beecee

Of course!! How bloody dumb of me! Beautifully succulently put, easy to understand answer answer. Thanks. Yep, certainly...much like the answer I gave to another doubting Thomas yesterday re "scientific theories" They do grow in certainty over time understanding of course that in principle it always remains potentially falsifiable. Thanks again.

“Klaatu Barada Nikto”

This article today in https://phys.org/news/2018-06-dark-inflation-gravitational-window-moments.html Dark inflation opens up a gravitational window on the first moments after the Big Bang: Dark matter and dark energy may have driven inflation, the exponential expansion of the universe moments after the Big Bang. A new cosmological model proposed by physicists at the University of Warsaw, which accounts for dark inflation, is the first to outline a precise chronology of the main events during the early history of our universe. The model makes a spectacular prediction—that it should be possible to detect gravitational waves formed just fractions of a second after the creation of spacetime. What do we know about the evolution of universe immediately after the Big Bang? In spite of extensive research carried out over decades, current cosmological models still do not outline a precise chronology of events. Researchers at the Faculty of Physics at the University of Warsaw (UW Physics) have developed a new model in which the exponential expansion of dark matter and dark energy plays a key role. The dark inflation model organises the thermal history of the universe in chronological order and predicts that we should soon be able to detect primordial gravitational waves formed immediately after the Big Bang. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-06-dark-inflation-gravitational-window-moments.html#jCp the associated paper is at http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2018/04/046/meta :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: OK, there are a couple of extracts from the article that have me rather perplexed, with regards to my current knowledge of the BB and evolution of spacetime/universe. Admittedly I am not that clued up on "eternal Inflation" yet. My perplexed attitude is a result of the following two extracts from the physorg article. Sometimes of course the science writers/journalists can get it wrong or somewhat askew, and of course journalistic sensationalism can always rear its ugly head. The extracts are as follows.... First question, with regards to the highlighted text, this seems to contradict what I have always been aware of...that is that the universe/spacetime expanded from a hot dense state and has been cooling ever since. So what do they mean by this "reheating" ?? This I think I understand, so would this reinforce and belay any reasonable doubt re the general BB/Inflationary model? [Much as gravitational waves discoveries reinforced GR and BH's] Exploring further from the original article, one is lead to the following...https://phys.org/news/2018-05-multiversestephen-hawking-theory-big.html entitled, Taming the multiverse—Stephen Hawking's final theory Professor Stephen Hawking's final theory on the origin of the universe, which he worked on in collaboration with Professor Thomas Hertog from KU Leuven, has been published today in the Journal of High Energy Physics. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-multiversestephen-hawking-theory-big.html#jCp the paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FJHEP04(2018)147 A smooth exit from eternal inflation? Abstract The usual theory of inflation breaks down in eternal inflation. We derive a dual description of eternal inflation in terms of a deformed Euclidean CFT located at the threshold of eternal inflation. The partition function gives the amplitude of different geometries of the threshold surface in the no-boundary state. Its local and global behavior in dual toy models shows that the amplitude is low for surfaces which are not nearly conformal to the round three-sphere and essentially zero for surfaces with negative curvature. Based on this we conjecture that the exit from eternal inflation does not produce an infinite fractal-like multiverse, but is finite and reasonably smooth.

https://phys.org/news/2018-06-magnetic-fields-key-star-formation.html Magnetic fields could hold the key to star formation: Astronomers have discovered new magnetic fields in space, which could shed light on how stars are formed and uncover the mysteries behind one of the most famous celestial images. For the first time, extremely subtle magnetic fields in the Pillars of Creation – a structure made famous thanks to an iconic image taken by the Hubble Space Telescope – have been discovered and mapped. The structure consists of cosmic dust and cold, dense gas that have nurseries of stars forming at their tips. This innovative research has shown that the magnetic fields that run along the lengths of the Pillars are at a different angle to the regions surrounding the Pillars, revealing the reason behind their unusual structure. This ground-breaking discovery suggests that the Pillars have evolved due to the strength of the magnetic field and that the Pillars are held up thanks to magnetic support, suggesting that stars could be formed by the collapse of clumps of gas being slowed down by magnetic fields, and resulting in a pillar-like formation. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-06-magnetic-fields-key-star-formation.html#jCp :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.11554.pdf First observations of the magnetic field inside the Pillars of Creation: Results from the BISTRO survey: ABSTRACT We present the first high-resolution, submillimeter-wavelength polarimetric observations of – and thus direct observations of the magnetic field morphology within – the dense gas of the Pillars of Creation in M16. These 850 µm observations, taken as part of the BISTRO (B-Fields in Star-forming Region Observations) Survey using the POL-2 polarimeter on the SCUBA-2 camera on the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT), show that the magnetic field runs along the length of the pillars, perpendicular to, and decoupled from, the field in the surrounding photoionized cloud. Using the Chandrasekhar-Fermi method we estimate a plane-of-sky magnetic field strength of 170 − 320 µG in the Pillars, consistent with their having been formed through compression of gas with initially weak magnetization. The observed magnetic field strength and morphology suggests that the magnetic field may be slowing the pillars’ evolution into cometary globules. We thus hypothesize that the evolution and lifetime of the Pillars may be strongly influenced by the strength of the coupling of their magnetic field to that of their parent photoionized cloud – i.e. that the Pillars’ longevity results from magnetic support.

The spaghettification effect is caused by the tidal gravitational effects...the difference in the pull of gravity on your feet compared to the pull on your head, to use the familiar analogy that the great Stephen Hawking used. This effect continues to increase as one approaches the center of the BH, until in effect all matter is broken down into its most basic fundamental parts like quarks etc...in other words as one approaches the center even the strong nuclear force is overcome. All to the best of our knowledge of course, and current physics that we know of.

Quite admirable seriously, re your potential research on the subject, but first make sure you are completely familiar with the state of current particle physics and the reasons and data that is currently available.

I could not have said it better...Star Trek at least tries to remain scientific. Star Wars while visually entertaining did not concern itself with science. I also have every Star Trek film ever made on dvd. My favourite? The original movie and the V'GER probe rediscovery, followed by "The Year we made contact" and the discovery of warp drive by Zefram Chocrane.

Here's another.. http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/

https://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/?main=https%3A//tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/welcome/ The LHC Has Detected The Higgs Boson Again, This Time With a Massive Twist Whoa. MIKE MCRAE 6 JUN 2018 Physicists working at the Large Hadron Collider have made a major new detection of the famous Higgs boson, this time catching details on a rare interaction with one of the heaviest fundamental particles known to physics - the top quark. The brief mingling of these incredibly rare encounters has provided physicists with important information on the nature of mass, and whether there is more to physics than the existing model predicts. Results produced by the ATLAS and CMS experiments from the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) help confirm the strength of the bond between Higgs bosons and top quarks. Since Higgs bosons are responsible for the mass of fundamental particles, getting hard data to compare with predictions is cause to celebrate. more at link......

Let me answer your last query first....scientific theories do gain in certainty over time andas they are continually making correct predictions. Do you doubt evolution? Do you doubt Abiogenesis? No, I'm not muddying the waters as you suggest, I'm simply showing that this "inherent fear" is just not as certain as evolution and Abiogenesis. So yes, the certainty of evolution and Abiogenesis remain as theories, simply because the "possibility" can exist that they maybe falsified. Do you believe they will be? For all intents and purposes, they are certain. I've sited articles that agree with my statement..others do not. I'm prepared to agree that there is some debate on it. I'm siding with the positive, you seem to be siding with the negative. So no, no moving of any goal posts and certainly statements I have supplied support my opinion. Posted 21 minutes ago (edited) That's your perogative and opinion. I disagree. From the articles I find there is still an unknown factor and that the situation involving "inherent fear" is at best still debatable. We are certain of many scientific theories as I'm sure you will agree, evolution, Universal Abiogenesis are of course two prominent ones. In other words perhaps you are wrong? or alternatively, perhaps I am wrong? Will we ever know? Here's some more to illustrate my point...... 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. extract: 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." Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-04-human-spiders-scientific-focus.html#jCp https://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(14)00103-2/fulltext Spiders at the cocktail party: an ancestral threat that surmounts inattentional blindness Abstract The human visual system may retain ancestral mechanisms uniquely dedicated to the rapid detection of immediate and specific threats (e.g. spiders and snakes) that persistently recurred throughout evolutionary time. We hypothesized that one such ancestral hazard, spiders, should be inherently prioritized for visual attention and awareness irrespective of their visual or personal salience. This hypothesis was tested using the inattentional blindness paradigm in which an unexpected and peripheral stimulus is presented coincidentally with a central task-relevant display. Despite their highly marginalized presentation, iconic spiders were nonetheless detected, localized, and identified by a very large proportion of observers. Observers were considerably less likely to perceive 1) different configurations of the same visual features which diverged from a spider prototype, or “template”, 2) a modern threatening stimulus (hypodermic needle) comparable in emotional salience, or 3) a different fear-irrelevant animal (housefly). Spiders may be one of a very few evolutionarily-persistent threats that are inherently specified for visual detection and uniquely “prepared” to capture attention and awareness irrespective of any foreknowledge, personal importance, or task-relevance. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2014/10/08/are-humans-predisposed-to-fear-snakes/ Some animals are genetically programmed to fear their predators. Mice naturally fear cats; fish naturally fear birds. But what about humans? Are we naturally disposed to fear certain dangerous animals?

That's your perogative and opinion. I disagree. From the articles I find there is still an unknown factor and that the situation involving "inherent fear" is at best still debatable. We are certain of many scientific theories as I'm sure you will agree, evolution, Universal Abiogenesis are of course two prominent ones. In other words perhaps you are wrong? or alternatively, perhaps I am wrong? Will we ever know? Here's some more to illustrate my point...... 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. extract: 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." Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-04-human-spiders-scientific-focus.html#jCp https://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(14)00103-2/fulltext Spiders at the cocktail party: an ancestral threat that surmounts inattentional blindness Abstract The human visual system may retain ancestral mechanisms uniquely dedicated to the rapid detection of immediate and specific threats (e.g. spiders and snakes) that persistently recurred throughout evolutionary time. We hypothesized that one such ancestral hazard, spiders, should be inherently prioritized for visual attention and awareness irrespective of their visual or personal salience. This hypothesis was tested using the inattentional blindness paradigm in which an unexpected and peripheral stimulus is presented coincidentally with a central task-relevant display. Despite their highly marginalized presentation, iconic spiders were nonetheless detected, localized, and identified by a very large proportion of observers. Observers were considerably less likely to perceive 1) different configurations of the same visual features which diverged from a spider prototype, or “template”, 2) a modern threatening stimulus (hypodermic needle) comparable in emotional salience, or 3) a different fear-irrelevant animal (housefly). Spiders may be one of a very few evolutionarily-persistent threats that are inherently specified for visual detection and uniquely “prepared” to capture attention and awareness irrespective of any foreknowledge, personal importance, or task-relevance. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Perhaps we need to do research on all species of animals? https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2014/10/08/are-humans-predisposed-to-fear-snakes/ A discussion of how fear and anxiety evolved in animals is found in my book.) Some animals are genetically programmed to fear their predators. Mice naturally fear cats; fish naturally fear birds. But what about humans? Are we naturally disposed to fear certain dangerous animals? It is certainly true that some things are feared more commonly than others, such as snakes, spiders, and rats, but this could be the result of conditioning, more than programming. Perhaps we learn to fear snakes and spiders because they bite and we fear rats because we were taught that they spread plague and pestilence. Author: NathanHLents Dr. Nathan H. Lents is a Professor of Molecular Biology at John Jay College of The City University of New York and author of "Not So Different: Finding Human Nature in Animals," available in May 2016. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/anxiety-files/200805/are-we-born-be-afraid In one study, 77 % of mothers of children who were afraid of water said their children were frightened the very first time they were confronted with a pool or lake water. In fact, the farther away from the ocean you live, the more likely you are to fear water. In another study, they tested kids over and over for years to determine what kinds of fears they had and what happened to them later. They found that kids who had fears of heights when they were younger---were less likely to fall and get injured later. That’s because the fear that was built in protected the kids from falling. Now this may not seem like news to you, but most psychologists have believed that fears are learned. Some might be learned---but many fears are built in and they protect us. Kids didn’t have a fear of heights because they had fallen. No---they didn’t fall because they had a fear of heights to begin with.

https://www.sciencealert.com/deep-unshakeable-fear-spiders-no-random-quirk-fate-born-arachnophobia https://www.livescience.com/9808-fear-spiders-develop-birth.html https://phys.org/news/2015-04-human-spiders-scientific-focus.html At worst it appears that any inherent fear is debatable. I would suggest that asking for a citation may mean that you find the statement doubtful or questionable at best, wouldn't you agree? Yep certainly and thanks for the info. I had only heard of the phenomenon called de-evolution, which is why I asked the question in the first place. I certainly accept the view of yourself and others..something I have learnt today gladly.

Thanks Strange, not exactly my expertise [if I have any that is ] but you have given some food for thought.

Hey Buster! Some news for you...The onus is on you to explain yourself scientifically, with empirical evidence. So far you have dodged, twisted ignored and been obtuse in everything asked of you. You certainly have posted some cringe worthy posts, totally lacking in discipline, evidence, and science of course.

That's why I asked the question. Many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators. Perhaps after 13 generations that possible inbred fear is bred out. Hmm, I'm not so sure. Lost? Bred out? "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."

In as fewer words as possible? Your reasoning and resultant claim, are in the realms of paranormal, supernatural, and unscientific and lacking in scientific evidence. As another poster rightly noted,

Rest assured that I do understand the "message" and I also understand the obtuseness and avoidance of the issue that others have noted. And again no, you have not, nor ever from what I have seen, posted any evidence to support your mythical "higher power" and numerology nonsense, and/or any connection between them. In fact the "reasoning" you offer, is in defiance of scientific observation and current models on most occasions. You in essence are simply installing your god of the gaps or in your typical avoidance of the issue, your unsupported "higher power", in areas of science where further knowledge and observation is needed.

Interesting certainly and you have made a good point. But can this "forgotten" predator aversion behaviour" be just a small step on the evolutionary scale? I mean the young of many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators. Your quote seems to suggest that anyway..... But thanks for the answer anyway... I'll think about it. Nice to see you still around.

More nonsensical meaningless rhetoric. Sure they happen when they take up the same angular size in the sky, and of course an alignment of their orbits....To believe it happens because of a higher power, is gullible and unscientific. But I wouldn't expect you to accept that with the amount of obvious baggage you have. No, coincidences certainly happen, just as the fantastical coincidence, or pot luck when I threw 17 heads in a row. Rubbish and it will remain rubbish no matter how many times you deny it. You can believe what you like, and make up any fairy tale that reinforces the agenda you are burdened with...The facts are as many here are telling you....Yes you just happen to be inhabitating a universe where these specific alignments are just happening to be occurring. Unless of course you are able to offer evidence supporting your own pseudoscientific views on it. And at this stage the forum knows you can't. More unsupported nonsensical rhetoric without a scrap of evidence. Gluing yourself into the saddle of your white charger, by repeating over and over the nonsense that reasonable people on this forum are asking evidence for, does not really say anything favourable about your goal or mission here, except that it appears it is certainly a mission you are on, no matter how you have stumbled and failed to make any point worthy of scientific discussion. ps; And of course you have failed to answer the sections of my post that you are quoting from...this..."Not sure why you would say that when I have just answered your question above thus" "So one must ask, are you having reading problems? just being obtuse? or simply repeating your nonsensical claims without any regard for opposing evidence? änd this...."And if as you say we/us/the majority of this forum are confined in this terrible mindset, why do you come here? Why not take part in another forum where folk that are more gullible and impressionable, are more likely to fall for your mythical unscientific claims?"

https://phys.org/news/2018-06-species-predators-isolation.html Species found to lose fear of predators after 13 generations of protective isolation: A trio of researchers from the University of Melbourne and the University of Life Science, Sydney, has found an isolated mammal species that lost its fear of predators in just 13 generations. In their paper published in the journal Biology Letters, Chris Jolly, Jonathan Webb and Ben Phillips describe their study of protected northern quolls living in Australia and what they found. As humans encroach on territory occupied by other species, those other species lose out. Often, the result is endangerment or extinction. That has been the case for northern quolls, which once inhabited large parts of northern Australia. After humans arrived, their numbers declined sharply due mostly to the introduction of invasive cane toads. To prevent their extinction, environmentalists captured several of them and released them on two small islands off the coast of Australia. That effort, it seemed, was a remarkable success as quoll populations soon soared on the islands. Pleased with their results, environmentalist tried to capitalize on their success by capturing a large number of the creatures and placing them back in their native environment. Unfortunately, the experiment did not go as planned. Over the span of just 21 months, most of the quolls were gone. This time, it was not poisonous toads causing their deaths, it was dingoes capturing and eating them. This came as a surprise to the team, because prior to the arrival of humans, quolls were able to survive in territory occupied by dingoes. They did so, the researchers note, by hiding from them. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-06-species-predators-isolation.html#jCp ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: the paper: DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2018.0222 Abstract: When imperilled by a threatening process, the choice is often made to conserve threatened species on offshore islands that typically lack the full suite of mainland predators. While keeping the species extant, this releases the conserved population from predator-driven natural selection. Antipredator traits are no longer maintained by natural selection and may be lost. It is implicitly assumed that such trait loss will happen slowly, but there are few empirical tests. In Australia, northern quolls (Dasyurus hallucatus) were moved onto a predator-free offshore island in 2003 to protect the species from the arrival of invasive cane toads on the mainland. We compared the antipredator behaviours of wild-caught quolls from the predator-rich mainland with those from this predator-free island. We compared the responses of both wild-caught animals and their captive-born offspring, to olfactory cues of two of their major predators (feral cats and dingoes). Wild-caught, mainland quolls recognized and avoided predator scents, as did their captive-born offspring. Island quolls, isolated from these predators for only 13 generations, showed no recognition or aversion to these predators. 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. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-06-species-predators-isolation.html#jCp LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL For your information on Cane Toads: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toads_in_Australia extract: Native to South and mainland Middle America, cane toads were introduced to Australia from Hawaii in June 1935 by the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations, now the Sugar Research Australia, in an attempt to control the native grey-backed cane beetle (Dermolepida albohirtum) and Frenchi beetle (Lepidiota frenchi).[3]These beetles are native to Australia and they are detrimental to sugar cane crops, which are a major source of income for Australia. Adult cane beetles eat the crop's leaves, but the main problem is the larvae, which feed on the roots. Adult cane beetles have a heavy exoskeleton and their eggs and larva are often buried underground, making them difficult to exterminate. Furthermore, conventional methods of pest control, such as pesticide use, would eradicate harmless species of insects as well, making it an unsatisfactory method.[4] Cane toads were to replace the use of pesticides like arsenic, pitch and copper. The success of using the moth Cactoblastis cactorum in controlling prickly pears in Australia also contributed to hopes for the cane toad.[5] The cane toads bred immediately in captivity, and by August 1935 more than 102 young toads were released in areas around Cairns, Gordonvale and Innisfail in northern Queensland. More toads were released around Ingham, Ayr, Mackay and Bundaberg. Releases were temporarily limited because of environmental concerns but resumed in other areas after September 1936. Since their release, toads have rapidly multiplied in population and now number over 200 million and have been known to spread diseases affecting local biodiversity.[6]Unfortunately, the introduction of the toads has not only caused large environmental detriment, but there is no evidence that they have affected the cane beetles they were introduced to predate. The toads have steadily expanded their range through Queensland, reaching the border with New South Wales in 1978 and the Northern Territory in 1984. The toads on the western frontier of their advance have evolved larger legs;[7] this is thought to be related to their ability to travel farther. As a consequence of their longer legs, larger bodies, and faster movement, about 10% of the leading edge cane toads have also developed arthritis.[8] It was estimated that cane toads migrate at an average of 40 kilometres (25 miles) per year as of 1994,[9] but new research in 2014 indicated that the migration rate had increased to 60 km per year on the western front.[10] ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: My question of course is in the heading. With regards to the Quolls being released on the mainland. Is this evolution in reverse?

https://phys.org/news/2018-06-horizons-historic-kuiper-belt-flyby.html New Horizons wakes for historic Kuiper Belt flyby June 6, 2018, NASA NASA's New Horizons spacecraft is back "awake" and being prepared for the farthest planetary encounter in history – a New Year's Day 2019 flyby of the Kuiper Belt object nicknamed Ultima Thule. Cruising through the Kuiper Belt more than 3.7 billion miles (6 billion kilometers) from Earth, New Horizons had been in resource-saving hibernation mode since Dec. 21. Radio signals confirming that New Horizons had executed on-board computer commands to exit hibernation reached mission operations at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland, via NASA's Deep Space Network at 2:12 a.m. EDT on June 5. Mission Operations Manager Alice Bowman of APL reported that the spacecraft was in good health and operating normally, with all systems coming back online as expected. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-06-horizons-historic-kuiper-belt-flyby.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What a great success this mission has been. I must admit something though. When this mission was first proposed, it was along side another proposal for a mission to Europa and if I recall correctly, a landing? At the time budget restraints meant that only one could be realised with the other abandoned and/or pidgeon holed. I was at the time bitterly disappointed that the Europa mission was the one that was pidgeon holed. New Horizon's has had stunning success and I followed it all the way, but I still sometimes think that maybe they pulled the wrong reign? Perhaps my thoughts on the possibilities of finding some form of life in the sub ice covered Oceans of Europa was the reason for my preference. Obviously the ideal position would have been to undertake both.

Are you going to continue to dismiss/ignore the fact that given time [like 13.83 billion years] that such things are then more likely to happen, driven by your bias against science, the scientific method, and preoccupation with pseudoscience, higher powers, numerology, the supernatural and the paranormal? And if as you say we/us/the majority of this forum are confined in this terrible mindset, why do you come here? Why not take part in another forum where folk that are more gullible and impressionable, are more likely to fall for your mythical unscientific claims?

??? Not sure why you would say that when I have just answered your question above thus..... So one must ask, are you having reading problems? just being obtuse? or simply repeating your nonsensical claims without any regard for opposing evidence? No, I'm well aware of that and have posted numerous times the following to illustrate that fact..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8 But how the hell is that evidence for any higher power that you dream of? Really, don't be so daft. Coincidences happen. Total Solar Eclipses happen, but guess what? They won't in the distant future. Annular solar eclipses happen. but guess what? They were impossible in the distant past. And again, please check out my previous definition of gullible. Your higher power exists only in your mind.

We really are not sure, but some reasonable ideas are often talked about. https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ A Universe from Nothing

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gullible Definition of gullible : easily duped or cheated selling overpriced souvenirs to gullibletourists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullibility Gullibility is a failure of social intelligence in which a person is easily tricked or manipulated into an ill-advised course of action. It is closely related to credulity, which is the tendency to believeunlikely propositions that are unsupported by evidence.[1][2] Classes of people especially vulnerable to exploitation due to gullibility include children, the elderly, and the developmentally disabled I totally reject the unscientific nature and gullibility of near everything that you propose. Your personal "qualities" or lack thereof as demonstrated in your posts here and elsewhere is incredulous. But again, you obviously wear that as a badge of honour