Why Your Brain Has Gray Matter, and Why You Should Use It (Darwinian Evolution's Foolishness)

Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | 1/13/2006 | Creation-Evolution Headlines Staff

[bondserv]

Why Your Brain Has Gray Matter, and Why You Should Use It   01/13/2006    
Vertebrate brains have an outer layer of “gray matter” over the inner “white matter.”  Why is this?  “By borrowing mathematical tools from theoretical physics,” a press release from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory announced, two researchers found out.

Based on no fewer than 62 mathematical equations and expressions, the theory provides a possible explanation for the structure of various regions including the cerebral cortex and spinal cord.  The theory is based on the idea that maximum brain function requires a high level of interconnectivity among brain neurons but a low level of delays in the time it takes for signals to move through the brain.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Their paper was published in PLoS Computational Biology.¹  Despite the implicit deduction that the brain appears optimally designed, the authors looked to the random, unguided processes of evolution to explain how it got that way.  Notice the first word in this next sentence: “Assuming that evolution maximized brain functionality, what is the reason for such segregation?”  they asked.  Did the claim of evolution ever get past the assumption stage?

Gray matter contains neuron somata, synapses, and local wiring, such as dendrites and mostly nonmyelinated axons.  White matter contains global, and in large brains mostly myelinated, axons that implement global communication.  What is the evolutionary advantage of such segregation?  Networks with the same local and global connectivity could be wired so that global and local connections are finely intermixed.  Since such design is not observed, and invoking an evolutionary accident as an explanation has agnostic flavor, we searched for an explanation based on the optimization approach, which is rooted in the evolutionary theory.

Their use of the term agnostic is not what most people think (i.e., uncertainty about the existence of God), but a-gnostic, or “not knowing.”  They recognize that saying it was a lucky accident is a non-answer.  Rather, they assumed that evolutionary theory provides a pathway through the randomness toward optimization.  They stated again that this was their starting assumption:

We started with the assumption that evolution “tinkered” with brain design [sic] to maximize its functionality.  Brain functionality must benefit from higher synaptic connectivity, because synaptic connections are central for information processing as well as learning and memory, thought to manifest in synaptic modifications.  However, increasing connectivity requires adding wiring to the network, which comes at a cost.  The cost of wiring is due to metabolic energy required for maintenance and conduction, guidance mechanisms in development, conduction time delays and attenuation, and wiring volume.

Sounds like a lot of engineering talk.  The scientists assumed, but did not demonstrate in this paper,² that natural selection was up to the task of yielding this optimized entity sometimes called the most complex assemblage of matter in the known universe.

---

¹Quan Wen and Dmitri B. Chlovskii, “Segregation of the Brain into Gray and White Matter: A Design Minimizing Conduction Delays,” Public Library of Science Computational Biology, Volume 1 | Issue 7 | December 2005.
²Here are the only other mentions of evolution in this paper:

• “Although wiring volume minimization is an important factor in the evolution of brain design, [earlier] results remain inconclusive...”
• “Finally, it is likely that, in the course of evolution, minimization of conduction delay was accompanied by the increase in connectivity.”
• “In a neurobiological context this means a combination of high computational power in local circuits with fast global communication.  Thus it is not surprising that evolution adopted this architecture when the size of the network made all-to-all connectivity impractical.”
• “Although we do not know whether competing desiderata of short time delay and high interconnectivity were crucial factors driving evolution of vertebrate brains, our theory makes testable predictions.  Below, we compare these predictions with known anatomical facts.”  (These concerned measurements of cortical thickness and brain size among various vertebrates.)
• “In general, the evolutionary cost is likely to include both the volume and the time delay.”

In none of these references to evolution were specific details provided about how the variations occurred, how they added up, and how they converged on a variety of vertebrate brains, each composed of billions of neurons that function together as an optimized unit.

Brains are mathematically perfect for achieving the sweet spot between maximized interconnectivity and minimized transmission delays.  The authors reminded us that a human brain contains about 10 billion neurons, and that each one can contain thousands of connections with other neurons.  The two-layer structure meets the competing requirements to a T.  That part is amazing.  Assuming that evolution did it earns this entry the Dumb award – really dumb.
    Here again we are told about another apparition of the goddess of the Darwin Party, Tinker Bell.  As the legend goes, she flitted aimlessly around the Cambrian swamps about 500 million years ago, zapping some emerging vertebrates with her mutation wand, killing countless myriads of them till one emerged lucky enough to have the beginnings of an optimized brain.  As animals evolved, this process was repeated myriads of times more over millions of years, producing larger and more complex brains.  Finally, at the end of the line, computational biologists emerged who could look back and analyze the whole process with abstract reasoning and mathematical equations, concluding that evolution had produced an optimized brain.  Let us ask these true believers a simple question.  If the brain evolved, how can you be sure of anything, including the proposition that the brain evolved?  (From experience, we know that posing this type of question to a Darwinist is like putting a moron in a round room and telling him there is a penny in the corner.)
    By assuming evolution at the outset, these computational evolutionists have provided as much insight into the origin of the brain as the vain mathematician did in the “assume we have a can opener” joke in the 12/17/2005 commentary.  Their logic is as follows: Assume evolution produces optimized structures.  An optimized brain would be structured so as to maximize interconnectivity and minimize delays.  The brains we observe accomplish this by segregating highly-connected neurons in a gray matter layer and long axons in a white matter layer, thus fulfilling both requirements in an exquisite product that is the most complex device in the universe, that took us 62 simultaneous equations to describe.  Isn’t evolution wonderful?
    Undoubtedly this paper will be dutifully added to the growing corpus of scripture that the Darwin Party can hold up at school board meetings to show that the peer-reviewed scientific journals are filled with evidence for evolution, and that nothing in biology would make sense without it.  Anyone raising his hand and saying, but to me, that looks like design would be quickly answered with, “Excuse me, we are talking about science here.  If you want to change the subject to religion, go to church.”
    Assumption is the mother of all myths.  Perhaps you have heard the etymology of the word ASSUME: making an ASS (donkey) out of U and ME.  Having gray matter is one thing.  Using it is another.

[grey_whiskers]

The fossil record won't give you molecular data on anything back very far. You can say what the cranial capacity is by such-and-such a time, size of the Broca's area, etc. You may have some evidence for tool-making, ceremonial burial, or not. But you have extant branch tips and their molecular differences, so it's not a total loss. I see no point in not studying what you have because of what you don't.

OK, but that isn't what I said. I was saying that a lack of observable brain tissue means that a lot of very useful and elucidating information is unavailable, darn it!

Also, it's pretty crazy to pretend something didn't happen because you can't reconstruct exactly in a mutation-by-mutation historical scenario how it did when you have quite a lot of evidence that it did, a general theory of how such things occur, and evidence that evolutionary changes have happened repeatedly and are happening now.

I'm not pretending it didn't happen; I'm pointing out that the lack of a detailed mechanism ought to lead to a little more cirumspection in the "presentation" of things. Please re-read the remark about stoichiometry and atomic theory.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

(I just can't imagine big numbers like 1 to the power of infinity!)

[VadeRetro]

I don't have a clue about cortex, nor do I particularly care about it as a topic of conversation.

Perhaps you did not realize that cortex is gray matter and your brain stem, medulla, spine, and peripheral nerves are myelinated white matter. The article mangled by C-E Headlines would appear to be about what pressures might drive the evolution of such a feature.

[grey_whiskers]

Perhaps you did not realize that cortex is gray matter and your brain stem, medulla, spine, and peripheral nerves are myelinated white matter. The article mangled by C-E Headlines would appear to be about what pressures might drive the evolution of such a feature.

I was much more interested in the differentiation between local and global connections; and that within the brain proper. See the earlier remark about supercomputers.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

I don't think "maximum brain function" means human levels of intelligence. It means "cortex"-style mediation with reasonable response times. The architecture is ancient. Humans have a particularly evolved and derived version which has lots of overall volume and crinkling within the volume to create cortical surface area. I personally find it unlikely that human evolution tampered with the basic gray/white matter architecture since it seldom plays with the ancient, basic features in evolving new ones. Such features tend to be highly conserved as mucking with them has a huge ratio of unfavorable to favorable results.

Remind me to reply later--my wife is making me get off the computer :-(

Cheers!

[VadeRetro]

I'm not pretending it didn't happen; I'm pointing out that the lack of a detailed mechanism ought to lead to a little more cirumspection in the "presentation" of things. Please re-read the remark about stoichiometry and atomic theory.

There was nothing wrong with my first post to bondserv that I see even now. Your objection remains confused, incomprehensible, and apparently off-point.

[sakic]

Creationists with zero evidence criticizing people who believe in evolution which at worst has some science behind it. At best, a lot of science.

Still waiting for an argument based on science rather than blind faith from a Creationist.

Lost among all of this remains the possibility that there was a creator who created evolution. None of you can definitively prove me wrong or right on that statement.

[RaceBannon]

Nebraska man made the front page of TIME magazine!!

You guys are hilarious!!

[RaceBannon]

Top 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Evolution Bias References

EVIDENCE #1

There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

Absolutely no transitional forms either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. All appear fully formed and complete. The fossil record amply supplies us with representation of almost all species of animals and plants but none of the supposed links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, or reptile to birds and mammals are represented nor any transitional forms at all. There are essentially the same gaps between all the basic kinds in the fossil record as exists in plant and animal life today. There are literally a host of missing links in the fossil record and the modern world.

1. "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found." For example, "the evolutionist claims that it took perhaps fifty million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibian. But, again, there are no transitional forms. For example, not a single fossil with part fins...part feet has been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind." ([22], p.19)
2. "Nowhere do we see animals with partially evolved legs, eyes, brains, or various other tissues, organs, and biological structures." ([22], p.19-20)
3. "If continuous evolution is a universal law of nature, as the evolutionist claims, then there should be an abundance of evidences of continuity and transition between all the kinds of organisms involved in the process, both in the present world and in the fossil record. Instead we find great gaps between all the basic kinds, and essentially the same gaps in the fossil record that exist in the modern world." ([18], p.34)
4. There are no links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to birds and mammals. There are no links whatsoever.
5. "All of the present orders, classes, and phyla appear quite suddenly in the fossil record, without indications of the evolving lines from which they developed. The same is largely true even for most families and genera. There are literally an innumerable host of `missing links' in the record." ([18] , p.33)
6. "There is simply no evidence of partially evolved animals or plants in the fossil record to indicate that evolution has occurred in the past, and certainly no evidence of partially evolved animals and plants existing today to indicate that evolution is occurring at the present." ([22], p.20)
7. "...the outstanding characteristics of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution." ([11], p.50)
8. If there were links then they would have been found since the fossil record is "...quite ample to represent the true state of the ancient world. Most individual species of fossil plants and animals have been collected in considerable numbers, but the hypothetical intermediate species have never been represented at all!" ([18], p.33)
9. Darwin stated, "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" ([11], p.46)
10. Darwin admitted that the number of transitional links "must have been conceivably great." The fact that there are none prompted him to conclude that this fact is "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
11. "The occasional suggested examples of missing links (such as the famous archaeopteryx - supposedly linking the birds and reptiles) can usually be recognized on closer study to represent merely another type of one of the basic kinds it supposedly links (the archaeopteryx was a true bird, by any reasonable definition, with feathers and warm blood)." ([18], p.33-34)
12. "Even if a creature shared characteristics belonging to two separate groups, however, this would not necessarily make it a transitional link as long as each of the characteristics themselves is complete and not in the process of transition from one type of structure or function into another type of structure or function." ([22], p.25)
13. "Because of the lack of evidence for gradual evolution in the fossil record, more and more evolutionists are adopting a new theory of evolution known as macroevolution. The theory of macroevolution teaches that animals and plants changed suddenly from one kind to another without going through any gradual or transitional process."
14. Other evolutionists claim that the links are missing only because the changes are so small that they are not noticed. The problem here is that they are assuming that at every point in the evolution process the being would appear as complete or whole. Actually, they would appear as in transition as when a house is being built.
15. "The point to remember...is that the fossil problem for Darwinism is getting worse all the time." ([11], p.57)

Top 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Evolution Bias References

---

Last revised: Dec 29, 1995

Go to Creation Science home page

[VadeRetro]

I was much more interested in the differentiation between local and global connections; and that within the brain proper.

White (myelinated) matter is global connectivity. Fast transmission along the very long myelinated axons. Gray matter is local networking, octopus cells with lots of dendrites and synaptic connections with neighboring cells.

[RaceBannon]

You are so delusional, your points are refuted each time you open your mouth

And stop lying like a 12 year old, it is really getting old.

[pageonetoo]

Or perhaps like most anti-evoluionists, you're so blinded by your fear that you don't *want* to understand.

I just love the way you berate the people who disagree with your conclusions. /s You leave no possibilityforf other explanations, because you accept the dogma of evolutionary "science". Good for you.

Faith is secular, just as it is religious. Understanding the theories of scientists does nothing to confirm the evidence presented. Evey one of the "laws" of science are subject to varieties of interpretations. When the high priests differ on their facts, (you know, the Nobel lauriates, etc) one is scoffed and ridiculed until someone proves it to be wrong. Often, it is mere acceptance of a theory, properly "reasoned" that makes the difference.

I honestly don't know how to "beleive". I do believe in God, and have no problem accepting His CREATION of this universe. It makes a lot more sense than the ramblings of all you "ex-spurts"!

If my God exists, He is able to do anything. He can stop the sun, part the sea, or heal the blind. Natural laws do not apply, except as He allows, or mandates.

If He does not exist, this universe is just an accident. I don't "believe" it is an accident. Do you believe in God?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Nebraska man made the front page of TIME magazine!!"

When? Links please.

Why should I go through a point by point rebuttal of your next post, when you have not answered ONE of my points here?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549524/posts?q=1&&page=110

You said there that you didn't have to answer anything, that I must bow down to you, and that it did not matter if the quotes you used were correct or not, they stood. Why don't you stop lying and debate like an adult?



"You are so delusional, your points are refuted each time you open your mouth."

Not by you they haven't been. You are too much a coward to debate anything. You post and run. Typical creationist. And when you DO respond, you respond with 7 year old responses like this:

"Are you gay too? Evolution allows for that..."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549524/posts?q=1&&page=371

[Philistone]

Uhm...

How could one fossil indicate a transition?

Wouldn't you need at least two?

Or do you mean "one fossil" that is exactly between two others?

Your point doesn't make any sense.

[Ichneumon]

[Or perhaps like most anti-evoluionists, you're so blinded by your fear that you don't *want* to understand.]

I just love the way you berate the people who disagree with your conclusions.

That's not what I was doing in that post. Try reading it again. If you're still unclear afterwards, feel free to ask me and I'll be glad to explain it to you in small words.

Hint: I wasn't talking about "people who disagree with my conclusions", I was talking about people who *misrepresent* my conclusions, and my reasons for them.

And look, here you are doing the same thing:

You leave no possibilityforf other explanations, because you accept the dogma of evolutionary "science".

Utter nonsense. Stop telling lies about me and my motivations, and I'll stop "berating" you for it.

Faith is secular, just as it is religious.

It does not follow, however, that every secular belief is equivalent to "faith". This is the bizarre mistake all too many of the "faithful" make. They think that just because *they* use faith as the basis for their beliefs, that *everyone* does likewise. Horse manure.

Understanding the theories of scientists does nothing to confirm the evidence presented.

Of course not. what *does* confirm the evidence/theories is the results of verification/falsification tests.

Evey one of the "laws" of science are subject to varieties of interpretations.

But then those "varieties of interpretations" are subject to verification/falsication tests in order to determine which of them hold water and which of them are in error.

When the high priests differ on their facts, (you know, the Nobel lauriates, etc) one is scoffed and ridiculed until someone proves it to be wrong.

There you go again -- no one in science are "high priests". You again make the mistake of thinking that everyone sees the world the way a dogmatic theist does. This is false.

Often, it is mere acceptance of a theory, properly "reasoned" that makes the difference.

Wrong again. Try to learn something about science before you make more false claims about it.

I honestly don't know how to "beleive".

Thanks for sharing.

I do believe in God, and have no problem accepting His CREATION of this universe. It makes a lot more sense than the ramblings of all you "ex-spurts"!

Feel free to believe whatever you're able to find sensible.

If my God exists, He is able to do anything. He can stop the sun, part the sea, or heal the blind. Natural laws do not apply, except as He allows, or mandates.

If Superman exists, he is able to fly fast enough to go back in time.

If He does not exist, this universe is just an accident.

That conclusion does not follow from your premise.

I don't "believe" it is an accident.

Neither do I, but probably not in the same way you mean it.

[grey_whiskers]

There was nothing wrong with my first post to bondserv that I see even now. Your objection remains confused, incomprehensible, and apparently off-point.

No, it never was confused, nor incomprehensible, nor even yet off-point.

I was originally responding to a subset of your remarks in post 4, " The variations can be random. That's OK. What doesn't work dies. The best stuff lives and reproduces. Repeat."

So much for off-point. I noted that your remark in and of itself was oversimplyfying matters regarding brain development. This was in post 13. I then segued into a questions regarding the mechanism of the development.

As far as incomprehensible, I'm not sure that's true. Coyoteman in posts 96-97 responded to my questions, more or less on-topic, without calling them incomprehensible or off-topic. Are you really saying that it is incomprehensible, or off-topic, to ask for details of a specific mechanism for the increased complexity of the human brain as opposed to non-human primates? And my remarks were not creationist troll-baiting, either. I explicitly said that if no-one happened to have a detailed mechanism yet, that's cool. See the paragraph in my post 94 beginning with "If, OTOH, we just have the skulls ..."

Or are you basing your statements on a comparison of ALL of my posts merely to your post #4? I generally try to excerpt the relevant portion of the post I reply to, in order to prevent just such confusions.

Willing to continue discussion, but declining any apparent invitation to a flamewar.

Cheers!

[airforceF4]

That's not a testable hypothesis. These drugs are not effective now, today, when last year and the years before they were extremely useful and effective. When one looks at a figure in the area of 90% effectiveness that has been reduced so drastically, something happened. Wonder what it is? If ID really is a science, there ought to be a hypothesis or two forthcoming to explain this...I'm still waiting to hear it.

[grey_whiskers]

A couple of points here.

First, there is the possibility that the larger brain did not evolve for intelligence as much as for better memory. Persistence hunting requires more memory than plucking fruits off the trees.

Do you mind if I freepmail you about this? I have some rather convoluted questions in mind, and I'd rather not have people accidentally jumping to conclusions while I'm setting up the background for the questions.

Flame wars suck, reasoned discussion is fun.

Cheers!