The Importance of Designed Neurons In The Brain

Our bodies contain a brain which is largely composed of neurons. These neurons are one of the most vital cells in the body which are transmission lines of information that keep a body in touch with itself and the world. None of the other body organs would work without neurons.

With the ever increasing advancements in technology, powerful tools of microscopy are allowing neuroscientists to figure out how they develop and operate. In Physorg

“Proteins are synthesized within the neuron and carried in a bubble called a vesicle down highways of microtubules that point to the dendrite and the axon. Neither the two proteins themselves nor the microtubules know where the proteins should end up, so a mix of dendritic and axonal proteins will go both ways, to the dendrite and to the axon.
Arnold admitted that the system is counterintuitive, if not downright complicated.”

“You’d think the proteins would be put on the right microtubules to start with.” But the proteins are not always put on the correct path. Some proteins will end up in the right place, while others must be redirected.”

How these molecular machines recognize which is which was not explained but when a protein ends up at the wrong end, other myosins round up wayward vesicles and turn them back.  Myosin Va acts as a filter at the axons, allowing axon-bound vesicles in but carrying dendrite-bound packages out.  Axonal proteins that end up in a dendrite are placed on the surface of the cell, where Myosin VI plucks them off and carries them to the axon.  Myosin VI also helps axonal proteins find the axon in the first place. These specified designed functions are pretty amazing, confirming God’s amazing ability to create such things!

Ever walk into a crowded room or subway where there is a lot of noise and try to listen what is going on? How does neurons get their information to the right target when your experiencing such an intensely complex environment of the brain? Researchers, Carnegie Mellon and University of Pittsburgh are discovering some of the most amazing mechanisms neurons use to communicate.

In Mellon College’s website

“Over the short time scale of a few milliseconds, the brain engaged its inhibitory circuitry to make the neurons fire in synchrony.  This simultaneous, correlated firing creates a loud, but simple, signal.  The effect was much like a crowd at a sporting event chanting, “Let’s go team!”  Over short time intervals, individual neurons produced the same short message, increasing the effectiveness with which activity was transmitted to other brain areas.  The researchers say that in both human and neuronal communication alike, this collective communication works well for simple messages, but not for longer or more complex messages that contain more intricate information.”

“The neurons studied used longer timescales (around one second) to convey these more complex concepts.  Over longer time intervals, the inhibitory circuitry generated a form of competition between neurons, so that the more strongly activated neurons silenced the activity of weakly activated neurons, enhancing the differences in their firing rates and making their activity less correlated.  Each neuron was able to communicate a different piece of information about the stimulus without being drowned out by the chatter of competing neurons.  It would be like being in a group where each person spoke in turn.  The room would be much quieter than a sports arena and the immediate audience would be able to listen and learn much more complex information.”

Researchers are getting interesting ideas from this effective two-strategy style on how neurons are designed, ideas like man-made communication networks around the same principles. One must applaud these articles for resisting the temptation that is all too common in secular science about inserting evolutionary speculation into their work.  Now think about this…how a complex set of mechanical processes – motors, chemical signals, guideposts, filters, networks, transmission rules – all converge into the brain of a neuroscientist looking into his or her own head and reasoning about it is astonishing!

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “The Importance of Designed Neurons In The Brain

  1. “You’d think the proteins would be put on the right microtubules to start with.” But the proteins are not always put on the correct path. Some proteins will end up in the right place, while others must be redirected.”

    And this is strong argument against design. What competent designer would make this kind of dumb mistake? Certainly not a designer who is supposed to be much smarter than us poor humans, who have only a few billions of neurons.

  2. Researchers are getting interesting ideas from this effective two-strategy style on how neurons are designed, ideas like man-made communication networks around the same principles. One must applaud these articles for resisting the temptation that is all too common in secular science about inserting evolutionary speculation into their work.

    Once again, Michael’s awe is a result of his ignorance. Yes, this neurological aspect was not known before this paper. But, rather than being a consequence of mysterious magic, it follows simple mathematical principles—that is, the awe should be felt as a result of simplicity, not of complexity.

    Having worked on coding theory and multiphase communication systems, (such as ODFM), perhaps I have a head start. But the principle is elementary, and can be understood by anyone.. Assume a 4-symbol signal coming from multiple sources to a single receiver. The symbols can be as much as 10% different in length or displacement, without garbling the message at the receiver. That is, not much synchrony is required. For a 400-symbol message, however,a mismatch of only 0.1%—1 in 1000—will land a symbol from one message right on top of a different symbol from another message. Result: message not received correctly.

    It’s not that complicated. Except that creationists would not have a clue.

    The evolutionary aspect is correspondingly easy. A bunch of primitive hominids are admiring their zebra kill, when three of them spot a lion and simultaneously yell “Flee!” Now suppose a second bunch spots the lion, and one says, “Hey guys, I seem to have seen a large feline mammal approaching across the veldt.” At the same time, another shouts,”Regard yonder carnivore approaching rapidly in this direction!” And a third simultaneously yells, “Zut alors! Caramba! Salva me de ore leonis!” One might predict that the second group will end up as lion lunch, while the first group at least has a chance to tell the story to their grandchildren. That is, to be “selected” for reproduction.

    Not too hard to grasp this concept either. Except for creationists.

  3. Well, there are many interesting aspects to this subject, in neurobiology, systems theory, and mathematical coding. However, Michael and his gang are incapable of appreciating them, because, for them, the answers are all simple: God did it. End of story.

    Mitchael’s subtitle in this blog includes “promoting curiosity of true science….” Yet curiosity is not any part of his motivation. He only wishes to prove a thesis. This is not curiosity. It certainly is not science.

  4. Facing a tough decision:

    Should I argue with Creationists or with Mormons or with the “Jesus is a myth” crowd? —What about all of the above?– Yeah, might as well…since all three groups have so much in common.

  5. Well, then there are the antivaxxers, the birthers, the alien abductees, and hundreds of others. What they all share is that they are psychologically needy. They must set themselves up with a group that feels it has to defend itself from attack by the the rest of the world.

    You can’t argue their beliefs with any of these people. So, if you’re going to choose, pick the ones whose beliefs can do some real damage. The global-warming denialists, for example. I’d include the creationism, for their anti-science efforts. And aim your arguments, not at the believers, but at those on the edges who might be drawn in toward their vortex of denial or hatred. That will save you from utter disappointment.

  6. @Olorin

    And aim your arguments, not at the believers, but at those on the edges who might be drawn in toward their vortex of denial or hatred. That will save you from utter disappointment.

    True, you cannot convince someone who is determined not to be convinced under any circumstance.

    I used to be a birther. I feel stupid about it, really. I’m really different from the person I was 3 years ago. In that span of time I went from denying evolution to accepting it, from thinking a Christian cannot read the bible in a non-literal way to reforming that view, from thinking Obama was born in Kenya to accepting that he was born in Hawaii.

    I tend to really cling to my beliefs, whatever they may be being an opinionated person…but the fact that I have changed many of them I hope shows that I am not hopeless.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s