et pet

14/15

Just read that from Strange, swansont. It seems that I must Thank You for the 'Heads Up' also. So, I 'googled' : "Ted Watson" - https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/115861-the-notion-of-wimps-incorrect-dark-matter-is-displaced-by-ordinary-where-displaced-dark-matter-is-curved-spacetime/ "ALGreenwood" - https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/91dz9q/what_is_dark_matter_a_new_clue_nova_pbs/ "Mitch13" - https://phys.org/news/2018-10-era-quest-dark.html Seems to be somewhat prolific at any rate.

Thanks for the 'Heads Up', Strange.

I do not understand you, beecee You start a thread, seemingly to invite discussion People read your OP and follow the Links and actually read the referenced article People (myself included) try to participate in the discussion, but you seem to just want to force an arguement beecee, why is it that you have to consistently go 'Off Topic' towards me? Just stick with the thread topic. This wierd "old days" schtick, gimmick or whatever it is that you are peddling has nothing to do with either me or "A new era in the quest for dark matter".

???? It might also be said that after 4 decades of concerted effort that the assumptions are yet to be determined correct, but that is not what I asked. I simply asked : might it be the " the possibility that natural WIMPs may have been nothing more than an attractive red herring " from : https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.01668.pdf "A New Era in the Quest for Dark Matter" by Gianfranco Bertone1 and Tim M.P. Tait, is what JoeH refers to as "underlying incorrect assumptions" ? Your response was : "Perhaps my dear friend , neither you, I nor Joe can be certain at this time." ???? Dude!!! If you simply read : https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.01668.pdf : " The class of dark matter candidates that has attracted the most attention over the past four decades is weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs). WIMPs appeared for a long time as a perfect dark matter candidate, as new particles at the weak scale would naturally be produced with the right relic abundance in the early universe8 , while at the same time they might alleviate the infamous hierarchy problem9 , that has been a main driver of particle physics for roughly four decades10. Despite much effort, no particle other than a Standard Model-like Higgs boson has been convincingly detected at the weak scale so far, a circumstance that, as long anticipated11, now raises the possibility that natural WIMPs may have been nothing more than an attractive red herring12 . " https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.01668.pdf How is it not easy to understand that JoeH might read the above and see it as, or paraphrase it as "underlying incorrect assumptions". As I said, I can be certain that it might possibly be what JoeH means by "underlying incorrect assumptions". Why can't you just allow that that is what JoeH is possibly referring to and move on? So much more knowledge can be attained while enjoying a discussion than can be gained by forcing an arguement. beecee, why do you refer to arvix.org as "the old place" ?

JoeH, you seem to have plagiarized Paul Dover's answer from : https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/428649/is-dark-matter-a-superfluid " Dark matter is a supersolid that fills 'empty' space, strongly interacts with ordinary matter and is displaced by ordinary matter. What is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter. The state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter is gravity. The supersolid dark matter displaced by a galaxy pushes back, causing the stars in the outer arms of the galaxy to orbit the galactic center at the rate in which they do. Displaced supersolid dark matter is curved spacetime. There is evidence of the supersolid dark matter every time a double-slit experiment is performed, as it is the supersolid dark matter that waves. Wave-particle duality is a moving particle and its associated wave in the supersolid dark matter. " https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/428649/is-dark-matter-a-superfluid "dear friend" ??? I can be certain, beecee, that the "...absence of evidence for the most popular candidates such as weakly interacting massive particles, axions, and sterile neutrinos, despite the enormous effort that has gone into searching for these particles." https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.01668.pdf after 4 decades, might possibly be what JoeH means by "underlying incorrect assumptions". "ps: How are you going over at the old place?" beecee, why do you refer to arvix.org as "the old place" ?

No the whole point of the article is that physicists need to revisit the problem and broaden and diversify the experimental effort, and to incorporate astronomical surveys and gravitational wave observations in the quest for the nature of dark matter. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.01668.pdf "A New Era in the Quest for Dark Matter" by Gianfranco Bertone1 and Tim M.P. Tait : " The class of dark matter candidates that has attracted the most attention over the past four decades is weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs). WIMPs appeared for a long time as a perfect dark matter candidate, as new particles at the weak scale would naturally be produced with the right relic abundance in the early universe8 , while at the same time they might alleviate the infamous hierarchy problem9 , that has been a main driver of particle physics for roughly four decades10. Despite much effort, no particle other than a Standard Model-like Higgs boson has been convincingly detected at the weak scale so far, a circumstance that, as long anticipated11, now raises the possibility that natural WIMPs may have been nothing more than an attractive red herring12 . " https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.01668.pdf beecee, might it be " the possibility that natural WIMPs may have been nothing more than an attractive red herring " is what JoeH refers to as "underlying incorrect assumptions" ?

so, you "know" me from "elsewhere" ? Where do you think that know me from? In every Post that I referred to the Oort Cloud, I provided the supporting Link(s). BTW, the edges of the Solar System is generally thought to be where the Gravitational attraction of the Sun gives way to the Gravitational influence of objects outside of the solar system : http://www.astronomytrek.com/top-10-facts-about-the-solar-system/ " 3: Solar System 2 Light-years Across The size of a solar system is determined by how far its sun’s gravity overpowers other objects in the region, which in the case of the Sun extends to the Oort Cloud, a reservoir of cometary material located between 5,000 and 50,000 AU away. That boundary would give the solar system a diameter of around 2 light-years across. " http://www.astronomytrek.com/top-10-facts-about-the-solar-system/ There is also this : https://www.noao.edu/education/peppercorn/pcmain.html " Greater Distances The solar system does not really end with Pluto. Besides the planets, there is a thin haze of dust (some of it bunched into comets). Any of this dust that is nearer to the Sun than to any other star may be in the gravitational hold of the Sun and so counts as part of the solar system. So the outermost of such dust may be half way to the nearest star." https://www.noao.edu/education/peppercorn/pcmain.html And this : https://theplanets.org/solar-system/ " The size of the Solar System Though it is common for most people to believe that the edge of the Solar System is that of Pluto’s orbit, this is far from the truth. Over the course of the the 20th century scientists not only hypothesized the size of the Solar System extends to almost 2 light years – that’s 125,000 times the distance from the Sun to the Earth – but also that there are many objects beyond Pluto. Scientist now believe that there are two major regions beyond Pluto. The first is the Kuiper Belt, a region of asteroids similar to the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, and the Oort Cloud, a spherical region that contains numerous comets. https://theplanets.org/solar-system/ And : http://earthsky.org/space/ten-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-solar-system " 5. The edge of the solar system is 1,000 times farther away than Pluto. You might still think of the solar system as extending out to the orbit of the much-loved dwarf planet Pluto. Today we don’t even consider Pluto a full-fledged planet, but the impression remains. Still, we have discovered numerous objects orbiting the sun that are considerably farther than Pluto. These are Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs) or Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs). The Kuiper Belt, the first of the sun’s two reservoirs of cometary material, is thought to extend to 50 or 60 astronomical units (AU, or the average distance of the Earth from the sun). An even farther part of the solar system, the huge but tenuous Oort comet cloud, may extend to 50,000 AU from the sun, or about half a light-year – more than 1,000 times farther than Pluto. " http://earthsky.org/space/ten-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-solar-system One from your oft Cited wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System " The point at which the Solar System ends and interstellar space begins is not precisely defined because its outer boundaries are shaped by two separate forces: the solar wind and the Sun's gravity. The limit of the solar wind's influence is roughly four times Pluto's distance from the Sun; this heliopause, the outer boundary of the heliosphere, is considered the beginning of the interstellar medium.[57] The Sun's Hill sphere, the effective range of its gravitational dominance, is thought to extend up to a thousand times farther and encompasses the theorized Oort cloud. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System And, to repeat just in case you might again miss it : http://www.astronomytrek.com/top-10-facts-about-the-solar-system/ " 3: Solar System 2 Light-years Across The size of a solar system is determined by how far its sun’s gravity overpowers other objects in the region, which in the case of the Sun extends to the Oort Cloud, a reservoir of cometary material located between 5,000 and 50,000 AU away. That boundary would give the solar system a diameter of around 2 light-years across. " And yes, bee cee, I stated some figures in my first Post in this thread. I attribute that ability to, at the very least, 2 simple things : 1. as a young man coming of age in the 1950's, I was extremely interested in Science, Astronomy, Cosmology and Spaceflight!!! ; and 2., I did not waste any of my time at Caltech. Do you Doubt any of the figures I posted in my first Post in this Thread, bee cee? Do you wish to challenge any of them? Speaking of providing references, perhaps a reference would have been nice to the statement you made in your first Post in this Thread : "Are you thinking of Pioneers 10 and 11? These were launched in the seventies and explored the out solar system and both are probably now leaving the solar system along with the two Voyagers." Again, bee cee, where exactly is this "elsewhere" that you know me from? Also, bee cee, aren't attacks ad hominem against this forums rules?

From what you have Posted, it seems that you have not taken any College courses in Cosmology or Astronomy If you care to enlighten yourself on the subject, you can read some at the following Links : http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/astro/oumuamua.html ; https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/476/3/3031/4909830 ; http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/update-on-interstellar-object-oumuamua/ . Now, bee cee, since you seem to lend quite a bit of credence to wikipedia, and since you brought up ʻOumuamua, you might be able to accept the following - but that is completely up to you : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ʻOumuamua#cite_note-52 " Trajectory ʻOumuamua is the first known interstellar object to visit the Solar System and it appears to come from roughly the direction of the star Vega in the constellation Lyra.[27][28][33][34] The incoming direction of motion of ʻOumuamua is 6° from the solar apex (the direction of the Sun's movement relative to local stars), which is the most likely direction for approaches from objects outside the Solar System.[33][35] On 26 October, two precovery observations from the Catalina Sky Survey were found dated 14 and 17 October.[36][25] A two-week observation arc had verified a strongly hyperbolic trajectory.[6][22] It has a hyperbolic excess velocity (velocity at infinity, {\displaystyle v_{\infty }\!}) of 26.33 km/s (58,900 mph), its speed relative to the Sun when in interstellar space.[n 3] By mid November, astronomers were certain that it was an interstellar object.[38] Based on observations spanning 34 days, ʻOumuamua's orbital eccentricity is 1.20, the highest ever observed.[39][7]An eccentricity above 1.0 means an object exceeds the Sun's escape velocity, is not bound to the Solar System, and may escape to interstellar space. While an eccentricity slightly above 1.0 can be obtained by encounters with planets, as happened with the previous record holder C/1980 E1,[39][40][n 5]ʻOumuamua's eccentricity is so high it could not have been obtained through an encounter with any of the Sun's planets, known or unknown. Even undiscovered planets, if any exist, could not account for ʻOumuamua's trajectory – any undiscovered planet must be far from the Sun and hence moving slowly according to Kepler's laws of planetary motion. Encounters with such a planet could not boost ʻOumuamua's speed to the observed value,[41] and therefore ʻOumuamua can only be of interstellar origin.[42] ʻOumuamua entered the Solar System from above the plane of the ecliptic. The pull of the Sun's gravity caused it to speed up until it reached its maximum speed of 87.71 km/s (196,200 mph) as it passed below the ecliptic on 6 September and made a sharp turn upward at its closest approach to the Sun (perihelion) on 9 September at a distance of 0.255 AU (38,100,000 km; 23,700,000 mi) from the Sun, i.e., about 17% closer than Mercury's closest approach to the Sun.[43][7][n 6] The object is now heading away from the Sun (towards Pegasus) at an angle of 66° from the direction of its approach.[n 7] On the outward leg of its journey through the Solar System, ʻOumuamua passed below the orbit of Earth on 14 October at a distance of approximately 0.1616 AU (24,180,000 km; 15,020,000 mi) from Earth, and went back above the ecliptic on 16 October and passed above the orbit of Mars on 1 November.[43][33][6] It will pass above Jupiter's orbit in May 2018, Saturn's orbit in January 2019, and Neptune's orbit in 2022.[43] As it leaves the Solar System it will be approximately right ascension (RA) 23h51m and declination +24°45', in Pegasus.[7] It will continue to slow down until it reaches a speed of 26.33 km/s relative to the Sun, the same speed it had before its approach to the Solar System.[7] It will take the object roughly 20,000 years to leave the Solar System completely.[n 8] " So, bee cee, @ 26.33 kms , it will travel approximately 831 million kilometers per year - correct ? So, lets round that down to 830 Million Kilometers per year - okay ? Therefore, in 20,000 years it will travel roughly 16618232160000 Kilometers - correct ? An AU is ~ 150,000,000 Kilometers - So, in 20,00 years it will be out to, at least ~ 110,788 AU's from the Sun - correct ? So, bee cee, ~130,000 astronomical units, or ~19 trillion kilometers is roughly equivalent to 2 light-years Distance - correct ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ʻOumuamua#cite_note-52

Voyager 1 entered interstellar space in 2012. Yes, StringJunky, as I stated : Voyager 1 = currently in Interstellar space / Voyager 2 = nearing Interstellar space And, as I have Cited before : https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/multimedia/pia17046.html "Informally, the term "solar system" is often used to mean the space out to the last planet. Scientific consensus, however, says the solar system goes out to the Oort Cloud, the source of the comets that swing by our sun on long time scales. Beyond the outer edge of the Oort Cloud, the gravity of other stars begins to dominate that of the sun. The inner edge of the main part of the Oort Cloud could be as close as 1,000 AU from our sun. The outer edge is estimated to be around 100,000 AU. NASA's Voyager 1, humankind's most distant spacecraft, is around 125 AU. Scientists believe it entered interstellar space, or the space between stars, on Aug. 25, 2012. Much of interstellar space is actually inside our solar system. It will take about 300 years for Voyager 1 to reach the inner edge of the Oort Cloud and possibly about 30,000 years to fly beyond it. " https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/multimedia/pia17046.html So, yes StringJunky - Voyager 1 entered interstellar space in 2012 and Voyager 2 is nearing interstellar space as well. Scientific consensus, however, says the solar system goes out to the Oort Cloud. So, although having entered interstellar space, or the space between stars, with much of that interstellar space actually being inside our solar system...It will take about 300 years for Voyager 1 to reach the inner edge of the Oort Cloud and possibly about 30,000 years to fly beyond it...and out of the Solar System.

Undiscovered? From the Resources of your Link : https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/system/internal_resources/details/original/443_19_Kuiper_Belt_Revision_2013_tagged_FC_order_FINAL.pdf " In March 2004, a team of astronomers announced the discovery of a planet-like transneptunian object orbiting the Sun at an extreme distance, in one of the coldest known regions of our solar system. The object (2003VB12), since named Sedna for an Inuit goddess who lives at the bottom of the frigid Arctic ocean, approaches the Sun only briefly during its 10,500-year solar orbit. It never enters the Kuiper Belt, whose outer boundary region lies at about 55 AU — instead, Sedna travels in a long, elliptical orbit between 76 and nearly 1,000 AU from the Sun. Since Sedna’s orbit takes it to such an extreme distance, its discoverers have suggested that it is the first observed body belonging to the inner Oort Cloud." So...again, beecee, yes, Yoyagers 1 and 2 are currently in or nearing interstellar space - but neither of those spacecraft, nor either Pioneer 10 or 11 " are probably now leaving the solar system " - as you stated in the 2nd Post of this Thread. Your Posted Video mentions Voyager entering Interstellar Space. But as I have repeatedly Cited, " Scientific consensus, however, says the solar system goes out to the Oort Cloud ." And " Much of interstellar space is actually inside our solar system. " from NASA : https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/multimedia/pia17046.html "Informally, the term "solar system" is often used to mean the space out to the last planet. Scientific consensus, however, says the solar system goes out to the Oort Cloud, the source of the comets that swing by our sun on long time scales. Beyond the outer edge of the Oort Cloud, the gravity of other stars begins to dominate that of the sun. The inner edge of the main part of the Oort Cloud could be as close as 1,000 AU from our sun. The outer edge is estimated to be around 100,000 AU. NASA's Voyager 1, humankind's most distant spacecraft, is around 125 AU. Scientists believe it entered interstellar space, or the space between stars, on Aug. 25, 2012. Much of interstellar space is actually inside our solar system. It will take about 300 years for Voyager 1 to reach the inner edge of the Oort Cloud and possibly about 30,000 years to fly beyond it. " https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/multimedia/pia17046.html Or you may accept this Pop-Science : https://www.universetoday.com/104486/how-big-is-our-solar-system/ " But the true size of the Solar System is defined by the reach of its gravity; how far away an object can still be said to orbit the Sun. In the furthest reaches of the Solar System is the Oort Cloud; a theorized cloud of icy objects that could orbit the Sun to a distance of 100,000 astronomical units, or 1.87 light-years away. Although we can’t see the Oort Cloud directly, the long-period comets that drop into the inner Solar System from time to time are thought to originate from this region. The Sun’s gravity dominates local space out to a distance of about 2 light-years, or almost half the distance from the Sun to the nearest star: Proxima Centauri. Believe it or not, any object within this region would probably be orbiting the Sun, and be thought to be a part of the Solar System. " https://www.universetoday.com/104486/how-big-is-our-solar-system/ So, beecee, to quote Fraser Cain : " Believe it or not ". Done.

Perhaps you should inform NASA of that.

from NASA : https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/multimedia/pia17046.html "Informally, the term "solar system" is often used to mean the space out to the last planet. Scientific consensus, however, says the solar system goes out to the Oort Cloud, the source of the comets that swing by our sun on long time scales. Beyond the outer edge of the Oort Cloud, the gravity of other stars begins to dominate that of the sun. The inner edge of the main part of the Oort Cloud could be as close as 1,000 AU from our sun. The outer edge is estimated to be around 100,000 AU. NASA's Voyager 1, humankind's most distant spacecraft, is around 125 AU. Scientists believe it entered interstellar space, or the space between stars, on Aug. 25, 2012. Much of interstellar space is actually inside our solar system. It will take about 300 years for Voyager 1 to reach the inner edge of the Oort Cloud and possibly about 30,000 years to fly beyond it. " https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/multimedia/pia17046.html

From your Link : https://www.space.com/22729-voyager-1-spacecraft-interstellar-space.html " Mission scientists have long pegged Voyager 1's departure from the solar system on the observation of three phenomena: a big drop in solar particles, a dramatic jump in galactic cosmic rays and a shift in the orientation of the surrounding magnetic field. Voyager 1 has measured the first two changes, as noted above, but not the third; the magnetic field is stronger than it used to be in the probe's location, but it hasn't changed direction. This key point has led NASA and the mission team to proceed with caution. " https://www.space.com/22729-voyager-1-spacecraft-interstellar-space.html Then we have this, from NASA : https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/multimedia/pia17046.html "Informally, the term "solar system" is often used to mean the space out to the last planet. Scientific consensus, however, says the solar system goes out to the Oort Cloud, the source of the comets that swing by our sun on long time scales. Beyond the outer edge of the Oort Cloud, the gravity of other stars begins to dominate that of the sun. The inner edge of the main part of the Oort Cloud could be as close as 1,000 AU from our sun. The outer edge is estimated to be around 100,000 AU. NASA's Voyager 1, humankind's most distant spacecraft, is around 125 AU. Scientists believe it entered interstellar space, or the space between stars, on Aug. 25, 2012. Much of interstellar space is actually inside our solar system. It will take about 300 years for Voyager 1 to reach the inner edge of the Oort Cloud and possibly about 30,000 years to fly beyond it. " https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/multimedia/pia17046.html Or...maybe...ask an astronomer : http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/159-our-solar-system/the-sun/the-solar-system/219-what-is-the-size-of-the-solar-system-intermediate But if you insist, we can leave it up to Chris Jones, who is a technical internet person and a fan of space and websites : https://space-facts.com/about/

Are you perhaps referring to the Kuiper Belt, Nero? It is an area of our Solar System, similar to the Asteroid Belt, but begins at about the orbit of Neptune, around 30 Astronomical Units(AU*) from the Sun and reaches to around 50 AU's from the Sun. Neither Pioneer 1, nor Pioneer 2 actually succeeded in their missions by reaching Lunar Orbit. Pioneer 1 only reached about 113,000 kilometers in altitude, and fell back to Earth within 2 days. Pioneer 2 reached less than 1,500 kilometers and fell back to earth within 6 or 7 hours after launch. Nero, Pioneer 10 is currently ~120-122 AU's from the Sun. It is traveling at about 2 1/2 AU's per year. Pioneer 11 is not quite as far from the Sun as Pioneer 10, I think it is about 2 or 3 AU's less distant than Pioneer 10 - although traveling in a different direction. Nero, both of the Pioneer spacecraft are currently well beyond, or farther away than, the Kuiper Belt I believe that Pioneer 10 is currently the Second farthest man made object from earth, behind Voyager 1. Don't hold me to that, though, because if Voyager 2 has not already taken over as second farthest behind Voyager 1, I am sure that it will within the next 2 years or thereabouts. The Oort Cloud begins at around 5,000 AU's from the Sun and extends to around 100,000 AU's from the Sun. Where the Oort Cloud ends is generally considered to be the outer reaches of our Solar System. So, Nero, both of the Voyager and both of the Pioneer spacecraft still have several thousands years of traveling before leaving the Solar System(if they do not encounter something in the vastness of space to change their outbound courses or potentially even destroy them!). *An Astronomical Unit(AU) is a Unit of Measurement that roughly corresponds to the 'mean' distance from the center of the Sun to center of the Earth - approximately 93,000,000(93 Million) miles or 150,000,000(150 Million)Kilometers.

So, you cannot Cite any articles to support your statement or claim : " Many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators." Now you "Move the Goalposts" and state or claim " there is still an unknown factor and that the situation involving "inherent fear" is at best still debatable." ? Then you choose to 'Muddy the Waters', so to speak, by making another statement or claim : "We are certain of many scientific theories..."? beecee, if a theory was certain (free from doubt or reservation; confident; sure: established as true or sure; unquestionable; indisputable:***), would it still be a theory? *** http://www.dictionary.com/browse/certain

And I provided two. Which were ignored. Bu there you go. I didn't say they were. So...I asked for cited supporting evidence for the stated claim that : "Many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators." StringJunky replied "You asked for evidence and I have provided a link for it..." Then, in reply to StringJunky, you stated "And I provided two. Which were ignored. Bu there you go." ? Edit to add - my first quote attributed what I had Posted to StringJunky - I was not able and I am still not able to change that. My most humblest apologies to StringJunky...please accept my apology.

https://www.sciencealert.com/deep-unshakeable-fear-spiders-no-random-quirk-fate-born-arachnophobia " As for how such a hypothetical mechanism could exist, the researchers don't know for sure, but the idea is that somehow, over countless generations in ancient times, our human ancestors evolved a trait "that ensures special attention and facilitated fear-learning for ancestral threats in early human ontogeny", the team explains in their paper. In other words, even though our sheltered, modern lives mean most of us rarely come into contact with dangerous snakes or spiders, our long-forgotten forebears weren't so lucky – and the fear and disgust some of us feel today when we encounter these critters could actually be a hangover from a survival instinct that evolved in ancient times. " A "hypothetical that could exist" does not support your claim : " Many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators." https://www.livescience.com/9808-fear-spiders-develop-birth.html "Scientists figure humans may be born with a fear of spiders and snakes, healthy phobias that up the odds of survival in the wild. It's not known how such an inborn fear might develop, however. Scientists aren't sure how the fear is passed down, but they speculate that stressful events like predator attacks trigger the release of a hormone in the mother that influences the development of the embryo. " Again, a "may be born with" and what "Scientists...speculate" does not support your statement : " Many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators." https://phys.org/news/2015-04-human-spiders-scientific-focus.html " A fear of spiders, arachnophobia, is in our DNA. You don't learn to freeze at the site of these creatures; you're born with the fear. Even the sight of hypodermic needles and houseflies does not trigger a similar response. Scientists pin that fear on survival instinct. The theory goes like this: Humans evolved in Africa where being able to spot a spider was of necessity. The results, they said, supported the hypothesis that humans "may possess a cognitive mechanism for detecting specific animals that were potentially harmful throughout evolutionary history." " Once again, a "theory" or "hypothesis" does nothing to very little to support your claim " Many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators." beecee, I would NOT AGREE that asking for a citation may mean that I find the statement doubtful or questionable. I asked for a citation simply because in all my years I had never read or heard it stated that : " Many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators." I have actually been taught and learned that any fear of predators is a Taught or Learned behaviour. I have not been Taught or Learned every possible or conceivable bit of information on the subject, so I merely asked for a Citation to support your statement or claim.

beecee plainly and clearly stated or claimed : " Many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators." His statement or claim was "are born with", not are taught fear of known predators soon after being born, or learn the fear of known predators quickly after being born, but "are born with an inherent fear of known predators." This seems to coincide with Lamarcks beliefs. : http://necsi.edu/projects/evolution/lamarck/lamarck/lamarck_lamarck.html " Lamarck is best known for his Theory of Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics, first presented in 1801 (Darwin's first book dealing with natural selection was published in 1859): If an organism changes during life in order to adapt to its environment, those changes are passed on to its offspring. " It was NOT "brought up" as, and still is NOT a straw man argument. The two Links you provided were NOT ignored - they were simply not supportive of beecee's claim that : " Many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators." Your first provided Link : https://www.reuters.com/article/us-predators-study/fear-of-predators-is-not-naturalstudy-idUSN2136840820070621 , starts with the following : " DALLAS (Reuters) - Fear of predators is not instinctive but is a learned behavior that only develops when prey species share space with animals that eat them, according to a new study released this week. The study’s conclusion: remove the lions, and the zebras will lose their fear of them. But add wolves to a new territory and the resident elk or moose will soon learn they spell trouble." The above quoted is clearly stating the opposite of what beecee posted. Your second provided Link : https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bd96/173020c76cdc78fbab30f70a89aa93aeac15.pdf , begins similarly : " Predator recognition is often dependent upon experience. This behavioural plasticity can potentially be exploited to enhance the antipredator behaviour of captive-bred animals, but it is first necessary to understand the specificity of learning." That Linked Paper also includes : "Although it may seem counterintuitive for antipredator skills to be dependent upon experience, the ability to learn about previously unfamiliar predators has been demonstrated in a wide range of taxa including fish, birds and primates (reviewed by Griffin et al. 2000)." and : "The question of how readily animals learn about predators is also important from an applied perspective. Reintroduced and translocated individuals are particularly vulnerable to predation after release, which has reduced the success of conservation programmes (MacMillan 1990; Beck et al. 1994; Wolf et al. 1996)." Strange, again, both of those Linked articles seem to re-enforce the notion that "aversion to predators" is a taught or learned "behaviour", which, again, would seem to offer NO SUPPORT to beecee's statement or claim : " Many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators." So on to : Strange, did you respond to my question : is it incorrect that Lamarcks theory was rejected because it was found that it is not possible for an acquired or learned behaviour to change an individual's genes? , with a Yes? If so, and if I am incorrect, Strange, why was Lamarcks theory rejected? Or is Lamarcks theory accepted? Is it possible for an acquired or learned behaviour to change an individuals genes?

StringJunky, the following is quoted from your supplied Link : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4323865/ " Conclusions Within the last decade, the field of epigenetic regulation of gene function has gained great momentum. Remarkably, on the cusp of an era in which genetics was beginning to finally feel ‘finite’ through the successful sequencing of large mammalian genomes, an entire new era of gene regulation has stepped in, potentially making the workings of genome regulation exponentially more complex than was previously appreciated. Additionally, our understanding of the neural basis of memory formation has paralleled this epigenetic revolution, and seemingly every mechanism of previously ‘understood’ synaptic plasticity and neural genetic organization also has a new chapter related to epigenetics to be explored. Even more surprisingly, the newfound understanding of epigenetic modulation has reopened the possibility of transgenerational inheritance of acquired traits through the process of epigenetic marking in gametes – an exciting but at times overwhelming and certainly controversial idea (Box 2). Prior examples already exist to demonstrate that behavioral traits may be inherited from ancestral populations. However, nuanced behavioral paradigms and sophisticated reductionistic techniques are paving the way to definitively address the matter of transgenerational inheritance of behavioral traits (85) (see Box: Outstanding Questions)." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4323865/ Confucius never said : "Man who wears both Suspenders and a Belt lacks confidence."

Implausible? I never stated, claimed, nor implied that I 'think this is so implausible'. I merely asked for cited supporting evidence for the stated claim that : "Many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators." Many of the Posters on this Site, and even those Posting in this Thread, have repeatedly stated that "claims require evidence". Strange, is it incorrect that Lamarcks theory was rejected because it was found that it is not possible for an acquired or learned behaviour to change an individual's genes?

Citation requested, please? The idea that many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators seems like something advanced by the Lamarckian Theory of Evolution, or the Theory of Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics. Wasn't Lamarcks theory rejected because it was found that it is not possible for an acquired or learned behaviour to change an individual's genes?

The quote literally suggests that in this single isolated mammal species of northern quolls, predator aversion behaviours can be lost very rapidly. There is nothing in the quote about the young of many animals being born with an inherent fear of known predators.

No, this not an example of "De-evolution", nor is this "evolution in reverse". By reading the abstract of the paper that you posted, it would seem that it has nothing to do with evolution or "De-evolution". As the trio of researchers from the University of Melbourne and the University of Life Science, Sydney, has found , it suggests or seems to be due simply to the newly learned or "rapidly" forgotten "predator aversion behaviour" . To quote from the above extract : "This study suggests that predator aversion behaviours can be lost very rapidly, and that this may make a population unsuitable for reintroduction to a predator-rich mainland." For 13 generations there was no reason for the young to be taught or to learn to be averse to Dingoes, simply because there were no Dingoes on the two small islands off the coast of Australia where the 13 generations lived and bred.

I have no idea why you would state that you should have given me credit. I only linked to the previous Thread so that you could be aware of other Members thoughts or insights on this subject that you might to be interested in. You actually participated in that previous Thread. As far as being in "the right section now", that speculative Article that I Linked and Quoted in the Thread that I started had already been moved to this same "section" before you participated in it. So, no ,there was no reason that you should have given me any credit. Any and All credit should go to : Charles J. Hailey, Kaya Mori, Franz E. Bauer, Michael E. Berkowitz, Jaesub Hong and Benjamin J. Hord