In article , jacobnavia
writes:

Not necessarily, those mysterious processes created "out of some random
fluctuation" made those seeds and that quasar comes into being just a
few hundred million years later.

What is mysterious? Why the scare quotes? Both are indications that
you are not convinced of your own arguments, otherwise such rhetorical
devices would not be necessary.

And nothing less than a black hole of
1E4 solar masses. It seems (to me) impossible that gravity can condense
something at those temperatures.

Then read up on your physics.

Yes, let's do that.

Primordial black holes were a speculation within big bang theory that
was never observed.

What is the difference between a speculation, a hypothesis, and a
theory? One reason people don't take your arguments seriously is that
you argue rhetorically, not scientifically.

I would like to remember your own words in this
discussion group when discussing with Mr Oldershaw when you argued
against the black holes he proposed.

In a completely different mass range.

Observations rule out the existence of many small black holes because
they would bend light and that wasn't observed. That is what you said.

Yes, in the mass range Oldershaw proposed (within a couple of orders of
magnitude of a solar mass.

Now you propose that big black holes were created somehow from the
"start". They would become the nucleous of future galaxies.

It is not my proposal, but an idea with a long history in the
literature, and is not an ad-hoc hypothesis.

Of course "some random fluctuation" could create anything, including a
very convenient "seed" to grow up a huge galaxy in no time.

I just find that unlikely.

"Just finding" is not science.