Meridiani Planum on Mars as an Ancient Bacteria Sponge Ecosystem (first draft)

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

"Dan" wrote in message
news:Fuu2c.130223$4o.168876@attbi_s52...
In article ,

You said you've done the math, and are a mathematician. So
show it to us.

I've said I'm a hobbyist with complexity science.

Excuses.
The real Jonahan raises his head.

What are the alleles for Meridiani?

Given that I have but a few, and only a few...images with
which to use I would think this level of analysis is a bit
presumptuous. Sufficient proof is enough for now.

You can be unintentionally quite funny sometimes.
Sufficient proof"?
But you have never offered any.


How
many are there?

You tell me. These posts are a cry for help.

Now you tell us.
That's a far cry from "mathematical certainty" and
"sufficient proof".

That's right, a hope others
with more time and specialist knowledge, whether in complexity science,
invertebrate biology, chemistry or geology, will pick up the slack.
I'm not going to pretend I'm any or all of those things or that I have
all the answers. I've posted what I've done so far, I'll try to figure
out the answers to your questions as soon as possible. If you've
figured it out ...well.....what's the answer?

If you would have read the entire post I showed how a conclusion
can be reached without that level of detail.

You are like the three blind men inspecting an elephant.

--snip cut and paste recycled Kauffman lecture--


1.8) CONCLUSIONS
This is the first model hinting that a coevolutionary system, in which
selection acts
only at the level of the INDIVIDUAL, hence, as if by an invisible hand,
can tune
landscape smoothness to an intermediate value. Organisms can therefore
plausibly tune
the statistical structure of their search spaces

He is describing a first, crude model.
Interesting, even plausible, but hypothetical.
It cannot and does not act as evidence to
support your assertion that a fresh water
sponge has been found in a salt brine on Mars.

You want to talk complexity science? Okay, let's talk
complexity science.

It is not complexity science that I care about.

Stop right there.
Well, now, that's revealing. Here we go.
Right here begins your great diversion. Your Big Excuse.
Let's change the goal posts in the middle of the play.
Let's play 'Time to change the subject'. Watch how
your "mathematical certainty" devolves into nebulous
diversion:

It's not sponges or Mars that I care about.

So, is that why you wasted your time on a 17 page (!)
psuedo-scientific dissertation on those exact subjects?

What I want to talk about is the future.

When the going gets tough - divert, divert, divert.
Subject changed.

I want to know what the future of humanity is, I want
to know what reality is. I want to understand Nature
and God. I want to know how to better my life and that
of others. I want others to understand these things also.

So quit posting on sci.astro.

These topics are simply a vehicle to those ends.

You are most certainly taking the long way around
in your vehicle. In fact, I'd almost have to say - you
can't get there from here.

I haven't dotted all the i's, but those photos have a smell
to them...

Quite an olfactory sense you have. It goes well with
your penetrating insight and precise use of words.
(Poetic licence doesn't often get far in science
newsgroups).

a look to them....that is simply beautiful.

Yes. Many of the images certainly do
contain beauty, as well as dramatic
lighting, excellent composition, and,
most of all, mystery. But that's not
the issue here. The issue remains that
you have asserted with "mathematical
certainty" that you have "sufficient proof"
that you have made a Major Discovery on
Mars and deserve credit for showing the
entire world that fresh water sponges
have been umambiguously found in a
salt brine at Meridiani. Remember?

I've answered the questions I want to know, your
questions are for you to answer.

But you haven't answered any questions at all.
You have no way of knowing whether you have
"answered" your own questions correctly or not.
You may be satisfied in your belief that rank
speculation constitutes "proof" and it may even
give you warm feelings inside - but were you just
beating off when you wrote a 17 page thesis and
asked for comments? Did you not expect critical
questions from a science newsgroup? Did you not
expect to have to defend your position? The fact
that you labeled your 17 page thesis as a first draft
implies that you were expecting revisions. But, by
your words above; by your attempted diversion from
the subject YOU brought up ( 'I don't REALLY care about
complexity science, sponges, or Mars - I actually care
about all this other stuff which I've never before
discussed so let's talk about that instead') and which
you preached about continuously for weeks, it is
clear that you are now running away from the subject
just because you are being asked to defend your
position.
You said above that you wanted to better your life?
Then take heed to the comments you have been
getting.
Learn a little humility. Quit bull****ting.


Life evolving on two different planets, and in much the
same way, is a discovery of unprecidented magnificence.

It would be - if it were actually discovered to be so.
You, alas, have not done this.

This mission to Mars is a vehicle to
...all... those answers.

That would be nice. If only.....

"jonathan" wrote in message
news

"Chosp" wrote in message
news:%BI2c.21283$h23.13907@fed1read06...

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

The emergent order of the spheres is clear and unequivocal
that the system attained criticality...life.

Not at all.
You have not made it either clear nor unequivocal.
At no point have you demonstrated that life
is the only - or even most likely option. At no
point have you ruled out the concretion
hypothesis. The burden of proof here remains
on you and you haven't met it.
Try again.

The entire logical
path is not an attempt at proof, but the building of a very
specific theory based on the observed order and
emergence.

Your "theory" boils down to you asserting that you
have unequivocally discovered fresh water sponges
in a salt brine on Mars and you know this with
"mathematical certainty".
Your "entire logical path" doesn't mean squat if it is
doesn't include the empirical method. Or if is refuted
by the facts - or if there are other logical paths that
are just as (or more) viable. The "logical path" that
led to the concretion hypothesis was also "logically
formed and then compared with observations". This
hypothesis will be confirmed or refuted with further
observations. The Rover team will accept refutations
if they stand up to scrutiny and they will move on.
You, on the other hand, started with "mathematical
certainty" and then hand-selected only those "facts"
which appear to support your assertion. You then
dismiss everything else that doesn't quite fit as
unimportant detail.

Once a specific theory is logically formed
then the proof comes from the agreement between the
observations and the theory.

This is precisely what you haven't done.
You haven't demonstrated "a clear and unequivocal
agreement with the facts because there isn't a
sufficient factual basis for it. You simply don't
have the "facts".

The agreement between the
theory and observations are self-evident and overwhelming.

Only to someone bereft of the empirical method and/or with an
a priori commitment to the "theory".

You haven't refuted, or even attempted to debate, a single
point in my post.

Once again, you are dead wrong.
Did you miss the first post I made in response to
you little dissertation? The large one.
Or are you are simply responding to the wrong post?
Did you ignore it?
I'll repost it if you say you missed it.
In fact, I'll repost it if you don't respond directly to it.

But only offered high-school level
ridicule and insults. I find your replies embarrassing to
read.

You, of all people, certainly should be embarrassed.
You are offering a GRADE-school level
of rational thought. And a demonstrated
lack of understanding of the empirical
method. You should also note that no one else
here is backing your action. Why do you suppose
that is?
I'm still waiting for you to show your
fresh water sponges in a salt brine.
This is YOUR assertion. The burden of
proof remains on you.

"Chosp" wrote in message news:%BI2c.21283$h23.13907@fed1read06...

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

"Dan" wrote in message
news:Fuu2c.130223$4o.168876@attbi_s52...
In article ,

You said you've done the math, and are a mathematician. So
show it to us.

I've said I'm a hobbyist with complexity science.

Excuses.
The real Jonahan raises his head.

What are the alleles for Meridiani?

Given that I have but a few, and only a few...images with
which to use I would think this level of analysis is a bit
presumptuous. Sufficient proof is enough for now.

You can be unintentionally quite funny sometimes.
Sufficient proof"?
But you have never offered any.


How
many are there?

You tell me. These posts are a cry for help.

Now you tell us.
That's a far cry from "mathematical certainty" and
"sufficient proof".

That's right, a hope others
with more time and specialist knowledge, whether in complexity science,
invertebrate biology, chemistry or geology, will pick up the slack.
I'm not going to pretend I'm any or all of those things or that I have
all the answers. I've posted what I've done so far, I'll try to figure
out the answers to your questions as soon as possible. If you've
figured it out ...well.....what's the answer?

If you would have read the entire post I showed how a conclusion
can be reached without that level of detail.

You are like the three blind men inspecting an elephant.


You haven't the first clue about any of the concepts I'm
discussing, that is becoming obvious. Do you even
know what emergence is?

The emergent order of the spheres is clear and unequivocal
that the system attained criticality...life. The entire logical
path is not an attempt at proof, but the building of a very
specific theory based on the observed order and
emergence. Once a specific theory is logically formed
then the proof comes from the agreement between the
observations and the theory. The agreement between the
theory and observations are self-evident and overwhelming.

You haven't refuted, or even attempted to debate, a single
point in my post. But only offered high-school level
ridicule and insults. I find your replies embarrassing to
read.


Jonathan

s






--snip cut and paste recycled Kauffman lecture--


1.8) CONCLUSIONS
This is the first model hinting that a coevolutionary system, in which
selection acts
only at the level of the INDIVIDUAL, hence, as if by an invisible hand,
can tune
landscape smoothness to an intermediate value. Organisms can therefore
plausibly tune
the statistical structure of their search spaces

He is describing a first, crude model.
Interesting, even plausible, but hypothetical.
It cannot and does not act as evidence to
support your assertion that a fresh water
sponge has been found in a salt brine on Mars.

You want to talk complexity science? Okay, let's talk
complexity science.

It is not complexity science that I care about.

Stop right there.
Well, now, that's revealing. Here we go.
Right here begins your great diversion. Your Big Excuse.
Let's change the goal posts in the middle of the play.
Let's play 'Time to change the subject'. Watch how
your "mathematical certainty" devolves into nebulous
diversion:

It's not sponges or Mars that I care about.

So, is that why you wasted your time on a 17 page (!)
psuedo-scientific dissertation on those exact subjects?

What I want to talk about is the future.

When the going gets tough - divert, divert, divert.
Subject changed.

I want to know what the future of humanity is, I want
to know what reality is. I want to understand Nature
and God. I want to know how to better my life and that
of others. I want others to understand these things also.

So quit posting on sci.astro.

These topics are simply a vehicle to those ends.

You are most certainly taking the long way around
in your vehicle. In fact, I'd almost have to say - you
can't get there from here.

I haven't dotted all the i's, but those photos have a smell
to them...

Quite an olfactory sense you have. It goes well with
your penetrating insight and precise use of words.
(Poetic licence doesn't often get far in science
newsgroups).

a look to them....that is simply beautiful.

Yes. Many of the images certainly do
contain beauty, as well as dramatic
lighting, excellent composition, and,
most of all, mystery. But that's not
the issue here. The issue remains that
you have asserted with "mathematical
certainty" that you have "sufficient proof"
that you have made a Major Discovery on
Mars and deserve credit for showing the
entire world that fresh water sponges
have been umambiguously found in a
salt brine at Meridiani. Remember?

I've answered the questions I want to know, your
questions are for you to answer.

But you haven't answered any questions at all.
You have no way of knowing whether you have
"answered" your own questions correctly or not.
You may be satisfied in your belief that rank
speculation constitutes "proof" and it may even
give you warm feelings inside - but were you just
beating off when you wrote a 17 page thesis and
asked for comments? Did you not expect critical
questions from a science newsgroup? Did you not
expect to have to defend your position? The fact
that you labeled your 17 page thesis as a first draft
implies that you were expecting revisions. But, by
your words above; by your attempted diversion from
the subject YOU brought up ( 'I don't REALLY care about
complexity science, sponges, or Mars - I actually care
about all this other stuff which I've never before
discussed so let's talk about that instead') and which
you preached about continuously for weeks, it is
clear that you are now running away from the subject
just because you are being asked to defend your
position.
You said above that you wanted to better your life?
Then take heed to the comments you have been
getting.
Learn a little humility. Quit bull****ting.


Life evolving on two different planets, and in much the
same way, is a discovery of unprecidented magnificence.

It would be - if it were actually discovered to be so.
You, alas, have not done this.

This mission to Mars is a vehicle to
...all... those answers.

That would be nice. If only.....