Science, Evolution, and the Human Brain

Originally posted by RJHinds
But why can a baby be born with half a brain and still grow up to function normally
in society?

I am not aware of this happening. Any references?

The brain is quite adaptable and develops throughout our life, so it wouldn't surprise me that a child's brain could adapt. But I rather doubt that they would function as well as someone with a complete brain (assuming they still have half a brain as an adult - something that is not clear from your example).

That seems to prove we don't really need all our brain.
What we need, and what we can survive with are very different things. A close relative was born with no fingers on his left hand. One could say he 'functions normally' though he does have difficulty with certain two hand jobs, and tries to hide it from others for fear of the way they will view him.
Similarly, I once met a woman who was born with no arms. She was married, had a son and could write with her feet. Does this mean that arms are not necessary and therefore having them contradicts evolution? I think not. I think that our brain as it is, is used quite extensively by us and all its parts are used (not only 10% or 50😵 and useful for us to survive. The fact that it is not entirely absolutely necessary for survival does not mean it is not useful.

To twhitehead:

Yes, twhitehead , I have read the responses you gave
and I see no real answers there. Thanks for trying.

RJHinds

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not aware of this happening. Any references?

The brain is quite adaptable and develops throughout our life, so it wouldn't surprise me that a child's brain could adapt. But I rather doubt that they would function as well as someone with a complete brain (assuming they still have half a brain as an adult - something that is not clear from your exam ...[text shortened]... t that it is not entirely absolutely necessary for survival does not mean it is not useful.

I do not generally like to use anecdotes as they cannot be investigated or proved, but my dad, who has quite dubious views, talked about a situation where someone who was missing part of his brain yet was a genius in mathematics. He used this to suggest that part of our brain has no function.

Of course, assuming this is true, all this will suggest that other parts of the brain has adapted. It could be that he was able to concentrate abilities in an area of the brain which he still had, yet had difficulties in areas which were dependent on having a full brain.

It is like a blind person, not being distracted by sight, develops phenomenal abilities with navigation, using hearing and vibration (i.e. echo-location).

Originally posted by josephw
It's possible that instead of evolving we're actually devolving.

Except Rush Limbaugh. He does it with half his brain tied behind his back. 😉

Of all the responses I have read so far,
I like yours the best. It was a least funny.

RJHinds

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, twhitehead , I have read the responses you gave
and I see no real answers there. Thanks for trying.

There are no real answers because the question is at fault - and you would know this if you read and understood my responses - that is why I was puzzled and asked you if you had read them.
It seems that Time magazine or the scientists they were talking about are wrong. It is not true that we only use half our brain.
Therefore to ask about the implications for evolution simply makes no sense.
So that clearly takes care of your first two questions in your OP.
As for your third question, (is it a God communicator? ) my answer it clearly, 'no, it probably isn't or at least there is no good reason for thinking it might be.'

To twhitehead:

Rush Limbaugh was just be humorous about his brain.
But I believe the Neurologist and Time Magazine were
serious. I don't think they were intentionally trying to
deceive us, even if you can prove they are wrong.
Perhaps, you have solved the puzzle. Now if I could
just understand you, maybe I could become an atheist.

RJHinds

Originally posted by RJHinds
But I believe the Neurologist and Time Magazine were serious.

I too believe they were serious, but they were nevertheless wrong. My first guess is that the scientist said one thing then the reporter said something else and added some speculation on top - again without the intention to be dishonest.

.... even if you can prove they are wrong.
The scientific American article makes is patently obvious that they are wrong. If we only used half our brain then damage to the brain would not always result in impaired ability (or modified ability if you prefer it that way) - yet it invariably does: therefore we do not use only half our brain. That is in addition to the various medical scanning technology that shows brain activity and shows that every single part of the brain is, in fact, used for something.

Now if I could just understand you, maybe I could become an atheist.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with religion (or lack thereof).

To Twhitehead:

I was pondering the question, if they were right,
what does it mean? I can't say who is right and
who is wrong. I have not done any research into
brain functions and what part of the brain does what.
I do not know if every part of the brain has a particular
function or not. But I remember reading about the
brain being able to rewire itself after brain damage.
I suppose that means rewire itself to a portion of the
brain that was not damaged. If so, then what was that
part of the brain being used for before the injury, without
this rewiring interfering with its previous function. If that
area was not being used before then there would be no
problem. Just a short while ago, there was a woman on
the TV news that had recovered from brain damage by
physical therapy an speech therapy. They did not say that
her brain rewired itself, but that may be part of it. But
who can say. Scientist have been proven wrong before
and probably will be again. I was also wondering if it
could be determined if all animals have more brain than
they use, and if so, why is this the case? How would
evolution account for this?

RJHinds

Originally posted by RJHinds
But I remember reading about the
brain being able to rewire itself after brain damage.
I suppose that means rewire itself to a portion of the
brain that was not damaged. If so, then what was that
part of the brain being used for before the injury, without
this rewiring interfering with its previous function. If that
area was not being used before then there would be no
problem.

This can happen, but it is not the case that an unused part starts being used.

But who can say.
Scientists in the relevant field can.

Scientist have been proven wrong before and probably will be again.
Quite true.

I was also wondering if it could be determined if all animals have more brain than
they use, and if so, why is this the case? How would evolution account for this?
It would be very difficult to account for it. Any account I could think of would involve some sort of reason why the 'unused' part is useful, but that almost goes against the definition of 'unused'.
Evolution often ends up leaving seemingly unnecessary bits and pieces around (like the back legs of whales) but they tend to disappear over time and when they are 'expensive' like brain tissue they tend to disappear quite fast.

So, if and when the scientists in this case are proven wrong and it turns out that some animal somewhere does not use part of its brain, for any useful purpose at all, it may leave scientists wondering how it came about via evolution. But most scientist would not see it as a sign that the animal in question did not evolve but rather a sign that they are missing something and need to investigate further.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Time Magazine had an article that said scientist in
neurology were puzzled by the fact that nearly half
our brain goes unused. They were wondering if
man will ever be able to use the other half.
This made me wonder why man would evolve with
a brain he only uses about half of. Could he have
needed it all at one time for some purpose we are
not aware o ...[text shortened]... to communicate with him in a
spiritual way. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

RJHinds

“...Time Magazine had an article that said scientist in
neurology were puzzled by the fact that nearly half
our brain goes unused. ...”

it is simply not true that “ nearly half our brain goes unused”! It is a well-known fact in neurology that there is always SOME electrical activity in ALL parts of the brain and ALL the time we are alive. I challenge anyone to show a scientific link/evidence that contradicts this!
I don't know if a scientist in neurology actually said “ nearly half our brain goes unused” because the news media have a bad habit of often misquoting scientist (or even, often, simply lying) to sensationalise. Grant you that some parts of the brain generally perform more important functions than others, but, one fact is certainly true, NO part of our brain is totally unused!

"...Can scientist in evolution explain this?..."

why should they? it's a lie. “ nearly half our brain goes unused” is simply false thus nothing for them to "explain"

To Andrew Hamilton:

I guess you must be an authority on the Human Brain.

RJHinds

Originally posted by lausey
Please permit RJHinds to hypothesize. Why jump the gun and kill him off?

RJHinds asked some questions and twhitehead answered. Why is that killing him off?

[i]I must add that I also did read in a coffee table book called" Mysteries of the Universe"some time back that Humans have a far bigger brain than they need and its overcapacity has been a p ...[text shortened]... zling, doesn't mean it can't have some logical explanation within the scientific community.

Only within the scientific community?

Why cant the lay person have this explained to them?


Of course I think my hypothesis on this matter is the best one, (on this thread), but that is neither here nor there. It is just one voice with some deep held convictions.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Only within the scientific community?

Why cant the lay person have this explained to them?


Of course I think my hypothesis on this matter is the best one, (on this thread), but that is neither here nor there. It is just one voice with some deep held convictions.

Well, it did not get through to twhitehead. Perhaps a
little more detail would be helpful.

Originally posted by RJHinds
To Andrew Hamilton:

I guess you must be an authority on the Human Brain.

RJHinds

No. And neither are you. Neurologists are the ones with such authority. Do you deny neurology? THEY ( i.e. the neurologists) would be the ones that say this!

I repeat what I just said:

“it is simply not true that “ nearly half our brain goes unused”! It is a well-known fact in neurology that there is always SOME electrical activity in ALL parts of the brain and ALL the time we are alive. I CHALLENGE anyone to show a scientific link/evidence that contradicts this! “

so I now CHALLENGE YOU to show a scientific link/evidence that contradicts this!

You made the claim about necrology (that "nearly half our brain goes unused" ) and then I refuted it.
Do YOU have authority on the human brain?
If not, then on what bases do you make your claim?
I am not an expert on it but I have actually studied SOME neurology (because I had to when doing my A.I. Course). Have you?

To Andrew Hamilton:

The following is a link to the article I was writing about.
Your argument seems to be with the neurologist not
with me. I was only posing questions about it.

www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,873031,00.html

If you still disagree, you may want to contact Time and have
them print a retraction.

RJHinds