Lamination as a tool for distinguishing microbial and metazoan biosystems

"gresham" wrote in message
...
in article , jonathan at wrote on
11/11/04 9:49 PM:


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

"Nowhere known to me on earth are spherical concretions found in
anywhere nearly the concentration we have been shown within the
layered substrate in that Martian crater or in adjacent areas
where the concretions seem to have weathered (or have been
knocked) ex situ.

You must not be familiar with the concentrations of cave pearls,

Gee am I the only person who has seen those giant (6 ft+) spherical
concretions found near the U. of Ohio ??

There is an area of sediment near a cut through the Wichita uplift, mainly
on the Wichita Mountain Wild Life Preserve, with so many spherical
concretions, they were gathered & used as building material by early
settlers. Most of the buildings in the town of Medicine Park, Ok. are made
of these spherical concretions.
Ralph Nesbitt

In article , Jonathan wrote:
You must not be familiar with the concentrations of cave pearls,

I've seen plenty of pics of them. And every little bowl
is different from the next one due to different water flow etc.
And none of them have asymetrical features such as a
single aperture or off-center slash, but are highly
symmetrical since they were formed by moving water.

Actually, typical cave pearls are formed in situations where the
water body is *agitated*, but does not have any great flow rate.
A typical situation is where you have a water drip into a clay
floor - the water will hollow out a splash pool into the clay (size
depends on drip rate), from which the water seeps away steadily over
the lip. So the net flow rate is quite low - the drip rate - but the
material in the splash pool is quite well agitated by the individual
drips. The agitation is what maintains the symmetry of the "pearl".

--
Aidan Karley,
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: 57°10'11" N, 02°08'43" W (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233

In article , Ralph Nesbitt
wrote:
For calling his hand for doing such, he responded with a holier than thou
belittling response as if he were King/Moderator of SGG & SPP.

Which is why I put him in my killfile.

--
Aidan Karley,
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: 57°10'11" N, 02°08'43" W (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233

"Aidan Karley" wrote in message
. invalid...
In article , Jonathan wrote:
You must not be familiar with the concentrations of cave pearls,

I've seen plenty of pics of them. And every little bowl
is different from the next one due to different water flow etc.
And none of them have asymetrical features such as a
single aperture or off-center slash, but are highly
symmetrical since they were formed by moving water.

Actually, typical cave pearls are formed in situations where the
water body is *agitated*, but does not have any great flow rate.
A typical situation is where you have a water drip into a clay
floor - the water will hollow out a splash pool into the clay (size
depends on drip rate), from which the water seeps away steadily over
the lip. So the net flow rate is quite low - the drip rate - but the
material in the splash pool is quite well agitated by the individual
drips. The agitation is what maintains the symmetry of the "pearl".


So, where does the water drip from at Meridiani? Where are the
caves? The only bowls I see at Meridiani are carved by wind
rolling the spheres around. Is anyone seriously claiming the
Meridiani spheres are cave pearls???


I think the lamination formed from processes such as these.
http://www.nps.gov/yell/slidefile/th...ages/05709.jpg

Look familiar?
http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/me...5L7L7.jpg.html


And a hot spring like mammoth is a system that is ideal for, and dominated
by, bacteria. When the environment is ideal for life, and the observations
show features that cannot be explained by geology, what is left but
life as an explanation?

Why does everyone ignore the obvious?

I think the reason is it's assumed life is the least likely possibility
and requires the most proof. The assumption that life is the
result of extraordinary luck and equally rare is at fault. In truth, life is
the most probable final state given suitable conditions and enough time.
You know that nature, like market systems, self-tune to the ideal
conditions. What you won't accept is that this is also a property of
non-living systems. For example, every stable solar system will
have a water zone.

The chaos and complexity sciences I hobby in are not
about chaos, but about order. And how order is created
and modeled abstractly.

The difference between geology and life could not be easier
to see. Geology creates less order over time, is erosion
driven and shows random distributions. Life creates more order
over time and is cyclic. One diffuses the other concentrates.
Comparing the Spirit and Meridiani sites makes this distinction
as easy to see ..as is possible.


Self-Organization & Entropy - The Terrible Twins
http://www.calresco.org/extropy.htm


You science types g still cling to the notion that
creation is a random walk through state space. This
is the result of using particle physics as a foundation
for understanding reality and nature.

That is the wrong frame of reference to use fellas.

Thermodynamics should be the starting point for
the search for universal laws. And the 'fourth law'
given by complexity science shows that creation
and reality are directed, not random, walks towards
ever higher emergent properties.

Reality is understood through nature NOT the other
way around. Wrong frame guys, science has been
using the wrong frame of reference for too far long
now, time to right that wrong. The universal laws
of the universe are derived from the observation
of nature/thermodynamics. Not particle physics
and space-time.

Dynamics of Complex Systems
Full Online Text
http://www.necsi.org/publications/dcs/

The truth is /not/ that life is the last possibility, the truth
is that creation is what the universe does first, best
and every chance it gets.

When faced with the indefinable, life should be the
assumption.

The spheres have equal aspects of geology and life.
They cannot fit into either category nicely. They
are at a phase transition between geology and
life. They cannot be defined.

This is the abstract mathematical property expected from the
first form of life to evolve anywhere.

Meridiani...the spheres..are imho the template for
the Garden of Eden. This is a beauty of unspeakable
magnificence.


Jonathan


"But nature is a stranger yet;
The ones that cite her most
Have never passed her haunted house,
Nor simplified her ghost.

To pity those that know her not
Is helped by the regret
That those who know her, know her less
The nearer her they get"


By E Dickinson



s





--
Aidan Karley,
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: 57°10'11" N, 02°08'43" W (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233

In article , Jonathan wrote:
Why does everyone ignore the obvious?

Because it's by no means obvious.

I think the reason is it's assumed life is the least likely possibility
and requires the most proof.

Actually the criterion that's being applied (often cited to Carl
Sagan, but predating him by several centuries) it that extraordinary
claims [with extraordinary implications] require extraordinary evidence.
That is moist definitely *not* the same as what you're claiming.
Spherical concretions happen without the involvement of life.
Lamination happens without the involvement of life.
"Pseudo-fossils" are well known (inorganic structures bearing a
superficial resemblance to fossils).

The evidence that you have proposed does not approach the
necessary "extraordinarily good" standard.
I remember the furour that greeted McKay et al's paper of 1996. I
had to drive 500 miles that day, but delayed my start until the paper
came through my letter box, so that I could read it in my breaks. I
described it to my father over the phone as "If this is correct, then
this is arguably the most important day in science since either Newton's
gravity or Galileo's telescope. Their evidence didn't make the standard
either.

[poetry group trimmed - irrelevant]

--
Aidan Karley,
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: 57°10'11" N, 02°08'43" W (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233

"Aidan Karley" wrote in message
. invalid...
In article , Jonathan wrote:
Why does everyone ignore the obvious?

Because it's by no means obvious.

I think the reason is it's assumed life is the least likely possibility
and requires the most proof.

Actually the criterion that's being applied (often cited to Carl
Sagan, but predating him by several centuries) it that extraordinary
claims [with extraordinary implications] require extraordinary evidence.
That is moist definitely *not* the same as what you're claiming.
Spherical concretions happen without the involvement of life.
Lamination happens without the involvement of life.
"Pseudo-fossils" are well known (inorganic structures bearing a
superficial resemblance to fossils).


There's one point you, or anyone here, will not address.
The simple observation that so many of the spheres display
non-symmetrical features such as a single indentation and
off-center slash. How can geology explain this?

The answer is simple, it cannot. This obvious contradiction
provides a clear logical proof of life. Since geological
processes would produce a random variation and distribution
of such features. The observations show no randomness
in these aspects. This level of order is the hallmark of life
and rises above any possibility that geology is responsible.


This is NOT about proof, but about the best
available model. Which is the best we can do at this point.
Until you can come up with a model that explains these
things...while...fitting all other contexts and observations, then
your view cannot be assumed and is clearly lacking in almost all
respects.

You speak the obvious, that lamination and spherical shapes
often are non-living. But I speak of the non-spherical aspects
of the spheres. And the obvious association of the layered rocks
and the spheres. You have not addressed either at all. No one here
has. Why?

Because geology cannot explain either, while life can easily.

Using unrelated and flawed anecdotes does not contradict such claims.
You haven't provided any non-living explanation for the
observations, while I have offered one that fits the
observations and environmental context to a T.

Life is the far better argument.


Jonathan

s





The evidence that you have proposed does not approach the
necessary "extraordinarily good" standard.
I remember the furour that greeted McKay et al's paper of 1996. I
had to drive 500 miles that day, but delayed my start until the paper
came through my letter box, so that I could read it in my breaks. I
described it to my father over the phone as "If this is correct, then
this is arguably the most important day in science since either Newton's
gravity or Galileo's telescope. Their evidence didn't make the standard
either.

[poetry group trimmed - irrelevant]

--
Aidan Karley,
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: 57°10'11" N, 02°08'43" W (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233

Aidan Karley wrote in message .invalid...
In article , Jonathan wrote:
Why does everyone ignore the obvious?

Because it's by no means obvious.

I think the reason is it's assumed life is the least likely possibility
and requires the most proof.

Actually the criterion that's being applied (often cited to Carl
Sagan, but predating him by several centuries) it that extraordinary
claims [with extraordinary implications] require extraordinary evidence.
That is moist definitely *not* the same as what you're claiming.
Spherical concretions happen without the involvement of life.
Lamination happens without the involvement of life.
"Pseudo-fossils" are well known (inorganic structures bearing a
superficial resemblance to fossils).

The evidence that you have proposed does not approach the
necessary "extraordinarily good" standard.
I remember the furour that greeted McKay et al's paper of 1996. I
had to drive 500 miles that day, but delayed my start until the paper
came through my letter box, so that I could read it in my breaks. I
described it to my father over the phone as "If this is correct, then
this is arguably the most important day in science since either Newton's
gravity or Galileo's telescope. Their evidence didn't make the standard
either.

[poetry group trimmed - irrelevant]

(...There's something weird about this guy aidan..) (Hey, ...George,
.... what do you make of this..? (Is it the Aberdeen factor?)(Would
George know?)

November 13, 2004

don findlay wrote:

Why does everyone ignore the obvious?



Because it's by no means obvious.



Not obvious to obvious idiots like you.

I think the reason is it's assumed life is the least likely possibility
and requires the most proof.



Proof is mathematical, science is demonstrative.

Actually the criterion that's being applied (often cited to Carl
Sagan, but predating him by several centuries) it that extraordinary
claims [with extraordinary implications] require extraordinary evidence.



And that claim is trivially refuted, extraordinary claims do not
*REQUIRE* extraordinary evidence. Any one can make any claim they want,
independent of any evidence, other than the ability to make a claim.

plonk

Thomas Lee Elifritz

In sci.space.policy jonathan wrote:

"Aidan Karley" wrote in message
. invalid...
In article , Jonathan wrote:
Why does everyone ignore the obvious?

Because it's by no means obvious.

I think the reason is it's assumed life is the least likely possibility
and requires the most proof.

Actually the criterion that's being applied (often cited to Carl
Sagan, but predating him by several centuries) it that extraordinary
claims [with extraordinary implications] require extraordinary evidence.
That is moist definitely *not* the same as what you're claiming.
Spherical concretions happen without the involvement of life.
Lamination happens without the involvement of life.
"Pseudo-fossils" are well known (inorganic structures bearing a
superficial resemblance to fossils).


There's one point you, or anyone here, will not address.
The simple observation that so many of the spheres display
non-symmetrical features such as a single indentation and
off-center slash. How can geology explain this?

The answer is simple, it cannot. This obvious contradiction

Why would the answer be either "simple" or "it cannot"?

provides a clear logical proof of life. Since geological
processes would produce a random variation and distribution
of such features. The observations show no randomness
in these aspects. This level of order is the hallmark of life
and rises above any possibility that geology is responsible.


Well, you should start proving that - well, you should prove that
it cannot happen by geological means. Which is going to be pretty
hard given that eevn earth geology continues to throw up many suprises,
never mind aletrnative ones. You also make many false claims -
like geological processes necessarily producing a random distribution
in features which is not true. For non-random ones, you simply need
an underlying bias that was amplified by teh processes.


This is NOT about proof, but about the best
available model. Which is the best we can do at this point.
Until you can come up with a model that explains these
things...while...fitting all other contexts and observations, then
your view cannot be assumed and is clearly lacking in almost all
respects.

The problem is that "biology was involved" is not a good model as
it is more like a big gaping hole with barely any shreds of theory
or evidence around it.

[snip]


Life is the far better argument.


So far you have unfortunately failed to make a good argument at all.


Jonathan

s


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

"jonathan" skrev i en meddelelse ...


You speak the obvious, that lamination and spherical shapes
often are non-living. But I speak of the non-spherical aspects
of the spheres. And the obvious association of the layered rocks
and the spheres. You have not addressed either at all. No one here
has. Why?

You have a short memory