Web space telescope discovers Galaxy that is too old for Evolution?

[BobRyan]

Looks more like "creation" than evolution.

This is a case of a big pile of "nothing" popping out a fully formed galaxy 13.4 billion LY away - and all the light still reaching us --

from: Video: The New NASA Telescope Now Discovers a Galaxy Nearly As Old As Time Itself (msn.com)

"NASA revealed Wednesday that the James Webb Space Telescope has unveiled an image of a galaxy that is the oldest in the known universe. The light from this galaxy is reported to be some 13.4 billion years old.

"Some context is in order here, in terms of space and time. The Big Bang is estimated to have occurred about 13.7 or 13.8 billion years ago. So this galaxy is very close to one of the oldest entities whose light we could ever see. This is especially true considering the fact that light itself did not start forming until about a couple hundred million years after the Big Bang. If you do the math, you understand how close this telescope is getting us to the beginning of time.​

 

[Blade]

"The sun is the only star we know the age of". Ok sure why not haha. They have no clue

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Looks more like "creation" than evolution.

Evolution is a biological theory of the origin of species. It is meaningful only in the context of life, which it presupposes. A galaxy, of course, is not a biological entity (such as a species population). In other words, this discovery pertains to matters quite antecedent to evolution.

This is a case of a big pile of "nothing" popping out a fully formed galaxy 13.4 billion LY away ...

Notwithstanding the scarequotes, it was not a "big pile of nothing." This was a few hundred billion years after the Big Bang and shortly after light itself started forming, the author said. In other words, there was a whole lot of something.

EDIT: I really ought to proof-read before I publish. That should have said "a few hundred million years" after the Big Bang.

 

[Job 33:6]

Shrugs. It's a nice discovery but I don't really see anything particularly groundbreaking about this. If a Galaxy were observed to predate the big bang, then that would be exciting news. And who knows, we'll see where astronomy takes us. In the meantime, it's kind of more of the same.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Interesting BobRyan.
I am a little dense. How is this too old for evolution? I can see how something might be too young for evolution.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Shrugs. It's a nice discovery but I don't really see anything particularly groundbreaking about this.

Putting on my young-earth creationist hat for a moment, perhaps this image is notable because it shows a galaxy existing much too early in the history of the cosmos, only 300 million years after the Big Bang. It's not too early, of course, but maybe that is one of the supposed problems.

In fact, scientists tend to believe the earliest generations of stars and galaxies formed around 200 to 500 million years after the Big Bang, give or take a month. Two very early galaxies discovered by astronomers at the University of Tokyo earlier this year, HD1 (by the Cosmic Evolution Survey) and HD2 (by the Subaru Telescope), formed roughly 13.5 billion years ago—or very close to when this galaxy formed, GL-z13 (approx. 13.57 Ga).

If a galaxy were observed to predate the Big Bang, then that would be exciting news.

You have a flair for understatement.

 

[BobRyan]

Putting on my young-earth creationist hat for a moment, perhaps this image is notable because it shows a galaxy existing much too early in the history of the cosmos, only 300 million years after the Big Bang. It's not too early, of course, but maybe that is one of the supposed problems.

In the article light itself does not come into existence until 100 million years. So this leaves only 200 million years for the transition from amorphous gas and particles into an entire organized galaxy with solar systems fully complete in their orbits fully formed.

In fact, scientists tend to believe the earliest generations of stars and galaxies formed around 200 to 500 million years after the Big Bang, give or take a month.

So now we can shrink cosmology down to an entire galaxy and all of its planets and solar systems forming 'from nothing' - in 200 million years. The story line begins to wear a little thin. Earth forms 4.5 Billion years ago - and the first single celled organism 3.8 Billion years ago (as the story goes).

Interesting BobRyan.
I am a little dense. How is this too old for evolution? I can see how something might be too young for evolution.

I will take your word for that one.

So that is 700 million years to form one single celled organism -- and a mere 200 million years to form an entire galaxy!!

The story has so many twists and turns in it.

 

[Job 33:6]

In the article light itself does not come into existence until 100 million years. So this leaves only 200 million years for the transition from amorphous gas and particles into an entire organized galaxy with solar systems fully complete in their orbits fully formed.



So now we can shrink cosmology down to an entire galaxy and all of its planets and solar systems forming 'from nothing' - in 200 million years. The story line begins to wear a little thin. Earth forms 4.5 Billion years ago - and the first single celled organism 3.8 Billion years ago (as the story goes).



I will take your word for that one.

So that is 700 million years to form one single celled organism -- and a mere 200 million years to form an entire galaxy!!

The story has so many twists and turns in it.

When did 200 million years ever become "mere" ?

 

[Job 33:6]

When did 200 million years ever become "mere" ?

It's also interesting to note that the galaxy appears to be primitive, estimated at roughly 3,000 light years in span. The milky way by comparison has been estimated some 60+ times larger at around 200,000 light years across. So when the article mentions a galaxy, we should also consider what the qualities of that galaxy are.

 

[BobRyan]

When did 200 million years ever become "mere" ?

when someone wants to imagine the amount of time needed to form 1 tiny prokaryote cell and claims it takes 700 million years to do it.

So then an entire galaxy "needs" to form in less than 200 million out of nothing (by comparison) because...well... err..umm... "we need it to"??

 

[BobRyan]

It's also interesting to note that the galaxy appears to be primitive, .

Primitive would be little more than loads of gas nebulae , and not much other than accretion discs orbiting a center of gravity for the galaxy.

===================

"If SMALL" is your creteria then "Seque 2" is at the origin point of the big bang by that standard.

"Scientists at the University of California at Irvine have discovered a galaxy so small that it barely even qualifies as a galaxy. Deemed "Segue 2," the dwarf galaxy only contains about 1,000 stars and is the least massive galaxy in the known universe, reports Phys.org."

Just How Big Is the Smallest Galaxy in the Universe?

=================
114 K lightyears away - is Seque 2.

from: http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/a...of,a bit of dark matter holding them together.

"Segue 2 is located in the constellation of Aries about 114,000 light-years away. It was discovered in 2009 as part of the massive Sloan Digital Sky Survey. The galaxy consists of just 1,000 or so stars with a bit of dark matter holding them together."​

from: Segue 2 - Wikipedia

"Segue 2 is one of the smallest and faintest satellites of the Milky Way"​

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

In the article, light itself does not come into existence until 100 million years [after the Big Bang]. So, this leaves only 200 million years for the transition from amorphous gas and particles into an entire organized galaxy with solar systems fully complete in their orbits fully formed.

"Only" 200 million years, he says, as if that's somehow brief.

Even if you and I agree that 200 million years seems like a pretty tight window, it's not as if we are dealing with something impossible here. Remarkable? Yes. Impossible? Not even close. (And keep in mind that the age is not a specific, hard number; it's somewhere around 300 to 400 million years after the Big Bang.)

I don't know what Quiggle meant when he said that "light itself did not start forming until about a couple hundred million years after the Big Bang," because that is simply false. That timeframe is approximately when high-mass population III stars began forming (Petersen 2022) but light came into existence a matter of seconds after the Big Bang (Wikipedia, s.v. "Timeline of the early universe"). Quasars, stars, and galaxies are all forming during the first 200 to 500 million years.

And who said that GLASS-z13 had solar systems? It's around a thousand times smaller than our galaxy, remember—a billion solar masses. It has "a population of hot, young stars" and "could be bursting with star-formation regions" (Petersen 2022) but I don't recall anyone saying anything about solar systems fully complete in their orbits fully formed, as you said.

So, now we can shrink cosmology down to an entire galaxy and ...

What?

So, now we can shrink cosmology down to an entire galaxy and all of its planets and solar systems forming 'from nothing'—in 200 million years. The storyline begins to wear a little thin.

Again, it was not "from nothing." The universe existed at this point and was a few hundred million years old. There was lots of stuff around. How long did it take GLASS-z13 to form? We don't know, but less than 400 million years.

Earth forms 4.5 billion years ago—and the first single-celled organism 3.8 billion years ago (as the story goes).

That's what the evidence seems to indicate at this point.

 

[Job 33:6]

when someone wants to imagine the amount of time needed to form 1 tiny prokaryote cell and claims it takes 700 million years to do it.

So then an entire galaxy "needs" to form in less than 200 million out of nothing (by comparison) because...well... err..umm... "we need it to"??

Shrugs, I don't find this subjection particularly compelling. If you had more than your personal feelings to work off of, it might be more convincing.

 

[Job 33:6]

Primitive would be little more than loads of gas nebulae , and not much other than accretion discs orbiting a center of gravity for the galaxy.

===================

"If SMALL" is your creteria then "Seque 2" is at the origin point of the big bang by that standard.

"Scientists at the University of California at Irvine have discovered a galaxy so small that it barely even qualifies as a galaxy. Deemed "Segue 2," the dwarf galaxy only contains about 1,000 stars and is the least massive galaxy in the known universe, reports Phys.org."

Just How Big Is the Smallest Galaxy in the Universe?

=================
114 K lightyears away - is Seque 2.

from: http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/article01147-segue-2-dwarf-galaxy.html#:~:text=Segue 2 is located in the constellation of,a bit of dark matter holding them together.

"Segue 2 is located in the constellation of Aries about 114,000 light-years away. It was discovered in 2009 as part of the massive Sloan Digital Sky Survey. The galaxy consists of just 1,000 or so stars with a bit of dark matter holding them together."​

from: Segue 2 - Wikipedia

"Segue 2 is one of the smallest and faintest satellites of the Milky Way"​

Never said all small galaxies must be old, but rather all old ones would logically be small, as one of multiple qualities that old galaxies would have.

One quality of early galaxies in modern theories of galaxy evolution is that they don't have spiral arms. So one thing you could do is investigate how long spiral arms take to form. That could give you an idea of if this particular Galaxy had been around for that amount of time, if it had spiral arms.

 

[Job 33:6]

So I took a look at the James web galaxy of the early universe and I took an image of Andromeda.

To be fair, the galaxies of the early universe aren't as "cosmologically evolved" as more modern galaxies.

And so size may be an indicator of that, but even without being an astrophysicist, it's quite apparent that there's an entire galaxy "morphology" to take into account here.

Meaning that James web looking at an early galaxy and seeing some formless blob, in reality just confirms that we are looking back extremely long ago, looking back through time the further away the galactic system is and the further away, the more formless it is.