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

[Louis Foxwell]

Science is a trivial tool for understanding the universe.

[VadeRetro]

Do you think Darwin underestimated the complexity of biology?

You need to jump in your time machine and run back to 1859 to embarrass him out of publishing. It's too late now. We know the cell is complicated and we still see it as the product of evolution.

[dread78645]

Creationist websites rot your gray matter placrmark

[VadeRetro]

Science is a trivial tool for understanding the universe.

It's the only one that really teaches us anything that works.

[Ichneumon]

Never mind there is NO evidence to support any of their hypothesis.

You have been corrected on this lie numerous times. I myself have done so several dozen times, like here for example.

So my question is, are you fond of bearing false witness, or are you just unable to learn anything even after countless repetitions?

If you're just trolling because you have emotional problems, on the other hand, just say so, because I always make allowances for the handicapped.

[Ichneumon]

Science is a trivial tool for understanding the universe.

Nonetheless, it beats the hell out of every other single method that's ever been tried, COMBINED.

[Cvengr]

It's already dead to God. Only He can regenerate the spirit.

[bondserv]

I agree with your analysis, though I'm sure plenty of "conservatives" will rush to pelt you with stones.

For the record, the commentary in green fonts is provided by Creation-Evolution Headlines staff, not me.

I believe in evolution which is horizontal or descending in complexity. Supposed increases in complexity via RMNS, are actually horizontal evolution, rather than vertical. If there was substantial evidence of increases in complexity - as the evidence requires for RMNS to be a viable explanation for life as we see it today - then I would consider Darwinian Evolution as a vehicle for life to become more sophisticated.

Fortunately there is no evidence in the record, so my confidence in the Word of God is strengthened.

Speaking regarding Adam & Eve.

Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (red letters indicate words spoken by the Christ in Christian)

[Ichneumon]

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

Wow, are *YOU* confused about the topic you're lamely trying to critique... Here, learn something:

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

The Talk.Origins Archive: Must-Read FAQs

[Ichneumon]

I am beginning to realize that the evolutionists have more faith than any of us Christians.

ROFL!! Sorry, but your bizarre misunderstand about us is based on false presumptions.

Accepting the validity of evolutionary biology requires no "faith" at all, it requires familiarity with the evidence, understanding of the process involved, and knowledge, in the same way as it does not require "faith" to accept physics, chemistry, geology, etc.

Perhaps this essay will help you understand the difference: Do You Believe in Evolution?.

Or perhaps like most anti-evoluionists, you're so blinded by your fear that you don't *want* to understand.

[Polybius]

The best stuff lives and reproduces. Repeat.............. VadeRetro

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

A creature's brain does not have to be intelligent in order to survive quite well in its particular environmental niche.

A case in point is Ted Kennedy in the Massachusetts Democrat environmental niche.

[bondserv]

Quit playing games.

I believe in eternity, therefore I am not playing a game. I also don't want to bring my filth, or anyone else's, into eternity with us. Imagine having to deal with the perversions of this world for everlasting.

Isa 57:15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name [is] Holy; I dwell in the high and holy [place],

[airforceF4]

In regards to this whole ID argument...yesterday's news widely reported that doctors are being urged not to use 2 of the most popular anti-viral medications in the treatment of the most common form of flu, Type-A. The reason? The virus has adapted to the environment of antibiotics. These 2 medications, which were extremely effective just last year (90% was reported), are no longer as effective against type-A flu. Tamaflu still works, tho. Will the ID supporters explain this advisory in their own language & perspective? I'd love to hear it.

[microgood]

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.

I thought you evos were always talking about how poorly designed we are as proof of evolution. Now you say we are optimized. Which is it?

[bondserv]

The virus has adapted to the environment of antibiotics...

Will the ID supporters explain this advisory in their own language & perspective? I'd love to hear it.

Science is entertaining and sometimes helpful!

Do you ever get callouses? Why don't you have them all the time? Are the genetics for callous production in the junk DNA regions?

We know and understand less than 1% of our reality.

[grey_whiskers]

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.

Yup. But when you posted earlier you suffered a "premature encapsulation" of the subject :-)

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.

I think the question the article was trying to raise--and in my opinion they didn't do more than hint--was whether the observed degree of complexity in the human cortex was likely to result from the limited number of "experimental trials" or the relatively small amount of time elapsed.

(I.e. you get many more generations, and many more members of each generation, with viruses. That's why say, cold viruses, or AIDS, can have different antigenic signatures within a single host.) But do humans breed fast enough for all this structure to have emerged so quickly?

Some of the questions in my mind would be the following:

1. What is the amount of separation / intermingling between grey (!) and white matter in other primates compared to humans?

2. Do we have a good sense of the relation between "intelligence" (as if we could define that! ;-0 ) and the details of aforementioned cerebral wiring? Ditto for the exact genetic instructions for the mapping?

3. Is there any specific information on the environmental changes which would so drastically favor intellectual development of any nascent sapiens, but not wipe out the dumber cousins wholesale?

Cheers!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Ichneumon]

I believe in evolution which is horizontal or descending in complexity.

You "believe" incorrectly.

Supposed increases in complexity via RMNS, are actually horizontal evolution, rather than vertical.

Why, because you stamp your feet and insist that's true? It's not. And if you made the mistake of falling for Spetner's twaddle, he's a crank and he's wrong. Hell, even if he had been *right* his conclusion was rashly made on the basis of only *two* examples of *one* type of acquired resistance to antibiotics, and he would have been *insane* to generalize to *ALL* mutational adaptations based on just *two* (2) examples. But he did! And the creationists are just as nuts for swallowing that kind of idiocy whole (because they *want* to believe it), despite the fact that they'd rightly reject out of hand any *pro*evolution "study" if it was based on something that transparently bogus. Of course, at the same time, they hypocritically refuse to accept *any* research finding, no matter *how* well established and cross-validated, if it supports evolution (as every well-conducted study in the past 100+ years has done..)

Do you guys even believe the silly stuff that comes out of your own mouths?

If there was substantial evidence of increases in complexity - as the evidence requires for RMNS to be a viable explanation for life as we see it today - then I would consider Darwinian Evolution as a vehicle for life to become more sophisticated.

Then I'm happy to oblige:

Apolipoprotein AI Mutations and Information

Creationist Claim CB102: Mutations are random noise; they do not add information.

Multiple Duplications of Yeast Hexose Transport Genes in Response to Selection in a Glucose-Limited Environment

Evolution of biological information

Evolution of biological complexity

Evolution and Information: The Nylon Bug

Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection

The evolution of trichromatic color vision by opsin gene duplication in New World and Old World primates

Gene duplications in evolution of archaeal family B DNA polymerases

Koch, AL: Evolution of antibiotic resistance gene function. Microbiol Rev 1981, 45:355378.

Selection in the evolution of gene duplications

Velkov, VV: Gene amplification in prokaryotic and eukaryotic systems. Genetika 1982, 18:529543.

Romero, D & Palacios, R: Gene amplification and genomic plasticity in prokaryotes. Annu Rev Genet 1997, 31:91111.

Stark, GR & Wahl, GM: Gene amplification. Annu Rev Biochem 1984, 53:447491.

Reinbothe, S, Ortel, B, & Parthier, B: Overproduction by gene amplification of the multifunctional arom protein confers glyphosate tolerance to a plastid-free mutant of Euglena gracilis. Mol Gen Genet 1993, 239:416424.

Gottesman, MM, Hrycyna, CA, Schoenlein, PV, Germann, UA, & Pastan, I: Genetic analysis of the multidrug transporter. Annu Rev Genet 1995, 29:607649.

Schwab, M: Oncogene amplification in solid tumors. Semin Cancer Biol 1999, 9:319325.

Widholm, JM, Chinnala, AR, Ryu, JH, Song, HS, Eggett, T, & Brotherton, JE: Glyphosate selection of gene amplification in suspension cultures of three plant species. Physiol Plant 2001, 112:540545.

Otto, E, Young, JE, & Maroni, G: Structure and expression of a tandem duplication of the Drosophila metallothionein gene. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1986, 83:60256029.

Maroni, G, Wise, J, Young, JE, & Otto, E: Metallothionein gene duplications and metal tolerance in natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 1987, 117:739744.

Kondratyeva, TF, Muntyan, LN, & Karvaiko, GI: Zinc-resistant and arsenic-resistant strains of Thiobacillus ferrooxidans have increased copy numbers of chromosomal resistance genes. Microbiology 1995, 141:11571162.

Tohoyama, H, Shiraishi, E, Amano, S, Inouhe, M, Joho, M, & Murayama, T: Amplification of a gene for metallothionein by tandem repeat in a strain of cadmium-resistant yeast cells. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1996, 136:269273.

Sonti, RV & Roth, JR: Role of gene duplications in the adaptation of Salmonella typhimurium to growth on limiting carbon sources. Genetics 1989, 123:1928.

Brown, CJ, Todd, KM, & Rosenzweig, RF: Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Mol Biol Evol 1998, 15:931942.

Hastings, PJ, Bull, HJ, Klump, JR, & Rosenberg, SM: Adaptive amplification: an inducible chromosomal instability mechanism. Cell 2000, 103:723731.

Tabashnik, BE: Implications of gene amplification for evolution and management of insecticide resistance. J Econ Entomol 1990, 83:11701176.

Lenormand, T, Guillemaud, T, Bourguet, D, & Raymond, M: Appearance and sweep of a gene duplication: adaptive response and potential for new functions in the mosquito Culex pipiens. Evolution 1998, 52:17051712.

Guillemaud, T, Raymond, M, Tsagkarakou, A, Bernard, C, Rochard, P, & Pasteur, N: Quantitative variation and selection of esterase gene amplification in Culex pipiens. Heredity 1999, 83:8799.

I now await you usual lame excuses for why "that doesn't count", just as you and your ilk are cheerfully able to ignore *ALL* the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

Fortunately there is no evidence in the record,

You know, if you had spent as much time actually reading science journals as you do desperately searching creatonist blogs looking for something to reinforce what you'd like to believe, you'd have qualified for an advanced degree by now.

[Ichneumon]

We know and understand less than 1% of our reality.

Speak for *yourself*, please.