“Men Loved Darkness Rather Than Light”
In his
blog post this week on the neuroscience research of Columbia’s Sean Escola, NIH Director Francis Collins makes the obvious, yet too often overlooked point that each of the hundred billion or so neurons in the human brain is different. In our profound ignorance it is easy to view the brain like a pile of pudding, achieving its fantastic abilities through a lucky mixture of the right chemicals. But of course, nothing could be farther from the truth and Collins’ observations helps to disabuse us of such folly. If you have ever wired up a machine you will understand. It is not just a pile of wires that somehow happen to get it right. Each wire has its own, unique function, attaching to two specific connectors. Things are astronomically more complicated in the brain, as its “wires” are not merely a conduit of electrical charge but an incredibly complex cell called a neuron. And each neuron does not merely attach to two distant connectors, but rather to hundreds or thousands of connectors. And each connection is nothing like a simple soldering attachment. In the brain they are called synapses and with thousands of molecular-scale switches researchers compare them to microprocessors.
But on top of all that, each neuron is different. A hundred billion different, unique neurons, each having a different, unique function. Each forming a different, unique set of synapses. We have not even begun to understand all of this neural circuitry, let alone how to design or build anything like it. And yet we insist it all must have arisen spontaneously, as a result of random mutations. That is not science, that is absurdity.
h/t: Paul Asay
"
ReplyDeleteNIH Director: Each Neuron is Different."
Isn't this just stating the obvious. Every cell in your body are unique. There are no two that are identical.
One could argue that two adjacent liver cells, for example, are basically doing the same thing. Swap places,and it would make no difference.
DeleteNeurons have uniquely different wiring. So you have a hundred billion neurons each with its own wiring designs, resulting in quadrillions of synapses.
If you argue that liver cells actually have a similar level of uniqueness and complexity, then so much more so the unlikeliness they evolved spontaneously.
Also, we should keep in mind that evolution does not merely claim these structures evolved by random mutation, but that the machinery to construct them evolved by random mutation. If you've ever built a machine and wired it up, you know how difficult that is. Now try building a machine that does it automatically. Now take that to the astronomical level of biological species, rather than our simple machines.
"Neurons have uniquely different wiring. So you have a hundred billion neurons each with its own wiring designs, resulting in quadrillions of synapses."
DeleteWell, other than the bit with the synapses, you have described snowflakes quite well.
Acartia,
Delete"Well, other than the bit with the synapses, you have described snowflakes quite well."
That's like saying other than the fact he's dead, he seems to be in perfect health.
Nic, what about Cornelius's description does not apply to snowflakes?
DeleteAcartia,
Delete"what about Cornelius's description does not apply to snowflakes?"
As with so many evolutionists the point flies way over your head.
One obvious difference is that a neuron is a living cell which can respond to stimuli, snowflakes cannot. You could attach as many synapses to a snowflake as you like, it would make no difference, the snowflake would still be nothing more than a snowflake. It might melt quicker however.
Do you need anything else?
"Do you need anything else?"
DeleteFrankly, yes. Cornelius's argument centres around the fractal nature of dendrites which results in a very complex series of connections. The snowflake was simply a means of demonstrating that the fractal aspect is not that mysterious, and can be created through basic physical means.
The other aspect, the huge complexity, that results from this, is somehow designed and cannot arise through evolution. His argument may be more persuasive if the exact same "wiring" in order for a functioning human being to develop. But we know this not to be true. Although human brains, at the macro level, are all quite similar, the wiring at the cellular level, the connections made, etc. varies considerably with every human brain. In short, no two of us has the same "wiring", not even close.
Acartia,
Delete"In short, no two of us has the same "wiring", not even close."
In short, what's your point?
As for the fractal aspects of a neuron and a snowflake, the neuron is a living cell and the snowflake is not. Does that not indicate to you that there is something more important than the fractal aspect at work here?
The crown of a tree has far more branches than a nerve cell, and I have not heard anyone say that it cannot be explained by non miraculous processes. And the complexity of the brain is caused by the large number of cells (no magic involved) and branching nature if the dendrites (again, no magic involved).
DeleteAcartia,
Delete"The crown of a tree has far more branches than a nerve cell,... "
You're serious?
I'll tell you what, get back to me when the crown of a tree can track a 90 mph fast ball and in a fraction of a second decide whether or not to swing and initiate contact with said ball. When the crown of a tree can do that you may have an argument. Until then, don't be ridiculous.
"I'll tell you what, get back to me when a neuron can track a 90 mph fast ball and in a fraction of a second decide whether or not to swing and initiate contact with said ball. When the crown of a tree can do that you may have an argument. Until then, don't be ridiculous.."
DeleteI like this game.
Nobody is saying that the brain isn't extremely complex. It is. But to argue that the branching nature of the neuron is somehow unique, therefore designed, is simply taking a huge leap of "Faith".
Acartia,
Delete"But to argue that the branching nature of the neuron is somehow unique, therefore designed, is simply taking a huge leap of "Faith"."
You need to keep your head up. A tree forms via a branching nature as do the neurons of the brain. However, that is in no way an indication that they therefore must have evolved. The branching nature of the two serve two completely different purposes. Can you not grasp that?
Yes I can grasp that. But when the argument is that only design can account for a different branching pattern for every neuron, and it is demonstrated that there are other "natural" processes to account for it, the argument falls apart.
DeleteAcartia,
Delete"But when the argument is that only design can account for a different branching pattern for every neuron, and it is demonstrated that there are other "natural" processes to account for it, the argument falls apart."
No, I'm afraid you don't grasp it at all. If you did you would see the absolute folly of drawing a parallel between the branching pattern of a tree to that of a neuron.
However, such folly and weak association arguments are all too common among evolutionists.
Perhaps you can tell me, what is the reason for the various branching patterns of trees and the various branching patterns of neurons?
"No, I'm afraid you don't grasp it at all. If you did you would see the absolute folly of drawing a parallel between the branching pattern of a tree to that of a neuron. ...
DeletePerhaps you can tell me, what is the reason for the various branching patterns of trees and the various branching patterns of neurons?"
Perhaps you can explain to me where my "absolute folly" lies. With regard to your question, a tree branches in order to maximize the surface area for solar radiation. A nerve cell branches to allow for the maximum number of connections with other nerve cells. Sounds like a reasonable parallel to me.
William,
DeleteOr should I say Acartia?
It would appear you're one of those characters who likes to use multiple names in order to make it appear you have supporters for your viewpoint. That's a folly of a whole different variety, but we won't get into that.
"Perhaps you can explain to me where my "absolute folly" lies. With regard to your question, a tree branches in order to maximize the surface area for solar radiation. A nerve cell branches to allow for the maximum number of connections with other nerve cells. Sounds like a reasonable parallel to me."
Your folly lies in the fact it is a stretch to compare branching trees collecting solar ray with neurons exchanging information at a mind boggling rate, but we will ignore that fact.
The question you are to be dealing with but are studiously avoiding is how would such a parallel be evidence that either or both branching scenarios evolved?
I'm just curious, who's going to respond, William or Acartia? Perhaps you can talk it over before one of you responds.
"It would appear you're one of those characters who likes to use multiple names in order to make it appear you have supporters for your viewpoint. That's a folly of a whole different variety, but we won't get into that."
DeleteI have not hidden this. I mentioned it previously. I have different names on different devices, and I have forgotten the passwords for all of them. I admit that this is because I always get banned at UD simply for disagreeing with Barry or Gordon (KF) Mullings. I have since stopped trying to comment on UD as I find the moderator to be an arrogant pompous fool. But we won't get into that.
"Your folly lies in the fact it is a stretch to compare branching trees collecting solar ray with neurons exchanging information at a mind boggling rate, but we will ignore that fact."
Why? Let's examine that. A tree branches to allow maximum solar radiation to hit the leaves to allow the chloroplast to convert light into sugars and, ultimately, energy. A nerve cell only transmits a signal. So, which one is more complex (miraculous, if you insist)?
If this is the case, why all the emphasis on the neuron? Could it be due to a human centric bias? After all, a tree does not think, does not move, does not feel pain (as far as we know).
I am not avoiding the issue of whether either of these evolved. I am just using Occam's Razer. We have plenty of examples demonstrating evolution. We have no examples demonstrating anything else. If you really want to advance your theory, provide some evidence for it other than incredulity against evolution. Anything. Is that the sound of crickets I hear?
Acartia, William, whoever,
Delete"We have plenty of examples demonstrating evolution."
Really? How about a few examples?
"So, which one is more complex (miraculous, if you insist)?"
That's not the subject, genius. You're claiming the similarity is evidence for evolution yet you steadfastly refuse to explain how that is the case. Why is that?
"I am not avoiding the issue of whether either of these evolved. I am just using Occam's Razer."
Yes, you are. And has for Occam's Razor, you might want to look it up because it does not help your cause at all.
"We have no examples demonstrating anything else."
None that is if you discount everything in our experience which tells us complex specified information only comes from an intelligent source. Minor detail I know, but one which you cannot avoid.
"Is that the sound of crickets I hear?"
If you take your fingers out of your ears the sound will go away?
"None that is if you discount everything in our experience which tells us complex specified information only comes from an intelligent source."
DeleteA small correction. Our experience which tells us complex specified information only comes from a human source. Are you suggesting that life was created, and continues to be created, by humans? Rather circular, don't you think?
William Tonsa, et al,
Delete"A small correction. Our experience which tells us complex specified information only comes from a human source. Are you suggesting that life was created, and continues to be created, by humans? Rather circular, don't you think?"
Well done, you've provided a very good argument within this statement. Unfortunately it's good for me, but not you.
You've confirmed that the source of the objects we build and use containing complex specified information come from an intelligent source outside of themselves. That source being us. You've also confirmed these objects do not create themselves, or simply pop into existence, but that they must be created by an entity superior in nature to themselves. Again, that source being us.
However, as amazing as some of these objects are they pale by orders of magnitude in complexity to the abundance of life which inhabits our world. Even the simplest life forms are incredibly complex in their structure. Surpassing by far anything which we are presently able to produce.
Now, having admitted computers, planes automobiles, etc., do not and cannot create themselves, nor can they simply pop into existence; due to the complex specified information they contain; by any level of logic and rational thought it surely follows that the life we see all around us; which is infinitely more complex and contains infinitely more information; could not have created itself or popped into existence on its own either. Yet that is exactly what evolution proposes, and by extension, you propose. Do you not see how illogical and irrational this type of thinking is?
Yes, to argue humans created themselves would be a woefully fallacious argument. I couldn't agree more. Why then do you see it as logical and rational to believe that life could have created itself?
Your entire argument is based on the fact that all of the things that we can identified as being designed, have been designed by humans.
DeleteAll that tells us is that humans are capable of design. If you want to propose that life was designed, all you have to do is to postulate on the nature of the designer, the mechanisms used by the designer, and use this to make testable predictions. Evolutionary theory has done all of this, quite successfully. Could you please point me towards comparable research supporting ID?
Acartia Spearshake,
Delete"Your entire argument is based on the fact that all of the things that we can identified as being designed, have been designed by humans."
Palpable nonsense! My argument clearly built a rational and logical case for the fact that as our entire experience shows us that complex information laden systems come to be only via intelligence we are in turn logical and rational in concluding the information laden systems within nature must also come from an intelligent source.
The fact you refuse to accept the rationality and sound logic of the argument is something which is completely out of my control. I can lead you to the water but I cannot make you drink.
"All that tells us is that humans are capable of design."
It tells us that, but it also clearly demonstrates intelligence is necessary for design.
As humans are intelligent they are indeed capable of design. Your problem comes in explaining how humans came to be in the first place and how they came to possess the necessary intelligence to create information laden designs. Evolutionary theory has not even come anywhere close to doing that. In fact they are losing ground at an alarming rate on that quest.
"If you want to propose that life was designed, all you have to do is to postulate on the nature of the designer, the mechanisms used by the designer, and use this to make testable predictions."
Ah, but you're totally wrong, I don't need to do anything of the sort. I do not need to know or understand the nature or identity of the designer to recognize the fact that something was designed. That is a complete red herring argument. An attempt to make the individual concentrate on the identity of a designer rather than concentrating on the design. Nice try though.
In fact, the whole SETI program is based on just such a scenario as the unknown designer. If SETI was to pick up a signal they believed came from an intelligent source they would not ignore it simply because they did not know the identity of the designer of that signal.
In this regard I'm afraid you're guilty of wanting to have your cake and eating too.
"Evolutionary theory has done all of this, quite successfully."
You keep saying that but have yet to provide any examples despite repeated requests. Why is that the case?
Evolutionists continually try and downplay the glory and wonder of the design of the body. They reject the notion of human exceptionalism. They try and find fault with the eye. The goal is to make humanity as ho hum as possible and even nature itself. It's no big deal. It's not all that great. Nothing special. But the more research we do, the harder it is for them to maintain that position honestly. Acartian wants us to believe there is no difference between neurons and snowflakes except for their synapses.
ReplyDeleteI have an idea. Why don't you replace all the neurons in your brain with snowflakes and attach synapses to them and see how that works out for you.
In what way are we exceptional? First, we're animals. We have brains, hearts, skeletons, and muscles just like other animals. We eat, sleep, urinate, defecate, and have sex like other animals. We have an instinct to protect our young (so do other animals). And we have an instinct to fight to defend our territory (just as many animals do).
DeleteFine, okay, say all you want about how a gorilla can't compose a symphony or build a skyscraper, but can you fly? Even more incredible, can you fly at night using echo location? Can any of us change shape and color (to avoid predators) as many frogs and moths can do? Can you generate an electric field as some fish can do? A dog can smell cancer. Can any human? No. So there are many qualities that animals possess that certainly out-amaze some of the things that we can do. Really: If you're an animal that can smell cancer, you're exceptional.
Maybe you think we're exceptional because of our sense of "I" and the experience of self-consciousness. But I'm not entirely convinced that cats and dogs don't have some very-low-grade sense of "I" about them. True, not at our level, but I find it difficult to imagine that we're the only creatures on the planet that experiences any sense of self-consciousness.
As to your other main point, you write that the goal of evolutionists is "to make humanity as ho hum as possible and even nature itself." Really? Do you think a professor of evolutionary biology is trying to get a ho-hum response from students? Cosmologists are filled with awe at the magnitude of the universe, and evolutionary biologists are in awe over for the "mechanism" (evolution by natural selection) that explains the vast diversity of life. No evolutionary biologist that I'm aware of is bored by his or her profession.
So to sum up my two main points, how are we exceptional, and can you give me a specific example that shores up your view that evolutionists only want "to make humanity as ho hum as possible and even nature itself"?
Thanks.
Barry:
DeleteWould you agree with atheist Jeffrey Taylor that Christianity is false, or at least unlikely, because “It requires that we believe that God chose to redeem humankind by means of a human sacrifice.” [see http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2015/07/jeffrey-taylor-sympathetically-reviews.html].
If yes, can you explain how an atheist can have such knowledge of God?
If no, do you agree that such a claim, for an atheist, can be nothing more than mere opinion, and so can add no weight to an objective argument against Christianity?
Both sides are opinion. One opinion is based on the lack of any evidence. The other is in spite of the lack of any evidence.
DeleteBarry,
Delete"In what way are we exceptional?"
In the way that you can actually conceive such a question and comprehend that it has an answer.
I'm not seeing the link between this and evolution. The real question is how the genome codes for a "hundred billion" neurons, when it is only 3Gb, and presumably only a tiny fraction of that would be responsible for the creation of neurons.
ReplyDeleteSo, you have a small amount of DNA producing an enormous amount of variability. This suggests to me that the variability is effectively random.
It seems virtually impossible for the specificity to be coded into the genome.
Actually it is base 4, not base 2, so more like 6Gb. Beyond that, what else in the zygote could provide information, aside from the DNA? Also, what is the information content in the brain design?
DeleteNeurons have uniquely different wiring. So you have a hundred billion neurons each with its own wiring designs, resulting in quadrillions of synapses.
DeleteMy issue is that you have massively overstated what the blog post actually says. It says nothing about designs. Nor does it say anything about specificity as you imply in your wiring analogy. The blog post simply says that there are a lot of neurons, and they make a lot of connections.
One comment here speaks of evolutionists "downplaying" the human body. Maybe they wouldn't feel the need if you didn't overstate your case?
Just FYI: the meaning of the "Gb" suffix is context-dependent. If I am in a networking context, I mean gigabits. If I am in a genetics context, I mean gigabases.
Regarding other information in the Zygote besides DNA, I and a minority of other ID proponents strongly suspect Ontogenic information is stored in the Cytoplasm.
DeleteSal
The ability of L1 to retrotranspose in neurons is surprising; however, the magnitude of L1 retrotransposition in neurons is even more surprising.
ReplyDelete….
The remarkable number of somatic L1
insertions estimated in the mammalian brain
indicates that L1 retrotransposition may have
the capacity to generate a unique transcriptome
within each neuron
Dr. Hunter,
ReplyDeleteThat previous comment about L1 was from me. I accidently snipped out most of my comment.
A lot of the information in DNA is not in the ACGT bases alone, but the methylation marks. When each cell is created it has a unique set of methylation marks. In that sense, the "junk DNA" in each cell has unique information thus we can multiply the 3.1 gigabases of information in 1 cell times 200 trillion cells -- that's maybe in the pentillions or more of bits of information to identify the position,funciton, whatever of each cell.
L1 are repetitive, but the mistake is thinking just because it is repetitive it is not information bearing. That would be like saying the VLSI arrays of transistors in a computer are repetitive, therefore they can't be information bearing!
Sal
Thanks for the comments Sal!
Delete