Martian Spheres are Sponge Gemmules!

"Jo Schaper" wrote in message
...
jonathan wrote:

The Opportunity site has an almost indisputable spatial structure.

The spheres are distributed randomly.
The spheres are distributed uniformly.

These two structures require an explanation.
The two most probable, by far, explanations for
this near perfect spatial form is either the spheres fell
from the sky, or they were distributed by a
body of water.

Any other explanations would be one-off or unique
events and very unlikely.

The first option, falling from the sky, has two most probable
sources. Impacts or volcanism. Since the site is covered by
a uniform blanket of soil obscuring any impact boulders any
impact must predate the soil. So an impact source is very
unlikely.

The grainy surface of the spheres combined with a perfect
spherical shape argues against volcanism.

The iron spheres I have in my ashy basalt are as perfect a sphere as
these things are.


Are they 'furry' on the surface, have a hole, an off-center
slice, and blow bubbles, as the Mars spheres do?

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...0P2932M1M1.JPG
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2933M2M1.HTML


http://waynesword.palomar.edu/plfeb96.htm#gemmules




Jonathan

s








Let's wait to hear what Nasa says.

I still think they're BBs from Marvin's gun. Ping!

That makes as much sense as some people around here.

"Jo Schaper" wrote in message
...
jonathan wrote:

"Jo Schaper" wrote in message
...

jonathan wrote:


The Opportunity site has an almost indisputable spatial structure.

The spheres are distributed randomly.
The spheres are distributed uniformly.

These two structures require an explanation.
The two most probable, by far, explanations for
this near perfect spatial form is either the spheres fell
from the sky, or they were distributed by a
body of water.

Any other explanations would be one-off or unique
events and very unlikely.

The first option, falling from the sky, has two most probable
sources. Impacts or volcanism. Since the site is covered by
a uniform blanket of soil obscuring any impact boulders any
impact must predate the soil. So an impact source is very
unlikely.

The grainy surface of the spheres combined with a perfect
spherical shape argues against volcanism.

The iron spheres I have in my ashy basalt are as perfect a sphere as
these things are.



Are they 'furry' on the surface, have a hole, an off-center
slice, and blow bubbles, as the Mars spheres do?

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...0P2932M1M1.JPG

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2933M2M1.HTML


Blow bubbles? Into what? The Martian atmosphere??

Look at the second pic again, the 'twin' or double sphere
is described below. The aperture or micropyle can be
seen in the other sphere in the same pic.


"During the spring gemmule "hatch", the peripheral thesocytes
differentiate into a pinacoderm that balloons out, like a bubblegum
bubble, through the micropyle. This micropyle bubble makes
contact and attaches to the substratum"
http://64.78.63.75/samples/04BIORupp...oology7ch5.pdf





I see no fur,


It is well established the spheres have a granular or non smooth
surface. Perhaps fur was too loose a word.


off-center slices,

The first pic clearly....clearly shows off center slices in both. Many
other pics do as well.


bubbles and yes, there are circular dark places, but
hey cave pearls are formed around a bit of dark grit, with no evidence
of biologic activity.

Man, I will give you the award for being one of the most creative people
around here. Hate to see what you might do with a Rorschach blot...


I 'observed' that the sand dunes are water features before Nasa
changed their tune and began calling them geologic ripples. I
also 'observed' the Opportunity site shows signs of recent
water...before tomorrows press conference. The 'observations'
that the spheres are life and exactly what kind are yet to
be confirmed...they both will be.

I've done the math of evolution and life, I know what the mathematical
patterns of life look like. Those patterns are everywhere in the
Rover images.

I haven't even bothered to mention the numerous observations
I've seen of bioerosion in the Spirit rocks. Those small rocks
that look like they've been hit by birdshot, that is bioerosion, not
a result of volcanism or impacts.


Page 89
http://64.78.63.75/samples/04BIORupp...oology7ch5.pdf


Jonathan

s

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

Here's the thing, thus far the spheres have absolutely no
explanation by geological processes.

You have admitted you know little of geology.
Your ignorance of geology does not make your argument
more cogent. Most especially when you use words like
"absolute".
Have you asked in biology newsgroups? Geology newsgroups?
Where in the biological or geological literature did you actually
look to make such a sweeping statement as that there is
absolutely no explanation by geological processes?

A gemmule would
explain quite well the following observations.

The grainy surface
The aperture
The slit
The bubble
Why only some of the spheres show the above
The shape
The lack of different shapes and sizes.
The threads
The uniform random distribution.
The clumpy soil.
The foamy coating on the rock face

Explain quite well?
Perhaps, perhaps not.

And the gemmules would fit the possible environmental context.

That's a dozen correlations, the odds of that level of
correspondence occurring by chance is virtually zero.

You appear to be confusing correlation with causality.
Every single person who ate a pickle before 1789 is
dead. That is a 100 % correlation. The odds of that
happening by chance is virtually zero. Therefore
one must conclude pickles were poisonous before 1789.

The grainy surface alone makes volcanic explanations
rather unlikely. And since the soil covers any impact
boulders all the way to the horizon, the soil came
...after... any impact. I see little logic being applied on
your part. Are you claiming the soil fell from the
sky also?

I am repeating that you are jumping to conclusions
from a position of ignorance. You have taken
superficial similarities and a lack of information and
turned it into scenario which you claim to know is
true with "mathematical certainty".
This pomposity is plain vanity on your part.

To claim impact or volcano it would help to point
to an impact or volcano. Your turn!

Notice, once again, please, that they are sitting in
an impact crater and are surrounded by impact craters.
However, it doesn't matter what I can or can't point to
on the current surface of the vicinity of meridiani crater -
the spectra will be the key.

I am not jumping the gun here. You are.
I am not ruling out the possiblilty of life on Mars here.
I AM ruling out the claim of "mathematical certainty"
of you knowing it.

The only facts we have right now are the pictures.

Which are insufficient for your "mathematical certainty".

A gemmule
is the best explanation in agreement with the facts up to
now.

Not necessarily at all. The three hypotheses offered by
the NASA science team have at least as much probability
of being correct. You are still arguing from a position of
ignorance and you refuse to accept that. You have admitted
you know little geology - yet you continue to make "absolute"
geological proclamations. I do not believe you know, at
all, what the geological, biological, astrobiological, or fluid
dynamics communities know or think about the contents
and history of Meridiani crater and its vicinity.
You have shown no evidence of having researched this.
And you have even admitted why. You believe your new hobby of
complexity science has shown you the light. Shown you
the true path. Global superficial appearances are what count.
Details are beneath you.

In sci.space.policy jonathan wrote:

"El Guapo" wrote in message
news:qx20c.424662$xy6.2471347@attbi_s02...
"jonathan" wrote in message
...

The outcrop at the Opportunity site is covered by a decomposing
or partially fossilized sponge and its gemmules, possibly of the species
spongilla. The images make this clear imo. But I'm a mathematician
not a biologist and I need some professional feedback.

I would recommend the following professional sources:


It's very very easy to shoot down a theory. It only takes
one solid peice of data from the observations to refute
the entire idea.

Just one!

Thats not the only way to shoot down a theory. You can also do it
by showing that it is internaly inconsistent or not based on facts
or not a theory but a random slap-together of misunderstanings.


I'm daring you


Jonathan

s




http://www.lenscrafters.com/

http://therapist.psychologytoday.com...of_search.php3





--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

jonathan wrote:

The Opportunity site has an almost indisputable spatial structure.

The spheres are distributed randomly.
The spheres are distributed uniformly.

These two structures require an explanation.
The two most probable, by far, explanations for
this near perfect spatial form is either the spheres fell
from the sky, or they were distributed by a
body of water.

Any other explanations would be one-off or unique
events and very unlikely.

The first option, falling from the sky, has two most probable
sources. Impacts or volcanism. Since the site is covered by
a uniform blanket of soil obscuring any impact boulders any
impact must predate the soil. So an impact source is very
unlikely.

The grainy surface of the spheres combined with a perfect
spherical shape argues against volcanism.

The iron spheres I have in my ashy basalt are as perfect a sphere as
these things are.

Let's wait to hear what Nasa says.

I still think they're BBs from Marvin's gun. Ping!

That makes as much sense as some people around here.

jonathan wrote:

"Jo Schaper" wrote in message
...

jonathan wrote:


The Opportunity site has an almost indisputable spatial structure.

The spheres are distributed randomly.
The spheres are distributed uniformly.

These two structures require an explanation.
The two most probable, by far, explanations for
this near perfect spatial form is either the spheres fell
from the sky, or they were distributed by a
body of water.

Any other explanations would be one-off or unique
events and very unlikely.

The first option, falling from the sky, has two most probable
sources. Impacts or volcanism. Since the site is covered by
a uniform blanket of soil obscuring any impact boulders any
impact must predate the soil. So an impact source is very
unlikely.

The grainy surface of the spheres combined with a perfect
spherical shape argues against volcanism.

The iron spheres I have in my ashy basalt are as perfect a sphere as
these things are.



Are they 'furry' on the surface, have a hole, an off-center
slice, and blow bubbles, as the Mars spheres do?

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...0P2932M1M1.JPG
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2933M2M1.HTML


Blow bubbles? Into what? The Martian atmosphere?? I see no fur,
off-center slices, bubbles and yes, there are circular dark places, but
hey cave pearls are formed around a bit of dark grit, with no evidence
of biologic activity.

Man, I will give you the award for being one of the most creative people
around here. Hate to see what you might do with a Rorschach blot...

"Matthew Montchalin" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
| If the outcrop is chemically determined to be volcanic ash,
| will that change your mind?
| If the spherules are chemically determined to be basaltic
| glass, will that change your mind?
|
|Of course, this is science, these are science newsgroups.
|
|We will post our retractions right here on the usenet.
|
|But wouldn't that require ... spectroscopy?

Okay, what kind of spectroscopic data would confirm or contradict
the proposals at hand?

Having done a fair amount of hiking through a variety of lava beds,
and having watched a good number of movies on volcanoes, my gut
feeling was that a shower of volcanic material - ejecta - would
form lots of little beads or 'marbles' as they fell. Having a
more or less uniform size indicates merely that the "surface
tension" holding the ejecta together was defeated by the distance
through the atmosphere traveled.


Given the number of craters, I'll suggest microtektites as a
result of meteor impacts and the resulting
molten ejecta cooling in the atmosphere.

The outcrop at the Opportunity site is covered by a decomposing
or partially fossilized sponge and its gemmules, possibly of the species
spongilla. The images make this clear imo. But I'm a mathematician
not a biologist and I need some professional feedback. Please
take a look, thanks in advance.


Sphere close up of Opportunity outcrop
1) http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2953M2M1.HTML

Gemmule photo
2) http://waynesword.palomar.edu/plfeb96.htm#gemmules

"During the spring gemmule "hatch", the peripheral thesocytes
differentiate into a pinacoderm that balloons out, like a bubblegum
bubble, through the micropyle. This micropyle bubble makes
contact and attaches to the substratum"
http://64.78.63.75/samples/04BIORupp...oology7ch5.pdf

Sphere with bubble
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2933M2M1.HTML



Raw thread image
3) http://www.earthfiles.com/news/news....tegory=Science
4) http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2953M2M1.HTML

Imprints of skeletal spicules, very small thread sticking out and casting a shadow
upper left corner beneath the two large brown patches.
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2933M2M1.HTML

Sponge wall rover image, left of center
5) http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2932M1M1.HTML

Diagram of sponge wall, bottom of page
6) http://paleo.cortland.edu/tutorial/P...a/porifera.htm



All raw Rover images can be found here
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...portunity.html


The correlation between the Rover images and a sponge
gemmule are many.

1) Both show a surface that is grainy, or covered with spicules
2) Both show the aperture and slice
3) Image 3 shows a skeletal spicule as in the left
of image 2 just above the word gemmule
4) A gemmule would explain the shiny spheres
5) A gemmule would explain why only some of
the Rover spheres show an aperture.
6) A gemmule would explain the occassional sphere 'twins' or bubble.
7) The Opportunity site was chosen for a possible
previous marine environment, which sponges
occupy.
8) A sponge release of gemmules would explain the uniform
and random distribution of the spheres, since no impact
boulders or nearby volcanoes are seen near the site.
9) Sponges were perhaps the very first animal life
on earth, we should expect a similar first life on Mars.
10 Sponges, spongilla, are known to have a symbiotic
relationship with sulfur reducing bacteria, and use it for
a primary food source. Such bacteria is associated with
hematite, thrives off elemental sulfur, low oxygen and salty
environments.




Overhead views of Meridiani
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/2004/01/24/
The second image shows how the density of spheres
settled in the channels. This image shows a recent
reef system I believe.


Sponge covered rock?
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2555R1M1.HTML



Dark dunes
http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/gall.../PIA01695.html
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/...se/7707rel.gif
http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/gall.../PIA02398.html

It appears that ancient furrows, following precisely where water would stand, are
covered in a blanket of dark material similar to the Opportunity site.
The clearly defined, if not startling, outline of the dark material shows that
fallout from impacts or eruptions are not a possibility. This dark canyons
may be additional blooms of recent marine life.




"Each gemmule is covered with a protective outer layer and a
foraminal aperture. In some species the gemmules are also covered with spicules.
Gemmules are commonly produced during the fall, and like the overwintering turions of
duckweeds, are able to survive severe winter conditions. The gemmules can withstand
repeated freezings and thawings and may be viable for three years are more.
Upon germination, a creamy mass of amoebocytes slowly flows out of the
foraminal aperture."
http://waynesword.palomar.edu/plfeb96.htm#gemmules



"One exciting place (that is accessible for some coastal biology classes) to observe
living sponges is in intertidal sea caves found along rocky ocean shores. Biology
students who investigate these geological features are likely to find 'living
paintings' on the cave walls, formed by sponges or groups of sponges. In high
wave-shock areas, these sponges are usually only a centimeter or two in thickness.

The formation of gemmules is another form of asexual reproduction. This strategy is
common for freshwater sponges, but rare in marine species. The gemmule is a
densely-matted, hardened ball containing archeocytes protected by collagen and special
spicules. In freshwater sponges, these balls survive through the winter and then form
a new clone in the spring.
http://ebiomedia.com/prod/BOsponges.html



"Frozen water makes up as much as 10 percent of the top meter (three feet)
of surface material in some regions close to the equator."
http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/odys...20031208a.html




Jonathan Maatsch
j0nathan @comcast.net


s

"Chosp" wrote in message news:FZ50c.6080$id3.5208@fed1read01...

"jonathan" wrote in message
...



The outcrop at the Opportunity site is covered by a decomposing
or partially fossilized sponge and its gemmules, possibly of the species
spongilla. The images make this clear imo. But I'm a mathematician
not a biologist and I need some professional feedback. Please
take a look, thanks in advance.

Your speculations stand and fall by the chemical composition
of the components.
If the outcrop is chemically determined to be volcanic ash,
will that change your mind?
If the spherules are chemically determined to be basaltic
glass, will that change your mind?


Of course.

Here's the thing, thus far the spheres have absolutely no
explanation by geological processes. A gemmule would
explain quite well the following observations.

The grainy surface
The aperture
The slit
The bubble
Why only some of the spheres show the above
The shape
The lack of different shapes and sizes.
The threads
The uniform random distribution.
The clumpy soil.
The foamy coating on the rock face

And the gemmules would fit the possible environmental context.


That's a dozen correlations, the odds of that level of
correspondence occurring by chance is virtually zero.
The grainy surface alone makes volcanic explanations
rather unlikely. And since the soil covers any impact
boulders all the way to the horizon, the soil came
....after... any impact. I see little logic being applied on
your part. Are you claiming the soil fell from the
sky also?

To claim impact or volcano it would help to point
to an impact or volcano. Your turn!

The only facts we have right now are the pictures. A gemmule
is the best explanation in agreement with the facts up to
now.


Jonathan

s

"David M. Palmer" wrote in message
...
In article , jonathan
wrote:

The outcrop at the Opportunity site is covered by a decomposing
or partially fossilized sponge and its gemmules, possibly of the species
spongilla. The images make this clear imo. But I'm a mathematician
not a biologist and I need some professional feedback. Please
take a look, thanks in advance.

And the sponges soaked up all the water. That's why Mars is so dry.


You haven't been keeping up with the latest observations.
Mars is not dry. A large amount of water ice near the
surface is well documented.

"Frozen water makes up as much as 10 percent of the top meter (three feet)
of surface material in some regions close to the equator."
http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/odys...20031208a.html





--
David M. Palmer (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)