James Webb Space Telescope

[BarrelProof]

Now I need to comment because I wasted 90 minutes of my Sunday to watch this, 90 minutes I won't ever get back.

This conference is deeply DEEPLY flawed. It includes three people, none of which is a biologist, all of which are anti-evolution, under the aegis of a likely partisan institution. But I came to it with an open mind, didn't look any of the people up until after watching it.

I won't lose any more time debunking all they're saying other than: they make the extremely false assumption that evolution can do everything, can make a cat turn into a dog and then into a fish. Evolution doesn't work this way. It requires going in a peaks and troughs: going up towards a peak (of evolutionary strength), reaching the peak and then staying there until conditions change. It cannot change once hitting a peak, and it has no reason to either. It can only go down by the organism failing - not surviving - under new circumstances. Then once an organism acclimates to new circumstances it can begin evolving towards a new peak.

David Gelernter's quotes used throughout would make even a first-year biology student cringe by their gaping lack of knowledge and understanding. He is talking about a protein being like a string of beads, and evolution rearranging the beads in tens of thousands of possible combinations. This is fundamentally flawed. Proteins have structural domains and functional domains. Think of it as having a building and deciding to change the doors or windows (functional domains). You can do that, evolution can do that. It CANNOT start changing the angles walls are built in (structural domains), or ripping out foundations, or trying to build a skyscraper from foam because the building (ie the protein) will not function, it will collapse. Similarly there are is no endless rearranging, there are very few viable potential adjustments that are made randomly through point mutations of the DNA sequence. If they are good for the organism they are retained, if they are not the organism never makes it and they are lost. And this doesn't happen in a single instance on a single gene, it happens continuously across hundreds of genes. I've actually directed the evolution of bacteria in the lab for my own fun, even predicted what would happen, and it did, like any sound scientific theory does.

He goes on to talk backwards about proteins and genes, ignoring the fundamental order of genetics and biochemistry: DNA <-> RNA -> protein. You can go from DNA to RNA and then back to DNA, you CANNOT go from protein to RNA, there's no biological mechanism to do so. DNA and RNA are similar and very regularly structured molecules, they are sequences of identical blocks with small differentiating regions, like a film reel. There are proteins which can read these reels and then construct what the image on the reel is. Think of it like a projector fed a film reel and then constructing everything shown on the film.

Total total bunk of an epic scale. Embarrassing really. But that's the best a planned polemic can do: take some people with real qualifications (to lend some weight and credibility) in fields other than biology (mathematics, computer science, philosophy), and real opinions on a subject they don't know much about, and understand even less about, and guide them (not that they needed a lot of guidance) to produce the desired result.

This is my last post on this thread.

Credentials: BSc, MSc in biology, PhD in biochemistry, 4 years academic research position.

I am going to refrain from watching the video based on this response. My apologies, but I also have a degree in biology and I’m about to start the next leg of the adventure in grad school. I’m afraid my rudimentary understanding of protein synthesis and evolution (by comparison to Karam) would still leave my jaw on the table.

No disrespect, but I just don’t have 90 minutes to give it while trying to wrangle these kids and dogs.

Perhaps I’ll give it a go at some point in the future should I find myself with the time.

 

[sablebrush52]

Superb!

I'm surprised youtube never recommended this video to me before. Thanks for posting it.

If you haven't seen this Ted Talk, it's interesting and addresses some of the same issues. (The part about the speed of light in particular made me raise my eyebrows the first time I watched it. A lot of this has a bearing on the OP.)

This was a very entertaining TEDx talk, with some very insightful and interesting parts and some absolute bullshit, especially Dr Sheldrake's list of 10 Dogmas. It does make for a lovely sound bite, but my experience with scientists really doesn't support it. Granted, my contacts, like the President (now former president) of the American Academy of Sciences, may be merely fringe figures in the scientific community, but I'd like to think that they are quite representative of it. And what this means is that they have inquiring, open minds, but also have standards and methodologies for investigating phenomena. They are not likely to agree with the black and white thinking, the "if part of something isn't solid then none of it is solid so let's throw out all of it" reactionary mindset, which is a closed one.

On the topic of ESP, I remember an evening years ago when we held a family get together at mu uncle Lee's home where we experimented with ESP. Granted, Lee, being the Chairman of the Department of Geology at Caltech, credited with co-founding a branch of science called exogeology, NASA's point man on gathering samples from the moon, and co-credited with defining an age range for the Earth would clearly be a minor fringe figure in the scientific firmament, so of course he would profess an interest in the phenomena of Extra Sensory Perception, in contradiction to one of Dr Sheldrake's 10 Dogmas.

In any event we decided play a game wherein we sent one of our number out of the room in which we were gathered, onto another floor in the house, and all focused on a single object to see if the person in the other part of the house would pick up our thoughts and return with the object. The results were impressive, to say the least Maybe we're all aliens and did not know it, but the one time a person dispatched to bring something back failed to do so, was the one time we agreed not to focus on anything.

In general, the scientists I've met and engaged in conversation over the years have almost all have inquiring minds, who accept a great many things for the time being, with the acceptance that those things may be subject to change with new information. Would that science critics could show the same sort of flexibility

 

[BarrelProof]

This was a very entertaining TEDx talk, with some very insightful and interesting parts and some absolute bullshit, especially Dr Sheldrake's list of 10 Dogmas. It does make for a lovely sound bite, but my experience with scientists really doesn't support it. Granted, my contacts, like the President (now former president) of the American Academy of Sciences, may be merely fringe figures in the scientific community, but I'd like to think that they are quite representative of it. And what this means is that they have inquiring, open minds, but also have standards and methodologies for investigating phenomena. They are not likely to agree with the black and white thinking, the "if part of something isn't solid then none of it is solid so let's throw out all of it" reactionary mindset, which is a closed one.

On the topic of ESP, I remember an evening years ago when we held a family get together at mu uncle Lee's home where we experimented with ESP. Granted, Lee, being the Chairman of the Department of Geology at Caltech, credited with co-founding a branch of science called exogeology, NASA's point man on gathering samples from the moon, and co-credited with defining an age range for the Earth would clearly be a minor fringe figure in the scientific firmament, so of course he would profess an interest in the phenomena of Extra Sensory Perception, in contradiction to one of Dr Sheldrake's 10 Dogmas.

In any event we decided play a game wherein we sent one of our number out of the room in which we were gathered, onto another floor in the house, and all focused on a single object to see if the person in the other part of the house would pick up our thoughts and return with the object. The results were impressive, to say the least Maybe we're all aliens and did not know it, but the one time a person dispatched to bring something back failed to do so, was the one time we agreed not to focus on anything.

In general, the scientists I've met and engaged in conversation over the years have almost all have inquiring minds, who accept a great many things for the time being, with the acceptance that those things may be subject to change with new information. Would that science critics could show the same sort of flexibility

Thank you for sharing this. This has been my experience with scientists, as well.

To be sure, there are some that are too proud of their own work to allow much room for discussion; but that type of person exists in any field, religion included.

 

[JJM]

I am going to refrain from watching the video based on this response. My apologies, but I also have a degree in biology and I’m about to start the next leg of the adventure in grad school. I’m afraid my rudimentary understanding of protein synthesis and evolution (by comparison to Karam) would still leave my jaw on the table.

No disrespect, but I just don’t have 90 minutes to give it while trying to wrangle these kids and dogs.

Perhaps I’ll give it a go at some point in the future should I find myself with the time.

Tell me about it. I have a 4 month old and a dog currently wearing the cone of shame.

I take no disrespect from someone not wanting to watch a YouTube video.

I would add though I do feel the view that only "properly credentialed" individuals can add to discussion is quite limiting. Just because one doesn't have a bunch of letters after their name (or not the right letters) does not imply they have nothing of value to offer. We put ourselves in a precarious position when we are only willing to except what the "experts" have to say. Especially considering all of the external factors that influence any field.

 

[sablebrush52]

Tell me about it. I have a 4 month old and a dog currently wearing the cone of shame.

I take no disrespect from someone not wanting to watch a YouTube video.

I would add though I do feel the view that only "properly credentialed" individuals can add to discussion is quite limiting. Just because one doesn't have a bunch of letters after their name (or not the right letters) does not imply they have nothing of value to offer. We put ourselves in a precarious position when we are only willing to except what the "experts" have to say. Especially considering all of the external factors that influence any field.

Well, let me ask you this. You discover that you have to have a very delicate form of heart surgery. Do you choose to have a cardiac surgeon, or a tree surgeon? After all, they're both surgeons.

 

[JJM]

Well, let me ask you this. You discover that you have to have a very delicate form of heart surgery. Do you choose to have a cardiac surgeon, or a tree surgeon? After all, they're both surgeons.

Obviously I would choose the heart surgeon to perform a heart surgery. That doesn't mean that a generalist or for that matter a layman can't offer me valuable information about hearts. That is unless I assume that because I know a heart surgeon I know everything about hearts.

 

[BarrelProof]

Tell me about it. I have a 4 month old and a dog currently wearing the cone of shame.

I take no disrespect from someone not wanting to watch a YouTube video.

I would add though I do feel the view that only "properly credentialed" individuals can add to discussion is quite limiting. Just because one doesn't have a bunch of letters after their name (or not the right letters) does not imply they have nothing of value to offer. We put ourselves in a precarious position when we are only willing to except what the "experts" have to say. Especially considering all of the external factors that influence any field.

That was not at all my intent with what I said. I’m still young to a lot of you, but I’m starting grad school at 38 because I got tired of being the ignored voice in a room because I didn’t have a degree (just finished my only degree a year ago).

I 100% support and try to listen (with an open mind) to the voice of anyone on anything. However, in this case, when I’m time poor, I know someone who has a similar understanding and interpretation of what’s going on who has already viewed the video. He’s provided commentary above any I could have added and that is enough for me to move the video from “must watch” to “will watch if I have time.”

That said, I most definitely respect and appreciate anyone who has put in the time and effort to add those letters after his/her name. It represents a level of commitment to something that isn’t frequently seen in today’s society. And the understanding of a subject that comes along with it is foreign to most people who haven’t put in that level of work, therefore becoming easily brushed aside as “letters.”

Pay attention - credentials aside - this man said he has literally manipulated the genes of an organism and his hypothesis wasn’t rejected.

I would love to know the percentage of people on this planet who have done that.

 

[JJM]

That was not at all my intent with what I said. I’m still young to a lot of you, but I’m starting grad school at 38 because I got tired of being the ignored voice in a room because I didn’t have a degree (just finished my only degree a year ago).

I 100% support and try to listen (with an open mind) to the voice of anyone on anything. However, in this case, when I’m time poor, I know someone who has a similar understanding and interpretation of what’s going on who has already viewed the video. He’s provided commentary above any I could have added and that is enough for me to move the video from “must watch” to “will watch if I have time.”

That said, I most definitely respect and appreciate anyone who has put in the time and effort to add those letters after his/her name. It represents a level of commitment to something that isn’t frequently seen in today’s society. And the understanding of a subject that comes along with it is foreign to most people who haven’t put in that level of work, therefore becoming easily brushed aside as “letters.”

Pay attention - credentials aside - this man said he has literally manipulated the genes of an organism and his hypothesis wasn’t rejected.

I would love to know the percentage of people on this planet who have done that.

Sorry was not trying to put words in your mouth. I also am not trying to take anything away from credentialed individuals. I myself carry some letters after my name.

 

[sablebrush52]

Obviously I would choose the heart surgeon to perform a heart surgery. That doesn't mean that a generalist or for that matter a layman can't offer me valuable information about hearts. That is unless I assume that because I know a heart surgeon I know everything about hearts.

A layman might very well provide you with information about hearts, but of what caliber and correctness? And to what sort of layman are you referring? A GP, a pharmacist, a physical therapist, your gardener? Are there any loci?

One of the very popular sentiments we see in today's society is a belief that expertise doesn't really matter, that everyone and anyone is an expert and their comments of equal value, even that expertise is a bad thing. Good luck with that nanny nonsense.

I have nothing against elites based on merit and will give consideration to people who do the work over people who do not.

 

[JJM]

A layman might very well provide you with information about hearts, but of what caliber and correctness? And to what sort of layman are you referring? A GP, a pharmacist, a physical therapist, your gardener? Are there any loci?

One of the very popular sentiments we see in today's society is a belief that expertise doesn't really matter, that everyone and anyone is an expert and their comments of equal value, even that expertise is a bad thing. Good luck with that nanny nonsense.

I have nothing against elites based on merit and will give consideration to people who do the work over people who do not.

I agree with you. All I am trying to say is that I do not disregard someone's input on the mere basis of their not being an "expert." I would add experts often get things wrong (kind of like the subject of the original post.) It's been fun everyone !

 

[greeneyes]

I'm watching the video as I type. As a scientist who practices in the domains being discussed, I'd like to offer my profession opinion.

The people being interviewed on this video know just enough about what they're discussing to give the appearance of being experts, but it is embarrassingly bad.

I don't say it loosely. Embarrassingly bad. These people are charlatans.

Every word coming out of their mouths... the assumption that mutational rates should be constant. The notion that mutations are random or follow purely probabilistic frequencies of occurrence. I think that everyone is entitled to their opinion but these aren't opinions---they're utter misrepresentations of facts.

I apologize if I offend.

*

I must add something further regarding the telescope findings. The idea that these images of the early Universe somehow invalidate science is preposterous. This is an example of science using better science to improve upon itself. The theories being refined were themselves derived and tested on the basis of earlier hypotheses.

To claim on the basis of these recent findings that astrophysics is somehow now "wrong" and "...therefore God is and I rest my case" ... again, this is an assertion of faith and has nothing to do with science whatsoever.

 

[BarrelProof]

I'm watching the video as I type. As a scientist who practices in the domains being discussed, I'd like to offer my profession opinion.

The people being interviewed on this video know just enough about what they're discussing to give the appearance of being experts, but it is embarrassingly bad.

I don't say it loosely. Embarrassingly bad. These people are charlatans.

Every word coming out of their mouths... the assumption that mutational rates should be constant. The notion that mutations are random or follow purely probabilistic frequencies of occurrence. I think that everyone is entitled to their opinion but these aren't opinions---they're utter misrepresentations of facts.

I apologize if I offend.

*

I must add something further regarding the telescope findings. The idea that these images of the early Universe somehow invalidate science is preposterous. This is an example of science using better science to improve upon itself. The theories being refined were themselves derived and tested on the basis of earlier hypotheses.

To claim on the basis of these recent findings that astrophysics is somehow now "wrong" and "...therefore God is and I rest my case" ... again, this is an assertion of faith and has nothing to do with science whatsoever.

Moved from “watch if I have time” to “may watch at some point if I’m bored and remember.”

No offense intended, either. It’s just that now the contents of the video are revealing themselves without watching, so it’s less of a surprise and more of a I know what to expect.

 

[OverMountain]

Depends on the theoretical physicist. My brother was a theoretical physicist who held that it was all theory and could hit a wall at any moment. This would have delighted him.

Real science knows it’s all just a construct until vigorously proven otherwise. There is a current of humility in the scientific process and it’s practitioners. There are so many unknown unknowns, and even what we think is “true” must continually hold up to measures of external, internal and ecological validity.

Universal and intellectual humility.

 

[OverMountain]

I'm watching the video as I type. As a scientist who practices in the domains being discussed, I'd like to offer my profession opinion.

The people being interviewed on this video know just enough about what they're discussing to give the appearance of being experts, but it is embarrassingly bad.

I don't say it loosely. Embarrassingly bad. These people are charlatans.

Every word coming out of their mouths... the assumption that mutational rates should be constant. The notion that mutations are random or follow purely probabilistic frequencies of occurrence. I think that everyone is entitled to their opinion but these aren't opinions---they're utter misrepresentations of facts.

I apologize if I offend.

*

I must add something further regarding the telescope findings. The idea that these images of the early Universe somehow invalidate science is preposterous. This is an example of science using better science to improve upon itself. The theories being refined were themselves derived and tested on the basis of earlier hypotheses.

To claim on the basis of these recent findings that astrophysics is somehow now "wrong" and "...therefore God is and I rest my case" ... again, this is an assertion of faith and has nothing to do with science whatsoever.

Would love to hear more about your work.

“Anything that can be destroyed by the truth, deserves to be destroyed by the truth”

 

[BarrelProof]

Would love to hear more about your work.

“Anything that can be destroyed by the truth, deserves to be destroyed by the truth”

Seconded.

 

[Briar Tuck]

Just in case anyone thought George was joking:

Air traffic controllers in Siberia claim they were buzzed by a high-speed UFO with a female sounding alien who spoke in an unintelligible cat-like language.

'I kept hearing some female voice, as if a woman was saying mioaw-mioaw all the time,' he told the pilot of a passing Aeroflot flight.

Close encounters of the purred kind: Aliens spoke to us in a 'cat-like language' claim Russian flight controllers

Suspected aliens inside the craft could be heard saying 'meow, meow' after it burst on radars over the remote Russian diamond capital of Yakutsk.

www.dailymail.co.uk

You can meet girls meowing like cats any day of the week in Portland. There's even talk of installing litter boxes in restrooms.

 

[Briar Tuck]

This thread took some... bizarre turns.
Great to see the Webb telescope pushing the boundaries !

The thread is expanding...like the universe.

 

[sablebrush52]

I agree with you. All I am trying to say is that I do not disregard someone's input on the mere basis of their not being an "expert." I would add experts often get things wrong (kind of like the subject of the original post.) It's been fun everyone !

Absolutely, especially with financial experts. I can't tell you how many times I've seen entirely contradicting projections given by "noted experts" in the financial field. If they're all contradicting each other I have to wonder what the standards are for their analysis. Often I believe it's tea leaves and sometimes chicken bones.

 

[sablebrush52]

Would love to hear more about your work.

“Anything that can be destroyed by the truth, deserves to be destroyed by the truth”

That would be the end of social media and politicians. Hmm...maybe not such a bad outcome.

 

[karam]

Total total bunk of an epic scale. Embarrassing really.

I'm watching the video as I type. As a scientist who practices in the domains being discussed, I'd like to offer my profession opinion.

The people being interviewed on this video know just enough about what they're discussing to give the appearance of being experts, but it is embarrassingly bad.

I don't say it loosely. Embarrassingly bad. These people are charlatans.

Every word coming out of their mouths... the assumption that mutational rates should be constant. The notion that mutations are random or follow purely probabilistic frequencies of occurrence. I think that everyone is entitled to their opinion but these aren't opinions---they're utter misrepresentations of facts.

Decided to debunk my own theory that I wouldn't post again in this thread because there's new data, namely to say I love how we both used the same word!