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.

[bondserv]

Ping-A-Ling!

[Coyoteman]

===> Placemarker <===

[VadeRetro]

There's almost nothing to this "article" except sneering at the idea that variation and natural selection can somehow "optimize" an architecture. This is really trying to score points by not getting something.

The variations can be random. That's OK. What doesn't work dies. The best stuff lives and reproduces. Repeat.

[vpintheak]

I am beginning to realize that the evolutionists have more faith than any of us Christians. It is a very misguided faith true. All the harping about stories and fables that the feeble minded Christians believe is nothing compared what they believe.

[LiteKeeper]

This comes one of me three favorite web sites! Thanks for posting it!

[bondserv]

The variations can be random. That's OK. What doesn't work dies. The best stuff lives and reproduces. Repeat.

I realize that as we continue to pull the wool off of our eyes with studies like this, you are not going to acknowledge that things are looking bleak for Random Mutations and Natural Selection.

The blob of protoplasm Darwin saw has turned out to be factories beyond his imaginations capacity.

There is only more disappointment in store.

[The Worthless Miracle]

You seem to disagree with the theory of evolution because it differs with your interpretation of the Bible.

[nmh]

"I am beginning to realize that the evolutionists have more faith than any of us Christians. It is a very misguided faith true. All the harping about stories and fables that the feeble minded Christians believe is nothing compared what they believe."

That's putting it kindly.

Still, they WANT to believe. Never mind there is NO evidence to support any of their hypothesis. They weren't there and they defy the very laws they claim to have faith in.

[VadeRetro]

I realize that as we continue to pull the wool off of our eyes with studies like this...

Some creationists did a study? You mean some real scientists modeled an evolutionary scenario for the development of a feature and found a likely one. C-E Headlines spins the usual semantic games off of various word usages bolded in the quoted text. Wow! Somebody said "design." You're reaching for more wool to pad your blindfold.

[balrog666]

Quit playing games.

[Coyoteman]

Never mind there is NO evidence to support any of their hypothesis. They weren't there and they defy the very laws they claim to have faith in.

Your understanding of how science operates could be enhanced by reading and learning the following definitions (from a google search):

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

Model: a simplified framework designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process

Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)

Observation: any information collected with the senses

Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith

Faith: the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

Religion: (theistic): "1 the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2 the expression of this in worship. 3 a particular system of faith and worship." Non-Theistic: "The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life."

Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"

Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.

Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.

[Last revised 1/2/06]

[grey_whiskers]

The variations can be random. That's OK. What doesn't work dies. The best stuff lives and reproduces. Repeat.

Sigh. You're oversimplifying. There are lots of creatures with less intelligence than humans, and they do just fine.

IF OTOH you are trying to say that the observed mix of populations are the result of a rich and dynamic interplay between competition for breeding, resources, and adaptability, with a dash of good and bad luck thrown in (*)

THEN you'd get more agreement. But too often evolutionists do get intellectually lazy. To spout in response to anything that "Evolution did it", and without being able to supply more on the specific examples than hand-waving, leaves one open to the charge Feynman described in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman about the description of energy in the textbook. I turned the page. The answer was, for the wind-up toy, "Energy makes it go." And for the boy on the bicycle, "Energy makes it go." For everything "Energy makes it go." Now that doesn't mean anything. Suppose it's "Wakalixes." That's the general principle: "Wakalixes makes it go." There is no knowledge coming in. The child doesn't learn anything; it's just a word What the should have done is to look at the wind-up toy, see that there are springs inside, learn about springs, learn about wheels, and never mind "energy". Later on, when the children know something about how the toy actually works, they can discuss the more general principles of energy. It is also not even true that "energy makes it go", because if it stops, you could say, "energy makes it stop" just as well. What they're talking about is concentrated energy being transformed into more dilute forms, which is a very subtle aspect of energy. Energy is neither increased nor decreased in these examples; it's just changed from one form to another. And when the things stop, the energy is changed into heat, into general chaos.

(Link to that chapter here.

Cheers! (*)(not too many animals can adapt in time to a cataclysmic Earth-meteor collision, so only the *lucky few* who happened beforehand to have the right tools to thrive in the aftermath made it)_

[GOPJ]

bump

[Ma3lst0rm]

Did someone tinker? lol I read this article a few days ago. I agree with your analysis, though I'm sure plenty of "conservatives" will rush to pelt you with stones. The problem I see is, given that evolution being an essentially "unguided" process only controlled by the falling together of conditions to produce advantageous results, when these researchers personify the process with assumptions about how such advantageous results and systems developed, they are revealing a heavy bias against the most straightforward conclusions. “Occam's Razor” is often given lip service but much like the same given to a pretty prostitute it is fleeting as the dollars in a young man's pocket. They would rather make up just so stories and call it science.

Here is a link worth visiting. (I was surprised that such a finding wasn't big news, but what do I know?)

Human Brain Evolution Was a 'Special Event'
http://www.hhmi.org/news/lahn3.html

[bondserv]

You're reaching for more wool to pad your blindfold.

Touché. :-)

Do you think Darwin underestimated the complexity of biology? Could his misgivings, even back then, have been a showstopper for his theory if he had known what we know today?

I believe the hesitancy he exhibited would have caused him to harpoon his own theory if he was exposed to modern understandings of complexity.

[Ma3lst0rm]

[Ma3lst0rm]

Darwin, I believe if he were alive today, would be ashamed of his progeny.

[js1138]

Your understanding of how science operates could be enhanced by reading and learning...

The odds against this happening are greater than 1⁷²⁰ to 1.

[VadeRetro]

Sigh. You're oversimplifying. There are lots of creatures with less intelligence than humans, and they do just fine.

All of them have less. As you suggest, this can be OK. Intelligence is one of the things that works. Size is another. Speed is another. Armor is another. There are lots of things that can work.

I think you're mistaking the issue here, or I was. It shouldn't be whether intelligence works. Anyway, most or all vertebrates have the brain architecture herein depicted, so it isn't about human levels of intelligence.

THEN you'd get more agreement. But too often evolutionists do get intellectually lazy. To spout in response to anything that "Evolution did it", and without being able to supply more on the specific examples than hand-waving, leaves one open to the charge Feynman described in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman about the description of energy in the textbook.

There is no closing all the avenues of attack. You're naive if you think this is about logic or evidence for the creationists.

The study in question was about what is being optimized by the gray-white cortex-stem arrangement. There is no real question that variation and selection produce optimization, except when creationists forget that they supposedly accept that much.