Autism is a spectrum. At the high functioning end, the highly-focussed interests mean that we know far too much about something that people consider not worth knowing. This has the advantage that such knowledge is transmitted, refined, added to, and available. The other dimension is the social one. And while it's difficult to make and maintain relationships when you have a greater or lesser difficulty in 'reading' other people, there can be upsides too – perhaps a more considered, less emotional way of interacting with others.

Brains don't make efforts to evolve. Evolution happens because of random events at the microcellular level. But if a mutation survives, it is because behind its apparent deficits are advantages (think of sickle cell anaemia and malaria). 

I have trouble with the idea that all autism is a 'price we pay'. Different is not deficient. 

Clearly, autism associated with pervasive developmental problems is different, and I cannot comment there. 

Thank you for your response, Professor.  Interesting thesis; I believe it is well-worth the research.  Thank you again!

Autism is a spectrum. At the high functioning end, the highly-focussed interests mean that we know far too much about something that people consider not worth knowing. This has the advantage that such knowledge is transmitted, refined, added to, and available. The other dimension is the social one. And while it's difficult to make and maintain relationships when you have a greater or lesser difficulty in 'reading' other people, there can be upsides too – perhaps a more considered, less emotional way of interacting with others.

Brains don't make efforts to evolve. Evolution happens because of random events at the microcellular level. But if a mutation survives, it is because behind its apparent deficits are advantages (think of sickle cell anaemia and malaria). 

I have trouble with the idea that all autism is a 'price we pay'. Different is not deficient. 

Clearly, autism associated with pervasive developmental problems is different, and I cannot comment there. 

Altered connectivity in autism translates into prenatal and early postnatal developmental changes.  Some changes are driven by gene mutations and differences in gene expression.  The human genome is very complex and there are regulatory genes that effect many other genes.  We are just beginning to understand the mechanisms at this level of regulation as well as influences of epigenetics, environmental factors, maternal antibodies and hormonal influences, etc.  It is difficult to conclude at any level that autism is a result of evolutionary processes.  Too many complexities that are not yet delineated.

Thank you so much for your response, Dr. Blatt.  I will definitely keep up with the research of the aforementioned factors.  It is truly fascinating how the brain operates, and even more so, the human genome.  Thank you, again.

Indeed, evolution doesn't 'strive' towards anything, but is a blind process. Put in these terms, one would need a (series of) mutations which will prove successful. If this is a viable way of reasoning, one of the first questions could be why these mutations would be more successful in the future than they have been in the past.

In schizophrenia research it seems this same question has received more attention as 'the schizophrenia paradox': how does one explain the evolutionary survival of a basically maladaptive condition? Timothy Crow has made a compelling case under the heading 'Is schizophrenia the price homo sapiens pays for language?' (1979) One could ask the same question about autism; evolutionary processes are full of trade-offs. Crow proposed it had something to do with the lateralization of the brain. (The corpus callosum of people on the spectrum is undergoing new scrutiny lately by Wolff et al.)

Apart from language, the survival of maladaptive conditions can also be balanced out by social advantages. Bari Weiss quoted Temple Grandin for the Wall Street Journal (2010) as saying: ‘Who do you think made the first stone spear? That wasn’t the yakkity yaks sitting around the campfire. It was some Asperger sitting in the back of a cave figuring out how to chip rocks into spearheads. Without some autistic traits you wouldn’t even have a recording device to record this conversation on.”  

So the broad speculation might be: schizophrenia is still here because it promoted out-of-the box thinking (inventive chamanism) and autism because of technology.   

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/05/01/brain.awv118.abstract

Thank you so much for your input, Dr. Schrameije.  I will definitely read the article you have attached here.  I adore Temple Grandin.  I rather enjoy her analogies and must say that the quote you used here is my new favorite!  I understand what you are saying here; however, I, along with many other, I am sure, still do not understand why the prevalence of this disorder has grown to the heights it has.  What are your thougthts concerning this?  Thank you again!

Onitra, I am not sure whether the prevalence of ASD has really increased, but if it has it is probably not because of evolutionary selection pressure. That does not work so fast. Perhaps, in modern civilized society there is more tolerance for the "mentally crippled" members (sorry), so they live longer and have a somewhat better chance to reproduce them. Also, they may even be valued for their deviations because these could be useful in certain jobs, e.g. in ICT. That, too, may lead to a longer life and higher reproduction (ASD is somewhat heritable). This may sound like an evolutionary explanation but we are talking of very short time spans. In a few decades it may all be different (third world war, uncontrollable terrorism, etc.).

Once again, I want to thank all of you for your contributions concerning my question. I continue to research and, one day, will produce an academic working paper that will hopefully answer our questions concerning autism.

Increased specificity compared with DSM-IV and suggest that a relaxed algorithm should be considered to improve identification and decrease cost, thus maximizing intervention resources. William et al (2012) tested the construct validity and reported the DSM-5 model was superior to DSM-IV, and the model fit in their sample was good, stable across age and gender and in those with clinical and sub-threshold autistic presentations.

http://iacapap.org/wp-content/uploads/C.2-AUTISM-SPECTRUM-072012.pdf

Thank you for your input, Dr. Umachandran.  I appreciate the information here.  I am in the process of loading the pdf link, and am looking forward to discovering what it has to say.  What are your thoughts regarding the possibility of evolution having a hand in the development and prevalence of autism?  I look forward to your response, sir. 

The issue of early identification and early intervention is important for speech core traits associated with this disability and related to speech and language development

https://medschool.vanderbilt.edu/developmental-disabilities-lab/files/developmental-disabilities-lab/public_files/Publications/Early%20identifi%20cation%20and%20early%20intervention%20in%20autism%20spectrum%20disorders-%20Accurate%20and%20effective.pdf

Relative to the centralized focus on the thing (autism) from a vast affect spoke of as a deficit in executive functioning or a mutation within a select group. Baron-Cohen (2005) investigated a gap between empirical data from cognitive neuroscience on autism and the few substantives association of Social neuroscience and autism. Your question, similarly ask, “Does the autistic child have a theory of mind” (Baron-Cohen, 2005, p7)? Baron-Cohen in this study introduces, in view of my answer, an alternative perspective on the question at hand. Their argument identifies what maybe a focus on defining, labeling as opposed to, "The Social Brain," redefining that autism's is a dysfunction, that is, as can be said to be by functioning brains, a lack of the brains ability to emphasize within the context of the carriers (child's or adult's) social functioning (2005, p7).  Therefore, the pedagogy is not a matter of the capacity the autistic brain to evolve, rather what the capability of the brain is when particular i.e., brain functions are turned off or heighten within its received cognitive elasticity.

Review this article and be sure to research some of the authors that can be found in its reference.

Baron-Cohen, S. (2005), Autism and the origins of social neuroscience. In Easton, A, & Emery, N (eds) (pp 1-26) The Cognitive Neuroscience of Social Behaviour, Psychology Press.

http://www.autismtruths.org/pdf/Autism%20and%20the%20origins%20of%20social%20neuroscience_SBC.pdf

Hello, Dr.Brown;

Thank you for the information; I will read this in the next few minutes with a hot cup of coffee!  Your input is valued; thank you again.

I have found many reported cases of autism pre Kanner in 1943.  Nevertheless, they are few and far between.  My reading is that in days of high infant mortality, autistic infants all died from common infections.  As IM dropped, they started to survive especially if they had competent mothers who were able to feed them properly and hence stop them succumbing to infection.  Hence the findings of Kanner, and others, that they tended to come from upper class families.  Nowadays, they all survive, accounting at least for some of the increased incidence of autism.

As for schizophrenia, I can't find any cases pre 18th century, for the same reason I think, those with the wrong genes died from infection in infancy.

Good morning, Mr. Gordon;

Thank you so much for your input!  I have heard of Kanner; I do need to do some extra research on him, however.  Interesting information; I will definitely research into this, as well.  Thank you again for your contribution; I deeply appreciate it!

"Attempt to evolve" is a very odd thing to say. It implies that species have the will to evolve, or that evolution is a volitional process. That is conceptually wrong. There is absolutely no evidence that species, not to say organs from one species, have a will to evolve. All evidence we have point to the evolution being the result of selection (e.g. bias in the reproductive success) of individuals carrying randomly generated variations.

In that context, autism can be studied from an evolutionary perspective. The post on this link  can provide some insight about what kind of question would be relevant within that framework.