And plenty of people smarter than you have debunked the notion that the size of the birth canal historically was significant to the size of brains, since most children experience most of their size increase after being born. That more children are saved via c-sections because they’re larger from earlier development or because they’re just relatively larger than their mother isn’t statistically significant for brain size or the practical results of that increase.

This has been covered in other replies and it’s obvious you’re being obtuse about it, so I’m ending the conversation from my end here. Enjoy arguing with someone else about it.

A single case is not proof and you should know this. It’s an outlier. A substantial majority of people with brain damage have affected function in some form or another.

No shit, not sure what part of "documented cases including at least one person" you didn't understand, but I only provided the most extreme example. Further, most people with brain damage didn't experienced it from a condition that slowly happened over time where the brain could adapt. Most happen from malformation where the brain was never in a healthy state to begin with, or from immediate traumatic injury where it wouldn't have had the time to adapt to it, and nobody expects that it would.

Also, I said “provided proof that the brain can rewire itself”, not that it will. There is a difference between what I said and your interpretation of my statement.

More specifically to your example, they showed an impact to their functioning.

Other than the leg symptoms, not according to the article I linked:

In theory, the frontal, parietal, temporal, and occipital lobes in the brain control motion, sensibility, language, vision, audition, and emotional and cognitive functions. But those these regions were all reduced in the Frenchman. He did not, however, suffer significant mental effects, suggesting that, if an injury occurs slowly over time, the brain can adapt to survive despite major damage in these regions.

It says the regions of the brain were reduced, but not his function, feel free to quote the exact phrases that say otherwise in significant fashion where he didn't present as normal other than the leg issue.

or from the Lancet article:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61127-1/fulltext

The leg weakness improved partly after neuroendoscopic ventriculocisternostomy, but soon recurred; however, after a ventriculoperitoneal shunt was inserted, the findings on neurological examination became normal within a few weeks. The findings on neuropsychological testing and CT did not change.

Which addresses the leg symptoms improving, and that his relatively normal neuropsychological results didn't change.

From you:

In addition a neurosurgeon commented: “The patient was not missing brain, but because the skull is a fixed volume, it cannot expand to accommodate increased pressures so the brain instead gets pushed outwards by the fluid and compressed.”

This quote does not appear to be found in the original article or any that are linked from it, but regardless his brain was severely impacted as you can see from the brain images in the Lancet entry, yet he had no significant effects from it. Whether the brain was missing or quished into an tiny area makes no difference at all, he should have had severe symptoms but didn't.

If you can show a statistically significant number of cases I may consider your evidence.

Fuck off. I don't care if you're willing to consider anything, I'm not writing a dissertation here. I'm not going to go around and build a portfolio to make you happy. Go try being amazed at something that the best neuroscientists don't understand.