No statistics have been dismissed whereas your claim that wikipedia cannot be used has been shown to be false as it has been used. What we can therefore assertain is that in an instance it has been used, whereas you were providing the unsubstantiated claim that it can't be used. 

As you never provided any proof whatsoever, it is now up to you to prove your original claim as the opposite has been provided for us. 

Those souces come straight from wiki, therefore why couldn't you get them from the wiki page yourself?
 You are just being pedantic.  Do you have any sort of mental handicap as your pedantic argument defies all sense?

It's ironic that you resort to patronising comments in a thread about fallacies...

It's pretty repulsive that you are attacking those with autism. Grow up.

Again, citing one example isn't enough. That's still anecdotal fallacy. You are the one that wants to use wikipedia, not me, thus you have to back up your claim that it is credible (which it isn't).

Again wikipedia is modifiable by anyone. Any wikipedia entry you cite, I can go modify. That's why you need to cite an actual source, not the source of the source. Quite ridiculous again that you can't comprehend this. It's rudimentary. Again, this could all be because you are in middle school. Maybe you haven't yet developed enough mentally in order to comprehend this. I just expected better is all because of the simplicity of it.

Actually the issue is that you have yet to provide any evidence for your claim whatsoever. His evidence hasn't been used to refute your evidence, it's been used to refute your baseless statement. 

Why are you unable to click on the references which link to peer-reviewed papers and check them out yourself? You can't alter those papers so what is the issue? 
Again with the insults...You mention simplicity yet you can't follow a hyperlink to a peer-reviewed paper...

Autism correlated with genius:

http://www.economist.com/node/13489714

I trust that resolves the matter. Educate yourself.

Wikipedia isn't credible for reasons I've cited. (Editable by anyone, not exclusive to author(s)). End of.

i am always honest in admitting, as I've shown you many times previously.

And it's not appeal to authority, I'm not saying they're right because they're scientists, I'm saying it is proven and if you'd like i will prove them to you as well. That is the opposite of appeal to authority because I'm saying if you don't take their word for it, I'll discuss it further.

Taking the the understanding that all animals are alike is as much of an appeal as saying logic works. ironically, logic can be used to prove logic works. You don't question that, now do you?

For instanve, animals have different traits

some traits are shared  by all anim

therefore there is at least one trait that all animals share.

There are some traits that all animals share is proven by

carbon based life is a trait

x has this trait

y has this trait, etc etc until all animals are listed

all animals share at least this one trait.

couple with

statements proving other traits.

You see, it's just working backwards through proven conclusions that I arrive at all animals are alike, and thereby, humans having the same traits as animals is therefore natural.

LOL

Also:
"It suggests that as many as 30% of autistic people have some sort of savant-like capability in areas such as calculation or music"

So basically at least 70% of all people with autism are just handicapped...Being mistaken for being autistic is hardly calling someone a genuis as you implied. 

The authors can't alter the peer-reviewed papers they are linking to therefore your point is completely flawed as you are acting as if every article is incorrectly referenced. Why not take it on a case-by-case basis?

Again we're dealing with semantics here. In my formal proofs, we had:

1) Claim

2) Premises

3) Deductions

4) Conclusion

Claim is what we're trying to prove. 

Premises - the knowledge base.

Conclusion should match Claim. I (Falsely) used Premise as Claim. I was incorrect. I've been out of University for a couple years, I'm rusty, but the process remains the same despite my improper usage of the word.

You still haven't addressed the entire point though, which is your strawman. It wasn't intentional, but it was there. Agree?

@Other dude, wikipedia isn't credible. End of. Again, you'll learn when you get to high school.

Sure.

Now you need to prove that for all trait t1...tn, ti(A).

From there exists to all, it is a fair stretch of the mind. Easier to disprove that all trait are not shared by all animals. Example: flying.

Once that's done, it's fair to say that there exists a trait tj such that, for an animal A, !tj(A).

If homosexuality is a trait, it is possible !tj(A).

30% is incredible in comparison to non-autistic individuals. Astonishing that you fail to realize that. And in direct rebuttal to your statement that there is no correlation. Best just to put your foot back in your mouth on this.

I'm not suggesting that the linked papers are flawed, that's my point. Cite that paper, not wiki. If wiki has a short quip and claims it is from a particular source, it may not be.

"Bats can shoot lazer beams." (Source Title)  <--- this may not say "Bats can shoot lazer beams." 

I can't make it any simpler than that. If you can't understand, perhaps you're mentally defunct.