• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

BRAIN PLASTICITY—AND THE PROBLEM IT POSES FOR EVOLUTION

ReUsAbLePhEoNiX

Liberated from SinComplex
Jun 24, 2003
2,524
80
53
Earth, MilkyWay Galaxy
Visit site
✟25,562.00
Faith
Taoist
Any comments for or against?

Good website with lots of articals by christian ph.d.'s


http://www.apologeticspress.org/docsdis/2003/dc-03-07.htm


BRAIN PLASTICITY—

AND THE PROBLEM IT POSES FOR EVOLUTION



by​

Brad Harrub, Ph.D.​



INTRODUCTION




</B>For many people, he was known simply as “Superman”—a role that he began playing in 1978. Sadly, on May 27, 1995, we learned that Christopher Reeve was, in fact, human. The accident occurred during a three-day equestrian competition in Culpepper County, Virginia. Dressed in a protective vest and helmet, Reeve was riding his trained thoroughbred horse, Eastern Express. As his horse went over the third jump, it stopped suddenly, causing Reeve to go flying over the horse and land on his head, breaking his neck between the first and second vertebrae. He was knocked unconscious, and when he woke up, he was paralyzed from the neck down. Little did anyone ever expect that “Superman” would be confined to a motorized wheelchair. However, few realized that this same man one day would be the featured speaker at the 2000 Society for Neuroscience Convention, and that he one day would carry the banner for neuroscience research. His accident and subsequent injuries immediately propelled him into the spotlight for that type of research. Since that day, an enormous amount of money and man-hours have been spent researching the brain and the neurons that compose it. A great deal of interest has been given to the events surrounding traumatic injury in the brain and spinal cord—obviously in response to Reeve’s urgent appeals. Interestingly, one of the many findings that mushroomed out of this latest body of knowledge may prove to be kryptonite for the evolutionists.

The human brain is unique in that the human body is relatively small when ratios are compared among mammals. According to Science journalist Ann Gibbons, researchers have long known that an animal’s overall body size plays a critical role in brain size (1998, 280:1345). In animals such as whales and elephants, large brains are compensated for by an increased size in other organs that can provide energy (e.g., larger heart and lungs provide more oxygen). But humans do not follow this rule. In the context of simian primates, for example, the human brain is approximately “three times larger than the value predicted for an ‘average’ monkey or ape with our body size” (Jones, et al., 1999, p. 116). If evolutionists are correct, then the human brain has tripled in size since “Lucy” (Australopithecus afarensis) walked this Earth, while our bodies have yet to even double in size.

Since the brains of animals and humans differ, some explanation for the observed disparities obviously is required. Frequently, the causative factors for these changes in the brain are attributed to environmental changes (e.g., apes leaving the confines of the trees) or dietary changes (increasing meat and protein intake). Researchers speculated that each new branch of the evolutionary “tree of life” represented a progressive change within the brain, with humans currently residing at the pinnacle of development. However, according to evolutionists, such changes did not occur overnight. Millions and millions of years were required to evolve from the “simple” brain of an earthworm to the complex circuitry we now know exists within the human brain. These changes, we are assured, are simply the result of animals trying to advance themselves (“survival of the fittest”). Evolution not only embraces these changes, but is dependent on them. What would happen, however, if scientists discovered that the brain always has possessed the ability to change? What if the brain held the capacity to rapidly adapt, so that new environments and new food sources simply required a “reorganization” of brain circuitry? What if the brain possessed the ability to change and regulate itself literally on a day-to-day basis, so that changes to make the animal “more fit to survive” took place in mere minutes rather than millions of years? We no longer need to ask “what if.” It does!



PLASTICITY—

AND THE PROBLEM IT POSES FOR EVOLUTION



Known commonly as plasticity, this concept simply means that the brain is not as “hard-wired” or permanently fixed as was once believed. One of the properties of plastic is flexibility—many jars and containers are formed from plastic so that they will not shatter when dropped. In a similar manner, the brain once was considered to be rigid, like the well-known Ball[size=-1]®[/size] jars used for home canning of foods. But we now know the brain is “plastic” (i.e. flexible), and can “reorganize” itself. Research has shown that the brain is able to remodel its connections in order to adjust the organism’s response to changing conditions. Previously, scientists considered the brain to be fixed or “hard wired”—that is, that it could not change, and once connections were in place, everything remained that way. However, we now know differently. Shepherd noted in his book, Neurobiology:


The inability to generate new neurons might imply that the adult nervous system is a static, “hard-wired” machine. This is far from the truth. Although new neurons cannot be generated, each neuron retains the ability to form new processes and new synaptic connections (1994, p. 222).



Interestingly, since this text was printed, additional research has documented the regeneration of neurons within certain areas of the brain. The cortical rearrangements that occur are not as simple as unplugging a lamp and plugging it into another socket. The changes observed by researchers indicate that if the brain were represented by a home electrical system, then many of the wires within the walls would be pulled out, rewired to different connections in different rooms, new outlets would appear, and some even would carry different voltages. Due to the colossal connectivity that takes place within the brain, any “rewiring,” by its very nature, is going to have an effect on several areas. Shepherd went on to note:



These rearrangements have several interesting and important features. First, they show that thalamic inputs to the cortex are both extremely precise and also significantly plastic. Second, these changes take place over varying time scales; in some cases the shifts in representations are slow, developing over weeks, but in other cases they may be surprisingly rapid, beginning within a day or so, or even a few hours. Third, these changes are not limited to the primary cortex (p. 290).



In the 1970s, William Greenough and his colleagues initiated a multidisciplinary study of the cellular effects of raising animals in visually or motorically enriched environments (Greenough and Chang, 1989). This research group, which continues to monitor changes, identified that synapses can form, and dendrites can grow, well beyond the period of brain development. While this observation certainly is not unique to Greenough, he and his coworkers have shown most forcefully that the adult mammalian brain can add not only dendrites and synapses in response to behavioral demands, but also supportive tissue elements such as astrocytes and blood vessels. Many of these studies have been carried out in rodents and primates, which clearly demonstrates that plasticity is not a trait that humans “evolved” after branching off the alleged evolutionary tree. In fact, the very presence of plasticity in lower animals begs the question of why there would be further brain evolution, since these animals already possessed the ability to rewire and reorganize brain circuitry.


At first glance, as one ponders the creation/evolution controversy, plasticity might seem almost trivial. However, one should not overlook the importance of the ability for cortical rewiring and reorganization. But what, exactly, does this mean for evolutionists? Quite simply, it means that they now must explain why an animal that can change or reorganize its own brain would need to “evolve” a different brain. Why did Neanderthal man or Australopithecus afarensis need to evolve a “bigger and better” brain—if the one he possessed already was capable changing? Plasticity allows animals to adapt within minutes or days, not millennia.

For years, evolutionists have used animal specializations as the factor that promoted and demonstrates evolution. However, they no longer can legitimately use such examples, because these adaptations and specializations can be understood in the context of plasticity. This means that if the monkeys were forced to “crawl down out of the trees” to pursue food on the ground, the brain would have made the necessary changes within days—in that very generation, rather than over thousands or millions of years. Neuronal changes would allow an animal to survive on the new diet, and associated changes likely would even help the animal locate the new food source.



CONCLUSION




Neuroscience has experienced tremendous growth in the last ten years due to increased funding and increased interest in the brain. One of the most exciting developments that has come from this increased study is the discovery of brain plasticity. We now know that the brain is not as “hard-wired” and static as was once thought. But this discovery places a tremendous burden on evolutionists, who must now explain why brains that are plastic and capable of change in the first place would ever “evolve”? Additionally, evolutionists always have assumed that it took animals millions of years to change and adapt to a new environment or new diet. Yet according to recent data, this easily could occur in mere days. Quite simply, brain “evolution” does not fit the evidence. Brains are able to rewire themselves; thus evolution is unnecessary. Brains were created by an intelligent Designer, and always have possessed this incredible ability to change and reorganize.



REFERENCES




Gibbons, Ann (1998), “Solving the Brain’s Energy Crisis,” Science, 280:1345-1347, May 29.

Greenough, W.T., and F.F. Chang (1989) “Plasticity of Synapse Structure and Pattern in the Cerebral Cortex,” Cerebral Cortex, ed. A. Peters, E.G. Jones, 7:391-440 (New York: Plenum).

Jones, Steve, Robert Martin, and David Pilbeam, eds. (1999), Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Human Evolution (New York: Cambridge University Press).

Shepherd, Gordon M. (1994) Neurobiology (Oxford: Oxford University Press), third edition.

Copyright © 2003 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.



We are happy to grant permission for items in “Docs’ Dissections” to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site [size=-1]URL
must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale;


For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org[/size]
 

the_malevolent_milk_man

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2003
3,345
141
41
Apopka, Florida
✟4,185.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
We've known that the brain isn't hard wired for quite a while.

Their position basically boils down to "Evolution is unnecesarry since the brain is so adaptable".

Problems with this

1- Ok, you've adapted your brain and enhanced it... now how do you pass that trait on to your children thru genetics? Simple, you don't. You can only pass down genes which are present in your sex cells. It doesn't matter how smart you get after you are born, you can't pass that down genetically. Evolution however says that the smarter you are (in the case of homonids) the fitter you are. Therefore the best brains are preserved, idiots are discarded, and the brain is free to evolve.

2- So evolution isn't necesarry for the brain eh? Ok, assuming this is true (which it isn't) then it poses another problem. They site primitive hominids and asks "Why would they need to evolve to reach our level of complexity?". Short answer = skull size. Primitive hominids lacked the physical space in their heads to contain a brain of our size. As far as I know it's impossible to naturally expand your cranial cavity by 100%, even 25%, once you are fully grown. However evolution can account for this with steady changes and natural slection.

3- " If evolutionists are correct, then the human brain has tripled in size since “Lucy” (Australopithecus afarensis) walked this Earth, while our bodies have yet to even double in size." This is where the warning lights started flashing and the BS meter went off the scale. First off, our bodies are about 1.5x larger. Lucy was what, three foot something? Average human today is in the mid to upper 5's. Secondly, for a predator, we consume large amounts of food to run that brain. I believe Walking With Cavemen said it best "With increaded brain capacity came increased energy demands. The brain had to earn it's keep". Paraphrased a bit but you get the idea. Moreover intelligence, brain size, and body size are not directly related. Many animals have large parts of their brain dedicated to sensory functions such as smell and sight. Not all brains are equal in composition, function, or purpose, it varies from species to species.


To sum it up... I'm reminded of an early theory on evolution that was discarded over 100 years ago. About how the giraffe got it's long neck by stretching it. It was discarded because there was no way for the giraffe to pass this adaptation down genetically. That pretty much sums up why their entire paper is wrong.


I applaud their effort but I highly doubt these are top christian scientists. Creationists perhaps and they are a cut above Dr. Dino, although that's not saying much. Calling them christian scientists without a creationist qualifier is an insult to the many great christian minds. If a fool such as myself can see so many obvious errors in a simple analysis I can't help but to think what a well educated person will find.

Although I think a better example for brain plasticity would be the man who was blind for almost his entire life and then had a primitive electric eye implanted and is now able to somewhat see. The brain is an incredibly adaptable organ, as it should be. Our ancestors survived based on their ability to adapt, those who couldn't died, and we are the result of the most adaptable. Actually, if I thought about this hard enough, I'm pretty sure you could make a pro evolution case using brain plasticity as evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Physics_guy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2003
1,208
66
✟1,687.00
The gist of his argument seems to be that because all mammalian brains are plastic there would be no pressure to evolve additional brain capacity because the brain can change on its own. This is, of course, a specious argument because although brain plasticity allows for different areas of the brain to perform different tasks, there is some genetic/developmental aspects to brain's development and plasticity doesn't really allow for an animal to get any "smarter" (though studies have shown that repeated sensorineuro stimulation has lead to the increase in surface areas of the brains of mammals, these increases haven't led to any increase in intelligence or the ability to learn). Thus, it is easily conceivable that greater brain size to weight of organism ratio was important to early hominids and thus a survival advantage - brain plasticity has little to do with it other than a repair/redundancy mechanism that evolved much earlier.

BTW - Strange story, but I worked for Dr. Michael Merzenich at UCSF when I was but a high school student helping perform brain plasticity studies and the physical effects of repeated sensory learning on the brain. Dr. Merzenich is the father of brain plasticity and has even used the science to develop a product meant to train away dsylexia.

Cheers
 
Upvote 0

Physics_guy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2003
1,208
66
✟1,687.00
Although I think a better example for brain plasticity would be the man who was blind for almost his entire life and then had a primitive electric eye implanted and is now able to somewhat see.

Believe it or not, but this was one particular scenario that we did work on in Dr. Merzenich's lab, in fact the development of the Cochlear Implant by the same lab is a completely analogous concept that has gone further simply because creating an electronic ear has been easier to build than an electronic eye.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
First you admit that humans have an abnormal brain size. This makes sense since we are the most intelligent species on the planet. So it would seem that larger brain size means more intelligence. Not that hard of an approach.
Next, you (or the article) seem to be implying that brain size has nothing to do with intelligence. Instead, it's the plasticity that causes our intelligence. Why the change in argument here. I guess the question would be if the earthworm is able to reorganize its small ganglia of neural tissue, or the planria with its ladder like neural system, why aren't they as smart as dogs? Quite simply, the more neurons there are the "smarter" you are, plasticity is secondary.

There are also hard wired elements that can be seen in nature, most of which we call instinct. Sparrows migrating, grunions rushing the beach at high tide, salmon going upstream to the same exact spawning grounds they were born in, etc. Plasticity can not explain this phenomena.

How would evolutionists explain plasticity? Quite simply, it allows the ability to adapt to one's surroundings within its physical means. A bird can not eat deep swimming fish because it has no gills, not because it's brain just hasn't hit upon the right "plasticity mode". Same with arboreal primates. Have you ever seen an orangatan walking on the forest floor? Two year old humans could outsprint these arboreal apes. Coming down from the trees took physical adaption that no amount of plasticity could overcome. Second was tool use. Humans are the only apes that can touch their pinkie finger and thumb together, which makes us ideal tool users. An example, when another ape grabs a stick and uses it to beat on something it is perpendicular to its forearm. Humans, with their adapted hands, can hold the stick in line with the forearm. Major advantage that no amount of brain plasticity can cause due to skeletal and muscular limitations.

So, for your theory to be true, we should see orangatans coming down from the trees, making flint tipped spears, and chucking them just like humans do. Not to mention running at prey at about 15 mph. All of this due to brain plasticity. Sorry, I am not anywhere close to sold.
 
Upvote 0

Mr_Coffee

Don't write in this space
Dec 4, 2003
156
6
44
Visit site
✟22,811.00
Faith
Agnostic
That basically sums up what I was thinking. Good rebuttals.

It's also very misleading to determine intelligence by body size : brain size. The human brain isn't comparitively superior because of its physical size in proportion to our bodies; rather, it's because of the human brain is composed of many cracks and fissures that increase the surface area of it (giving it a "noodle" appearance). A cat's brain is in similar shape to our own, but it's very flat in terms of its surface. The extra surface area acts as if the brain is substantially larger while maintaining a compact profile - which is more effective since a physically larger brain would require much more energy in order to operate.
 
Upvote 0

LorentzHA

Electric Kool-Aid Girl
Aug 8, 2003
3,166
39
Dallas, Texas
✟3,521.00
Faith
Other Religion
Loudmoth said:
First you admit that humans have an abnormal brain size. This makes sense since we are the most intelligent species on the planet. So it would seem that larger brain size means more intelligence.
Actually, that is not true with respect to the human brain- size has little to do with intelligence. The smaller end of the spectrum for human brains is 750cc's while the upper end is 2100cc's, studies have shown that size has little to do with IQ and that a person with a physically smaller brain can have a much higher IQ than someone with a larger brain. Intelligence is found in the cerebral cortex (the superficial layer of gray matter) this area is known as the seat of "higher functions" Intelligence, memory.
 
Upvote 0

Physics_guy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2003
1,208
66
✟1,687.00

Not entirely true. Brain plasticity is actually the cause of these fissures - specific sensorineuro learing (example: learning to ride a bike) actually forms these fissures and cracks. That is exacty what Dr. Merzenich showed - and it works in cats too (the first animal models we used).
 
Upvote 0

LorentzHA

Electric Kool-Aid Girl
Aug 8, 2003
3,166
39
Dallas, Texas
✟3,521.00
Faith
Other Religion
Good points. The "cracks" are formally known as Sulci or sulcus (singular).
 
Upvote 0

LorentzHA

Electric Kool-Aid Girl
Aug 8, 2003
3,166
39
Dallas, Texas
✟3,521.00
Faith
Other Religion
There are 2 fissure the Superior Longitudunal Fissure, that seperates the right and left hemispheres and the Transverse Fissure that seperates the Cerebellum from the Cerebrum, the rest are Sulci.
 
Upvote 0

LorentzHA

Electric Kool-Aid Girl
Aug 8, 2003
3,166
39
Dallas, Texas
✟3,521.00
Faith
Other Religion
I am not familiar with how learning to ride a bike would form these sulci since a child is born with sulci and a longitudinal fissure?? Do you have any more info on this?
 
Upvote 0