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.
Literal interpretation of the Bible is not kosher (and that's a perfectly reasonable view, I think), but literal interpretation of the claims of the likes of Hwang Woo-suk are de-rigoeur (or at least until they are refuted, exposed as a hoax, or obsoleted by new claims or hoaxes.)
You really are too stupid to live. Did you not notice the period between "Nebraska" and "Man?" Probably not...
And, us "evo types" can even bring a lot of evidence to the debate to support "long ages."
Radiocarbon dating and archaeology contradict the young earth and flood ideas, and other forms of radiometric dating establish the actual age of the earth--some 4.5 billion years or so.
In other words, no young earth.
But, since you admit that you are wrong now, I'll let the matter rest.
I could suggrst that you get pulled and that now is the time but I will assume you are joking like you always do...
Fecal matter occurs. You admitted you were mistaken; that was good enough for me. If you want to take it further, maybe we should take this off-line...
Virginia American had in other posts (e.g. 263) seemed to be using quotes from that site to claim God couldn't do XYZ (regeneration) towards another poster, but in post 265 seemed to be backing away from making these arguments at me.
This seemed to have a *tinge* of the type of baiting engaged in by others on the cre- side of the thread.
So I decided to tweak her tail back; responding to the "ad dominum" ;-) with an ad hominem.
BTW, the question as posed on the site is a specialized case of the "If God is Good, why is there so much suffering in the world".
I hoped that Patrick Henry would take note that there do indeed exist examples of people sending anti-Christian or anti-theistic posts, from time to time, on the crevo threads. I seem to recall on other threads strong denials that anything of the sort ever happened...even though the existence of those posts is a far cry from proving that evolution is merely a stalking horse from atheism, as some of the cre's have asserted.
Cheers!
Where, pray tell, is the categorical difference?
He's baaaack...
And all he has managed to come up with in the time he's been absent is a weak variation of Pee-Wee Herman's, "I know you are but what am I?"
What do Creationists have against bassoons?
Oh yeah? First, your most recent monumental screwup was no "typo".
Second, we've already caught you on the facts more times than I can count on this thread alone, not to mention your frequent prior howlers, like this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this (Race thinks that sedimentation is no longer occurring) and this...
Here's one of my favorites: RaceBannon thinks that whales have gills.
You have been in this battle longer than I. Have you seen CRIDers to ever do anything other than dissemble or mislead?
I have yet to see anything from them that is straight up. And they claim to be Christian (following in the path of Christ). I am sure Christ approves of lying as a form of debate.
How sad to lie, to know you are lying, and yet to rationalize the lie by somehow thinking it supports a "greater truth."
*sigh* They want us to teach "angels holding airplanes aloft " as an 'alternate theory' to aerodynamics.
Not in the last half-century. It's part and parcel of the mindset.
Well, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate, I guess.
Cheers!
This seemed to have a *tinge* of the type of baiting engaged in by others on the cre- side of the thread.
Yeah, I was "yanking chains" a bit here. The specific exchange started when pageonetoo claimed his version of God could do anything.
I made an implicit challenge to him by using limb regeneration as a counterexample, paraphrasing Mark Twain. AFAIK, it's never been documented, and neither the Bible nor the lives of the saints ever claim such.
I couldn't resist linking to the atheist site because of its name.
(In fact, personally, I find the argument from evil one of the weaker antiapologetics.)
I hoped that Patrick Henry would take note that there do indeed exist examples of people sending anti-Christian or anti-theistic posts, from time to time, on the crevo threads.
It happens. I don't do it very often, but sometimes I do. So do a few others.
I seem to recall on other threads strong denials that anything of the sort ever happened...even though the existence of those posts is a far cry from proving that evolution is merely a stalking horse from atheism, as some of the cre's have asserted.
I just get tired of being preached at in lieu of substantive argument. (And that happens *lot* on these threads). Usually I count to ten, sometimes I give in to temptation.
As I said, limb regeneration has never been observed or even been claimed as a miracle.
Ding, ding, ding!
Nevermind...
Let's shake hands, and quaff a beer.
Cheers!
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.