Posted by Tom on October 11, 1999 at 13:05:16:
In Reply to: think again posted by rpcman on October 11, 1999 at 11:40:50:
I have no idea whether the "unused brain" hypothesis is true. However I don't understand
how the unused brain could negate design–unless you assume a priori that his unused brain mass
is useless. My understanding is that it is quite usable but in fact is not tapped. My point was that, as I understand
Darwin's theory, mechanisms have to be USED in order to provide an advantage that can be selected
for. So how could these unused brain parts be selected for if they are indeed unused–hypothetically
speaking? Your answer seems to beg the question by assume that they are in fact used. I was asking for an
evolutionary explanation that did not assume that.
Tom
: : If it is true that we use only 10% of our brains, this would seem to contradict the very principle of Darwinian evolution.
: Quite the contrary. It would be negative evidence for 'intelligent design' but it wouldn't necessarily be negative evidence for evolution. Large brains could form for several reasons using natural selection (sexual selection, duplicative survival mechanisms, usage prior in evolutionary history, etc.) Things such as pseudogenes and the other items previously mentioned are other characteristics that you would expect with Darwinian evolution but which provide additional negative evidence against an 'intelligent designer'.
: However, as I stated in the post you responded to, there is ample evidence that our brains our fully used. Here is another link on the 10% usage myth: