"jonathan" wrote in message
...

The concretion theory is complete nonsense. I can list a
dozen reasons why it is,

Please do.
Be specific this time.

and I can list a dozen reasons why the
spheres are gemmules.

The last time you tried, you failed.
Feel free to try again.

Not one of the reasons I listed correlating
the spheres to gemmules has been refuted at all.

I disagree.

You simply avoided responding to the following from an
earlier post:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
The correspondence between the spheres are gemmules are;

Both have grainy surfaces.

Weakest of all possible correlations. ANY number of things
have what appear to be grainy surfaces for any number
of completely different reasons.

Both are spherical.

Some are. Some aren't.
Regardless, that would also be expected from
some concretions.

Both display non-symmetrical features.

Spheres, by definition, have no
non-symmetrical features.
First, you say they are spherical and this
constitutes evidence for your position - then
you stress that they are not spherical and
this equally constitutes evidence for your
position. If you assert that something is both
symmetrical and non-symmetrical at the
same time and that this constitutes evidence
for any hypothesis and/or rules out any
competing hypotheses, you really need
to rethink not only your position but your
attachment to the logical process.

Besides, it's irrelevant. Non-symmetrical
features could certainly be expected from
concretions. Or, for that matter, from any
of the other non-living based hypotheses
offered by the Rover science team.
So this one doesn't fly either.

Both display an aperture.

You have arbitrarily defined a feature as an aperture. Now
you are attempting to use that arbitrary definition as proof.

Both display an off-center slash.

Some do. Most don't.
Faith in things unseen.

Both would occasionally bubble out from the aperture.

Conclusion in premises again.
You again presume a priori that a feature on some of the
spherules should be arbitrarily defined as an "aperture".
Then you attempt to use that arbitrary definition as "proof"
of your conclusion and that your arbitrary definition can be
used to support other extended conclusions.

Both at times show a lack of these asymmetrical features, the
gemmule displays them or not depending on whether
it's dormant or ready to hatch etc.

If it is symmetrical (i.e. spherical) - it must be a gemmule.
If it isn't symmetrical - it must also be a gemmule.
Therefore it doesn't matter what it looks like - it still must
be a gemmule.

A gemmule would be released into the water periodically, so
it should be seen helping build the soil.

So? If gemmules were released periodically in fluid conditions
one would just as well expect that periodicity to be reflected
in the layering. Yet they appear randomly distributed through
the horizons. They do not appear to have been dropped into
place because they don't deform the underlying or surrounding
strata. A far more reasonable explanation is that they formed
in situ.

Helping to build the soil?

A gemmule would be distributed from point sources into the
water, and show a random and uniform spatial distribution.

Not at all. They would be far more likely show gradients with distance
from the "point sources".
Where the hell is your math or reasoning here?

When hatching, the release through the aperture is designed
to adhere to rocks.

That is not even a correlation.
Conclusions in premises again.

Gemmules are highly resistant to cold and low humidity conditions.
The sulfur reducing bacteria should leave behind a
large amount, and diversity, of sulfates.

More generic arguments.
Be specific. How cold and how humid?
Which particular sulfates and in what proportions?
Show your work.

This is far more then enough to come to a clear conclusion
that the very first symbiotic life that evolved on earth has
also emerged at Meridiani.

No. This is not remotely enough to come to ANY clear
conclusions at all, least of all the ones you are
proposing. Correlations do not demonstrate
causality. And you have shown but the flimsiest
of correlations.

A simple ecosystem consisting
of a some variety of sulfate reducing bacteria and freshwater
sponge such as spongilla.

A fresh water sponge. Spongilla. In a salt brine.
You have absolutely got to be kidding.
Once again, you would just as soon find fresh water
sponges thriving in the salt brines in Death Valley or the
Dead Sea or the Afar Triangle.

If the concept of a freshwater sponge evolving in such a hostile
environment seems unlikely, it should be noted that freshwater systems
are exposed to far more diverse conditions of ph, temperature
salinity etc.

You are utterly disconnected from reality here.
You really need to demonstrate a specific instance of
any fresh water sponge thriving in a salt brine like that
found in Meridiani (especially with the particular salts
found there, their proportions, and their relative
concentrations in different levels of the strata).
Once again, feel free to be specific.

While sea water is highly constant, a freshwater
species would be far more tolerant and adaptive to harsh
or changing conditions.

Invertebrates are also known to
inhabit sulfate waters on earth.

Another typical, uselessly generic argument.
Are all invertebrates sponges? No.
The why generalize to the entirety of
invertebrates?
Which particular invertebrates?
Which particular sponges?
Which particular sulfates? In what way
does your statement back up your
assertion of any fresh water sponges
living in a salt brine environment?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- return to the present--


I recognize that this method can lead to making the data
fit the theory. As in only seeing what agrees with the
theory,

Precisely.