Giant 'Baby' Galaxies Shake Up Understanding of the Early Universe

She has a much more detailed lecture on that in this video:

I really like her animated figure at 16:51 because it really shows how adjusting the value of a parameter up or down, in a model, radically affects the predicted output of that model. In this case how the amount of dark matter affects the intensity of the temperature fluctuations in the cosmic background radiation.


For some reason in our earlier conversation about JWST, halfway through I forgot or was unaware of the end of Lisle’s article justifying why his predictions were fulfilled. This is just a small part of that section, but yes, he’s aware that what other astrophysicists predicted was related to standard cosmology.

Another paper states, “Early data from JWST have revealed a bevy of high-redshift galaxy candidates with unexpectedly high stellar masses.”[30] The author elaborates, “If these massive galaxies are spectroscopically confirmed and/or if other galaxies with similar properties at 𝑧 ≳ 10 are found, they will present a serious challenge for ΛCDM structure formation with parameters given by Planck Collaboration et al. (2020) because they signify the existence of a significantly larger reservoir of collapsed baryons than is possible in ΛCDM.”[31] In other words, if these JWST galaxies really are at the distances they seem to be, then the big bang is in real trouble because it cannot account for this. (ΛCDM is the term for the standard big bang model with the standard parameters).[32]

Another technical paper also reports the inconsistency (“tension”) of the mass of these galaxies compared to the predictions of the standard (big bang) model. The authors state, “Either these galaxies are in tension with ΛCDM or there are unaccounted for uncertainties in their stellar mass or redshift estimates.”[33]

I was looking at the article again because he has made predictions about exoplanets and I had watched this video from Anton Petrov. Discovery of a Forbidden Planet? Here's What Was Actually Found - YouTube Lisle didn’t make predictions about the size of planets. However Anton admits this discovery means scientists don’t really understand planet formation.

As far as I understand it, even if you consider different models that explain massive objects, you still have to consider how much time structure formation takes.

So this video from Anton was interesting. Strange New Object May Explain Early Galaxies Found By James Webb - YouTube This galaxy is argued to have a supermassive black hole forming a lot of stars.

At the beginning Anton mentions primordial black holes and even steady state. So we are definitely witnessing a shift in the consensus. I don’t watch every video or his, but I don’t think he’s ever gone there before. The Big Bang models will look totally different in a few years.

So astrophysicists do not have a good explanation for planet formation, early massive structures, early galaxy formation, etc and I’m happy to predict the problem of little to no explanations will become worse the more telescopes come online, and others online keep observing.

As far as I see it, YEC predicts that all of the black holes and galaxies in the universe were present within days of the creation of the universe, and that their distance from us isn’t related to time at galactic scales. It might have some of the same predictions as other models, but the other models still predict distance is related to time, and structures formed over time - unless they are steady state models.

Such a prediction is compatible with pretty much anything.

It cannot be ignored that there are innumerable examples where we possess detailed and uncontroversial observations of cause, such as black hole accretion, galactic interactions, and shock waves, and structure, such as jets, gas streamers, young star formation, and galactic distortion, and that the relationship between the observed cause and structure involves time durations well in excess of what is allowed in YEC.

YEC are generally adamant against the idea of false history, false appearance of age, or the omphalos hypothesis, and maintain that these are somehow different from a mature creation. But this distinction really makes no sense as concerns astronomy. For instance, how are stars that have exhausted nearly all their fuel and been witnessed to blow up as supernova’s — mature? There is no human utility there; it is not like it does anything for us. Geriatric stars are like creating Adam wrinkled, arthritic, and ready to drop dead the next day.

1 Like

As far as I see it, YEC predicts nothing about the attributes or existence of galaxies in the universe at any moment in time. You are merely accounting for them in an ad-hoc fashion. You know 6000 years is too little time for them to form and evolve, so you just rationalize their existence as something God must have done within the first few days. Not a prediction, a rationalization.

Putting that aside, your “model” has literally zero explanatory power.

Why do galaxies look increasingly different the further away we get? The frequency of discs, spirals, and barred spirals drops off with increasing distance, and the furthest away we can see the galaxies appear to be essentially extremely dense and massive spheres, with effectively no heavy metals, and with little to no interstellar dust in them.

Why is that, @thoughtful?

While the magnitude and frequency of the massive and dense galaxies appears much higher than expected with the “standard” models, the trend towards less like our surroundings and increasingly dense galaxies with smaller radii, less dust, and less heavy metals, with increasing redshift, appears to continue.


I don’t agree with the characterization that they have no good explanation (much less the “little to no explanation”) for these phenomena. I think they have exceptionally good, but very rough and simple explanations, for these phenomena: Gravity.

A force of attraction between objects with mass, suspended in a vacuum, make them coalesce and accrete over time.

The way you characterize this gives the impression there’s like no explanation for why stars, galaxies, black holes, or planets form. And that’s just painfully obviously wrong and I have to say it’s bordering on nuts. Gravity is real. So is electromagnetism. So are gases, dust, fluids, vacuum, radiation pressure, etc. Getting it all together correctly so astrophysicists can make correct detailed predictions from initial conditions is the challenge.

The problem is modeling in a simple and computationally tractable way, the details of those explanations.


Aaaand another video on the subject from Dr. Becky Smethurst, I highly recommend her channel as well. :slight_smile:


This is another nice video summarising the research and some of the implications:

Edi: I see Matthew beat me to the punch by a few minutes

1 Like

@structureoftruth already watched it before I came on here and saw you both recommended it. :slightly_smiling_face:

Uh, remember us discussing Kartaltepe and Yan’s research? They’re at the beginning of showing that’s not true. You’re stuck in 2021 science.

Kartaltepe’s assuming we’ll begin to understand galaxy evolution with a larger survey though. The survey will be finished in about 10 months so we’ll see.

Based on this they’ll be able to analyze over half a million galaxies.

This first snapshot of COSMOS-Web contains about 25,000 galaxies—an astonishing number larger than even what sits in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field,” said Casey. “It’s one of the largest JWST images taken so far. And yet it’s just 4 percent of the data we will get for the full survey. When it is finished, this deep field will be astoundingly large and overwhelmingly beautiful.”

“Cause” is an interpretation. Plus I’ve read enough articles by now I could find exceptions that don’t fit the rule well, like this.

Yet these “rules” of growth haven’t been questioned yet.

Beauty. Plus, the remnants are beautiful too. You’re saying God shouldn’t create stars to be fireworks because stars, by necessity, are comparable to living things?

6000 years doesn’t have much to do with it. Genesis 1 declares God created the universe, then created various natural phenomena separately, which means their initial existence isn’t created by forces necessary for light and matter to exist, but is instead sustained by them. The stars, sun, and moon were created two days before man could see them. That rules out galactic evolution.

In the model I have proposed, it predicts that gravity or any other force cannot account for the difference between the CMB and the structures we see today. It predicts the early universe was very isotropic and any other age of the universe looks like today - with any pattern of structural evolution at galactic scales less and less apparent with each new survey that is done.

Wow in all seriousness, from what dream of yours did you extract this conclusion? What exactly is it they said that makes you think that is what is occurring?

And yet it says nothing about those natural phenomena being galaxies, at what stage of age they were created, or whether or not they were created with the ability to change. You’re literally just making all this up.

Ironically no, it doesn’t. On your religion God created trees able to grow, and a day-night cycle. The idea that something was created doesn’t mean it was created to remain constant and unalterable, nor does it mean it wasn’t created with the ability to change over time.

It is the TIME aspect of your YEC that rules out galactic evolution (6000 years is not enough for supernova remenants to spread and seed new star formation, galaxy mergers, solar system formation, etc.), not the rationalization that galaxies were created, for reasons just explained.

You haven’t proposed a model. You’ve rationalized an observation in an ad-hoc fashion. You do not predict anything from some principle, or equation, or force, and a set of initial conditions. Something exists and then you say “God made it that way bcuz it’s pretty, and he made it unable to change.” It’s not even a Biblically motivated idea that God should have made the heavens unchangeable. It’s just some nonsense you come up with because it is so painfully obvious you are uncomfortable with the Big Bang hypothesis and that distance implies time, and change over that distance implies cosmic evolution.

It doesn’t “predict” that, you merely declare that it is so. That the idea of cosmic evolution due to natural forces is false because God wished the cosmos into existence basically in it’s present state, that the most distant universe is like the local universe(why? No idea, you just want to contradict the idea of change with distance and time) and that nothing in it is the result of these natural forces.

It’s all rather odd too, because it’s far from obvious why God could not simply create the distant universe to look differently than the local universe.

1 Like

I do not think so. Accretion into a black hole does not cause the jets? Gravity does not cause tidal distortion? High energy dispersal does not cause shock waves? We are catching these phenomena in the act. Interpretation is not some incantation that dispels cause and effect.

Given that these processes are ongoing over time, that is history there. The only question of interpretation is whether it is real history and we live in a rational universe, or false history where we are not to trust our senses or minds.

There is beauty in the big bang, the elegance of a parsimonious palette of rules which have yielded a universe of kaleidoscopic wonders, While not all ascribe such time to eternity and scope to divine power, it would be most befitting a supreme being.


Think of the depth of the deception required to sustain YEC with a universe of this size and it’s properties. Not only did God apparently create many systems with the appearance of age (like galaxies in the process of merging over periods much longer than 6000 years), he also created the light arriving to us right now (which can not have traveled the entire distance in the allotted time at the actual speed of light) with the appearance of having actually traveled the distance due to the degree of absorption by dust, or hydrogen, exhibited by it’s spectrum. So since the light did not actually travel through that entire space and passing through gas and dust on the way, it is nevertheless exhibiting attenuation as if it did because, well because God wanted it that way.


Most supernovae go unobserved, and even though we have the technology to detect them occurring, the vast vast majority of people who have ever lived never got to see one or their remnants. To make matters worse the vast majority of the cosmos is obscured by our local galaxy, so everything occurring there and ever will occur there into the most distant future, as beautiful as it might be if we could see it, will never be laid eyes on.

On a related note, the idea of a star coming to the end of it’s extremely long life and then exploding just because it might be pretty to a lucky observer, unavoidably admits to the reality of cosmic evolution. The stars will all die out eventually and scatter their contents into the surroundings.

What’s next here- is @thoughtful saying that God is like just sort of popping a star here and there for the fun of it? They don’t naturally age? They do not experience time? Undergo change as a function of processes in their core? Nuclear fusion does not power their light, and will not eventually fuse all their elements to their limits of mass and stability? God is continuously wishing matter into existence in the cores of stars?

1 Like

Not to mention exhibiting the effects of

  • gravitational lensing from objects it didn’t pass, including planets we couldn’t have seen orbiting stars that weren’t there;
  • spectral absorption from gas clouds or planetary atmospheres it didn’t pass through;
  • red/blue shift from the relative motion of the stars it wasn’t actually generated by;
  • variations in frequency, brightness or origin caused by not-yet-existing stars co-orbiting not-yet-existing hot Jupiters;
  • reflection off orbital shell material that wasn’t there; and
  • the (super)novae of stars that never existed.

It’s not the astronomical equivalent of Omphalos, it’s the astronomical equivalent of misspelt tattoos, appendectomy scar, fillings, photo album, exam certificates and family cemetery.


Then we should be seeing new stars appear as the light from stars 6,000ly away reaches us for the first time.


The linguistic contortions you use to avoid the very essence of science, hypothesis testing, are amusing.

Also amusing.

You haven’t proposed a model, much less one that makes empirical predictions. It’s all retrospective to avoid real science, aka hypothesis testing.


“We expected to find basically zero massive galaxies beyond about 9 billion years ago, because theoretical models predict that massive galaxies form last,” said Karl Glazebrook, an astronomer at Johns Hopkins University. “Instead, we found highly developed galaxies that just shouldn’t have been there, but are.”

A popsci article from 2004? Your powers of googling for things that sound like they fit your narrative are truly astonishing.

1 Like

Just waiting for someone to notice. :slightly_smiling_face: I thought it was interesting that this phenomena of “early massive galaxies” has been around for two decades and has continued as telescopes have improved. Two decades and the timeline of galaxy formation has been pushed back billions of years.

I wonder how “billions of years” fits into a span of 6000 years.


What appears to have been pushed back closer to the big bang is the apparent frequency of large galaxies out of the proportion of total galaxies. There wasn’t any model that said there should be no galaxies for billions of years after the big bang.

On a related note, models are typically adjusted to reproduce what we see because some of the values that are inputs to the models are unknowns (one of which I understand to be this so-called IMF, initial mass function). Notice that it appears astronomers are now suggesting the IMF is even more substantially different for the early universe compared to the present universe than previously. That’s not an indication that observations are leaning more towards an isotropic universe.