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.
Funny, I'm very tired of dealing with all the stuff you don't know. Perhaps you need to post your demands for broomsticks to someone who cares.
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.
How about if every evo poster just ends every sentence with "... but science does not know everything yet and it's all just a theory anyway?"
As for your history, it is as confused as your original posts. You appeared for the longest time to be thinking that the original article of this thread (well, the article that the original article of this thread is about...) concerns how human brains arose from ape brains. It does not. It is about how vertebrate brains arose from invertebrate brains.
If you have a case to make that there exists some kind of problem in the former case, or in any case, you need to spell it out clearly. If you're going to keep making me guess what your problem is, my guess isn't going to be complimentary.
Many of the points I have raised have been completely unaddressed; not even so much as "try looking at this link"...
Well, I guess you win. Your Nobel awaits. Or, maybe no one knows what in bloody blue blazes you're blithering about.
Tell that to the squids, *they* use jet propulsion very efficiently.
Not only that, he will convert just about anything into those calories.
So do squids. So could a well-designed jet-propelled bird. Are you claiming that God couldn't pull that off? Blasphemy!
With a brain so small it is a couple grams or fractions of a gram in mass, he will navigate thousands of miles with it.
Irrelevant to the point under discussion. Padding your posts so soon?
So much for your bird.
So much for your post.
All based on the tooth of a pig, I think it is time you guys pulled the hands away from your own eyes!
. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Sure. Natural selection in action *is* an example of evolution. Evolution is a change in a population's genepool over time. Natural selection is one of the (many) processes which change a population's genepool. Even absent any new mutations, natural selection acting on a population still causes the population to evolve.
The human brain contains 100 billion neurons, same as the number of stars in the Milky Way. If there are 62 variables, there might be a lot of high order solutions, many of them imaginary or negative. Imaginary and negative solutions would not go well for the brain. Besides that, where in the brain does the self reside?
Of course you can't.
but this link does show Nebraska Man on the cover of other magazines.
Really? *WHAT* link? You didn't post one.
My original source might be mistaken,
Of course it might, you rely on creationist sources, which is a huge mistake if you're looking for accuracy.
for Nebraska Man was in LIFE Magazine,
It was? Feel free to document *that* if you think you can. The image you posted was actually from the Illustrated London News, in a puff piece. The artist actually modeled his imaginative drawing on REAL hominid fossils (Pithecanthropus), so it's not like he was actually basing anything on the Nebraska tooth.
Furthermore, even the discoverer of the Nebraska tooth immediately disowned the Illustrated London News illustration, saying "such a drawing or 'reconstruction' would doubtless be only a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate".
I most likely had a memory blurb and said TIME, sorry. All based on the tooth of a pig, I think it is time you guys pulled the hands away from your own eyes!
Even if you can document your *new* claim (and I won't hold my breath, when did we *ever* suggest that "Life" magazine (or for that matter, the London Illustrated News) was a reputable science journal, or accurately represented scientific findings? The *actual* scientists immediately criticized the drawing.
We have nothing to apologize for here. On the other hand, *you* need to explain how an alleged flub by "Life" magazine is somehow supposed to reflect badly on science.
Those who would like to learn the actual history of the "Nebraska Man" issue, instead of the wild creationist spin which dishonestly implies that scientists jumped to crazy conclusions or acted irresponsibly, are invited to read:
Creationist Arguments: Nebraska ManThe role of "Nebraska man" in the creation-evolution debate
hehe
Do the search yourself, Nebraska Man was in 1966 LIFE magazine
That does not seem to be grey_whisker's position or argument.
As for your history, it is as confused as your original posts. You appeared for the longest time to be thinking that the original article of this thread (well, the article that the original article of this thread is about...) concerns how human brains arose from ape brains.
He used the existence of the very wide range of brain ability (using humans at the top of the scale) to show that less brain power doesn't necessarily cause an organism to "die".
Also, the original commentary *did* mention human brains, saying that "the authors" (whether of the article or the original paper is unclear) did discuss the characteristics of the human brain.
Well, I guess you win. Your Nobel awaits. Or, maybe no one knows what in bloody blue blazes you're blithering about.
He seems genuinely interested in having the science fleshed out more, and I think your comment was uncalled for.
Why, it looks like Race is looking for The Missing Link!!!!
</hilarious esoteric evolution humor>
Man do I crack myself up!
Does a winged bird fly further on a specific weight basis?
How about an African Sparrow.
PILTDOWN MAN IS REAL. It is obviously a post-Flood human. But by the time evolutionist realized that it didn't fit the evolutionist's STORYLINE, the cat was already out of the bag. So they had to discredit it as best they could.
First, for years they didn't allow other researcher to look at the skull itself. Then they conducted a scurrilous whisper campaign against the skull, and against Dawson & Hinton, the two courageous scientist who found it.
But this wasn't enough to bury the truth. It's been estimated by reliable sources that over 500 scientific papers were published on Piltdown Man! The truth of Piltdown Man just would not go away.
Then in 1953 some evolutionist charlatan came up with the bogus "fluorine test". It sounded scientific to the masses, and it's "logic" relied on evolutionary, uniformatarian presuppositions. These scientist-so-called declared that the fluorine test proved conclusively that Piltdown Man was much too young, and that different parts of the skull were different ages anyway.
They also took the extraordinary step of allowing other scientist to look closer at the Piltdown Man skull at the museum. Conveniently, scientist then declared that the teeth were all wrong and had been filed in place. (Compare this to what happened when Sir Fred Hoyle discovered that the museum's Archaeopteryx fossil was a fake! In this case the evolutionist defended the fossil at all costs.) But of course the STORY that the teeth were filed into place is a STORY that hangs on one's presuppositions. We all have the same facts, but it's all in the interpretation of the EVIDENCE. We both know that creationists, being the TRUE SKEPTICS, are best able to interpret the facts into the best conclusions.
Anyway, back to the "scientific" fluorine test. Now, thinking people know that modern dating methods are rife with error. Who hasn't heard of the embarrassing story of the crab that was dated to 5 million years old, and then squirted the silly evolutionists scientists in the face!!!
But, alas, most people these days have had their minds fuzzed by the claims of modern science. So for all intents & purposes Piltdown Man was laid to rest. He's been so thoroughly discredited in the popular imagination that even well-meaning creationists like yourself use his supposed debunking to throw in evolutionist's faces.
It's a pity, since Piltdown Man's bones proclaim the glory of GOD. Piltdown Man is sitting up in heaven right now and sighing. But the angels are sighing with him, because it turns out that you CAN go somewhere to get your reputation back. The truth will out eventually!
PLEASE, people, don't traffic in the evolutionist's lies! The evolutionist laugh at us when we repeat their fraudulent claims. Help us resurrect Piltdown Man's proper reputation. PILTDOWN MAN IS REAL!
So be it.
If anyone wants to know what RaceBannon is trying to talk about *now* (he didn't even bother to make any argument -- which is a wise move -- he just silently posted a page from a 1952 book without comment), see:
Piltdown Man
I am not willing to encounter your negativity except to say that the scientific method is, by definition a negative discipline. It disproves thesis (theories) and never proves anything. The ancient "sciences" of phiulosophy, metaphysics, theology and, yes, poetry - see Shakespeare's profound influence on culture and wisdom - are repositories of wisdom and enlightenment. Indeed, without them modern science could not exist.
Of course you can't.
but this link does show Nebraska Man on the cover of other magazines.
Really? *WHAT* link? You didn't post one.
DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!
"Missing Link conclusively found on Free Republic Crevo thread"
Cheers!
Excuse me??
When a living population of mathematical tools start mating with theoretical physics to produce heritably different offspring who are weeded out by natural selection before growing up to replicate, then you'll have an analogy that applies to evolution. Until then, you're just one more ignoramus making a fool of yourself while dishonestly trying to deceive others with pure BS.
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.