I have to 'question' the logic asked in the 'title question' asked in this artical: https://newatlas.com/most-distant-s...ail&utm_term=0_65b67362bd-2151ebbb0d-91583997 It seems to me that the "star stuff" (To quote Carl Sagan) at the outer edges of the universe is the oldest! Then WHY would anyone especially a Theoretical Astronomical Physicist think it odd that a black hole would be able to form in the oldest portion of the universe? The other thing that puzzles me is the emphasis placed on the time that this black hole formed could even be figured/assumed, let alone assigning it's forming to 'the dawn of the universe'. Remember, I am NOT questioning that the the "star stuff" at the edge of the universe is representative of the 'the dawn of the universe'; but, seeing as it IS the "star stuff" formed at the 'the dawn of the universe' it IS the oldest; and therefore, has had even more time to coalesce into black holes than the rest of the black holes, which (to me) obviously formed later! (I am adding to this question here), I know what the article says about redshift, but the movement of many things in the universe have yet to be understood, and whatever caused the redshift of this particular black hole may have been an oddity of the young universe that just hasn't been observed before, and may have left no other evidence that it existed. OR, something perhaps as an unimaginable consequence of the expanding universe snapping a tendril of it's underlying matrix carrying this item along with it further and faster than it would have traveled without that incident. Just a thought.