Was the camera just duct taped to the back of a cat?

The photographer who took pictures of our wedding forgot to take the lens cap off, I always wondered where he went next

Imagine you're a director. And this was your cinematographer.

I finally figured out the camera man's perspective. He is a former USMC Sniper. That's the only logical explanation. 😎

For goodness sakes. Next time just zoom out so you can fit him, the stage and the background images into the shot, instead of trying to chase him around every time he walks out of the shot. That was so annoying

To all cameramen: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE focus on the content of the presentation, not the presenter. Thank you. (To the cameramen in this video, Shaun Leow & Kelvin Teo, I hope this is a positive learning experience for you. Thanks.)

So, it's aa TED event filmed by my dad. Gotcha.

I'm glad he had that clicker in his hand to move from picture to picture THAT WE DIDN"T GET TO SEE!!!

I think the missing link may actually be filming this

5:05 a true failure of cinematography

looks like we just found a new species of cameraman

The camera man needs to evolve over a few million more years...

Either the cameraman is stoned or he has a major crush on Whye!

Without all the great visual examples shown, I wouldn't have been able to grasp what he's saying. Thank you again, TED!

ZOOOOOOOMMMMMM OOOOOUUUUUTTT!!!!!!!

Best comment section ever. Laughs for days

It would be nice if we could see the damn slides!

This is the worst radio broadcast I've ever watched...

and Oscar goes for the best cameraman ever :)

proving that illustrated talks require the illustrations to be meaningful.

the quality of cam operation is worse than amateurish

*DNA and Proteins Paradox (The First Replicator)* In about 1962 we finally understood that the first replicating molecule was composed of RNA, a simpler version DNA as the basis for the first life form. Self-replicating systems of RNA molecules have been found in nature (RNA functions both as a gene and as an enzyme). RNA molecules can store and replicate genetics information and can catalyze chemical reactions) The mystery of how these RNA molecules formed by themselves still remained. *We have gradually came to understand that this replication was done by proteins. Proteins can twist and fold into a wild diversity of shapes, so they can do just about anything, including acting as enzymes, substances that catalyze a huge range of chemical reactions* . At the same time we also found that the information needed to make proteins is stored in DNA molecules. We can’t make new proteins without DNA, and we can’t make new DNA without proteins. So which came first, proteins or DNA? Creationists, often site this apparent paradox as the evidence for the impossibility of natural (chemical) origins of life and the “proof” for an Intelligent Designer, or “god”. Of course, time did not stand still, since the 1960’s; and the additional information came to light. “The discovery that RNA could fold like a protein, albeit not into such complex structures, suggested an answer. If RNA could catalyze reactions as well as storing information, some RNA molecules might be capable of making more RNA molecules. And if that was the case, RNA replicators would have had no need for proteins. They could do everything themselves” (New Scientist). Still, this was a nice hypothesis only until 1982, when an RNA enzyme was discovered. (Thomas Cech of the University of Colorado in Boulder found it in Tetrahymena thermophila, a bizarre single-celled animal with seven sexes; Science, vol 231, p 4737). “This was followed by the discovery of several more RNA enzymes in living organisms and even new ones were manufactures in the laboratory. These were significant evidence that the first life consisted of RNA molecules that catalyzed the production of more RNA molecules - “the RNA world”, as Harvard chemist Walter Gilbert dubbed it 25 years ago (Nature, vol 319, p 618). The RNA enzyme Cech discovered did not just catalyze any old reaction. It was a short section of RNA that could cut itself out of a longer chain. Reversing the reaction would add RNA to chains, meaning RNA replicators might have been able to swap bits with other RNA molecules.” We do know that RNA needs protein to duplicate itself. Since an early replicator could not be found, we have to assume that if one really existed it has disappeared long time ago. In order to deal with this challenge we were impelled to produce such a replicator. By 2001, we have been able to build an RNA enzyme called R18 that could stick 14 nucleotides - the building blocks of RNA and DNA - onto an existing RNA, using another RNA as a template (Science, vol 292, p 1319). Then along came Philipp Holliger of the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK, and he unveiled an RNA enzyme called tC19Z. It reliably copies RNA sequences up to 95 letters long, almost half as long as itself (Science, vol 332, p 209). To do this, tC19Z clamps onto the end of an RNA, attaches the correct nucleotide, then moves forward a step and adds another. In 2003, Hiroaki Suga, now at the University of Tokyo, Japan, created an RNA enzyme that could oxidise alcohol, with help from a cofactor called NAD+ which is used by many protein enzymes (Nature Structural Biology, vol 10, p 713). Months later, Ronald Breaker of Yale University found that a natural RNA enzyme, called glmS, also uses a cofactor. Many bacteria use glmS, says Ferré-D’Amaré, so either it is ancient or RNA enzymes that use cofactors evolve easily. Either way, it looks as if RNA molecules would have been capable of carrying out the range of the reactions needed to produce energy. So the evidence that there was once an RNA world is growing ever more convincing. But there is still one huge and obvious problem: where did the RNA come from in the first place? RNA molecules are strings of nucleotides, which in turn are made of a sugar with a base and a phosphate attached. In living cells, numerous enzymes are involved in producing nucleotides and joining them together, but of course the primordial planet had no such enzymes. There was clay, though. In 1996, biochemist Leslie Orgel showed that when “activated” nucleotides - those with an extra bit tacked on to the phosphate - were added to a kind of volcanic clay, RNA molecules up to 55 nucleotides long formed (Nature, vol 381, p 59). With ordinary nucleotides, the activated ones provide the energy needed to drive the reaction. This suggests that if there were plenty of activated nucleotides on the early Earth, large RNA molecules would form spontaneously. John Sutherland, at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, proved that it was possible that simpler molecules might assemble into a nucleotide without ever becoming sugars or bases. He took half a sugar and half a base, and stuck them together - forming the crucial sugar-base link that everyone had struggled with. Then he bolted on the rest of the sugar and base. Sutherland stuck on the phosphate last, though he found that it needed to be present in the mixture for the earlier reactions to work (Nature, vol 459, p 239). Sutherland concluded that there is a “Goldilocks chemistry” - not too simple, not too complex - that would produce many key compounds from the same melting pot. The issue isn’t entirely solved yet. RNA has four different nucleotides, and so far Sutherland has only produced two of them. However, he says he is “closing in” on the other two. If he succeeds, it will show that the spontaneous formation of an RNA replicator is not so improbable after all, and that the first replicator was most likely made of RNA. The many questions remaining are addressed by Jack Szostak of Harvard University who has shown that the same clay that produces RNA chains also encourages the formation of membrane-bound sacs rather like cells that enclose cells. He has grown “proto-cells” that can carry RNA and even divide without modern cellular machinery. No fossilized vestiges remain of the first replicators as far as we know. But we can try recreating the RNA world to demonstrate how it might have arisen. “One day soon”, Sutherland says, “someone will fill a container with a mix of primordial chemicals, keep it under the right conditions, and watch life emerge. “That experiment will be done.” Footnote: This comment is based on several science articles on the subject and direct quotes from those articles.

I guess I'll never find out what Darwin's self-portrait looks like

Watching this is like participating in an experiment to create the feeling of being drunk. Or seasick.

He misses an awesome Huxley quote... So a bunch of people were debating Darwin's hypothesis, and a Bishop (Don't remember his name) asked Huxley if his grandfather or grandmother was the ape, so Huxley says to the guy next to him: "The LORD hath delivered him into my hands!" He than stands up and says to the bishop: “If then the question is put to me whether I would rather have a miserable ape for a grandfather or a man highly endowed by nature and possessed of great means of influence and yet employs these faculties and that influence for the mere purpose of introducing ridicule into a grave scientific discussion, I unhesitatingly affirm my preference for the ape.” Bloody brilliant. It's like the best comeback from a scientist to a creationist...

I love how the only thing anyone took away from this was the cameraman 😭😂

I just missed the entire video, reading this hysterical comment section.

How far the UKposts presentations have come over the last 10 years. The best presenters are the same, but the settings, camera men and tech is now so professional.

Excellent and very interesting subject matter and fantastic presentation by this young man however the 7-year-old camera boy was a bust.

Well, I hope the camera operator's technique has evolved since this was filmed.

If you have not read "Voyage of the Beagle" then please do so. It gives a vivid insight into Darwin's mind and how he formulated his theory of evolution. Also it is quite an adventure story in in it's own right.

I loved Darwin’s portrait of himself. Really laughed out loud...

Camera person seems to have strong disliking for the theory of evolution!

With all the BRAINS at these Ted Ex expos of sales, one would think they could HIRE a Camera Person that KNOWS HOW TO USE A CAMERA.

Man I wish I could get everyone in my family to listen to this. I can't understand why anyone would try to deny this.

has there ever been a lecture where the projector worked perfectly or wasnt screwed up by the lecturer

This needed to be treated as a TED Radio not a TED video ... the point of the talker is refreshing as anyone who has studied the history of science will know that most of what people think they know about Darwin is simply myth. The Wikipedia article "History of evolutionary thought" is covers a lot of material.

Cameraman's mind; Zoom in Cameraman; why ? Cameraman's mind; Just do it Cameraman; Ok

Watching this in 2019, enjoying myself it since I knew those points decades ago through Gould's series of essays. Stephen J. Gould referred to them! (Although his studies might be independent)

Not all birds are classed as raptors. But all birds are dinosaurs. The only dinosaur to have survived. You can actually see evolution in birds from it's ancestor to now. Looking at a birds Fossils you can see that evolution is very real indeed. I actually work in a lab preparing Fossils and birds is my field.

Either focus, or stand still. WOW! Those pictures and notes were so clear...

He "buried the lead" with that penultimate comment that the scientific debate was settled in 1879 and that the present fuss is a Twentieth Century phenomenon.

Nicely put but unfortunately it would have been more interesting to go into slightly further details on the concept upon which Darwin based his theory

Watching this reminds me of a French TV documentary many years ago about Chinese martial arts. The kungfu monk was doing his kungfu dance moves with a weapon. The whole thing took a few minutes, and all we saw was a close up of the monk's face for the entire duration! It was as if the French photographer thought viewers wanted to know if the monk had pimples on his face. It's interesting that he thinks people would tune into a kungfu documentary to watch an enlarged face instead of kungfu moves. (But I should give him some credit for his ability to capture the face of a fast moving target)

Outstanding camera work!

What a hilarious self-portrait!!!!

Evolution should be a major topic at high school, because it not only explains the current populations of animals and plants as a result of the survival of the fittest (luckiest), it also explains the embryonic development of plants and animals and thereby the anatomy of species. It explains our complicated heart structure, the loop of the vocal box nerve in giraffes, the presence of retroviruses in our DNA, the benefit of stem cell therapy, the way our immuun and hormone system works. Those who still think that this is not true, should refuse the use of medical care which emerged from evolution theory.

True, Darwin didn't realize the importance of the Galapagos finches till his return to England and an Ornithologist called out their importance to him

One minute in and I'm sea sick. Can't see the presentation. Maybe watch a Ted Talk before you try to make one.

whoever recorded this, you're absolutely hilarious!

too bad about the video guy.... no idea how to operate a camera ... ZOOM OUT!!!!!

Simple, straightforward science and history in a nutshell. Very well done.

Ah...4:37 interesting if he was the ship's companion...I always felt that Paul Bettany's character in Master and Commander The Far Side of the World war Darwin-like...so much so that when I heard he was going to play Darwin in the latter Creation film of 2009, which I didn't like terribly much, probably only watch on occasion because it's about Darwin, I felt he was an appropriate choice...and when you look at photos of Darwin when he was younger, the choice seems even better...

Absolutely great talk. Hard to concentrate though with the camera work. Hope the camera man learned from his mistake.

Before I scrolled down to the comments, I thought I would be the only one who had a problem with the way it was filmed. At the first part(the only part I've seen yet), it's really annoying when we don't see what the projectionist is trying to show us!

The TEDxNTU talk by him flows perfectly. Watch that one first. Brilliant guy.

I think the cameraman was the speakers mother... so proud

Missing everything in the slides.

His talk is brilliant and he is amazingly well spoken but the video is incredibly hard to watch and in turn listen too with the camera moving all of the time. The video is expanded 12 minutes in for 1 minute.

I'm sure a do over would evolve into a visual display of the background photo examples :)

"Let's see. We have a stage where the speaker will be presenting large slides behind him. How about we set up a single camera and zoom in on only him." "Great idea!" Not.

When you look away from your collar mic, the volume diminishes.

Jeez. Thanks for showing us the graphics! This is a TED talk? Really? You filmed it on what? A cell phone?

Very informative. Thank you!

Fortunately Mr Leow ( The cameraman) inherited a rubbery neck from his great grandfather who was a ping pong referee.

Highly recommend Sean B Carroll's book, The Making Of The Fittest. It clears up a lot of questions about evolution from a genetic view.

whoever made this video doesn't seem to know that in these kinds of talks one needs to cover the screen presentations along with the presenter and not just the presenter

Darwin explained the evolution of species not the origin of life. Which is a totally different topic.

Very interesting presentation but unfortunately filmed by an incompetent. I would have liked to see the graphics to which he referred during his talk.

And the cameraman was in love with the presenter. Who cares for the presentation with a great good looking guy like that? Congratulations TED!

I just don't understand how someone couldn't believe in evolution.

Good lecture, ruined by shocking camera work.

Really excellent talk so unfortunate the filming .....please redo

Jesus, how about showing some slides instead of running around after his face?... Why?!?!?!

The speed of light is constant, and it does not decay. It were to decay, then the law of conservation of mass would be violated in the E=mc^2, where c is the constant for the speed of light.

The video man is about to be extinct.

I know about pre-darwinian science. Young-earth theory came much later.

interesting talk but terrible camera work. Why didn't the camera person pull out to show the slides right behind the speaker?

problem is mostly with begining of life--cambrian explosion and macro evolution. specially macro evolution most people who talking about that have no idea about possibility and how it have to happen by chance and natural selection in dna and molecule level. i think evolution at least as we know it today is not enough atall.

Who watches videos anyway? I surf other stuff while I listen. Bad camera work doesn't bother me!

this is a ted x talk video 😧

04:50 who knew Darwin was such a great sketch artist...

So we don't get to see any of the slides? Zoom out maybe next time if they ever give you a next time.

All those smart folks and no one knows how to film the lecture!

That's what happens when you give a sniper a cameraman job.

One of the most informative and easily understood presentations on the subject.

This needs to get a proper Ted platform.

Video should show slides that he us speaking about. It helps expkai....that us why he is using them. Should not just be close up of speaker. Info is ok though.

Why not show the slides? Don't need to see the speaker!

Well, I did enjoy listening to this video.

why film a talk with slides if we can't see the slides

He starts off by saying that everything we know about Darwin/Darwinism is wrong and proceeds to prove the exact opposite. What was the point of this lecture? There was no new information and the audience was not made any the wiser. An absolute waste of time.

world class cameraman..thanks a lot!!

An excellent critique of the 1859 book!

This could possibly be the worst 'TED Talk' of all in terms of quality. There's no point having references if the public can't see what's on the screen. Theory is good though.

2:51 explain where the MATERIAL came from for all these LAYERS that were stacked on top of each other came from??? How can Layers form over BILLIONS of Years...where does the additional MATTER come from to build up on top of themselves???

What is astounding is someone who still believes in the 6-day creation.

For everyone giving me a hard time about the camera work, the zoom out button was broke and there wasn't a backup camera. just kidding 8)

Beautiful summary

The cameraman would commit suicide if he sees the comments section 🤣🤣