument was that there was no actual rise in cases just in diagnosis.

The sociological study suggests 16% of the rise is due to an increase in awareness and the sample given is california, one single state. It is a large area and a large study and i give it merit. I had not at any point said that an increase in awareness would not contribute to a percentage of new diagnosis, infact i cited an old post i made in which i gave the idea a very generous slice of percentage pie.
However it is inconclusive like many previous studies.

The whole point of this thread was to throw up a theory as mentioned in the OP and to get responses based on that theory.
If you are undecided thats fine.