Neither link says anything about many people functioning at high levels without any decernable brain structure.
She’s only one year old. Give her a chance. The other person held an administrative job in the French tax service. If you don’t think tax people don’t function at a high level good luck on your next audit, which, by the way, may be sooner than you think considering governmental use of webcrawlers to locate info and targets.
You’re making Three joint claims 1) high level 2) Many people and 3) No decernable brain structure.
There is nothing about 2)
In the case of the 1 year old there is nothing about “high level” and in the case of the French tax officer there is nothing about no decernable brain structure. (edit: just checked what an IQ of 75 means and found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_intellectual_functioning so “high level” is also questionable in the case of the French tax officer.)
So these are not evidence for your claim that many people function at high levels without any decernable brain structure.
This is leaving aside all sorts of other problems, like how accurate the reports are etc.
Your original claim was that people could not function without a brain. It only takes one exception to a claim to invalidate it. I presented four examples of people who do function without a brain, three of which were at a high level, including a math whiz, and one who is still a baby. Your claim has been invalidated.
This latest bit of resistance on your part is just another variation of your yes-it-is-no-it-isn’t theory of inquiry. It is denial and equivocation. Your ploy is both illogical and not rational.
It is a waste of time to continue this with you.
Oh, yes, would it be too much trouble for you to spell words properly when you respond to future topics? “Decernable ” is not a word. You do have a dictionary, don’t you?