Mars - Gemmule on a Stick

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

Let me ask you a question I don't know the answer to. Do mineral
concretions tend to ...float?

Mineral concretions grow in situ - where they are found.
They don't float there.

I've maintained, and Nasa stated yesterday, that the random distribution
of the spheres showed they were distributed by water.

They did not say that the concretions were "distributed
by water". They said that they appear to be concretions
and appear to have grown in place. They require water
for their formation but NASA never said that they were
floated into place. They grew there.
That is how concretions are form all over the earth.

The overhead
views show the dark material drifted from the larger outcrops. The
logical conclusion is that the spheres float.
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/2004/01/24/

If the answer is no, then this is a glaring contradiction from Nasa that
the distribution is from water, yet the spheres are likely concretions.

No, there is not a glaring contradiction. You misunderstood the
scientists at the press conference - that is, if you actually watched
or listened to it at all. Sounds more like you got your information
second hand - from some press report - rather the the
scientific community itself.
Why don't you actually look up concretions and find out for yourself
how many different kinds there are and the various ways in which
they can be formed. Be sure to take note of the differences in
chemical compostition of various types of concretions
and the chemistry of the matrices in which they grow.
Chemistry. Those pesky details again. Ignore them and they will
haunt you forever. Oh, that's right. You don't feel the need to
learn chemistry. It conflicts with your complexity theory hobby.
Not global enough for you. The same appears to apply to
geology, biology and physics and, as you put it, all of the other
"ologies" which actually apply to specific situations.
Then come back here and tell us what you have found out - rather
than second-guessing the scientific community on subjects
about which, you have admitted that you are only superficially
aware.

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

"Rollo" wrote in message
om...
It's interesting to me that the geologists find life to be the very
last possible explanation for the spheres. It should be obvious
that an object with both symmetrical (spherical) and
asymmetrical (aperture, off-center slash) structures
cannot be formed by a single process.

It would require the combination of at least two distinct
processes to explain them. The problem with that
is easy to see. Asymmetrical features are the product of
dynamic or random processes, yet each sphere shows
the ...same... asymmetry.

This logical contradiction means a non-living solution
is excluded from possibility. They fail to see that life
is the /only/ possibility.

I'm with you there, though non-living cannot yet be quite 100%
excluded. Your point about symmetry / asymmetry is one reason I first
came to my own probable-life conclusion some while back. Not
necessarily a life-form itself, of course, but life-related.

The other reasons were the tendency to split so neatly in half, which
implies another unusual complexity to their formation, and their
tendency to protrude from the bedrock, apparently held by a peculiarly
strong bond. That is, after all, this original subject of this post,
and has been seen less dramatically in earlier pictures.


A gemmule would be consistent with all those features.
See page 90 below, a few paragraphs down.
http://64.78.63.75/samples/04BIORupp...oology7ch5.pdf

That one page above explains the bubble seen in one, the aperture seen in
the other
and why they stick. Also why the surface is grainy.

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...EFF0454P2933M2
M1.HTML

This photo below of a gemmule explains the off center slash many have.
Also a gemmule
would
show such features, or not show them, depending on its state, whether
dormant or
hatching etc.
http://waynesword.palomar.edu/plfeb96.htm#gemmules

A gemmule is consistent with the announcement yesterday by Nasa that
the random and even distribution of the spheres are due to water. They
would have to float ...after all. I don't know if concretions float, but
it seems unlikely, especially concretions with a ...hole in them~

Overhead views of Meridiani
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/2004/01/24/

A gemmule from a sponge explains their delicate location on the surface.
As if they were the last things deposited there. Sponges give off
gemmules when they're dying. Also their resistance to salt, cold etc
are consistent with their condition in that environment.


This begs the question, how many different ways do two objects
need to have in common to become convinced the two are the
same? I would guess three or four combined with a couple
confirming measurements.

As long as those measurements cont

I've yet to see a concretion idea put forth that is consistent
with more than two of the properties seen in the photos.

I predict the tes data of the spheres will be inconclusive or
confusing. If they are the product of life, wouldn't the signature
be rather complex?

Gemmules from sponges are found in the environment of
adult sponges. Dead sponges leave behind only their
skeletons. The skeletons of sponges are composed of
a combination of carbonates and silicates (depending
on the species), the signatures of which are noticably
absent from the existing orbital TES data and from the
Rover's Mini-TES data which has been released so far.
If the outcrop were found to be largely carbonaceous or
silaceous, it would have been a brought up by the Rover
team immediately after it was confirmed. Most sponges
grow on reefs. Reefs are built out of calcium carbonate
secreted by the polyps living in it. Where is the calcium
carbonate.
Most, if not all, species of sponge do not do well in acidic
water - which which is what would be required for the
of the large quantities of hydrated sulfates which were
actually discovered there.
Please find any members of Porifera which make their
skeletons out of sulfate. Please explain the lack of
carbonate and silicate in the outcrop.
This would go a long way in backing your action.

March 3, 2004

Chosp wrote:

[regurgitation snipped]

God you are dumb as hell. And blind as well.

This is Mars, idiot, and all you do is spew regurgitated nonsense. If you would
look deeply into the vast amount of research into precambrian life on Earth, you
would see that there is very good evidence for all the precursors for martian
chemistry, biology and ecology right here on Earth, and all that is required is
insight (which you lack completely) into the fact that evolution follows
chemistry and environment, and that Mars is just another planet where evolution
will take an entirely different track because of entirely different
environmental circumstances. There is nothing to prevent microbial colonies of
hyperthermoacidophiles and other extremophiles from evolving into high levels of
differentiation and organization, as the environment of Mars cycled from its
prebiotic molten primordial state, into a water bearing oceanic world, and
finally to its present state of frozen glaciation.

Grow up, moron, your posts are so sad and pathetic to read.

You make me want to puke, you are so dumb.

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

In article ,
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
March 3, 2004

Chosp wrote:

[regurgitation snipped]

God you are dumb as hell. And blind as well.

This is Mars, idiot, and all you do is spew regurgitated nonsense. If you would
look deeply into the vast amount of research into precambrian life on Earth, you
would see that there is very good evidence for all the precursors for martian
chemistry, biology and ecology right here on Earth, and all that is required is
insight (which you lack completely) into the fact that evolution follows
chemistry and environment, and that Mars is just another planet where evolution
^^^^^^^^^
will take an entirely different track because of entirely different
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
environmental circumstances.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Exactly. Which is why using exceedingly superficial
morphological similarity of a Martian phenomena to an
_Earth_ life-form to "prove" anything is silly.

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

I predict the tes data of the spheres will be inconclusive or
confusing. If they are the product of life, wouldn't the signature
be rather complex?

Gemmules from sponges are found in the environment of
adult sponges. Dead sponges leave behind only their
skeletons. The skeletons of sponges are composed of
a combination of carbonates and silicates (depending
on the species), the signatures of which are noticably
absent from the existing orbital TES data and from the
Rover's Mini-TES data which has been released so far.
If the outcrop were found to be largely carbonaceous or
silaceous, it would have been a brought up by the Rover
team immediately after it was confirmed. Most sponges
grow on reefs. Reefs are built out of calcium carbonate
secreted by the polyps living in it. Where is the calcium
carbonate? Why sulfates instead?
Most, if not all, species of sponge do not do well in acidic
water - which is what would be required for the
formation of the quantities of hydrated iron sulfates which
were discovered in the outcrop at the Meridiani site.
Please find and describe any members of Porifera which
make their skeletons out of sulfate. Please explain the
lack of carbonate and silicate in the outcrop.
This would go a long way in backing your action.






Jonathan
s











The bond clearly only occurs at one (or possibly a few specific)
points on the spheres, otherwise they would never have been eroded
around in the first place. They weren't necessarily eroded around at
all, of course, but if not then the explanations only get more
outlandish.

I strongly suspect that NASA's own statements about the spheres being
formed in a wet environment are a conscious way of still being just
about able to say "we were right" when they finally feel able to say
more about HOW they were formed!

Rollo

"Greg Crinklaw" wrote in message
...
Rollo wrote:
I'm with you there, though non-living cannot yet be quite 100%
excluded. Your point about symmetry / asymmetry is one reason I first
came to my own probable-life conclusion some while back. Not
necessarily a life-form itself, of course, but life-related.

There are many examples of these mineral accretions on earth. What we
know about these these spherules is far more in accordance with those
than some fanciful life form. You guys are just seeing what you wish to
see, and when others don't see it you cry foul. If you want to see who
isn't seeing clearly on this issue you need only look in the mirror...

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

To reply remove spleen


Talking about concretions, how about these beauties:

http://www.explorenorth.com/library/...oncretions.htm

http://www.amonline.net.au/factsheets/geodes.htm

http://www.kytc.state.ky.us/D12/Conc...s/P0001342.jpg

http://www.kytc.state.ky.us/D12/Conc...s/P0001343.jpg

http://www.kytc.state.ky.us/D12/Conc...s/P0001344.jpg

http://home.att.net/~amcimages/katzconcretions.html

http://home.att.net/~amcimages/mozley.html

http://www.nmnh.si.edu/minsci/images/gallery/40.htm

Now, just because many concretions do form around an organic nucleus in
earthbound strata doesn't automatically mean that they formed in this way on
Mars. First of all, in order for that to occur on Mars, you have to have an
organic nucleus. Unfortunately, the instrumentation package on the rover is
not designed to directly detect organic constituents. However, considering
that there are many ways in which concretions form, most of which do not
involve organic material, there is no reason to assume that these Mars
concretions formed through biogenic processes, or formed around organic
matter. Until we are able to collect specimens and analyze them in our
considerable laboratory resource here on earth, and find evidence of an
organic constituent to these concretions, I see no reason to come to a
premature conclusion that they have anything to do with life.

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
jonathan wrote:
I've maintained, and Nasa stated yesterday, that the random distribution
of the spheres showed they were distributed by water. The overhead
views show the dark material drifted from the larger outcrops. The
logical conclusion is that the spheres float...

Uh, no. Lots of things which don't float are distributed by water. Most
of the rocks dotting the Pathfinder landing site are thought to have been
washed down from higher up. And those aren't all small rocks, either.

Nor were they particularly round. NASA did not say that they were
distributed by water, just that they were likely formed in a water
environment. My experience with mineral collecting, and with stratiographic
studies tells me that they are most likely secondary features formed when
the rock was permeated by ground water containing high concentrations of
dissolved minerals. But I could be wrong, considering that NASA is still
looking at this issue.

"Chosp" wrote in message
news:l0B1c.15236$h23.7117@fed1read06...

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

I predict the tes data of the spheres will be inconclusive or
confusing. If they are the product of life, wouldn't the signature
be rather complex?

Gemmules from sponges are found in the environment of
adult sponges. Dead sponges leave behind only their
skeletons. The skeletons of sponges are composed of
a combination of carbonates and silicates (depending
on the species), the signatures of which are noticably
absent from the existing orbital TES data and from the
Rover's Mini-TES data which has been released so far.
If the outcrop were found to be largely carbonaceous or
silaceous, it would have been a brought up by the Rover
team immediately after it was confirmed. Most sponges
grow on reefs. Reefs are built out of calcium carbonate
secreted by the polyps living in it. Where is the calcium
carbonate? Why sulfates instead?
Most, if not all, species of sponge do not do well in acidic
water - which is what would be required for the
formation of the quantities of hydrated iron sulfates which
were discovered in the outcrop at the Meridiani site.
Please find and describe any members of Porifera which
make their skeletons out of sulfate. Please explain the
lack of carbonate and silicate in the outcrop.
This would go a long way in backing your action.


Amazing how some of these people loose site of the seemingly small details.
Don't you agree?

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
jonathan wrote:
I've maintained, and Nasa stated yesterday, that the random distribution
of the spheres showed they were distributed by water. The overhead
views show the dark material drifted from the larger outcrops. The
logical conclusion is that the spheres float...

Uh, no. Lots of things which don't float are distributed by water. Most
of the rocks dotting the Pathfinder landing site are thought to have been
washed down from higher up. And those aren't all small rocks, either.


Your response doesn't agree with observation at all. The spheres
have an almost perfect random and uniform distribution everywhere.
That is not a product of a body of water flowing or washing these
things across a surface. The distribution of the spheres are
analogous to placing a drop of oil on the surface of a
still body of water, the oil would expand evenly, then
settle to the bottom in the case of the spheres.

The only other possibility is that they formed in place from
underground water percolating up from below. So this
question keys off whether the region was under a standing
body of water, or saturated by underground water.

If you look at the field outside the crater, the gentle parallel
furrows or ripples dominating the landscape argue strongly
the region was a standing body of water. So does the 40%
salinity content of the rocks. So do the wave like dunes on
the...crest of the outcrop and in the fields. If the water percolated
up from below why are there dunes? The dunes would
have to be a product of wind, yet the dunes are make
of larger particles than sand and appear cemented in place.

These things must have been released from the outcrops
into a standing body of water, then settled to the bottom.

A concretion theory has too many inconsistencies, for starters
the single hole and off center slash are asymmetrical features.
In addition they appear to be inside the rock, sticking to
the rock face and in the soil. If they formed in place they did
so in three different environments and in exactly the
same size, shape and asymmetry in each place.
That just doesn't make any sense.

Concretion theory has one inconsistency after another.



Jonathan

s





--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

I think Greg is trying to be conservative, like all scientists should
be. You don't jump to radical conclusions unless you have good data
and/or logic. It's okay to throw out theories, but you are nuts to
start saying things like they "must" or "most likely" are life. Very
complex processes can occur without life.

Wow, and to think just yesterday the outcrops where ashfall and the
spherules were volcanic or crater tektites.

To show just how far out of touch Crinklaw's reasoning is, there are very
few geologist that would claim that these concretions would *not* involve at
the very least the simple microbiology of extremophiles. It's quite clear
from his rhetoric that Crinklaw has not even made the most superficial
search of the relevant geological terms presented by the investigators. His
credibility is nil.

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