March 18, 2004

(R.Schenck) wrote in message :

(Thomas Lee Elifritz) wrote in message :

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2002/pdf/1226.pdf

perhaps it would be sensible to put the portion that you though
supported your idea of a biological origin.

The post was informational, make of it what you will, you have already
demonstrated yourself to be a skeptical fool.

Beause this paper rejects
a biological origin for the 'organic appearing' features in question:
"Although the fine-scalelamination found in older terrace deposits
resembles microbial mat laminae, this texture appears to have
originated mostly if not entirely during diagenesis."

The paper is an pre-MER abstract, intended to put the subsequent
spectroscopic discoveries into context. The context here, of course,
is diagenesis as possible fossilization.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JE001918.shtml

agian, you really need to point out what in particular you find
helpful here.

I don't have to do anything. You have yet to make any claims or posit
any hypothesis, just expouse a particularly boring version of
skeptical crackpottery.

You have been positing that the spherules are formed by
bacteria building spores around themselves.

As one of many working hypothses. Another more plausible hypothesis is
simple microbiological concretion.

the closest that this paper comes to in supporting any arguement for
life on mars, and has nothing special to say about your particualar
theory is:

" A chemolithotrophic community that biooxidizes the Iberian Pyritic
Belt, acidifying water (pH between 0.9 and 3.0) and favoring high
concentrations of ferric iron in solution (up to 20 g·L-1), maintains
this iron-driven system. In spite of these extreme conditions, high
microbial diversity was found. Its acidic bacteria, archaea, and
eukarya constitute a complex community supported by algal biomass in
highly stable hydrochemical conditions, which are achieved through
iron buffering. The pH is maintained at constant low levels even at
very high water dilution. In these conditions, iron minerals as
oxyhydroxides, hydroxides, and sulfates are formed."

Than-you so much for throwing up on the usenet.

sulfates i beleiev have been found, but I don't think that any of this
is wildly helpful.

Again, since you have offered no evidence, and I have, I claim you are
nothing but a skeptical scientific fraud.

If anything, it suggests that a wide diversity of
organisms are required for this ph buffering process. It says nothing
about organisms forming iron spores.

And if you read that next full paper, you will see that premise is not
supported by the evidence.

http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/69/8/4853

again, you need to point out where in this paper there is supporting
eveidence. I saw nothing about concretions or spherules in there.

I notice Rio Tinto is in Spain, of Earth.

The paper has a lot about the genetic/relationships of the varied
microorganisms that are in the system. the only really relevant
portion is

"The Tinto River (Huelva, southwestern Spain) is an extreme
environment with a rather constant acidic pH along the entire river
and a high concentration of heavy metals. The extreme conditions of
the Tinto ecosystem are generated by the metabolic activity of
chemolithotrophic microorganisms thriving in the rich complex sulfides
of the Iberian Pyrite Belt. Molecular ecology techniques were used to
analyze the diversity of this microbial community. "

Again, thank-you so much for regurtitating on the usenet. It's so
helpful.

So what evidence do you have for similar control of ph in the region
under consideration? Where any heamatite spherules found in the Tinto
River? What do they look like and what is their origin? How would
those hypothetical sphereules in teh tinto river relate to the
spherules on mars?

Clearly the implied depositional ph on Mars is rather low, whereas if
you had done your homework, you will see that most hematite formation
scenarios work with alkaline depositional environments.

IOW, what evidence do you havethat the spherules on mars are the
result of biological processes?

Again, I have systematically been supplying evidence and offering
plausible origin and evolution scenarios for the last several weeks,
systematically knocking crackpot theories down one by one, with
evidence. You on the other hand, suddenly appear, offering skepticism,
without formulating any plausible counter hypotheses, conveniently
when the only plausible counter hypothesis is pure inorganic
sedimentation, and without offering any evidence whatsoever. I have
no reason to take any of your claims seriously as you have no
demonstrated scientific credibility whatsoever. However, I can test
that, with evidence :

http://www.google.com/groups?safe=im...=d&lr=&hl=e n

That's pretty laughable from a scientific point of view.

The hypothesis that you are a crackpot is confirmed.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net