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

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

Comments welcome.

Meridiani Planum as an Ancient Bacteria Sponge Ecosystem

The first part deals with the methods used to arrive at
the conclusion that Meridiani Planum on Mars was the site
of a living ecosystem similar to the earliest multi-cellular
life that evolved on earth. The second part explains
the evidence for this conclusion.

Complexity science uses methods of understanding
natural or adaptive systems that are difficult for many
to accept.

True. However, as the evidence will show, YOUR
interpretation of complexity science uses methods of
understanding that are way beyond difficult - for ANY
rational thinking being to accept.

--snip generic cut and paste reinterpretation of complexity science
as religious doctrine--

Since complexity science deals with the edge mechanics
that only exist in dynamical motion almost intractable to
deterministic equations. And with emergent properties that are not
physical objects, complexity science typically avoids dealing
in ...'facts'.

This is an example of your religious escape clause.
It allows you to make trivial proclamations without effort
and allows you to dismiss potential refutations of your
speculations without thinking.
How convenient to not need facts.

However conventional axiomatic frames are
re-imposed onto complexity science when applying these
concepts in building or designing some tangible system.
But for a conceptual or theoretical analysis the system
specific details are irrelevant.

So you say.
But, when one attempts to apply this "conceptual or
theoretical analysis" to the real world; a world where
chemistry, physics, biology and astronomy actually
count, those specific details which you breezily
dismiss, make or break your hypotheses.
You have to account for the missing silicates and
carbonates in the bedrock. You haven't.
You have to account for why bromine is found in the
lower strata of the outcrop but not in the top. You have
shown no evidence at all that you have even
considered it.
If you can't reconcile these and other details with your
poorly informed speculations then you could easily be
said to be just ****ing into the wind.

Complexity science is
a supra-science that can be applied universally
when dealing with any real world natural system, or
more specifically, any complex adaptive system.

Since 'objective' measurements deconstruct the whole
into its constituent components, the emergent properties
and edge states immediately disappear as one seeks static
objectivity or repeatability.

So complexity science teaches and practices subjective methods
as a result.

Indeed!
How convenient to throw out objectivity and the empirical method
when it gets in the way of a good story.

One cannot remove a component from the whole
without destroying the system properties being studied.

One refuting detail is all it takes to bring down your house
of cards. If the spherules, upon chemical analysis, actually
turned out to be composed of basaltic glass - all your
supposed "mathematical certainty" would be exposed
for what it is.

Meridiani

Meridiani is an ecosystem with clear and obvious
emergent features.

Arbitrarily ill-defined "emergent features", you mean.


The primary features of Meridiani are the soil, the dunes, the
spheres and the layered outcrops. Each of these features
display properties not fully describable in isolation. Each
require interaction with the others to exist and are thus
emergent features. The level of order displayed at Meridiani
clearly shows these features have been communicating with
each other, constraining and shaping each other. This
connectivity requires a suitable medium. So the images
show clear evidence a body of water existed.

Evidence, please, for a "body" of water?
Please demonstrate how you have successfully and
completely ruled out the possibility of water percolating
through ground without a large standing body
of water. Please be specific.

The images
alone of the emergent order leaves no doubt with this
conclusion. Chemical or other deterministic methods
are unnecessary as the forms and order are far more
informative.

No doubt?
Whales must be fish because of their obvious
global characteristics. Other methods of inquiry
need not apply. No doubt they can be viewed
as entirely symmetrical and non-symmetrical
at the same time, as well.

You are saying that chemical confirmation or
refutation is unnecessary. Or, apparently, that any
forms of confirmation or refutation are unnecessary,
for that matter. I really don't believe that anyone in
the complexity science community would agree with
you on that.

But from the images only how can we then jump to the
next question, did the next higher emergent order of life take hold?

This question can be answered if the order observed
could not be explained with non-living mechanisms.

You most certainly have never done this. You have
not seriously attempted to rule out so much as even
one of the hypotheses based on non-living processes
that have been brought up by the Rover science team.
But, please feel free to do so now.

We have just such emergent order, the outward
physical structure of the spheres.

The spheres show both symmetrical and asymmetrical features.
Asymmetrical features are the product of dynamical and random
processes. Such processes produce a wide variety of structure, shapes
and sizes due to the random element in dynamic processes. Since many
of the spheres show the very ...same... asymmetrical
structures, a logical contradiction is obvious and a non-living
explanation is ruled out.

Utter nonsense. The only logical contradiction here is in your
mind. You have, in no way, successfully ruled out ANY of the
non-living explanations offered to date.

This added level of emergent order displayed by the spheres are
conclusive they are a product of life.

No, it is not conclusive at all. What unfulfilled desire has caused
you to make such a leap of faith?

Since it is conclusive that life existed at Meridiani,

It is not.

the next question
becomes an attempt to characterize the type of life and the level
of diversity. That answer also comes easily.

NOT having demonstrated that life existed on Mars, you yet feel
qualified to go ahead and attempt to characterize what has not
been shown to be there - nor even to be a necessary component
of an explanation for what is seen. Your house of cards
is built on loose sand - and it leans farther over with each
generic proclamation you make.

Meridians shows but four primary emergent properties, the soil, the
dunes, the spheres and the layered outcrops. This defines the very
minimum. So it is easy to conclude Meridiani is a minimum or
'entry level' ecosystem.

It is easy to be superficial. You have picked out four "properties"
to which you have arbitrarily ascribed the term "emergent
properties" (which you never define in any of the four particular
cases) and from there you jump to conclusions which you don't
support with evidence.
Speculations do not constitute evidence.
Neither does your assertion of " knowing with mathematical
certainty" constitute anything whatsoever - other than that
you continue to demonstrate an emotionally-based a priori bias
in favor of finding life on Mars - in an attempt to give some
measure of validity to your new hobby - to your new religion -
and, by extension, to yourself.

That observation allows a dramatic limiting of possibility space
for the next question. What type of life...exactly...exists there.

Since the edge of chaos effect and self-organization are universal
properties, and are properties that spontaneously find the
optimum for the given conditions. One can make the assumption
that life, given similar conditions, will follow very well-worn
grooves. Life will adapt to its environment and the environment
will be altered by that life until both happen to become
just-right for each other.

That assumption is a mere possibility - not a justifiable conclusion.
It is based on a sample size of only ONE planet with known life.

It is a mathematical limit and eventual certainty that life 'finds a way'
to the optimum state for the given conditions.

Pure unmitigated religion.
Way too much "Jurrasic Park".
It is your conceit of supposed "certainty" that is at issue here.
That, and your proposition that life is driven to an
"optimum state" (which you fail to define or give
any criteria for determining what an "optimum state"
actually might be and how one would go about determining
what is actually "optimum" for any given set of
conditions). It is as if you are saying:
'This is what we find - therefore it must have been
optimally determined'.

With these properties in hand, using earth as an example to guide
further investigation in entirely valid.

As speculation, yes.

Since Meridiani is an entry level ecosystem that has likely taken
the first large critical step into life,

Not a given.
You are again attemting to use your arbitrary conclusion
as a premise. Won't fly.

looking at the same first step on
earth gives an accurate guide.

Accurate guidance has not been established at all.

Provided one constantly adjusts
for any known differences between the two ecosystems.

Yet, you haven't even tried.

--snip origin of life speculations--

At this point I have deduced the type of life present
at Meridiani to a very small subset using only
the images and basic environmental conditions.

Again, another demonstration of an extremely superficial
approach to a complex issue.
Using your methods, all of the world's problems should
be amenable to solution in only a few hours. I'm
surprised you haven't used your protean brain to
accomplish this already.

(As a little aside, in an earlier post of yours, you stated that
you were new at this hobby of yours and that you would
be willing and even eager to take on and attempt to solve
ANY previously intractable problem asked of you by using
what you presume to be the methods of complexity science.
So try this little intractable problem :
Why is there ANYTHING at all - rather than nothing?
With your clearly demonstrated unerring insight, razor sharp
intellect, attention to detail and, above all, your mathematical
certainty, this little ditty shouldn't take you any time at all).

The task now becomes to prove this deductive approach
has converged on the truth and not taken a drastic wrong
turn. This can be done simply, as only a very ...few... 'facts'
or observations....confirming....the deductions are needed
to validate the entire path of reasoning.

One of the beauties of this approach is not only that just a few
facts are needed, but I know precisely what to look for...
...and where. The efficiency of this method should be clear.

Indeed.
Yes, the efficiency of superficality can be quite stupifying.
As long as the results don't count this is a perfect approach.

If this is a sponge bacteria ecosystem I would only need
to find a couple of images that show sponges exist there.

Such as, for example, an image of an actual adult sponge
showing a whole suite of unmistakable adult sponge
characteristics (not merely objects which may be easily
mistaken for gemmules). That, and it being in agreement
with detailed chemical analysis. That would just about do it.

Such as a couple of long skeletal thread-like spicules.
Or some other evidence that can only be associated with
such a sponge. One good image of a thread exists, the bare
minimum of evidence. Not sufficient for proof, but even this
'thin' evidence is enough to persuade.

Not remotely persuasive at all. This not only doesn't constitute
"proof "- it can't even be considered the bare minimum of
evidence. It would only persuade someone with an
emotionally-biased a priori commitment to the conclusion.
Even then, one would have to be especially gullible.

But we have another gigantic emergent mystery at Meridiani.
The spheres.

If I can somehow relate them to suitable sponges the entire
theory is completely ...proven.

Utterly false. What you have described doesn't even rise
to the level of scientific theory. Although scientific theories
can and do contain various levels of speculation;
speculation, in and of itself, does not constitute a scientific
theory.
Once again, you would just as well have "proven" that whales
must be fish.

The gemmules pictured below correspond to the observed
structure and context of the observed spheres in many
different ways. An astonishing level of correspondence
in my opinion. Far greater than I would have imagined.

The correspondence between the spheres are gemmules are;

Both have grainy surfaces.

Weakest of all possible correlations. ANY number of things
have what appear to be grainy surfaces for any number
of completely different reasons.

Both are spherical.

Some are. Some aren't.
Regardless, that would also be expected from
some concretions.

Both display non-symmetrical features.

Spheres, by definition, have no
non-symmetrical features.
First, you say they are spherical and this
constitutes evidence for your position - then
you stress that they are not spherical and
this equally constitutes evidence for your
position. If you assert that something is both
symmetrical and non-symmetrical at the
same time and that this constitutes evidence
for any hypothesis and/or rules out any
competing hypotheses, you really need
to rethink not only your position but your
attachment to the logical process.

Besides, it's irrelevant. Non-symmetrical
features could certainly be expected from
concretions. Or, for that matter, from any
of the other non-living based hypotheses
offered by the Rover science team.
So this one doesn't fly either.

Both display an aperture.

You have arbitrarily defined a feature as an aperture. Now
you are attempting to use that arbitrary definition as proof.

Both display an off-center slash.

Some do. Most don't.
Faith in things unseen.

Both would occasionally bubble out from the aperture.

Conclusion in premises again.
You again presume a priori that a feature on some of the
spherules should be arbitrarily defined as an "aperture".
Then you attempt to use that arbitrary definition as "proof"
of your conclusion and that your arbitrary definition can be
used to support other extended conclusions.

Both at times show a lack of these asymmetrical features, the
gemmule displays them or not depending on whether
it's dormant or ready to hatch etc.

If it is symmetrical (i.e. spherical) - it must be a gemmule.
If it isn't symmetrical - it must also be a gemmule.
Therefore it doesn't matter what it looks like - it still must
be a gemmule.

A gemmule would be released into the water periodically, so
it should be seen helping build the soil.

So? If gemmules were released periodically in fluid conditions
one would just as well expect that periodicity to be reflected
in the layering. Yet they appear randomly distributed through
the horizons. They do not appear to have been dropped into
place because they don't deform the underlying or surrounding
strata. A far more reasonable explanation is that they formed
in situ.

Helping to build the soil?

A gemmule would be distributed from point sources into the
water, and show a random and uniform spatial distribution.

Not at all. They would be far more likely show gradients with distance
from the "point sources".
Where the hell is your math or reasoning here?

When hatching, the release through the aperture is designed
to adhere to rocks.

That is not even a correlation.
Conclusions in premises again.

Gemmules are highly resistant to cold and low humidity conditions.
The sulfur reducing bacteria should leave behind a
large amount, and diversity, of sulfates.

More generic arguments.
Be specific. How cold and how humid?
Which particular sulfates and in what proportions?
Show your work.

This is far more then enough to come to a clear conclusion
that the very first symbiotic life that evolved on earth has
also emerged at Meridiani.

No. This is not remotely enough to come to ANY clear
conclusions at all, least of all the ones you are
proposing. Correlations do not demonstrate
causality. And you have shown but the flimsiest
of correlations.

A simple ecosystem consisting
of a some variety of sulfate reducing bacteria and freshwater
sponge such as spongilla.

A fresh water sponge. Spongilla. In a salt brine.
You have absolutely got to be kidding.
Once again, you would just as soon find fresh water
sponges thriving in the salt brines in Death Valley or the
Dead Sea or the Afar Triangle.

If the concept of a freshwater sponge evolving in such a hostile
environment seems unlikely, it should be noted that freshwater systems
are exposed to far more diverse conditions of ph, temperature
salinity etc.

You are utterly disconnected from reality here.
You really need to demonstrate a specific instance of
any fresh water sponge thriving in a salt brine like that
found in Meridiani (especially with the particular salts
found there, their proportions, and their relative
concentrations in different levels of the strata).
Once again, feel free to be specific.

While sea water is highly constant, a freshwater
species would be far more tolerant and adaptive to harsh
or changing conditions.

Invertebrates are also known to
inhabit sulfate waters on earth.

Another typical, uselessly generic argument.
Are all invertebrates sponges? No.
The why generalize to the entirety of
invertebrates?
Which particular invertebrates?
Which particular sponges?
Which particular sulfates? In what way
does your statement back up your
assertion of any fresh water sponges
living in a salt brine environment?

"The sulfates and the other chemicals found in the rocks at this location
on Mars also occur on Earth, but only rarely. In places like
Rio Tinto, Spain, similar minerals are forming today, and
microorganisms live and thrive there."

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/rove...ons/image-1.ht
ml

But, which microorganisms in particular? And are the particular
microorganisms found in Rio Tinto associated with Porifera?
Where and in what way? Has Rio Tinto ever been shown to be
a freshwater environment suitable for your supposed fresh water
sponges? Have gemmules been found there also?
These questions illustrate the shoddiness of your supposed
'research'.

--snip rest of question begging references--

You know, were it not for your conceit of the supposed
absolute "mathematical certainty" of your position, your
grandiose and arbitrary leaps of faith, and your dismal
attempts at evidence gathering - you would probably have
been given quite a bit of slack in your speculating.
But, instead, you have chosen to keep digging yourelf into
a deeper and deeper hole, never having shown your math,
never having evidentially dismissed any alternative hypotheses,
and by using nothing but hand waving, you really are alone in
blame.
You are, without doubt, your own worst enemy.
Thus, even if life were to be found on Mars, fossilized or
otherwise, you will still have not succeeded in your thesis
as you have presented it.

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

"Chosp" wrote in message
news:YYy2c.21105$h23.13293@fed1read06...

complexity science typically avoids dealing
in ...'facts'.

This is an example of your religious escape clause.
It allows you to make trivial proclamations without effort
and allows you to dismiss potential refutations of your
speculations without thinking.
How convenient to not need facts.


It is convenient. When a structure displays criticality...life , as the
spheres do,

Undemonstrated, unsupported assertion.

then it becomes obvious that criticality has been
attainted, and the specific critical value is not needed to proceed
to the next question, what kind of life?

You haven't 'attainted' criticality.


Tell me exactly why I need to know more than 'life existed'
to ask what kind?

You don't. You merely have to know that "life existed". You don't
know that. You haven't shown it. You fervently believe it, but,
by no means, can you be said to know it.

However conventional axiomatic frames are
re-imposed onto complexity science when applying these
concepts in building or designing some tangible system.
But for a conceptual or theoretical analysis the system
specific details are irrelevant.

So you say.
But, when one attempts to apply this "conceptual or
theoretical analysis" to the real world; a world where
chemistry, physics, biology and astronomy actually
count, those specific details which you breezily
dismiss, make or break your hypotheses.


No it doesn't, the agreement between observation and
the theory is sufficient proof.

But, you haven't demonstrated agreement between
observation and theory. You haven't got sufficient
observational basis to determine this.

The entire logical path is
not a proof at all, you can't seem to understand that
simple fact.

I understand it, all right.

It is a method of theorizing what we are
observing so we can know what to look for.

In your case, it is searching only for confirming
"evidence" and ignoring everything else.

The logical deduction told me exactly what I should
look for and I found it. Observing what the theory
expects is proof the logical decisions were correct.

That is not at all what has occured.
You STARTED with a pre-conceived bias and proceeded
to look for confirming "evidence" only. Then you
proceeded to dismiss everything else as unimportant.

If this is too difficult a concept for you that is
not my fault.

It is entirely your fault that you don't see the
problem.
It is clear why you avoided responding
to the following:

Speculations do not constitute evidence.
Neither does your assertion of " knowing with mathematical
certainty" constitute anything whatsoever - other than that
you continue to demonstrate an emotionally-based a priori bias
in favor of finding life on Mars - in an attempt to give some
measure of validity to your new hobby - to your new religion -
and, by extension, to yourself.

That observation allows a dramatic limiting of possibility space
for the next question. What type of life...exactly...exists there.

Since the edge of chaos effect and self-organization are universal
properties, and are properties that spontaneously find the
optimum for the given conditions. One can make the assumption
that life, given similar conditions, will follow very well-worn
grooves. Life will adapt to its environment and the environment
will be altered by that life until both happen to become
just-right for each other.

That assumption is a mere possibility - not a justifiable conclusion.
It is based on a sample size of only ONE planet with known life.

It is a mathematical limit and eventual certainty that life 'finds a
way'
to the optimum state for the given conditions.

Pure unmitigated religion.
Way too much "Jurrasic Park".
It is your conceit of supposed "certainty" that is at issue here.
That, and your proposition that life is driven to an
"optimum state" (which you fail to define or give
any criteria for determining what an "optimum state"
actually might be and how one would go about determining
what is actually "optimum" for any given set of
conditions). It is as if you are saying:
'This is what we find - therefore it must have been
optimally determined'.

With these properties in hand, using earth as an example to guide
further investigation in entirely valid.

As speculation, yes.

Since Meridiani is an entry level ecosystem that has likely taken
the first large critical step into life,

Not a given.
You are again attemting to use your arbitrary conclusion
as a premise. Won't fly.

looking at the same first step on
earth gives an accurate guide.

Accurate guidance has not been established at all.

Provided one constantly adjusts
for any known differences between the two ecosystems.

Yet, you haven't even tried.

--snip origin of life speculations--

At this point I have deduced the type of life present
at Meridiani to a very small subset using only
the images and basic environmental conditions.

Again, another demonstration of an extremely superficial
approach to a complex issue.
Using your methods, all of the world's problems should
be amenable to solution in only a few hours. I'm
surprised you haven't used your protean brain to
accomplish this already.

(As a little aside, in an earlier post of yours, you stated that
you were new at this hobby of yours and that you would
be willing and even eager to take on and attempt to solve
ANY previously intractable problem asked of you by using
what you presume to be the methods of complexity science.
So try this little intractable problem :
Why is there ANYTHING at all - rather than nothing?
With your clearly demonstrated unerring insight, razor sharp
intellect, attention to detail and, above all, your mathematical
certainty, this little ditty shouldn't take you any time at all).

The task now becomes to prove this deductive approach
has converged on the truth and not taken a drastic wrong
turn. This can be done simply, as only a very ...few... 'facts'
or observations....confirming....the deductions are needed
to validate the entire path of reasoning.

One of the beauties of this approach is not only that just a few
facts are needed, but I know precisely what to look for...
...and where. The efficiency of this method should be clear.

Indeed.
Yes, the efficiency of superficality can be quite stupifying.
As long as the results don't count this is a perfect approach.

If this is a sponge bacteria ecosystem I would only need
to find a couple of images that show sponges exist there.

Such as, for example, an image of an actual adult sponge
showing a whole suite of unmistakable adult sponge
characteristics (not merely objects which may be easily
mistaken for gemmules). That, and it being in agreement
with detailed chemical analysis. That would just about do it.

Such as a couple of long skeletal thread-like spicules.
Or some other evidence that can only be associated with
such a sponge. One good image of a thread exists, the bare
minimum of evidence. Not sufficient for proof, but even this
'thin' evidence is enough to persuade.

Not remotely persuasive at all. This not only doesn't constitute
"proof "- it can't even be considered the bare minimum of
evidence. It would only persuade someone with an
emotionally-biased a priori commitment to the conclusion.
Even then, one would have to be especially gullible.

But we have another gigantic emergent mystery at Meridiani.
The spheres.

If I can somehow relate them to suitable sponges the entire
theory is completely ...proven.

Utterly false. What you have described doesn't even rise
to the level of scientific theory. Although scientific theories
can and do contain various levels of speculation;
speculation, in and of itself, does not constitute a scientific
theory.
Once again, you would just as well have "proven" that whales
must be fish.

The gemmules pictured below correspond to the observed
structure and context of the observed spheres in many
different ways. An astonishing level of correspondence
in my opinion. Far greater than I would have imagined.

The correspondence between the spheres are gemmules are;

Both have grainy surfaces.

Weakest of all possible correlations. ANY number of things
have what appear to be grainy surfaces for any number
of completely different reasons.

Both are spherical.

Some are. Some aren't.
Regardless, that would also be expected from
some concretions.

Both display non-symmetrical features.

Spheres, by definition, have no
non-symmetrical features.
First, you say they are spherical and this
constitutes evidence for your position - then
you stress that they are not spherical and
this equally constitutes evidence for your
position. If you assert that something is both
symmetrical and non-symmetrical at the
same time and that this constitutes evidence
for any hypothesis and/or rules out any
competing hypotheses, you really need
to rethink not only your position but your
attachment to the logical process.

Besides, it's irrelevant. Non-symmetrical
features could certainly be expected from
concretions. Or, for that matter, from any
of the other non-living based hypotheses
offered by the Rover science team.
So this one doesn't fly either.

Both display an aperture.

You have arbitrarily defined a feature as an aperture. Now
you are attempting to use that arbitrary definition as proof.

Both display an off-center slash.

Some do. Most don't.
Faith in things unseen.

Both would occasionally bubble out from the aperture.

Conclusion in premises again.
You again presume a priori that a feature on some of the
spherules should be arbitrarily defined as an "aperture".
Then you attempt to use that arbitrary definition as "proof"
of your conclusion and that your arbitrary definition can be
used to support other extended conclusions.

Both at times show a lack of these asymmetrical features, the
gemmule displays them or not depending on whether
it's dormant or ready to hatch etc.

If it is symmetrical (i.e. spherical) - it must be a gemmule.
If it isn't symmetrical - it must also be a gemmule.
Therefore it doesn't matter what it looks like - it still must
be a gemmule.

A gemmule would be released into the water periodically, so
it should be seen helping build the soil.

So? If gemmules were released periodically in fluid conditions
one would just as well expect that periodicity to be reflected
in the layering. Yet they appear randomly distributed through
the horizons. They do not appear to have been dropped into
place because they don't deform the underlying or surrounding
strata. A far more reasonable explanation is that they formed
in situ.

Helping to build the soil?

A gemmule would be distributed from point sources into the
water, and show a random and uniform spatial distribution.

Not at all. They would be far more likely show gradients with distance
from the "point sources".
Where the hell is your math or reasoning here?

When hatching, the release through the aperture is designed
to adhere to rocks.

That is not even a correlation.
Conclusions in premises again.

Gemmules are highly resistant to cold and low humidity conditions.
The sulfur reducing bacteria should leave behind a
large amount, and diversity, of sulfates.

More generic arguments.
Be specific. How cold and how humid?
Which particular sulfates and in what proportions?
Show your work.

This is far more then enough to come to a clear conclusion
that the very first symbiotic life that evolved on earth has
also emerged at Meridiani.

No. This is not remotely enough to come to ANY clear
conclusions at all, least of all the ones you are
proposing. Correlations do not demonstrate
causality. And you have shown but the flimsiest
of correlations.

A simple ecosystem consisting
of a some variety of sulfate reducing bacteria and freshwater
sponge such as spongilla.

A fresh water sponge. Spongilla. In a salt brine.
You have absolutely got to be kidding.
Once again, you would just as soon find fresh water
sponges thriving in the salt brines in Death Valley or the
Dead Sea or the Afar Triangle.

If the concept of a freshwater sponge evolving in such a hostile
environment seems unlikely, it should be noted that freshwater systems
are exposed to far more diverse conditions of ph, temperature
salinity etc.

You are utterly disconnected from reality here.
You really need to demonstrate a specific instance of
any fresh water sponge thriving in a salt brine like that
found in Meridiani (especially with the particular salts
found there, their proportions, and their relative
concentrations in different levels of the strata).
Once again, feel free to be specific.

While sea water is highly constant, a freshwater
species would be far more tolerant and adaptive to harsh
or changing conditions.

Invertebrates are also known to
inhabit sulfate waters on earth.

Another typical, uselessly generic argument.
Are all invertebrates sponges? No.
The why generalize to the entirety of
invertebrates?
Which particular invertebrates?
Which particular sponges?
Which particular sulfates? In what way
does your statement back up your
assertion of any fresh water sponges
living in a salt brine environment?

"The sulfates and the other chemicals found in the rocks at this
location
on Mars also occur on Earth, but only rarely. In places like
Rio Tinto, Spain, similar minerals are forming today, and
microorganisms live and thrive there."


http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/rove...ons/image-1.ht
ml

But, which microorganisms in particular? And are the particular
microorganisms found in Rio Tinto associated with Porifera?
Where and in what way? Has Rio Tinto ever been shown to be
a freshwater environment suitable for your supposed fresh water
sponges? Have gemmules been found there also?
These questions illustrate the shoddiness of your supposed
'research'.

--snip rest of question begging references--

You know, were it not for your conceit of the supposed
absolute "mathematical certainty" of your position, your
grandiose and arbitrary leaps of faith, and your dismal
attempts at evidence gathering - you would probably have
been given quite a bit of slack in your speculating.
But, instead, you have chosen to keep digging yourelf into
a deeper and deeper hole, never having shown your math,
never having evidentially dismissed any alternative hypotheses,
and by using nothing but hand waving, you really are alone in
blame.
You are, without doubt, your own worst enemy.
Thus, even if life were to be found on Mars, fossilized or
otherwise, you will still have not succeeded in your thesis
as you have presented it.

In article ,
jonathan wrote:

"Chosp" wrote in message news:YYy2c.21105$h23.13293@fed1read06...

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

Comments welcome.

Meridiani Planum as an Ancient Bacteria Sponge Ecosystem

The first part deals with the methods used to arrive at
the conclusion that Meridiani Planum on Mars was the site
of a living ecosystem similar to the earliest multi-cellular
life that evolved on earth. The second part explains
the evidence for this conclusion.

Complexity science uses methods of understanding
natural or adaptive systems that are difficult for many
to accept.

True. However, as the evidence will show, YOUR
interpretation of complexity science uses methods of
understanding that are way beyond difficult - for ANY
rational thinking being to accept.

--snip generic cut and paste reinterpretation of complexity science
as religious doctrine--

Since complexity science deals with the edge mechanics
that only exist in dynamical motion almost intractable to
deterministic equations. And with emergent properties that are not
physical objects, complexity science typically avoids dealing
in ...'facts'.

This is an example of your religious escape clause.
It allows you to make trivial proclamations without effort
and allows you to dismiss potential refutations of your
speculations without thinking.
How convenient to not need facts.


It is convenient. When a structure displays criticality...life , as the
spheres do, then it becomes obvious that criticality has been
attainted, and the specific critical value is not needed to proceed
to the next question, what kind of life?

This is a tautology. Edited for clarity, this is what you
said:

When a structure displays criticality...then it becomes
obvious that criticality has been attained, and the
specific critical value is not needed.

Kauffman's work is meant to suggest a mechanism for how life
might have arisen. In a precisely defined environment, you
might be able to use it to suggest how life could have
arisen on Mars. For example, if we can determine that Mars
once had an ocean with constituents X, Y, and Z, then you
might be able to show that this would obtain criticality.

Read Lecture 2.

http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/ka...Lecture-2.html

In article 6MS2c.520227$na.1180313@attbi_s04, Dan wrote:
In article ,
jonathan wrote:

"Chosp" wrote in message news:YYy2c.21105$h23.13293@fed1read06...

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

Comments welcome.

Meridiani Planum as an Ancient Bacteria Sponge Ecosystem

The first part deals with the methods used to arrive at
the conclusion that Meridiani Planum on Mars was the site
of a living ecosystem similar to the earliest multi-cellular
life that evolved on earth. The second part explains
the evidence for this conclusion.

Complexity science uses methods of understanding
natural or adaptive systems that are difficult for many
to accept.

True. However, as the evidence will show, YOUR
interpretation of complexity science uses methods of
understanding that are way beyond difficult - for ANY
rational thinking being to accept.

--snip generic cut and paste reinterpretation of complexity science
as religious doctrine--

Since complexity science deals with the edge mechanics
that only exist in dynamical motion almost intractable to
deterministic equations. And with emergent properties that are not
physical objects, complexity science typically avoids dealing
in ...'facts'.

This is an example of your religious escape clause.
It allows you to make trivial proclamations without effort
and allows you to dismiss potential refutations of your
speculations without thinking.
How convenient to not need facts.


It is convenient. When a structure displays criticality...life , as the
spheres do, then it becomes obvious that criticality has been
attainted, and the specific critical value is not needed to proceed
to the next question, what kind of life?

This is a tautology. Edited for clarity, this is what you
said:

When a structure displays criticality...then it becomes
obvious that criticality has been attained, and the
specific critical value is not needed.

Kauffman's work is meant to suggest a mechanism for how life
might have arisen. In a precisely defined environment, you
might be able to use it to suggest how life could have
arisen on Mars. For example, if we can determine that Mars
once had an ocean with constituents X, Y, and Z, then you
might be able to show that this would obtain criticality.

Read Lecture 2.

http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/ka...Lecture-2.html

Also note that nowhere in Lecture 2 does it say that
criticality means life.

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

The concretion theory is complete nonsense. I can list a
dozen reasons why it is,

Please do.
Be specific this time.

and I can list a dozen reasons why the
spheres are gemmules.

The last time you tried, you failed.
Feel free to try again.

Not one of the reasons I listed correlating
the spheres to gemmules has been refuted at all.

I disagree.

You simply avoided responding to the following from an
earlier post:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
The correspondence between the spheres are gemmules are;

Both have grainy surfaces.

Weakest of all possible correlations. ANY number of things
have what appear to be grainy surfaces for any number
of completely different reasons.

Both are spherical.

Some are. Some aren't.
Regardless, that would also be expected from
some concretions.

Both display non-symmetrical features.

Spheres, by definition, have no
non-symmetrical features.
First, you say they are spherical and this
constitutes evidence for your position - then
you stress that they are not spherical and
this equally constitutes evidence for your
position. If you assert that something is both
symmetrical and non-symmetrical at the
same time and that this constitutes evidence
for any hypothesis and/or rules out any
competing hypotheses, you really need
to rethink not only your position but your
attachment to the logical process.

Besides, it's irrelevant. Non-symmetrical
features could certainly be expected from
concretions. Or, for that matter, from any
of the other non-living based hypotheses
offered by the Rover science team.
So this one doesn't fly either.

Both display an aperture.

You have arbitrarily defined a feature as an aperture. Now
you are attempting to use that arbitrary definition as proof.

Both display an off-center slash.

Some do. Most don't.
Faith in things unseen.

Both would occasionally bubble out from the aperture.

Conclusion in premises again.
You again presume a priori that a feature on some of the
spherules should be arbitrarily defined as an "aperture".
Then you attempt to use that arbitrary definition as "proof"
of your conclusion and that your arbitrary definition can be
used to support other extended conclusions.

Both at times show a lack of these asymmetrical features, the
gemmule displays them or not depending on whether
it's dormant or ready to hatch etc.

If it is symmetrical (i.e. spherical) - it must be a gemmule.
If it isn't symmetrical - it must also be a gemmule.
Therefore it doesn't matter what it looks like - it still must
be a gemmule.

A gemmule would be released into the water periodically, so
it should be seen helping build the soil.

So? If gemmules were released periodically in fluid conditions
one would just as well expect that periodicity to be reflected
in the layering. Yet they appear randomly distributed through
the horizons. They do not appear to have been dropped into
place because they don't deform the underlying or surrounding
strata. A far more reasonable explanation is that they formed
in situ.

Helping to build the soil?

A gemmule would be distributed from point sources into the
water, and show a random and uniform spatial distribution.

Not at all. They would be far more likely show gradients with distance
from the "point sources".
Where the hell is your math or reasoning here?

When hatching, the release through the aperture is designed
to adhere to rocks.

That is not even a correlation.
Conclusions in premises again.

Gemmules are highly resistant to cold and low humidity conditions.
The sulfur reducing bacteria should leave behind a
large amount, and diversity, of sulfates.

More generic arguments.
Be specific. How cold and how humid?
Which particular sulfates and in what proportions?
Show your work.

This is far more then enough to come to a clear conclusion
that the very first symbiotic life that evolved on earth has
also emerged at Meridiani.

No. This is not remotely enough to come to ANY clear
conclusions at all, least of all the ones you are
proposing. Correlations do not demonstrate
causality. And you have shown but the flimsiest
of correlations.

A simple ecosystem consisting
of a some variety of sulfate reducing bacteria and freshwater
sponge such as spongilla.

A fresh water sponge. Spongilla. In a salt brine.
You have absolutely got to be kidding.
Once again, you would just as soon find fresh water
sponges thriving in the salt brines in Death Valley or the
Dead Sea or the Afar Triangle.

If the concept of a freshwater sponge evolving in such a hostile
environment seems unlikely, it should be noted that freshwater systems
are exposed to far more diverse conditions of ph, temperature
salinity etc.

You are utterly disconnected from reality here.
You really need to demonstrate a specific instance of
any fresh water sponge thriving in a salt brine like that
found in Meridiani (especially with the particular salts
found there, their proportions, and their relative
concentrations in different levels of the strata).
Once again, feel free to be specific.

While sea water is highly constant, a freshwater
species would be far more tolerant and adaptive to harsh
or changing conditions.

Invertebrates are also known to
inhabit sulfate waters on earth.

Another typical, uselessly generic argument.
Are all invertebrates sponges? No.
The why generalize to the entirety of
invertebrates?
Which particular invertebrates?
Which particular sponges?
Which particular sulfates? In what way
does your statement back up your
assertion of any fresh water sponges
living in a salt brine environment?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- return to the present--


I recognize that this method can lead to making the data
fit the theory. As in only seeing what agrees with the
theory,

Precisely.

In article ,
jonathan wrote:
You're still applying classical reasoning to this problem. You
wish to begin from the ground up with charts and graphs
and numbers. That is linear thinking.

No, I used your references. So numbers are linear thinking?
Math is linear thinking? Then why does Kauffman use math?
Why do the links you post use math?

Emergent system properties ....cannot....be predicted or understood
from a simple examination of the components, regardless of the
level of detail.

No one asked for the components. I'm asking for the math
of the /system/. Not the math of the components.
What's Kcrit? Kcrit is for the system.

K finds /itself/ given enough time and 'fluid' connectivity.

Okay, so show us there was enough time on Mars with enough
fluid connectivity.


Life finds a way! This ...is...a mathematical certainty.
Click the link below if you don't believe me.

You really have no understanding of complexity science, do
you? Do you even know what nonlinear means?

Criticality is the final probable state. And randomness is the
force for that mathematical limit. The universe makes sense.
Life is the simplest explanation and the norm. What is
most probable and normal should not need proof, it
should be a given. It should be on you to prove geology
can explain the observations, so far Nasa has failed
to explain fully a ....single...feature there with geology alone.
They can't seem to quite figure out the clumpy soil, can't
quite figure out the ripples, can't quite figure out the
rocks or the spheres. And they never will so long as they
refuse to believe in anything they can't .....Stick with a Fork.


An Introduction to Complex Systems
Torsten Reil, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~quee0818/comp...omplexity.html

You keep posting this, but guess what? That link has
math in it. Math that you have no clue how to apply to
Meridiani.

"Dan" wrote in message news:u%63c.88058$PR3.1233884@attbi_s03...
In article ,
jonathan wrote:
You're still applying classical reasoning to this problem. You
wish to begin from the ground up with charts and graphs
and numbers. That is linear thinking.

No, I used your references. So numbers are linear thinking?
Math is linear thinking? Then why does Kauffman use math?
Why do the links you post use math?


You've just stated you don't know the difference between
reductionism and holism. Do you need a link to
Websters?



Emergent system properties ....cannot....be predicted or understood
from a simple examination of the components, regardless of the
level of detail.

No one asked for the components. I'm asking for the math
of the /system/. Not the math of the components.
What's Kcrit? Kcrit is for the system.


And how in the world could one derive that from pictures
alone? It's not possible.



K finds /itself/ given enough time and 'fluid' connectivity.

Okay, so show us there was enough time on Mars with enough
fluid connectivity.


If a bird were to fly past your window, would it be
appropriate to assume those conditions had been met?
Even a child would understand such a simple argument.

If I show you a sphere that cannot be produced by
geology, the same assumption applies.

Explain the spheres by geology please. You can't, I
can explain them with life. You're bickering for the
sake of it. Try thinking instead.


Jonathan

s





Life finds a way! This ...is...a mathematical certainty.
Click the link below if you don't believe me.

You really have no understanding of complexity science, do
you? Do you even know what nonlinear means?





Criticality is the final probable state. And randomness is the
force for that mathematical limit. The universe makes sense.
Life is the simplest explanation and the norm. What is
most probable and normal should not need proof, it
should be a given. It should be on you to prove geology
can explain the observations, so far Nasa has failed
to explain fully a ....single...feature there with geology alone.
They can't seem to quite figure out the clumpy soil, can't
quite figure out the ripples, can't quite figure out the
rocks or the spheres. And they never will so long as they
refuse to believe in anything they can't .....Stick with a Fork.


An Introduction to Complex Systems
Torsten Reil, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~quee0818/comp...omplexity.html

You keep posting this, but guess what? That link has
math in it. Math that you have no clue how to apply to
Meridiani.

In article ,
jonathan wrote:

"Dan" wrote in message news:u%63c.88058$PR3.1233884@attbi_s03...
No one asked for the components. I'm asking for the math
of the /system/. Not the math of the components.
What's Kcrit? Kcrit is for the system.


And how in the world could one derive that from pictures
alone? It's not possible.

That's right! That's why your attempt to use complexity
science to show that the spherules are gemmules fails.

K finds /itself/ given enough time and 'fluid' connectivity.

Okay, so show us there was enough time on Mars with enough
fluid connectivity.

If a bird were to fly past your window, would it be
appropriate to assume those conditions had been met?
Even a child would understand such a simple argument.

Your begging the question again. What exactly is your
theory? Are you trying to use complexity science to show
that life exists on Mars? If so, you cannot start your
argument by saying it's obvious that life exists.

A summary of your argument:

I, Jonathan, will show that the spherules are gemmules.
First, it's obvious that they are life. So therefore,
the conditions required by complexity science must be
met. So therefore, there is life on Mars. And the
spherules look a lot like gemmules. So they are.

If I show you a sphere that cannot be produced by
geology, the same assumption applies.

Explain the spheres by geology please. You can't, I
can explain them with life. You're bickering for the
sake of it. Try thinking instead.

You've been shown how this is possible countless times. You
will obviously just keep denying it.

jonathan wrote:



If a bird were to fly past your window, would it be
appropriate to assume those conditions had been met?
Even a child would understand such a simple argument.

If I show you a sphere that cannot be produced by
geology, the same assumption applies.

Where is this sphere?

Explain the spheres by geology please. You can't, I
can explain them with life. You're bickering for the
sake of it. Try thinking instead.

There have been numerous inorganic hypothesi for the origins of the
spherules, none of which have been inaugurably debunked, (for lack of
sufficient data at this time) although various levels of probability
have been assigned to them.

You, on the other hand, have chosen a hobbyhorse and continue to ride it
with no proof except a vague morphological similarity.
Science is not black and white or this or that, but an ongoing process
of investigation. Once you attach yourself too strongly to an
hypothesis, it becomes a belief to be defended, not a proposition to be
refuted, or a construct to be modeled and used as a predictor.

The sign of a good scientist is flexibility to alter one's hypothesis in
light of discovery, and present only tentative results at any time. The
case for inorganic origin is the starting point (no picture so far has
presented anything without a doubt to be of organic origin, although one
or two might go either way, depending upon interpretation.

Based on observations so far, we don't have to prove that Mars is dead.
The burden of proof is to find evidence that it is not, by finding
things with the characteristics of life as we know it. In short, the
biologists have to have a higher standard to prove life than the
geologists do to prove that what looks like a rock and acts like a rock
is probably a rock.

"Chosp" wrote in message news:YYy2c.21105$h23.13293@fed1read06...

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

Comments welcome.

Meridiani Planum as an Ancient Bacteria Sponge Ecosystem

The first part deals with the methods used to arrive at
the conclusion that Meridiani Planum on Mars was the site
of a living ecosystem similar to the earliest multi-cellular
life that evolved on earth. The second part explains
the evidence for this conclusion.

Complexity science uses methods of understanding
natural or adaptive systems that are difficult for many
to accept.

True. However, as the evidence will show, YOUR
interpretation of complexity science uses methods of
understanding that are way beyond difficult - for ANY
rational thinking being to accept.

--snip generic cut and paste reinterpretation of complexity science
as religious doctrine--

Since complexity science deals with the edge mechanics
that only exist in dynamical motion almost intractable to
deterministic equations. And with emergent properties that are not
physical objects, complexity science typically avoids dealing
in ...'facts'.

This is an example of your religious escape clause.
It allows you to make trivial proclamations without effort
and allows you to dismiss potential refutations of your
speculations without thinking.
How convenient to not need facts.


It is convenient. When a structure displays criticality...life , as the
spheres do, then it becomes obvious that criticality has been
attainted, and the specific critical value is not needed to proceed
to the next question, what kind of life?

Tell me exactly why I need to know more than 'life existed'
to ask what kind?



However conventional axiomatic frames are
re-imposed onto complexity science when applying these
concepts in building or designing some tangible system.
But for a conceptual or theoretical analysis the system
specific details are irrelevant.

So you say.
But, when one attempts to apply this "conceptual or
theoretical analysis" to the real world; a world where
chemistry, physics, biology and astronomy actually
count, those specific details which you breezily
dismiss, make or break your hypotheses.


No it doesn't, the agreement between observation and
the theory is sufficient proof. The entire logical path is
not a proof at all, you can't seem to understand that
simple fact. It is a method of theorizing what we are
observing so we can know what to look for.

The logical deduction told me exactly what I should
look for and I found it. Observing what the theory
expects is proof the logical decisions were correct.
If this is too difficult a concept for you that is
not my fault.



You have to account for the missing silicates and
carbonates in the bedrock. You haven't.


It seems to me they found plenty of silicone at the site.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/rove...s/image-5.html

The carbonates are not an issue since carbonate sponges
are rarer and evolved later than silicate sponges.


You have to account for why bromine is found in the
lower strata of the outcrop but not in the top.


Sponges accumulate minerals in much higher
concentrations than the surroundings. Sponges
give off large amounts of bromine as a defense.
They also concentrate high amounts of iron,
manganese, nickel and zinc. In general they
tend to accumulate the minerals found in the
environment. One would expect to see a larger
concentration of such minerals at or near the
outcrops and a very large amount of sulfates
if sponges existed there. That seems to me
to agree with the results pretty well.
http://www.scilet.com/Papers/csb/csb111/CSBAraujo.pdf

Why they're in one rock and not the other...tell my why
I should care.






You have
shown no evidence at all that you have even
considered it.
If you can't reconcile these and other details with your
poorly informed speculations then you could easily be
said to be just ****ing into the wind.

Complexity science is
a supra-science that can be applied universally
when dealing with any real world natural system, or
more specifically, any complex adaptive system.

Since 'objective' measurements deconstruct the whole
into its constituent components, the emergent properties
and edge states immediately disappear as one seeks static
objectivity or repeatability.

So complexity science teaches and practices subjective methods
as a result.

Indeed!
How convenient to throw out objectivity and the empirical method
when it gets in the way of a good story.


Your ignorance of this math is clear.




One cannot remove a component from the whole
without destroying the system properties being studied.

One refuting detail is all it takes to bring down your house
of cards. If the spherules, upon chemical analysis, actually
turned out to be composed of basaltic glass - all your
supposed "mathematical certainty" would be exposed
for what it is.


Yes it would. It won't though. If they are silicates would
you say I just got lucky? Was I lucky to conclude the dunes
are water features before Nasa did? Was I lucky to conclude
the region was underwater before Nasa? Was I lucky to
conclude the rocks and soil would contain sulfates before
the Nasa announcement? Was I lucky when the spectrometer
showed an array and concentrations of minerals quite
in agreement with the theory I proposed before the
results were in?






Meridiani

Meridiani is an ecosystem with clear and obvious
emergent features.

Arbitrarily ill-defined "emergent features", you mean.


The primary features of Meridiani are the soil, the dunes, the
spheres and the layered outcrops. Each of these features
display properties not fully describable in isolation. Each
require interaction with the others to exist and are thus
emergent features. The level of order displayed at Meridiani
clearly shows these features have been communicating with
each other, constraining and shaping each other. This
connectivity requires a suitable medium. So the images
show clear evidence a body of water existed.

Evidence, please, for a "body" of water?
Please demonstrate how you have successfully and
completely ruled out the possibility of water percolating
through ground without a large standing body
of water. Please be specific.



The dunes are not wind features. Nasa confirmed they
are geologic ripples. Do you know what that term
means? Can you suggest any other way a ripple
could form at the very peak of the outcrops?
The fields surrounding the site are rippled as
well.

What built the soil, what created the extremely fine
stratifications in the rocks" Even an idiot can look
at those stratifications and see they're the result
of very repetitive and consistent processes. A
body of water does all these things..inlcuding
creating life.

Are you blind?






The images
alone of the emergent order leaves no doubt with this
conclusion. Chemical or other deterministic methods
are unnecessary as the forms and order are far more
informative.

No doubt?
Whales must be fish because of their obvious
global characteristics. Other methods of inquiry
need not apply. No doubt they can be viewed
as entirely symmetrical and non-symmetrical
at the same time, as well.


You have a reading comprehension problem. The
conclusion at this point was merely that life existed.




You are saying that chemical confirmation or
refutation is unnecessary. Or, apparently, that any
forms of confirmation or refutation are unnecessary,
for that matter. I really don't believe that anyone in
the complexity science community would agree with
you on that.

But from the images only how can we then jump to the
next question, did the next higher emergent order of life take hold?

This question can be answered if the order observed
could not be explained with non-living mechanisms.

You most certainly have never done this. You have
not seriously attempted to rule out so much as even
one of the hypotheses based on non-living processes
that have been brought up by the Rover science team.
But, please feel free to do so now.



Their suggestions cannot explain the same asymmetrical
features seen in one sphere after another. Only genetics
can do that.




We have just such emergent order, the outward
physical structure of the spheres.

The spheres show both symmetrical and asymmetrical features.
Asymmetrical features are the product of dynamical and random
processes. Such processes produce a wide variety of structure, shapes
and sizes due to the random element in dynamic processes. Since many
of the spheres show the very ...same... asymmetrical
structures, a logical contradiction is obvious and a non-living
explanation is ruled out.

Utter nonsense. The only logical contradiction here is in your
mind. You have, in no way, successfully ruled out ANY of the
non-living explanations offered to date.

This added level of emergent order displayed by the spheres are
conclusive they are a product of life.

No, it is not conclusive at all. What unfulfilled desire has caused
you to make such a leap of faith?

Since it is conclusive that life existed at Meridiani,

It is not.

the next question
becomes an attempt to characterize the type of life and the level
of diversity. That answer also comes easily.

NOT having demonstrated that life existed on Mars, you yet feel
qualified to go ahead and attempt to characterize what has not
been shown to be there - nor even to be a necessary component
of an explanation for what is seen. Your house of cards
is built on loose sand - and it leans farther over with each
generic proclamation you make.

Meridians shows but four primary emergent properties, the soil, the
dunes, the spheres and the layered outcrops. This defines the very
minimum. So it is easy to conclude Meridiani is a minimum or
'entry level' ecosystem.

It is easy to be superficial. You have picked out four "properties"
to which you have arbitrarily ascribed the term "emergent
properties" (which you never define in any of the four particular
cases) and from there you jump to conclusions which you don't
support with evidence.



You don't know what an emergent feature is. This conversation
may continue when you've grasped a basic understanding
of the concepts used in the post.



Jonathan

s



Speculations do not constitute evidence.
Neither does your assertion of " knowing with mathematical
certainty" constitute anything whatsoever - other than that
you continue to demonstrate an emotionally-based a priori bias
in favor of finding life on Mars - in an attempt to give some
measure of validity to your new hobby - to your new religion -
and, by extension, to yourself.

That observation allows a dramatic limiting of possibility space
for the next question. What type of life...exactly...exists there.

Since the edge of chaos effect and self-organization are universal
properties, and are properties that spontaneously find the
optimum for the given conditions. One can make the assumption
that life, given similar conditions, will follow very well-worn
grooves. Life will adapt to its environment and the environment
will be altered by that life until both happen to become
just-right for each other.

That assumption is a mere possibility - not a justifiable conclusion.
It is based on a sample size of only ONE planet with known life.

It is a mathematical limit and eventual certainty that life 'finds a way'
to the optimum state for the given conditions.

Pure unmitigated religion.
Way too much "Jurrasic Park".
It is your conceit of supposed "certainty" that is at issue here.
That, and your proposition that life is driven to an
"optimum state" (which you fail to define or give
any criteria for determining what an "optimum state"
actually might be and how one would go about determining
what is actually "optimum" for any given set of
conditions). It is as if you are saying:
'This is what we find - therefore it must have been
optimally determined'.

With these properties in hand, using earth as an example to guide
further investigation in entirely valid.

As speculation, yes.

Since Meridiani is an entry level ecosystem that has likely taken
the first large critical step into life,

Not a given.
You are again attemting to use your arbitrary conclusion
as a premise. Won't fly.

looking at the same first step on
earth gives an accurate guide.

Accurate guidance has not been established at all.

Provided one constantly adjusts
for any known differences between the two ecosystems.

Yet, you haven't even tried.

--snip origin of life speculations--

At this point I have deduced the type of life present
at Meridiani to a very small subset using only
the images and basic environmental conditions.

Again, another demonstration of an extremely superficial
approach to a complex issue.
Using your methods, all of the world's problems should
be amenable to solution in only a few hours. I'm
surprised you haven't used your protean brain to
accomplish this already.

(As a little aside, in an earlier post of yours, you stated that
you were new at this hobby of yours and that you would
be willing and even eager to take on and attempt to solve
ANY previously intractable problem asked of you by using
what you presume to be the methods of complexity science.
So try this little intractable problem :
Why is there ANYTHING at all - rather than nothing?
With your clearly demonstrated unerring insight, razor sharp
intellect, attention to detail and, above all, your mathematical
certainty, this little ditty shouldn't take you any time at all).

The task now becomes to prove this deductive approach
has converged on the truth and not taken a drastic wrong
turn. This can be done simply, as only a very ...few... 'facts'
or observations....confirming....the deductions are needed
to validate the entire path of reasoning.

One of the beauties of this approach is not only that just a few
facts are needed, but I know precisely what to look for...
...and where. The efficiency of this method should be clear.

Indeed.
Yes, the efficiency of superficality can be quite stupifying.
As long as the results don't count this is a perfect approach.

If this is a sponge bacteria ecosystem I would only need
to find a couple of images that show sponges exist there.

Such as, for example, an image of an actual adult sponge
showing a whole suite of unmistakable adult sponge
characteristics (not merely objects which may be easily
mistaken for gemmules). That, and it being in agreement
with detailed chemical analysis. That would just about do it.

Such as a couple of long skeletal thread-like spicules.
Or some other evidence that can only be associated with
such a sponge. One good image of a thread exists, the bare
minimum of evidence. Not sufficient for proof, but even this
'thin' evidence is enough to persuade.

Not remotely persuasive at all. This not only doesn't constitute
"proof "- it can't even be considered the bare minimum of
evidence. It would only persuade someone with an
emotionally-biased a priori commitment to the conclusion.
Even then, one would have to be especially gullible.

But we have another gigantic emergent mystery at Meridiani.
The spheres.

If I can somehow relate them to suitable sponges the entire
theory is completely ...proven.

Utterly false. What you have described doesn't even rise
to the level of scientific theory. Although scientific theories
can and do contain various levels of speculation;
speculation, in and of itself, does not constitute a scientific
theory.
Once again, you would just as well have "proven" that whales
must be fish.

The gemmules pictured below correspond to the observed
structure and context of the observed spheres in many
different ways. An astonishing level of correspondence
in my opinion. Far greater than I would have imagined.

The correspondence between the spheres are gemmules are;

Both have grainy surfaces.

Weakest of all possible correlations. ANY number of things
have what appear to be grainy surfaces for any number
of completely different reasons.

Both are spherical.

Some are. Some aren't.
Regardless, that would also be expected from
some concretions.

Both display non-symmetrical features.

Spheres, by definition, have no
non-symmetrical features.
First, you say they are spherical and this
constitutes evidence for your position - then
you stress that they are not spherical and
this equally constitutes evidence for your
position. If you assert that something is both
symmetrical and non-symmetrical at the
same time and that this constitutes evidence
for any hypothesis and/or rules out any
competing hypotheses, you really need
to rethink not only your position but your
attachment to the logical process.

Besides, it's irrelevant. Non-symmetrical
features could certainly be expected from
concretions. Or, for that matter, from any
of the other non-living based hypotheses
offered by the Rover science team.
So this one doesn't fly either.

Both display an aperture.

You have arbitrarily defined a feature as an aperture. Now
you are attempting to use that arbitrary definition as proof.

Both display an off-center slash.

Some do. Most don't.
Faith in things unseen.

Both would occasionally bubble out from the aperture.

Conclusion in premises again.
You again presume a priori that a feature on some of the
spherules should be arbitrarily defined as an "aperture".
Then you attempt to use that arbitrary definition as "proof"
of your conclusion and that your arbitrary definition can be
used to support other extended conclusions.

Both at times show a lack of these asymmetrical features, the
gemmule displays them or not depending on whether
it's dormant or ready to hatch etc.

If it is symmetrical (i.e. spherical) - it must be a gemmule.
If it isn't symmetrical - it must also be a gemmule.
Therefore it doesn't matter what it looks like - it still must
be a gemmule.

A gemmule would be released into the water periodically, so
it should be seen helping build the soil.

So? If gemmules were released periodically in fluid conditions
one would just as well expect that periodicity to be reflected
in the layering. Yet they appear randomly distributed through
the horizons. They do not appear to have been dropped into
place because they don't deform the underlying or surrounding
strata. A far more reasonable explanation is that they formed
in situ.

Helping to build the soil?

A gemmule would be distributed from point sources into the
water, and show a random and uniform spatial distribution.

Not at all. They would be far more likely show gradients with distance
from the "point sources".
Where the hell is your math or reasoning here?

When hatching, the release through the aperture is designed
to adhere to rocks.

That is not even a correlation.
Conclusions in premises again.

Gemmules are highly resistant to cold and low humidity conditions.
The sulfur reducing bacteria should leave behind a
large amount, and diversity, of sulfates.

More generic arguments.
Be specific. How cold and how humid?
Which particular sulfates and in what proportions?
Show your work.

This is far more then enough to come to a clear conclusion
that the very first symbiotic life that evolved on earth has
also emerged at Meridiani.

No. This is not remotely enough to come to ANY clear
conclusions at all, least of all the ones you are
proposing. Correlations do not demonstrate
causality. And you have shown but the flimsiest
of correlations.

A simple ecosystem consisting
of a some variety of sulfate reducing bacteria and freshwater
sponge such as spongilla.

A fresh water sponge. Spongilla. In a salt brine.
You have absolutely got to be kidding.
Once again, you would just as soon find fresh water
sponges thriving in the salt brines in Death Valley or the
Dead Sea or the Afar Triangle.

If the concept of a freshwater sponge evolving in such a hostile
environment seems unlikely, it should be noted that freshwater systems
are exposed to far more diverse conditions of ph, temperature
salinity etc.

You are utterly disconnected from reality here.
You really need to demonstrate a specific instance of
any fresh water sponge thriving in a salt brine like that
found in Meridiani (especially with the particular salts
found there, their proportions, and their relative
concentrations in different levels of the strata).
Once again, feel free to be specific.

While sea water is highly constant, a freshwater
species would be far more tolerant and adaptive to harsh
or changing conditions.

Invertebrates are also known to
inhabit sulfate waters on earth.

Another typical, uselessly generic argument.
Are all invertebrates sponges? No.
The why generalize to the entirety of
invertebrates?
Which particular invertebrates?
Which particular sponges?
Which particular sulfates? In what way
does your statement back up your
assertion of any fresh water sponges
living in a salt brine environment?

"The sulfates and the other chemicals found in the rocks at this location
on Mars also occur on Earth, but only rarely. In places like
Rio Tinto, Spain, similar minerals are forming today, and
microorganisms live and thrive there."

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/rove...ons/image-1.ht
ml

But, which microorganisms in particular? And are the particular
microorganisms found in Rio Tinto associated with Porifera?
Where and in what way? Has Rio Tinto ever been shown to be
a freshwater environment suitable for your supposed fresh water
sponges? Have gemmules been found there also?
These questions illustrate the shoddiness of your supposed
'research'.

--snip rest of question begging references--

You know, were it not for your conceit of the supposed
absolute "mathematical certainty" of your position, your
grandiose and arbitrary leaps of faith, and your dismal
attempts at evidence gathering - you would probably have
been given quite a bit of slack in your speculating.
But, instead, you have chosen to keep digging yourelf into
a deeper and deeper hole, never having shown your math,
never having evidentially dismissed any alternative hypotheses,
and by using nothing but hand waving, you really are alone in
blame.
You are, without doubt, your own worst enemy.
Thus, even if life were to be found on Mars, fossilized or
otherwise, you will still have not succeeded in your thesis
as you have presented it.