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.
Posted on 01/14/2006 8:31:15 PM PST by 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.
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.
It's easer when you have your friends with presents:
It's amazing how often creationists repeat this outright lie, and how easy it is to refute them: An earlier post on transitional fossils, and tons of evidence for evolution, and yet more tons of evidence for evolution.
Of course, RaceBannon has *already* been shown transitional fossils many times before, including my prior posts to him here and here. So one has to wonder just how he, like most anti-evolutionits, manages to return time and time again and pretend that there are "absolutely no transitional forms"...
You can include me on the FreepMails as well, if you wish. I'll be glad to help if I can.
OK by me. My specialty is more on the bones side, so I can't help you much on the "soft" sciences (genetics, brain studies, chemistry, etc.). ;-)
that doesnt mean that the virus evolved, but that some of the virusus never were affected and replicated
Race, even *that* would be an example of evolution in action...
But tell you what, why don't you put your anti-evolution beliefs to the test? I'll bet you $50 (to be donated by the loser to FreeRepublic) that sometime before July 1 2006, a specific DNA mutation in the flu virus which confers resistance to these two antibiotics (amantadine and rimantadine) will be identified by researchers.
(Any other anti-evolutionists who want a piece of this action are invited to accept the bet as well.)
Deal?
The best way to do this, if JR will agree, is to have both sides send the stakes sent to JR now. Then JR can give a refund to the winner -- or whatever the winner prefers. If this isn't done, the winner will forever be chasing the loser around to pay up, and that's no fun.
tinkerbump
evolution will never be true. There is NO, absolutely NO evidence to support it - ZILCHO! There never will be
The evidence doesn't support evolution. There has not been one fossil to indicate a "transition". Not one.
Need I also mention the fatally flawed dating methods - it's like out come based education - through your flawed methods you have predetermined the outcome - which still makes evolution laughably false! What I find even more amusing is the very "laws of science" you claim to worship utterly defy that evolution is a possibility. Evolutionary hypothesis utterly defy these very laws.
Hey, feel free to list these "laws of science" which "utterly defy that evolution is a possibility". This should be amusing!
Just make sure you don't re-use any of these dusty old creationist idiocies, we've seen (and debunked) them all before, and they've gotten boring. If you're going to try to support your silly and false claims, at least do it with some *new* idiocies, please.
If you ever get curious, there are a lot of stages of brain development visible in comparative anatomy and embryology. Primitive chordates, animals with the barest swelling at the forward end of the brain, true but primitive vertebrates, etc.
I post 4 I was describing the mechanism of evolution and any oversimplification is truly slight. Furthermore, most creationists don't know it even if they've seen it four thousand times.
It is very hard to tell what you have been talking about. Try not to lecture from a position of total pig-ignorance.
On the contrary, that part's the most fun of all!
Having the loser pay up: Satisfying.
Having a never-ending example of the loser being a dishonorable complete weasel: Priceless!
Theories are comprised of beliefs. The distinction between evolution, CS, and ID is not so clear cut. But what are the differences? That depends on the working definitions of those who might care to comment. In every case exceptions can be made. I maintain that much of evolution a priori omits a higher intelligent being as within its purview, while ID refrains from such an omission on the grounds that science is not qualified to make that judgment.
They are to anyone who has looked into the matter.
But what are the differences? That depends on the working definitions of those who might care to comment. In every case exceptions can be made.
Not unless you're willing to abandon all standards.
I maintain that much of evolution a priori omits a higher intelligent being as within its purview, while ID refrains from such an omission on the grounds that science is not qualified to make that judgment.
Not so.
Critique of “Intelligent Design” (ID)Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District
The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance
Ichneumon, why don't you post the definition of evolution vs. natural selection too?
Yes, I know that Race is a multiple ignorer of definitions, photos, and links which explicitly answer him, but there *do* tend to be lurkers on these threads as well...
Cheers!
PH, I second your motion. Tasteful, classy, and prevents a multitude of problems down the road.
Cheers!
I was neither lecturing, nor coming from a position of total pig-ignorance.
In fact, I went out of my way in post 118 to give the posting history. Included in this post was a re-quote of one of my statements that the lack of a detailed mechanism was just fine, as long as it was specified that as of yet, the details were not fleshed out. This is the opposite of lecturing; and the "ignorance" if you wish to use that word was handled by asking explicitly for more information.
Try re-reading only my posts in the thread. Many of the points I have raised have been completely unaddressed; not even so much as "try looking at this link" or "your categories are wrong, the idea you quote was supplanted twenty years ago by XXX" or anything of the sort. Again, look at Coyoteman's posts to me in 96 and or 97 for examples.
If you do have specific questions about the meaning of my earlier posts, please italicize the sentence(s) you didn't get, and a brief explanation of what was unclear.
Civil discourse is always appreciated.
Cheers!
Yes, but when a winged-bird divebombs your car, you just have to go to the carwash, and not dig the shards out of a crater.
Cheers!
No, it's not an example of evolution at all, even Humans adapt to different bugs that affect them through anti-bodies, dont they?
Well, that is NOT evolution
In fact, no one genuinely understands just how complex a virus is anyways, it is almost considered a lifeform of itself, correct?
To be able to adapt like humans do when they develop antibodies is NOT evolution! It is a DESIGNED in strength for survival, no more than antibodies are, IF that is the type of defense viruses are developing!
After all, at the present time, there is NO WAY to prove it is a genuine adaptation of previously infected individual virus spores that DIDNT DIE when exposed to the drugs, it is NEW viruses that appear that are not affected, ...right?
Otherwise, show me the study where individual virus spores are exposed to a germ, die, and their offspring are immune to the same exposure.
Else, my argument is correct: MOST die, but SOME are already immune to that exposure! All the ones left of that type virus are the ones that are immune, not ones that were exposed and mutated!
Show me the ones exposed and mutated due to the exposure and you might have a case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.