Cross-bedding on Mars?

In article ,
George wrote:

"Kenneth Chiu" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George wrote:

Having said that, I do not question his expertise in his
field (theoretical biochemistry?). But geology is
obviously his cup of tea. I will not pretend to be a
theoretical biochemist if he will not pretend to be a
geologist. Finally, is there any technical issue that I
raised in refutation of his post that you disagree with,
and if so, why? Be specific. I can take criticism as
well as any.

Nope, I'm ignorant on this. Just wanted to point out that the
Santa Fe Institute seems reputable, at least superficially.
(I had heard of it before.)

Yet it basically doesn't do research in mineralogy, sedimentology, or
paleontology. Am I wrong?

Not that I know of. I wasn't following this discussion very
carefully, and have no expertise in the area. Basically,
I've been looking for expert, informed speculation and
commentary. There seems to be a lot of uninformed
speculation, so I have to do a lot of skimming and triage.
It's a bit tricky, since I have little background in
geology.

Actually, since I'm already writing this, here's a question:
Is there consensus that the spherules seem to have some
granular structure? If so, does that rule out some kind of
molten, free-fall origin (meteor impact or volcanic), since
such droplets would likely cool rapidly and thus be
amorphous?

" George" wrote in message
.. .


Why do you feel that his theoretical writings on self-organization are
pertinent to the discussing of cross-beeding and spherules on Mars.




When I look at the field of spheres the even and random
distribution mimics rather well a random boolean network.
Such a network needs only to have a connectivity between
the components of just less then three to quality as a
ideal example of the simplest form of a self-organizing/evolving
system.

Not being a geologist I'm not at all up to characterizing
what those connections could be. Perhaps chemical
or electrical interactions would suffice. But the startling
thing is that the existence of the spheres indicate such
a process is occurring.

If you click on the link below, then type in 3 in the right
box of applet 2, press apply and run, you'll see the inherent
property of such a random network. Such a system will
organize and produce a more ordered form than the
initial components. This is the most basic mathematical
basis for evolution and the heart of chaos theory.

That from random networks, interacting with an intermediate
connectivity, a system inevitably organizes and produces
new structures more ordered than the components.

You see, it's randomness that forms the basis for all order
and life in the universe. The mathematics is rather new, but
it's simplicity and universality makes it the primary means
of determining what is living or evolving, and what is not.

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~quee0818/comp...omplexity.html


I see in that field everything needed to initiate a living system.
I see the spheres as that emergent creation, the small scale
images show an iterative process of formation, order and
decomposition. In each picture there are patches
appearing as forming spheres, spheres and broken pieces.
A complete life cycle. I fully expect that this process has
built the soil covering the region.

I may be wrong, it could be simply some recent volcanic
activity that is yet to be discovered. But I've been hobbying
in this math for a couple of years, and when I first saw the
pictures of the spheres my jaw just dropped. I recognized
immediately the mathematical form of what I was seeing and
that unexplained order is expected. And so far the
order, the spheres, are unexplained.


The primary discovery of chaos and complexity theory
is that life is the final probable state, not a fluke.

I know with mathematical certainty that life will form
wherever it gets the chance. There is a direct path from
the evolution of material to living systems not previously
understood. Evolution is a far stronger and more pervasive
tendency than even staunch Darwinists would assert.



Jonathan

s

In article ,
jonathan wrote:

" George" wrote in message
. ..


Why do you feel that his theoretical writings on self-organization are
pertinent to the discussing of cross-beeding and spherules on Mars.

When I look at the field of spheres the even and random
distribution mimics rather well a random boolean network.
Such a network needs only to have a connectivity between
the components of just less then three to quality as a
ideal example of the simplest form of a self-organizing/evolving
system.
...
I may be wrong, it could be simply some recent volcanic
activity that is yet to be discovered. But I've been hobbying
in this math for a couple of years, and when I first saw the
pictures of the spheres my jaw just dropped. I recognized
immediately the mathematical form of what I was seeing and
that unexplained order is expected. And so far the
order, the spheres, are unexplained.

What makes a RBN is the pattern of connections, not the
spatial distribution of the nodes. The distribution of the
nodes in the demo is arbitrary, and was most likely just
chosen to be a uniform random distribution for simplicity of
programming.

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

" George" wrote in message
.. .


Why do you feel that his theoretical writings on self-organization are
pertinent to the discussing of cross-beeding and spherules on Mars.




When I look at the field of spheres the even and random
distribution mimics rather well a random boolean network.
Such a network needs only to have a connectivity between
the components of just less then three to quality as a
ideal example of the simplest form of a self-organizing/evolving
system.

Not being a geologist I'm not at all up to characterizing
what those connections could be. Perhaps chemical
or electrical interactions would suffice. But the startling
thing is that the existence of the spheres indicate such
a process is occurring.

And what of mechanical processes such as weathering of the spheres out of
the parent rock, a common occurence on earth where such spheules exist.

If you click on the link below, then type in 3 in the right
box of applet 2, press apply and run, you'll see the inherent
property of such a random network. Such a system will
organize and produce a more ordered form than the
initial components. This is the most basic mathematical
basis for evolution and the heart of chaos theory.

That from random networks, interacting with an intermediate
connectivity, a system inevitably organizes and produces
new structures more ordered than the components.

You see, it's randomness that forms the basis for all order
and life in the universe. The mathematics is rather new, but
it's simplicity and universality makes it the primary means
of determining what is living or evolving, and what is not.

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~quee0818/comp...omplexity.html

Ah, but theres is the rub, is it not. You consider these spheres to be
alive (or to be alive at one time), for whatever reason. I see no evidence
whatsoever for such an assumption. You can get the same randomness from
throwing a bunch of marbles on the floor, or from variable wind directions
interacting with a herogenous substrate. The fact that they are randomly
organized is in no way a measure of whether the thing is actually alive or
has evolved into its present form from something else.



I see in that field everything needed to initiate a living system.

Except the materials to create it, such as organic molecules.

I see the spheres as that emergent creation, the small scale
images show an iterative process of formation, order and
decomposition. In each picture there are patches
appearing as forming spheres,

Forming spheres? You definitely have a very vivid imagination. Please
provide a link to a Mars rover image where it has caught a sphere in the
process of forming!

spheres and broken pieces.
A complete life cycle.

Of a mineraloid! Mechanical weathering is not an indicator of a life form.

I fully expect that this process has
built the soil covering the region.

I suspect that the only thing that has formed the soil in this region is the
mechanical weathering of the bedrock, and the deposition of wind-laden
sediments.

I may be wrong, it could be simply some recent volcanic
activity that is yet to be discovered. But I've been hobbying
in this math for a couple of years, and when I first saw the
pictures of the spheres my jaw just dropped. I recognized
immediately the mathematical form of what I was seeing and
that unexplained order is expected. And so far the
order, the spheres, are unexplained.

Those mathematical equations only explain the randomness of the system, not
whether the system is alive. The fact that living systems seem ordered in
this way should come as no surprise. The fact that non-living systems also
seem ordered in this way should also come as no surprise.


The primary discovery of chaos and complexity theory
is that life is the final probable state, not a fluke.

Well, that theory has yet to be proven. And whether it is true or not is
not gernmane to the question as to the composition of the sphere, or their
origin.

I know with mathematical certainty that life will form
wherever it gets the chance.

Do you also know with mathematical certainty all of the variables, chemical
and physical, etc., that are involved in the creation of life? If so, you
probably have a nobel prize and a job waiting for you at NASA.

There is a direct path from
the evolution of material to living systems not previously
understood. Evolution is a far stronger and more pervasive
tendency than even staunch Darwinists would assert.

Evolution can mean many difference things to many people. Whether we are
discussing the evolution of the stars and planets, to the evolution of an
African Swallow - while the materials formed in the center of a star are
necessary for the formation of a swallow, the existence of a swallow is not
necessary for the formation of the star.

"Kenneth Chiu" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George wrote:

"Kenneth Chiu" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George wrote:

Having said that, I do not question his expertise in his
field (theoretical biochemistry?). But geology is
obviously his cup of tea. I will not pretend to be a
theoretical biochemist if he will not pretend to be a
geologist. Finally, is there any technical issue that I
raised in refutation of his post that you disagree with,
and if so, why? Be specific. I can take criticism as
well as any.

Nope, I'm ignorant on this. Just wanted to point out that the
Santa Fe Institute seems reputable, at least superficially.
(I had heard of it before.)

Yet it basically doesn't do research in mineralogy, sedimentology, or
paleontology. Am I wrong?

Not that I know of. I wasn't following this discussion very
carefully, and have no expertise in the area. Basically,
I've been looking for expert, informed speculation and
commentary. There seems to be a lot of uninformed
speculation, so I have to do a lot of skimming and triage.
It's a bit tricky, since I have little background in
geology.

Actually, since I'm already writing this, here's a question:
Is there consensus that the spherules seem to have some
granular structure? If so, does that rule out some kind of
molten, free-fall origin (meteor impact or volcanic), since
such droplets would likely cool rapidly and thus be
amorphous?

Well, actually that is a very good question, and one that I think could be
answered in a properly conducted laboratory experiment. You are correct
that most molten spherules tend to cool rapidly, and thus tend to have an
amorphous, glassy structure. This fact has been shown to be the case on
earth and in many of the locations investigated on the moon. However, as
has also been shown on earth and on the moon, spherules with a granular
structure can form as well, given enough time for re-crystalization. For
instance, "Breccias collected on the Apollo 14 mission contain granular
spherules that appear to be the result of impact melting and
recrystalization during free-flight. Their bulk compositions are quite
different from the local regolith in which they were found and are clearly
exotic to the site. The Imbrium impact is a likely source for these objects
since long flight times are required for re-crystalization to occur before
impacting the surface."

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache...=en&ie= UTF-8

The fact that there are large craters in the region of the Opportunity site
is one indication that we could have the very same, or a similar origin for
these spherules. Interestingly, the mineralogies of the granular spherules
found on the moon are dominated by plagioclase. It would take me a while to
locate the image, but I saw one high resolution image of an intact spherule
that appeared to have a tiny crystal on its surface. The image was not of a
high enough resolution to ascertain the crystallography of this crystal, or
whether it had the schiller characteristic of plagioclase. But the
possibility that the spherules may be composed of plagioclase intrigues me.

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

I know with mathematical certainty that life will form
wherever it gets the chance.

This is not a credible statement.

In article ,
George wrote:

"Kenneth Chiu" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George wrote:

"Kenneth Chiu" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George wrote:

Having said that, I do not question his expertise in his
field (theoretical biochemistry?). But geology is
obviously his cup of tea. I will not pretend to be a
theoretical biochemist if he will not pretend to be a
geologist. Finally, is there any technical issue that I
raised in refutation of his post that you disagree with,
and if so, why? Be specific. I can take criticism as
well as any.

Nope, I'm ignorant on this. Just wanted to point out that the
Santa Fe Institute seems reputable, at least superficially.
(I had heard of it before.)

Yet it basically doesn't do research in mineralogy, sedimentology, or
paleontology. Am I wrong?

Not that I know of. I wasn't following this discussion very
carefully, and have no expertise in the area. Basically,
I've been looking for expert, informed speculation and
commentary. There seems to be a lot of uninformed
speculation, so I have to do a lot of skimming and triage.
It's a bit tricky, since I have little background in
geology.

Actually, since I'm already writing this, here's a question:
Is there consensus that the spherules seem to have some
granular structure? If so, does that rule out some kind of
molten, free-fall origin (meteor impact or volcanic), since
such droplets would likely cool rapidly and thus be
amorphous?

Well, actually that is a very good question, and one that I think could be
answered in a properly conducted laboratory experiment. You are correct
that most molten spherules tend to cool rapidly, and thus tend to have an
amorphous, glassy structure. This fact has been shown to be the case on
earth and in many of the locations investigated on the moon. However, as
has also been shown on earth and on the moon, spherules with a granular
structure can form as well, given enough time for re-crystalization. For
instance, "Breccias collected on the Apollo 14 mission contain granular
spherules that appear to be the result of impact melting and
recrystalization during free-flight. Their bulk compositions are quite
different from the local regolith in which they were found and are clearly
exotic to the site. The Imbrium impact is a likely source for these objects
since long flight times are required for re-crystalization to occur before
impacting the surface."

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache...=en&ie= UTF-8

Seems reasonable, but I wonder a bit about the gas/dust
insulation theory. How exactly would it insulate? I would
have liked to have seen some numbers (but of course, I'm not
a geologist).

Maybe you don't need any gas/dust to slow cooling
sufficiently. All you need is a big enough cloud of molten
rock droplets. If the field of view of a droplet in the
middle is 90% occluded by other hot droplets, that's going
to slow the cooling a lot (if we assume only radiative heat
loss).

Has anyone done any detailed computer modeling of spherule
formation during these impact events? Would it be useful?
A detailed model might be able to characterize the impact
event precisely from the characteristics/distribution of the
spherules.


The fact that there are large craters in the region of the Opportunity site
is one indication that we could have the very same, or a similar origin for
these spherules. Interestingly, the mineralogies of the granular spherules
found on the moon are dominated by plagioclase. It would take me a while to
locate the image, but I saw one high resolution image of an intact spherule
that appeared to have a tiny crystal on its surface. The image was not of a
high enough resolution to ascertain the crystallography of this crystal, or
whether it had the schiller characteristic of plagioclase. But the
possibility that the spherules may be composed of plagioclase intrigues me.

What are the implications of plagioclase composition?
According to what I could scrounge on Google, it's very
common.

" George" wrote in message ...
"Kenneth Chiu" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George wrote:

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

"Jo Schaper" wrote in message
...
Richard I. Gibson wrote:
Jo Schaper wrote:



*speculation*
Could there be a scenario in which a previous, wind eroded/tumbled
surface rubble is taken up and incorporated into volcanic rock as
a
these spheroids, perhaps undergoing additional rounding due to
remelt?
I've seen such basal conglomerates, both in tuffs (both grain and
matrix are volcanic) and as a rhyolite grain/dolomite matrix
conglomerate.
(off speculation)



I like that idea -- although seems to me that they could also all
be
part of the same volcaniclastic "fall" - ash + spherules, mixed
together, welded together, with the spherules enough harder that
they
weather out, while the ash decrepitates into the fine sand that is
all
around.



I have no objection to that idea either. See my post under "spheres
coming from bedrock". I think I might have an earth analog of this in
my
basement--crumbly rhyolite with iron amygdules from Iron Co., Mo.

Now, I'm gonna have to dig around and find that rock...


I've been puzzled and excited by these spheres also

There are a number of details that I feel indicate the source
cannot be explained by geological processes.
The regional views show the area to be among the smoothest
areas on the planet and the most hematite rich. The hematite
appears associated with a ...lack of nearby large impact
craters and calderas. Not by the proximity to them.
http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/dataViz/


The Opportunity landing site is within or very near a large subdued
(filled)
crater:

http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/dataViz.../HematiteWest/

In fact, there are smaller craters all over the place, according to the
maps
and images from this site.

And even if the site wasn't in proximity to the features you mention,
that
does not , in any way, rule out a volcanic or impact origin for these
objects. The fact of the matter is that since Mars has a much weaker
gravitational field, and a much less dense atmosphere than that of the
earth, a large impact or volcanic eruption could leave debris in the
atmosphere for a considerable length of time, debris which could also
travel
very long distances.

The exceptionally smooth distribution of the spheres combined
with their pristine appearance seem to argue they are a relatively
recent event. Yet there's no recent or nearly impacts or volcanoes
as far as I can tell.

I could argue that their smooth distribution could just as easily
indicate
that they have been weathering out of the bedrock for quite some time.
The
fact that they are smoothly distributed and quite intact is likely at
testament to their hardness as much asanything else.


For the spheres to be exposed from erosion would mean
the spheres would have to be present at some depth
below the current surface. It just isn't plausible to say there's
just one fine layer a few inches deep that happens to be
uniformly exposed for as far as the eye can see.
Yet the airbag impressions show the freshly exposed soil
is the least hematite rich and rover tracks do not appear
to expose more spheres.


http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/rove...ions/image-5.h
tml

The airbag impressions in fact show lots of spheres in the soil, as many
as
outside of the disturbed area:


http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...0ESF0224P2540L
2M1.JPG

If you look closely at the image you provide in the link, the
hematite-rich
region appears to be mostly concentrated at or in the soil above the
exposed
bedrock, which to me indicates that that soil above the bedrock is mostly
a
residuum of the bedrock (residuum often concentrates minerals that are
resistent to weather), and explains why the plain above the bedrock is
loaded with spheres (since the bedrock is the obvious origin of the
spheres).


http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...4EFF0312P2378R
4M1.JPG

In fact, I have heard it said that the spheres are the origin of the
hematite, since the matrix of the bedrock appears to be deficient in
hematite. Whether this is true or not has yet to be proven definitively
as
JPL is still analyzing all of the recent data.


I must conclude that these spheres are a result of some
ongoing recent phenomena that cannot be explained
as falling from the sky, or from deeper underground.

The only logical conclusion to me is that these things
are growing on the surface in place.

How do you explain the fact that the spheres are in the rock itself? I
think it is obvious that the spheres are eroding out of the rock.


As an amateur in complexity science there are also some
abstract mathematical concepts that can argue for
these being a form of life.

http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/ka...Lecture-5.html
INTRODUCTION
Coevolutionarily constructible communities of molecular Maxwell Demons,
Autonomous Agents, may evolve to three apparently different phase
transitions:

"molecular Maxwell Demons?" Uh-huh. Kook alert!!!

Kauffman has degrees from Darthmouth and Oxford, and the
science board of Santa Fe has members from top universities
all over the world. So if he's a kook, I guess he's at
least at least a well-educated one. :-)

Well Ken, he can wave his degrees around all he cares to. Bill Clinton
Graduated from Oxford, so there you go! Lots of us have degrees, myself
included.
WOW!!
The fact that he ignored (or just plain missed) so much of what I
pointed out that was so obvious and has been discussed for days in this
newsgrop makes one pause and wonder... The fact that he is trying to make a
case for these mineral spheres being a form of life based on a
philosophical/mathematical construct (even he calls it "protoscience",
whatever that is) instead of the evidence presented right in front of him
speaks volumes all by itself. For a guy with degrees from Darmouth and
Oxford to come out and make such a bold statement so pre-maturely when only
a very small amount of data has even been analyzed and released is
irresponsible, to say the least. At least he didn't embarrass himself by
making the statement on nation television.

Having said that, I do not question his expertise in his field (theoretical
biochemistry?). But geology is obviously his cup of tea. I will not
pretend to be a theoretical biochemist if he will not pretend to be a
geologist. Finally, is there any technical issue that I raised in
refutation of his post that you disagree with, and if so, why? Be specific.
I can take criticism as well as any.
You are immaculate. Nothing sticks.

"Kenneth Chiu" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George wrote:

"Kenneth Chiu" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George wrote:

"Kenneth Chiu" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George wrote:

Having said that, I do not question his expertise in his
field (theoretical biochemistry?). But geology is
obviously his cup of tea. I will not pretend to be a
theoretical biochemist if he will not pretend to be a
geologist. Finally, is there any technical issue that I
raised in refutation of his post that you disagree with,
and if so, why? Be specific. I can take criticism as
well as any.

Nope, I'm ignorant on this. Just wanted to point out that the
Santa Fe Institute seems reputable, at least superficially.
(I had heard of it before.)

Yet it basically doesn't do research in mineralogy, sedimentology, or
paleontology. Am I wrong?

Not that I know of. I wasn't following this discussion very
carefully, and have no expertise in the area. Basically,
I've been looking for expert, informed speculation and
commentary. There seems to be a lot of uninformed
speculation, so I have to do a lot of skimming and triage.
It's a bit tricky, since I have little background in
geology.

Actually, since I'm already writing this, here's a question:
Is there consensus that the spherules seem to have some
granular structure? If so, does that rule out some kind of
molten, free-fall origin (meteor impact or volcanic), since
such droplets would likely cool rapidly and thus be
amorphous?

Well, actually that is a very good question, and one that I think could
be
answered in a properly conducted laboratory experiment. You are correct
that most molten spherules tend to cool rapidly, and thus tend to have an
amorphous, glassy structure. This fact has been shown to be the case on
earth and in many of the locations investigated on the moon. However, as
has also been shown on earth and on the moon, spherules with a granular
structure can form as well, given enough time for re-crystalization. For
instance, "Breccias collected on the Apollo 14 mission contain granular
spherules that appear to be the result of impact melting and
recrystalization during free-flight. Their bulk compositions are quite
different from the local regolith in which they were found and are
clearly
exotic to the site. The Imbrium impact is a likely source for these
objects
since long flight times are required for re-crystalization to occur
before
impacting the surface."


http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache...a.edu/meetings
/lpsc97/pdf/1480.PDF+formation+of+granular+spherules&hl=en&ie= UTF-8

Seems reasonable, but I wonder a bit about the gas/dust
insulation theory. How exactly would it insulate? I would
have liked to have seen some numbers (but of course, I'm not
a geologist).

Maybe you don't need any gas/dust to slow cooling
sufficiently. All you need is a big enough cloud of molten
rock droplets. If the field of view of a droplet in the
middle is 90% occluded by other hot droplets, that's going
to slow the cooling a lot (if we assume only radiative heat
loss).

Has anyone done any detailed computer modeling of spherule
formation during these impact events? Would it be useful?
A detailed model might be able to characterize the impact
event precisely from the characteristics/distribution of the
spherules.

Well, I believe I actually made the suggestion that it would be worthwhile
for someone to conduct such experiments. I know that there have been
experiments with producing spherulites for industrial/commercial
applications. Yet I haven't seen much in that literature that pertains to
what we are discussing here.


The fact that there are large craters in the region of the Opportunity
site
is one indication that we could have the very same, or a similar origin
for
these spherules. Interestingly, the mineralogies of the granular
spherules
found on the moon are dominated by plagioclase. It would take me a while
to
locate the image, but I saw one high resolution image of an intact
spherule
that appeared to have a tiny crystal on its surface. The image was not
of a
high enough resolution to ascertain the crystallography of this crystal,
or
whether it had the schiller characteristic of plagioclase. But the
possibility that the spherules may be composed of plagioclase intrigues
me.

What are the implications of plagioclase composition?
According to what I could scrounge on Google, it's very
common.

For one, I know of no life forms on earth that produce plagioclase to make
their shells, but that is not to say that it could not happen somewhere
else. It would indeed be an interesting exercies to figure out the
conditions necessary for an organism to produce such a shell. That would be
quite a feat indeed. For another, if the spherules are composed of
plagioclase, it would be a strong indicator that they originated from either
a volcanic source or from impacts, based on what we currently know about
spherules composed of plagioclase and how they form.

"don findlay" wrote in message
om...
" George" wrote in message
...
"Kenneth Chiu" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George wrote:

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

"Jo Schaper" wrote in message
...
Richard I. Gibson wrote:
Jo Schaper wrote:



*speculation*
Could there be a scenario in which a previous, wind
eroded/tumbled
surface rubble is taken up and incorporated into volcanic rock
as
a
these spheroids, perhaps undergoing additional rounding due to
remelt?
I've seen such basal conglomerates, both in tuffs (both grain
and
matrix are volcanic) and as a rhyolite grain/dolomite matrix
conglomerate.
(off speculation)



I like that idea -- although seems to me that they could also
all
be
part of the same volcaniclastic "fall" - ash + spherules, mixed
together, welded together, with the spherules enough harder
that
they
weather out, while the ash decrepitates into the fine sand that
is
all
around.



I have no objection to that idea either. See my post under
"spheres
coming from bedrock". I think I might have an earth analog of
this in
my
basement--crumbly rhyolite with iron amygdules from Iron Co., Mo.

Now, I'm gonna have to dig around and find that rock...


I've been puzzled and excited by these spheres also

There are a number of details that I feel indicate the source
cannot be explained by geological processes.
The regional views show the area to be among the smoothest
areas on the planet and the most hematite rich. The hematite
appears associated with a ...lack of nearby large impact
craters and calderas. Not by the proximity to them.
http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/dataViz/


The Opportunity landing site is within or very near a large subdued
(filled)
crater:

http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/dataViz.../HematiteWest/

In fact, there are smaller craters all over the place, according to
the
maps
and images from this site.

And even if the site wasn't in proximity to the features you mention,
that
does not , in any way, rule out a volcanic or impact origin for these
objects. The fact of the matter is that since Mars has a much weaker
gravitational field, and a much less dense atmosphere than that of
the
earth, a large impact or volcanic eruption could leave debris in the
atmosphere for a considerable length of time, debris which could also
travel
very long distances.

The exceptionally smooth distribution of the spheres combined
with their pristine appearance seem to argue they are a relatively
recent event. Yet there's no recent or nearly impacts or volcanoes
as far as I can tell.

I could argue that their smooth distribution could just as easily
indicate
that they have been weathering out of the bedrock for quite some
time.
The
fact that they are smoothly distributed and quite intact is likely at
testament to their hardness as much asanything else.


For the spheres to be exposed from erosion would mean
the spheres would have to be present at some depth
below the current surface. It just isn't plausible to say there's
just one fine layer a few inches deep that happens to be
uniformly exposed for as far as the eye can see.
Yet the airbag impressions show the freshly exposed soil
is the least hematite rich and rover tracks do not appear
to expose more spheres.



http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/rove...ions/image-5.h
tml

The airbag impressions in fact show lots of spheres in the soil, as
many
as
outside of the disturbed area:



http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...0ESF0224P2540L
2M1.JPG

If you look closely at the image you provide in the link, the
hematite-rich
region appears to be mostly concentrated at or in the soil above the
exposed
bedrock, which to me indicates that that soil above the bedrock is
mostly
a
residuum of the bedrock (residuum often concentrates minerals that
are
resistent to weather), and explains why the plain above the bedrock
is
loaded with spheres (since the bedrock is the obvious origin of the
spheres).



http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...4EFF0312P2378R
4M1.JPG

In fact, I have heard it said that the spheres are the origin of the
hematite, since the matrix of the bedrock appears to be deficient in
hematite. Whether this is true or not has yet to be proven
definitively
as
JPL is still analyzing all of the recent data.


I must conclude that these spheres are a result of some
ongoing recent phenomena that cannot be explained
as falling from the sky, or from deeper underground.

The only logical conclusion to me is that these things
are growing on the surface in place.

How do you explain the fact that the spheres are in the rock itself?
I
think it is obvious that the spheres are eroding out of the rock.


As an amateur in complexity science there are also some
abstract mathematical concepts that can argue for
these being a form of life.

http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/ka...Lecture-5.html
INTRODUCTION
Coevolutionarily constructible communities of molecular Maxwell
Demons,
Autonomous Agents, may evolve to three apparently different phase
transitions:

"molecular Maxwell Demons?" Uh-huh. Kook alert!!!

Kauffman has degrees from Darthmouth and Oxford, and the
science board of Santa Fe has members from top universities
all over the world. So if he's a kook, I guess he's at
least at least a well-educated one. :-)

Well Ken, he can wave his degrees around all he cares to. Bill Clinton
Graduated from Oxford, so there you go! Lots of us have degrees, myself
included.
WOW!!
The fact that he ignored (or just plain missed) so much of what I
pointed out that was so obvious and has been discussed for days in this
newsgrop makes one pause and wonder... The fact that he is trying to
make a
case for these mineral spheres being a form of life based on a
philosophical/mathematical construct (even he calls it "protoscience",
whatever that is) instead of the evidence presented right in front of
him
speaks volumes all by itself. For a guy with degrees from Darmouth and
Oxford to come out and make such a bold statement so pre-maturely when
only
a very small amount of data has even been analyzed and released is
irresponsible, to say the least. At least he didn't embarrass himself
by
making the statement on nation television.

Having said that, I do not question his expertise in his field
(theoretical
biochemistry?). But geology is obviously his cup of tea. I will not
pretend to be a theoretical biochemist if he will not pretend to be a
geologist. Finally, is there any technical issue that I raised in
refutation of his post that you disagree with, and if so, why? Be
specific.
I can take criticism as well as any.
You are immaculate. Nothing sticks.

Go back to bed, Don. You could use some more beauty sleep.