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.
Sounds good to me!
Actually, there are a lot of FReepers, evos, creos, whoknows, that I'd like to share a drink with.
A guy I knew was the son of a Physics professor. On the final, there was a particularly tricky problem.
One of the students, not even trying the problem, wrote "God only knows."
The paper came back marked, "God Passes. You FAIL."
There was an even better one I saw at the University of Minnesota, from an organic chem class, about "the mechanism for acid-catalyzed hyrdolysis of an enamine, include the motion of the electrons."
The student drew a little cartoon stick figure looking like a tribble (from Star Trek) with legs. A beaker of acid is then spilled on the figure, which looks up, alarmed, and cartoon exclamation points on its head. A jumbled cloud appears, while in the distance a bunch of electrons are zig-zagging about. Then in the last panel, a slightly different tribble appears (wearing a ribbon in its hair), and the caption "No longer an enamine. Now it's an enaNIECE."
Cheers!
Well, if by "CRIDer" you mean "creationist or IDer" in the broad sense, then yeah, I've met a lot of honest ones, since that covers Christians in general and people from other religions. Most are ordinary and honest people, and either accept evolution and oher fields of science without fuss, or perhaps ignore the subject on the whole.
However, you probably mean "CRIDer" in the same sense I mean "AECreationist" ("anti-evolution creationist"). That's also what people generally mean when they just use the word "creationist" as well, but I try to avoid that term (not always successfully) since it can be misinterpreted in the more broad sense, and give offense where it was not intended.
I'm also not talking about people who are just unconvinced of evolution due to lack of familiarity with the topic, and who might say something skeptical of evolution in the rare times when the topic might come up in passing. I'm talking about the people who have a strong opinion on the matter, are convinced that evolution is bunk, and want to help "inform" the rest of us poor deluded souls. ANTI-evolutionists in the full sense.
So to answer your question about the anti-evolutionists... I've been following this issue for around thirty years. I have met a very few who really do try to be forthright, but they don't last long. They either soon learn that the claims of the other "CRIDers" are full of falsehoods and end up no longer being a "CRIDer" themselves (people *do* sometimes change their minds on this topic), or they get agitated when faced with the fact that much of the "CRIDer" material they beleve is hooey, and basically "decide to agree to disagree" and disengage from the debate to protect their beliefs from a collision with contrary evidence.
However, the vast majority who are left, like 96+%, do really seem to have some sort of deep "honesty problem". They show no shame when caught telling a falsehood, and come back and make the same claims later as if nothing had ever happened. They're entirely unphased by being shown facts which torpedo their claims -- they often don't even engage the rebutals they just employ some hand-waving variation of "that doesn't matter" or "that don't prove nothin'". And in classic examples of "psychological projection" (expecting other people to be just like themselves) they frequently accuse *other* people of being liars even for just providing citations or stating a contrary opinion, etc. When faced with questions which pin them down on a falsehood, they will ignore, dodge, divert, bluster, or attack rather than deal head-on with it or give straight answers or admit "defeat" on even a small point. They will on occasion admit error on the truly trivial, as you-know-who has done on this thread regarding the "Life 1966" description, BUT they'll still insist that they're absolutely correct on absolutely everything else (e.g. the current, "but Life still published it just like I said, in some *other* year, even though I won't document it!")
As I've stated previously, this kind of callous disregard for accuracy and honesty is so common -- almost universal -- that it almost seems a *requirement* for being an anti-evolutionist.
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."
I'm of two minds on this. Part of the time I think they know exactly what they're doing. But at other times I think that the real problem may be that they're lying to *themselves* more than anyone, and actually (at some level of consciousness) believe their own rationalizations (which are cooked up by some other part of their brain).
This latter scenario would certainly explain some things, like why they continue to waffle even when it's clear that *no* one is buying it, and why they get so emotionally agitated/belligerent when an argument is collapsing on them. It could also be responsible for another almost universal AEC trait -- abysmal reading comprehension, at least on topics they don't *want* to think about too hard. In an earlier post I speculated that this might even be due to some kind of actual defect, in a manner similar to dyslexia, which disrupts normal cognition and spawns the other ubiquitous behaviors.
Or maybe I'm overanalyzing, and it's just the normal human ability to rationalize away an unpleasant realization, writ large. An essay on the ability of AECs to "not see what they don't want to see" (from a formerly afflicted recovering AEC) makes the point that there's a desperation that occurs in people when they find themselves on the verge of a thought that they believe can lead them to eternal damnation... Mentally they'll pull the internal fire alarm and scramble for any rationalization or mental gymnatics that allow them to avoid the "danger".
In any case, yes, I have noticed that most of the anti-evolution warriors have a problem with honesty.
Same here. On other threads (on other topics) I've found myself in strong agreement and brotherhood with some of the same folks I tangle with on *this* topic. I'm sure I'd have a good time having a beer with them as well, as long as we stayed away from this subject. :-)
When we were facing evacuation from hurricane Rita, I received a wonderful FreepMail from someone I've tussled with before, inviting my family to stay at his house if we had to evacuate and couldn't find a place to stay. (We ended up not having to evacuate after all when Rita changed course.) And back when RaceBannon was experiencing a real-life problem, I offered him whatever support he might be able to use.
We should never forget that despite often violent disagreements on specific issues, we have much more in common than not as conservatives, not to mention our common humanity.
Total agreement.
I read a lot of other threads, but don't post to them as much as I do to the crevo ones - that's often because I agree and have nothing to add.
I think you may have just posted the CREVO-war Manifesto. I am not sure if I get credit for the term "CRIDer," since I think I saw it on some thread somewhere. But I will hang onto the authoring rights until the real author comes along to claim it ;) To wit:
When faced with questions which pin them down on a falsehood, they will ignore, dodge, divert, bluster, or attack rather than deal head-on with it or give straight answers or admit "defeat" on even a small point. They will on occasion admit error on the truly trivial, as you-know-who has done on this thread regarding the "Life 1966" description, BUT they'll still insist that they're absolutely correct on absolutely everything else (e.g. the current, "but Life still published it just like I said, in some *other* year, even though I won't document it!")
Well, I will continue to hound them about their logical fallacies, and I am thinking about not letting them skip out. It is hard work, which is why I addressed this to you.
Think of me as your tail gunner. I can't do all the scientific argumentation -- I am a logician by trade. But I can clearly see the lies and distortions the CRIDers use. And I can continue to call them out and make them accountable for their dishonesty.
I keep joking about a "tote board" of logical fallacies. If if get a few minutes away from work, I might BUILD one.
When I do, you and the rest of the folks will certainly enjoy the fact-based totals, I hope!
:)
That's exactly my reaction as well. In fact that's what kept me from just blindly rejecting them altogether and instead search for what's REALLY bothering them. That's why I was able to realize that creationism was NOT part & parcel of conservatism, but rather a parasitical belief system trying to take root within the conservative coalition. ("IOW, a cancer on conservatism.")
"God designed beer" placemark
Your experience is far more extensive than mine, but it's certainly consistent with what we see around here. One additional thing that I've noticed -- and I can't even estimate how many times it happens -- is that a creationist newbie (new to these threads) will pop in, ask a question, receive a factual answer, and then he vanishes -- never to return. Sometimes the newbie will be a sneering, hit-n-run jackass who dumps something from a creationist website and then runs away. I'm not talking about such poop-throwers.
The people I'm thinking of seem to be sincere in their creationist beliefs, and although they don't hang around long enough for anyone to form a definitive opinion about them, they seem genuinely shocked when they get substantive answers. I'm sometimes tempted to go after such people and ask them: "What did you think? Why don't you come back? What's happening to your belief system?"
There's a kind of selection filter going on here. Some people choose retreat when they learn -- contrary to what they've been told all their lives -- that there is a strong, verifiable, fact-based body of knowledge which challenges their beliefs (about the Flood, or whatever). These runaways are the honest ones, by which I mean that they don't want to engage in a contest they realize they're not equipped to handle. No one around here has any quarrel with a truly honest "creationist by faith" type of person. But those creationists (the hard-core, full-blown anti-evos) who pass through that filter, and who stick around to do the spiritual warfare dance, well ... lack of honesty is probably their least serious problem.
Those people get a sermon from a pass the plate preacher who refers them to some lying creationist pamphlet and as long as they never make real contact with a real scientist or science student, they can spend the rest of their lives believing a lie. In the off line world, they tend to avoid "nonbelievers" and people with any sense tend to avoid engaging them in an argument. When they post in a public forum however, they run head first into people who can put simple indisputable facts in front of them and counter each one of the lies they've been led to believe. It can't be easy dealing with the fact that the preacher you trusted your faith and indeed, your very soul with was not only lying to you but deliberately setting you up to make a fool out of yourself in public.
The twist is that there's nothing about evolution that attacks religion in the first place. It's merely an observation of the ongoing changes interbreeding populations make when forced to adapt to changes in their environment.
"Nebraska Man" was never on the cover of Life Magazine, not in 1922, not in any year.
Your picture was published in 1922, but in a British Magazine, the Illustrated London News, and not so far as I know on the "cover".
Ich, it's clearly the first use of ip notation in evolutionary theory. Nebraska dot man. Get it?
*PLEASE* tell me you're not this stupid...
Oh dear. With a creationist, guess an IQ, then divide by two.
On ramp for my giant intellect. \:o}
To be fair, I've seen Leftists with the same mindset.
Exactly so. My Holy Warrior Syndrome hypothesis: all militancy flirts with insanity.
Only if considering all relevant history and facts is "covering your eyes". Your account is filled with misstatements of fact.
Piltdown was fraudulent, a designed hoax, but there was no fraud whatsoever involved with Hesperopithecus (Nebraska Man). The latter was simply a mistake, quickly corrected by the original researchers.
"TOTALLY ACCEPTED" is at least misleading with respect to Piltdown. It was eventually accepted by consensus, but only because the hoaxer used left over materials to engineer a second find. The reason for this (probably not originally planned) second find was that a majority of the world's leading anthropologists initially REJECTED Piltdown as a single creature, in most cases arguing instead that it was a fortuitous association of a human skull and an ape's jaw. But two associations, the latter of material linking the skull and jaw, could not be explained by chance and so most of the critics relented.
"TOTALLY ACCEPTED" is wildly false in the case of "Nebraska Man". Heck, not even the original researchers (Osborn and King at the American Museum of Natural History) argued that it was a "man". Note the name they gave it: Hesperopithecus. "Pithecus" means "ape". The full name means "Western Ape". Yes, they did suggest that there were some possible human affinities in the morphology of the tooth, but conceded that the fossil was far too worn for these to be definitive. (This is why they arranged the follow-on expedition which revealed the truth -- they knew and admitted that they needed more evidence.)
It was remarkable enough to have found an advanced anthropoid ape in the Americas. (No apes were know from America then, nor have any ever been found here.) The American advocates of Hesperopithecus were focused on establishing this fact. And this fact -- Hesperopithecus as an ape, let alone as a "man" or a human ancestor -- was never even generally, let alone "TOTALLY", accepted. It simply wasn't around long enough. As the tooth was heavily worn, most anthropologists remained agnostic, agreeing to wait on more evidence.
Oh, and what about your drawing? Osborn, the very man who possessed the fossil and was leading the investigation of it, had the following comment for the New York Times:
such a drawing or 'reconstruction' would doubtless be only a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate.
Detailed articles on the (brief) History of "Nebraska Man":
The role of "Nebraska man" in the creation-evolution debate by John Wolf and James S. Mellett (1985)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html
Creationist Arguments: Nebraska Man (Talk Origins)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html
(a) got spotted due to careful proof-reading (to which the book is always subjected) and was promptly corrected in all subsequent printings; andYet somehow the anti-evos have zeroed in on it, and they claim -- in their near-total ignorance -- that it invalidates the current 150th edition of the book.(b) while it was briefly out there, generations ago in what are now a few obsolete and never-consulted editions, it was so insignificant that it caused no problems.
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.