Evolution does not explain the human brain or does it.

[ox1111]

Evolution and natural selection does not explain the human brain, or does it and human history is very, very wrong. The problem with the human brain and human history is that the human brain exceeds our capacity to use it at the current time. This is not a problem with evolution, because evolution works with mutation, so the human brain could have grown to an enormous size through mutation. Even though our use of our mind has not kept pace with it size.

The problem is with people who are gifted. I'm not talking about idiot savant's I'm talking about people who have amazing talents and still live perfectly normal lives. People with photographic memories, human calculators. I seen a man who could draw an entire city. That he looked at less than 30 seconds. I seen on TV, a man who can learn any language in three days. Having an enormous brain, in which we all use 15 to 20% of coincides with evolution. But the fact that the 80% of the brain that we don't use some people can use and tap into and it functions is quite to the contrary. My point is that the 80% of the brain that is unused, should be proteins and brain cells and mass. It should not have structure and programming. It should not be usable even if you could tap Into it should not function. The fact that it does function tells me that at one time we did use a larger percentage of her brain, and for some reason no longer use it. Why?Their are many case where a person has a whole lobe removed and still live good to normal lives and some cases 98% normal.

What reason could we in the past have used a larger percentage of our brain and develop the mind, the programming in the part of the brain, that we no longer use. Don't say hunting or living in the forest or jungle because people still to live in the forest and jungle and their brains function just like ours. Maybe we really are like the movie blue Lagoon, but instead of a boat wreck and an island, it be a UFO Time Machine or wormhole and we were stranded on earth. If we continue to not use a large percent of are brain, will are brains start to shrink and evolve to be more efficient?

Edited December 26, 2012 by ox1111

[iNow]

We do use all of our brain, just not at the same time. It's not brain size that matters, but instead the number and type of connections within it. Evolution explains it perfectly well.

 

The primary issue you seem to have is that you believe the myth that we only use 10% of our brains. That is not true. We use all of our brain, just not at once. Savants have more intense connections in some areas, but a complete lack of connections in others. There are different kinds of savant and different types of "gifted."

 

The brain is, however, like any other muscle. The more you use it, the stronger it gets. The less you use it, the more quickly it deteriorates and atrophies.

[Moontanman]

Evolution and natural selection does not explain the human brain, or does it and human history is very, very wrong. The problem with the human brain and human history is that the human brain exceeds our capacity to use it at the current time. This is not a problem with evolution, because evolution works with mutation, so the human brain could have grown to an enormous size through mutation. Even though our use of our mind has not kept pace with it size.

 

 

 

What about animals with brains bigger and more complex than human brains? How do they figure into your assertions?

[ox1111]

The human brain is not used to capacity. That's not even an argument. The fact that you can remove large parts of it and have it function at 100% percent or near , makes that very obvious. The only animal I can think of that has a larger brain and humans are certain whales. Let me say this a different way, life is efficient, efficiency is survival. The human mind uses up to 20% of the body's caleries. If half a brain can do what a full brain can do and require less growth less development less nutrition less mass passing through the women's birth canel, hell lets take 10lbs off are neck. The human brain is evolutionary waste. It makes no sense

[iNow]

The fact that you can remove large parts of it and have it function at 100% percent or near , makes that very obvious.

Except, that's not a fact. When you remove large parts of the brain, functionality is nearly always impacted. If you feel otherwise, perhaps you'd be so kind as to supply some evidence or a citation or three in support of your position that one can remove large parts of the brain and have it still function at or near 100%?

The only animal I can think of that has a larger brain and humans are certain whales.

As I noted above already, brain size is not the relevant metric when discussing capability and intelligence.

The human mind uses up to 20% of the body's caleries.

This is the average when resting, but that percentage varies based on what you happen to be doing and also with age (for example, infant brains tend to use more like 70-75% of the body's energy).

If half a brain can do what a full brain can do...

But it cannot, so...

[Moontanman]

Well there are the brains of elephants, several times as big and just as complex as a human brain.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_cognition

 

Cerebral cortex

 

 

 

The elephant (both Asian and African) has a very large and highly convoluted neocortex, a trait also shared by humans, apes and certain dolphin species. Scientists see this as a sign of complex intelligence.

Asian elephants have the greatest volume of cerebral cortex available for cognitive processing of all existing land animals. Elephants have a volume ofcerebral cortex available for cognitive processing that exceeds that of any primate species, and extensive studies place elephants in the category of great apes in terms of cognitive abilities for tool use and tool making.^[10]

The elephant brain exhibits a gyral pattern more complex and with more numerous convolutes, or brain folds, than that of humans, primates or carnivores, but less complex than cetaceans, ^[14] although elephants have as many cortical neurons (nerve cells) and cortical synapses as that of humans, which is more than that of the cetaceans.^[1] Elephants are believed to rank equal with dolphins in terms of problem-solving abilities,^[8] and many scientists tend to rank elephant intelligence at the same level as cetaceans; in fact, a 2011 article published by ABC Science states that, "elephants [are as] smart as chimps, [and] dolphins".^[6]

 

 

 

IMHO humans are not qualified to judge the intelligence of animals whose brains are as big and complex as our own, we are to humanistic and we have no idea if our type of intelligence is higher than, for example, an elephant. All we can really say is that an elephants intelligence is not as directed toward technology as a humans brain. Elephants could be philosophers of such intelligence that we cannot even imagine their "higher" thoughts.

 

To say we have more brains than necessary or that we don't use enough if them is quite an assertion when you figure so many other animals are apparently inferior to us but in need of far larger brains...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_size

 

 

 

The largest brains are those of sperm whales, weighing about 8 kg (18 lb). An elephant's brain weighs just over 5 kg (11 lb), a bottlenose dolphin's 1.5 to 1.7 kg (3.3 to 3.7 lb), whereas a human brain is around 1.3 to 1.5 kg (2.9 to 3.3 lb).

 

 

I think this suggests that brain size is not a factor, more along the lines of what the brain is used for....

[Bill Angel]

"...mammalian evolution has repeatedly improved the effectiveness of a bodily function by innervating it more; the digestive and immune systems are examples. Thus, while an elephant has a much larger brain than a Stegosaurus [dinosaur], a substantial part of the excess brain is bound up in bodily functions rather than cognitive functions."

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient

 

So natural selection has worked on mammals to produce more complex brains that improve the species' sensory and bodily functions. And of course there is man's significant linguistic ability, another product of evolution.

[StringJunky]

Refutation

Neurologist Barry Gordon describes the myth as laughably false, adding, "we use virtually every part of the brain, and that [most of] the brain is active almost all the time".^[1] NeuroscientistBarry Beyerstein sets out seven kinds of evidence refuting the ten percent myth:^[10]

• Studies of brain damage: If 90% of the brain is normally unused, then damage to these areas should not impair performance. Instead, there is almost no area of the brain that can be damaged without loss of abilities. Even slight damage to small areas of the brain can have profound effects.
• Evolution: The brain is enormously costly to the rest of the body, in terms of oxygen and nutrient consumption. It can require up to 20% of the body's energy—more than any other organ—despite making up only 2% of the human body by weight.^[11][12] If 90% of it were unnecessary, there would be a large survival advantage to humans with smaller, more efficient brains. If this were true, the process of natural selection would have eliminated the inefficient brains. It is also highly unlikely that a brain with so much redundant matter would have evolved in the first place.
• Brain imaging: Technologies such as positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) allow the activity of the living brain to be monitored. They reveal that even during sleep, all parts of the brain show some level of activity. Only in the case of serious damage does a brain have "silent" areas.
• Localization of function: Rather than acting as a single mass, the brain has distinct regions for different kinds of information processing. Decades of research have gone into mapping functions onto areas of the brain, and no function-less areas have been found.
• Microstructural analysis: In the single-unit recording technique, researchers insert a tiny electrode into the brain to monitor the activity of a single cell. If 90% of cells were unused, then this technique would have revealed that.
• Neural disease: Brain cells that are not used have a tendency to degenerate. Hence if 90% of the brain were inactive, autopsy of adult brains would reveal large-scale degeneration.

Another evolutionary argument is that, given the historical risk of death in childbirth associated with the large brain size (and therefore skull size) of humans,^[13] there would be a strong selection pressure against such a large brain size if only 10% was actually in use.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_brain_myth

[Moontanman]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient So natural selection has worked on mammals to produce more complex brains that improve the species' sensory and bodily functions. And of course there is man's significant linguistic ability, another product of evolution.

 

 

I can see some real problems with that, while stegosaurus might have had a small brain i doubt it's internal functions were any less complex that a elephant, they both have or had complex internal organs and immune systems if they hadn't they couldn't have survived.

 

Bird brains are not organised like mammal brains and are thought to be able to do more with less mass. I suggest that dinosaurs brains were organised much like bird brains and so did not require such a large brain to run their body functions.

 

nearly all ideas about brain size are tweeked to make a human look like they are at the top of some artificial hierarchy. this i think is because humans are building the hierarchy. At one time it was assumed that brain size was the deciding factor until we found that some animals had bigger brains, then it was brain to body ratio but even some fish have much higher brain to body ratios, then it was complexity but it is a fact that some animals have brains that are both bigger and more complex than humans.

 

Now some researchers are beginning to see that the way a brain is organised might be more important, this accounts for why birds with such small brains can perform tasks equal to primates and even talk and use words correctly.

[ccwebb]

We absolutely use 100% of the matter between our ears. The reason why a portion of the brain can be removed or damage and still function is because it works more like the internet than a save-disk:

 

http://www.livescience.com/3777-study-brain-works-internet.html

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10925841

 

The mind learns to work around whatever damage there might be. This also leads to why one can never remember exactly what happened in the past. You mind will connect a memory through different paths, each time it is 'asked' to remember something. One time it might be a smell with the next time being a color. Either case, the entire brain is being used.

Edited March 27, 2013 by ccwebb

[Ophiolite]

In relation to the myth of using only a small percentage of the brain, there is evidence in this thread that it may be true of some people.

[Griffon]

Chuckle.

[Dekan]

Our human brains have certainly invented some strange things - like condoms, contraceptive pills, and nuclear weapons.

 

These do not enhance human reproduction and survival. Quite the opposite. So why would our brains lead us to invent such things?

 

Ox1111 may be right - there's something unnatural about the human brain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pwagen]

Our human brains have certainly invented some strange things - like condoms, contraceptive pills, and nuclear weapons. These do not enhance human reproduction and survival. Quite the opposite. So why would our brains lead us to invent such things? Ox1111 may be right - there's something unnatural about the human brain.

We've evolved the ability to invent (think outside the box etc). The inventions in themselves, however, have nothing to do with evolution, but are rather a bi-product of the abilities we've evolved.

[overtone]

It would not be unusual for evolution to have produced a characteristic that proved to handicap survival or even doom the unfortunate short term beneficiary - individuals, even species - in the long run of changing circumstances.

 

Large size in dinosaurs might be the most famous example, but excreting oxygen as a waste product of metabolism was maybe the most significant for the most species.

 

Whether human level brain power continues to pay for itself, cover its extraordinary metabolic and physiological costs, remains to be seen. I'm betting on yes - if I'm wrong, there will be nobody capable of understanding the concept "bet" and coming around to collect, anyway.

 

Meanwhile, managing the reproductive and pathogenic effects of social pair bonding is almost certainly a boon to human prosperity and long term species success. Even nukes have their upside - they probably can't wipe us out altogether, and the asteroid they may prove crucial in handling probably can.

[Bill Angel]

Humans utilize various portions of their brains for dreaming. Here is an illustration from an article

titled The Neurology of Dreaming at http://www.dreamscience.org/idx_science_of_dreaming_section-3.htm

Note that only the areas shaded blue are considered inactive during dreaming.

[derek w]

 

 

The problem is with people who are gifted. I'm not talking about idiot savant's I'm talking about people who have amazing talents and still live perfectly normal lives. People with photographic memories, human calculators. I seen a man who could draw an entire city. That he looked at less than 30 seconds.

 

 

chimpanzees have photographic memories,so it might not be that some people have this talent but that most people have lost it.

[Moontanman]

This picture is relevant to this topic, only humans? I mean it in the sense of only humans do what ?

 

[Kinkajou]

Too bad elephants like that are trained. Untrained elephants mostly produce squiggles and blobs. Not any more impressive to me than a bird who can recite lines or a dolphin doing flips.

 

Honestly, the innate abilities of bowerbirds are more impressive.

 

That's more a testament to the elephant's dexterity and training than anything.

 

Now, the spacial memory of squirrels -- that's impressive. Could you remember the location of 200+ small objects you buried four months after the fact?

[Mr Monkeybat]

Too bad elephants like that are trained. Untrained elephants mostly produce squiggles and blobs. Not any more impressive to me than a bird who can recite lines or a dolphin doing flips.

 

Honestly, the innate abilities of bowerbirds are more impressive.

 

That's more a testament to the elephant's dexterity and training than anything.

 

Now, the spacial memory of squirrels -- that's impressive. Could you remember the location of 200+ small objects you buried four months after the fact?

 

And how well do you think a feral human with no instruction would paint? Whales and Elephants mainly use there large brains for long distance navigation.

[Delbert]

Evolution does explain human brain. If you want to test it try surviving in the jungle or similar environment without any outside support, and doubtless experience how much your brain will be aching.

 

Far from implying that our brain is bigger than perhaps it might be as a consequence of evolution, it seems to me it's only just big enough.

 

Seem to recall a story about a plane that force landed in a remote part of Australia, whereby after due process of time the survivors got to a point of starvation. Then a local aboriginal, who had been watching the unfolding scenario, came down and rescued them. It seems to me that this story indicates that our brain is not oversized but rather only just big enough, such that the plane crew never had enough collective brain power to work out how to survive. But no doubt because of collective experience by a culmination of enough brains (possibly over several generations), the aboriginal could. In other words to solve such problems of survival or building aircraft, humankind needs an even bigger brain; something we can only achieve by collective effort and experience of many brains.

 

Possibly unlike other creatures we have no natural weapons - sting, venom, claws, suitable teeth and all the other things. So we have to use and evolved something else. That else being a big brain - and even bigger than that, one made of many brains.

[pippo]

Could you remember the location of 200+ small objects you buried four months after the fact?

 

No, cuz we are preoccupied to do stuff every day like rise when the alarm clock rings, brush your teeth, thgen floss, dress up with a tie, and remember how to tie it, kisss the wife goodbye or shell get mad, select the right car key on your key ring, start the car with the appropriate sequence to start a car, back up without crashing, drive in heavy LA trafic without speeding, whilst you constantly monitor the speedometer, and thats only the first 1/2 hour of the day!! LOL.

 

If al I had to do was chase invader squirrels from my tree branch, and scratch off the occasional flea , the priority for me would be remembering the 200 acorns to eat- NO problem!

[Tridimity]

Our human brains have certainly invented some strange things - like condoms, contraceptive pills, and nuclear weapons. These do not enhance human reproduction and survival. Quite the opposite. So why would our brains lead us to invent such things? Ox1111 may be right - there's something unnatural about the human brain.

 

 

Contraceptive pills and condoms provide a means of engaging in sexual behaviour without contracting STIs and without becoming pregnant at an inappropriate time of life. As such, contraception promotes survival by warding off death that might otherwise be induced by STIs - and it also confers control over investment in the next generation at a time at which the parents are prepared to have children. It may seem initially counter-intuitive, but having fewer offspring may be a better strategy for propagation of genes than is having a large number of offspring. In the former case, offspring receive relatively more parental investment, in turn promoting their survival and reproductive chances. Nuclear weapons, once developed, may function as a means of deterring retaliation via the prospect of mutually assured destruction (MAD). So long as nuclear weapons are not actually used, and as long as the explicit or implicit threat to use them is maintained, they may actually serve to promote the survival of a nation's people.

[Delbert]

 

Contraceptive pills and condoms provide a means of engaging in sexual behaviour without contracting STIs and without becoming pregnant at an inappropriate time of life.

I think you'll find it's also to do with maintaining or reinforcing the relationship, possibly to the point of it becoming an essential factor. And backing off for a while might be worse than forgetting an anniversary!

 

As I think someone once said (a female): the trouble with relationships is that sex gets in the way.

[Iggy]

Our brains have made us the most powerful predators on the planet... with our fail and slow bodies and all.

 

Anyone doubting the evolutionary benefit of that isn't just using 20% of their brain... they are extremely diluting that 20%