Mars - Gemmule on a Stick

March 4, 2004

Kenneth Chiu wrote:

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

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.

Proof is mathematical, science is demonstrative, crackpot.

Just as there are environmental and morphological differences, there are
environmental and morphological similarities. We know Mars is a planet,
it has gravity, water, impacts, volcanism, solar irradiance, and
presumably the same underlying physical and chemical laws as Earth. It
even has a roughly 24 hour rotation period, what are the chances of
that? The arguments I encounter here and in the scientific community are
always so one-sided. It would also be silly, indeed it is outright
scientific dishonesty, *not* to notice the striking and remarkable
similarities between the bedrock and the spherules, and microbial mat
communities and sponge gemmules. Chosp also appears to be having a hard
time understanding that ancient concretions are more often than not,
associated with microbiology, simple because he refuses to *do his
homework*, like some spoiled ignorant little child. I have not seen one
convincing abiotic argument anywhere, and all the evidence thus far has
been supportive of the biogenic hypothesis, more so every day.

Drivel on crackpots. You are everywhere.

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

March 4, 2004

Peterson, David wrote:

I think Greg is trying to be conservative, like all scientists should
be.

Sure, if they want to be wrong, or are afraid to be wrong. There is
nothing wrong with being wrong. But clinging to wrong beliefs for years,
in direct contradiction to the evidence, makes one a crackpot, Thus,
from the evidence, there have been a lot of crackpots at the highest
levels of the scientific establishment for many years with respect to
Mars. The public are their victims. The run of the mill usenet crackpots
are inconsequential.

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

Which, in retrospect, is strikingly wrong. Where are all the retractions?

Feel free to publish your Mars geology retractions here.

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

In article ,
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
March 4, 2004

Kenneth Chiu wrote:

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

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.

Proof is mathematical, science is demonstrative, crackpot.

Okay, is this better:

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

Just as there are environmental and morphological differences, there are
environmental and morphological similarities.
...
The arguments I encounter here and in the scientific community are
always so one-sided. It would also be silly, indeed it is outright
scientific dishonesty, *not* to notice the striking and remarkable
similarities between the bedrock and the spherules, and microbial mat
communities and sponge gemmules.

In other words, because the Earth and Mars are similar, the
spherules must be gemmules because they are both round; but
because Earth and Mars are different, we must ignore any
evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps I am jaundiced after a life-long habit of reading science,
geology and science fiction. Yes, it is pretty neat that the rovers are
rolling around on Mars and doing firsthand geology, and testing some
hypotheses, either confirming or refuting those hypotheses.

However, I have yet to hear anything really startling.
Water? As others have noted, we've known the existence of water vapor
for years, so the idea that some of this is ice or subsurface brines
is not really new. "As above, so below".

The spherules are new, but at this time, they don't prove anything. As
nearly everyone (myself included) are using earth geology analogies to
try to understand Martian conditions this is well within the basic
philosophical assumptions of Hutton, Steno, Lyell, etc., and not
groundbreaking new thought. Maybe that will change as we grapple with
new discoveries.

The possibility of microbial life? As we have found earth microbial life
in some pretty inhospitable (by human terms) places, the idea that life
exists elsewhere but on this planet should be a given assumption, not a
startling relevation. After all, molecules are molecules, and they might
be expected to behave in roughly similar ways in differing places with
fairly near conditions. (Comparing Mars surface to Earth surface, they
are similar, as opposed to Venus, or Pluto, or the sun, or deep space.)

So why are people getting so excited about this? Merely as a distraction
from the other *news* that people aren't civilized yet, and do stupid
things every day?

Me? I want to understand Deimos and Phobos. Now *there* are two mysteries!

Jo

"Jo Schaper" wrote in message
...
Perhaps I am jaundiced after a life-long habit of reading science,
geology and science fiction. Yes, it is pretty neat that the rovers are
rolling around on Mars and doing firsthand geology, and testing some
hypotheses, either confirming or refuting those hypotheses.

However, I have yet to hear anything really startling.
Water? As others have noted, we've known the existence of water vapor
for years, so the idea that some of this is ice or subsurface brines
is not really new. "As above, so below".

The spherules are new, but at this time, they don't prove anything. As
nearly everyone (myself included) are using earth geology analogies to
try to understand Martian conditions this is well within the basic
philosophical assumptions of Hutton, Steno, Lyell, etc., and not
groundbreaking new thought. Maybe that will change as we grapple with
new discoveries.

The possibility of microbial life? As we have found earth microbial life
in some pretty inhospitable (by human terms) places, the idea that life
exists elsewhere but on this planet should be a given assumption, not a
startling relevation. After all, molecules are molecules, and they might
be expected to behave in roughly similar ways in differing places with
fairly near conditions. (Comparing Mars surface to Earth surface, they
are similar, as opposed to Venus, or Pluto, or the sun, or deep space.)

So why are people getting so excited about this? Merely as a distraction
from the other *news* that people aren't civilized yet, and do stupid
things every day?

Me? I want to understand Deimos and Phobos. Now *there* are two mysteries!

Jo


Why do you think they are such mysteries? I'm not doubting you, just asking
for your opinion.

"Kenneth Chiu" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
March 4, 2004

Kenneth Chiu wrote:

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

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.

Proof is mathematical, science is demonstrative, crackpot.

Okay, is this better:

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

Just as there are environmental and morphological differences, there are
environmental and morphological similarities.
...
The arguments I encounter here and in the scientific community are
always so one-sided. It would also be silly, indeed it is outright
scientific dishonesty, *not* to notice the striking and remarkable
similarities between the bedrock and the spherules, and microbial mat
communities and sponge gemmules.

In other words, because the Earth and Mars are similar, the
spherules must be gemmules because they are both round; but
because Earth and Mars are different, we must ignore any
evidence to the contrary.

Come on Ken. Add your name to the list of those of us who have plonked this
guy so we don't have to see any of his rants.

Jo Schaper wrote:
So why are people getting so excited about this? Merely as a distraction
from the other *news* that people aren't civilized yet, and do stupid
things every day?

You may not really be interested in an answer, but if you are then the
best way I have to explain why this is exciting is to defer you to a
contemporary textbook with a chapter on mars (an introductory astronomy
text, for instance). Textbooks have a way of boiling things down to the
big questions being pursued today. This mission is answering some of
those questions. Some of us find answering basic science questions to
be exciting enough.

--
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

March 4, 2004

Kenneth Chiu wrote:

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

If you think the similarity between spherules and gemmules is
'exceedingly superficial' then you haven't been doing your homework.
I'll guess you haven't even performed an 'exceedingly superficial'
google search on the subject.

Just as there are environmental and morphological differences, there are
environmental and morphological similarities.
...
The arguments I encounter here and in the scientific community are
always so one-sided. It would also be silly, indeed it is outright
scientific dishonesty, *not* to notice the striking and remarkable
similarities between the bedrock and the spherules, and microbial mat
communities and sponge gemmules.



In other words, because the Earth and Mars are similar, the
spherules must be gemmules because they are both round; but
because Earth and Mars are different, we must ignore any
evidence to the contrary.

There is very little evidence to the contrary, and you would know that
if you had even bothered to perform an 'exceedingly superficial'
examination of the available evidence, on the contrary the similarity
goes far beyond your 'exceedingly superficial' characterization of them
both being 'round'.

You are a crackpot skeptic, Kenneth.

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

Jo Schaper wrote:

Perhaps I am jaundiced after a life-long habit of reading science,
geology and science fiction. Yes, it is pretty neat that the rovers are
rolling around on Mars and doing firsthand geology, and testing some
hypotheses, either confirming or refuting those hypotheses.

However, I have yet to hear anything really startling.
Water? As others have noted, we've known the existence of water vapor
for years, so the idea that some of this is ice or subsurface brines
is not really new. "As above, so below".

Furthermore, there are flow features all over the place - some of them
dwarfing the Amazon River - that could only have been carved by flowing
water. Why exactly did we need to send microscopes to Mars to look for
"signs" of water?

The spherules are new, but at this time, they don't prove anything. As
nearly everyone (myself included) are using earth geology analogies to
try to understand Martian conditions this is well within the basic
philosophical assumptions of Hutton, Steno, Lyell, etc., and not
groundbreaking new thought. Maybe that will change as we grapple with
new discoveries.

The possibility of microbial life? As we have found earth microbial life
in some pretty inhospitable (by human terms) places, the idea that life
exists elsewhere but on this planet should be a given assumption, not a
startling relevation. After all, molecules are molecules, and they might
be expected to behave in roughly similar ways in differing places with
fairly near conditions. (Comparing Mars surface to Earth surface, they
are similar, as opposed to Venus, or Pluto, or the sun, or deep space.)

So why are people getting so excited about this? Merely as a distraction
from the other *news* that people aren't civilized yet, and do stupid
things every day?

Me? I want to understand Deimos and Phobos. Now *there* are two mysteries!

Jo

In article ,
Jo Schaper wrote:

So why are people getting so excited about this?

They're not. When Bush announced that we'd be going back to the Moon,
*that* caused talk in the lunch room. This hasn't caused so much as a
passing comment. People don't care.

I'm a science buff (I have an M.S. in Neuroscience and read Science
weekly) and an engineer, and I can't even get excited about this. Yes,
it's interesting, and I'll read the story about it in Science when it
comes out. But it's not a huge deal. We've suspected for years that
Mars was likely warmer and wetter in its past. We now more evidence to
support the prevailing hypothesis! Swell! What's on the next page?
Honestly, the question of whether Mars had water (or even life) billions
of years ago is not going to impact my future in any way.

Now, humans on the Moon -- *that* could impact my future, and the future
of my children. Getting humanity out there actually building things,
living for extended periods of time with a growing population; these
things are important on a far more personal level. Those are events
that could actually affect our economy, demographics, and opportunities
in very real and significant ways in the next few decades. That's worth
getting excited about.

But signs of ancient water on Mars? No. Apart from a handful of people
in the field, or who have a religious interest in anything to do with
Mars, nobody cares.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'