Discussion:
Did Perseverance Rover Finds Signs of Life in it's Second Pic From Mars?
(too old to reply)
Jonathan
2021-02-24 16:56:11 UTC
Permalink
I think so!

The fact the first pics returned provide an unanswered
mystery that could be explained by life is certainly
interesting.

Zoom in on the rocks on the left, note they ALL
are chock full of curious holes. There must
have been something softer in those holes
that eroded away.

What was in these holes?
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/perseverances-big-wheel


Compare the above pic to this one, from
a beach on Earth.

"The indentations on the rock are all that remains of holes
bored by the bivalve mollusc Pholas dactylus
https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg23431271-000-the-hole-story/


Note the landing site is the bottom of an
ancient lake. Not a volcanic site which
could produce gas bubbles as the rocks
are formed as the NASA...geologists...
speculated.


Rocks on Earth with 'holes.



11 Different Types of Holes in Rocks
Geologists Give Special Names to Holes
in Rocks

Openings of all kinds are found in all kinds of rocks.
Here are the most important types of holes in geology


05 of 11

Mold

Molds are the openings left behind when minerals dissolve or when
dead organisms decay. The material that subsequently fills a mold
is a cast. Fossils are the most common kind of cast, and casts
of easily dissolved minerals like halite are also known.
Molds are temporary things, geologically speaking.

06 of 11

Pholad Boring

Pholads are small bivalves that bore holes into shore rocks a
few centimeters across, living their lives inside that shelter
and sticking their siphuncles out to filter the seawater. If you're
at a rocky shore or if you suspect that a rock has once been there,
then look for these biological holes, a type of organic
weathering. Other marine creatures make marks in rocks,
too, but the real holes generally belong to pholads.
https://www.thoughtco.com/holes-in-rocks-1440784
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2021-02-24 17:54:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
I think
There's no evidence of that, and considerable evidence to the
contrary.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
pete...@gmail.com
2021-02-24 19:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
I think so!
The fact the first pics returned provide an unanswered
mystery that could be explained by life is certainly
interesting.
Zoom in on the rocks on the left, note they ALL
are chock full of curious holes. There must
have been something softer in those holes
that eroded away.
What was in these holes?
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/perseverances-big-wheel
Compare the above pic to this one, from
a beach on Earth.
"The indentations on the rock are all that remains of holes
bored by the bivalve mollusc Pholas dactylus
https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg23431271-000-the-hole-story/
Note the landing site is the bottom of an
ancient lake. Not a volcanic site which
could produce gas bubbles as the rocks
are formed as the NASA...geologists...
speculated.
Jonathon: Are you a postdoctoral geologist? No? Then, thanks,
I'll listen to people who actually know what they're talking about.
That not you.

Mars has had rocks continuously redistributed over hundreds of
miles by impact cratering. Vesicular basalt included.

Pt
Jonathan
2021-02-24 22:37:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Jonathan
I think so!
The fact the first pics returned provide an unanswered
mystery that could be explained by life is certainly
interesting.
Zoom in on the rocks on the left, note they ALL
are chock full of curious holes. There must
have been something softer in those holes
that eroded away.
What was in these holes?
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/perseverances-big-wheel
Compare the above pic to this one, from
a beach on Earth.
"The indentations on the rock are all that remains of holes
bored by the bivalve mollusc Pholas dactylus
https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg23431271-000-the-hole-story/
Note the landing site is the bottom of an
ancient lake. Not a volcanic site which
could produce gas bubbles as the rocks
are formed as the NASA...geologists...
speculated.
Jonathon: Are you a postdoctoral geologist?
Are you?

When it comes to Mars I can hold my own I've been watching
the rovers closely for 15 years and have read pretty much
all the scientific literature on the Martian Spheres.

Are you claiming life /couldn't account/ for those holes?

Yes or no?

But don't answer, it would spoil your entirely unprovoked
rude and insulting reply.
Post by ***@gmail.com
No? Then, thanks,
I'll listen to people who actually know what they're talking about.
That not you.
Then listen to this Phd educated at that quack infested Univ
called Oxford, that suggests rocks are the /first place/
one should look for biosignatures. Especially vesicular basalt
rocks located in a wet environment.

Would the bottom of a large ancient lake the size of Lake Tahoe
qualify?

But don't answer that question either.



The habitability of vesicles in martian basalt

Sean McMahon, John Parnell Joanna Ponicka, Malcolm Hole and
Adrian Boyce argue that cavities in martian volcanic rocks
are a good place to look for microbial life on Mars.

Conclusions

A subsurface martian biosphere, if present, is likely to be
concentrated in pores and fissures at depths where temperatures
and pressures permit liquid water to circulate. A review of
the relevant literature suggests that highly vesicular basalts
provide a more likely substrate for such a habitat than
sedimentary rocks and non-vesic-ular basalts and should be
a preferred target in the search for life on Mars.

In summary:
(1) vesicular basalt is likely to be common
in the depth range of liquid water stability on Mars;
(2) vesicular basalt commonly occurs in laterally extensive
layers suitable for sustaining aquifers;
(3) vesicular basalt has a higher porosity and permeability
than non-vesicular basalt, favour-ing fluid and cell transport;
(4) vesicular basalt has a higher compressive strength
than similarly porous sedimentary rocks, allowing pores
to remain open at greater burial depths;
(5) basalt vesicles provide a high surface area for
micro-bial colonization and water–rock reactions.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256375755_The_habitability_of_vesicles_in_martian_basalt
Post by ***@gmail.com
Mars has had rocks continuously redistributed over hundreds of
miles by impact cratering. Vesicular basalt included.
Pt
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1
Quadibloc
2021-02-26 03:30:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Zoom in on the rocks on the left, note they ALL
are chock full of curious holes. There must
have been something softer in those holes
that eroded away.
What was in these holes?
Some other kind of rock that was softer or more soluble
in water?

It would be wonderful to find life on Mars, and precisely
because it would be so wonderful, scientists discipline
themselves not to let their hopes run away with them, and
do not declare they have found what they so dearly want
to find until they have found evidence sufficiently unmistakeable
as to withstand the most intense scrutiny.

As they should.

John Savard
Jonathan
2021-02-26 04:39:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Jonathan
Zoom in on the rocks on the left, note they ALL
are chock full of curious holes. There must
have been something softer in those holes
that eroded away.
What was in these holes?
Some other kind of rock that was softer or more soluble
in water?
It would be wonderful to find life on Mars, and precisely
because it would be so wonderful, scientists discipline
themselves not to let their hopes run away with them, and
do not declare they have found what they so dearly want
to find until they have found evidence sufficiently unmistakeable
as to withstand the most intense scrutiny.
As they should.
John Savard
Problem is of course the rovers have never had
the scientific equipment needed to prove life
is on Mars now.

And that's deliberate. Perseverance could roll over
a field of moss and it couldn't prove it was life.
Unless a bird flew past it's camera, the discovery
of life on Mars can't happen.

Remember what happened to Apollo? Once the 'mystery'
or drama was over after the first landing, the public
interest and funding dried up and the program came
to an quick end.

The mystery of life on Mars is driving the push
for manned flights to the Moon and Mars.
If NASA found life on Mars now, the whole 20 year
Moon and Mars program would suffer the same fate.

Poof~

NASA doesn't want to find life on Mars, in fact
they're going out of their way to make sure
the rovers...can't find life.

Click this link for the last astrobiology conference
what do you see?

What does the astrobiology community think
about life elsewhere and especially on Mars?
https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/abscicon2017/authorindex.cfm

Everyone knows what they saw with the Opportunity spheres.
Everyone knows just a few meters underground life is
there to be found.

Can you explain the pic below using only geological explanations?
How can geology make them all the...SAME SIZE?

And spanning the entire Meridiani field hundreds
of square miles, countless billions of them
ALL THE SAME SIZE.

Only life can do this.

Loading Image...
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1
Jonathan
2021-02-26 05:06:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Jonathan
Zoom in on the rocks on the left, note they ALL
are chock full of curious holes. There must
have been something softer in those holes
that eroded away.
What was in these holes?
Some other kind of rock that was softer or more soluble
in water?
It would be wonderful to find life on Mars, and precisely
because it would be so wonderful, scientists discipline
themselves not to let their hopes run away with them, and
do not declare they have found what they so dearly want
to find until they have found evidence sufficiently unmistakeable
as to withstand the most intense scrutiny.
As they should.
John Savard
Problem is of course the rovers have never had
the scientific equipment needed to prove life
is on Mars now.
And that's deliberate. Perseverance could roll over
a field of moss and it couldn't prove it was life.
Unless a bird flew past it's camera, the discovery
of life on Mars can't happen.
Remember what happened to Apollo? Once the 'mystery'
or drama was over after the first landing, the public
interest and funding dried up and the program came
to an quick end.
The mystery of life on Mars is driving the push
for manned flights to the Moon and Mars.
If NASA found life on Mars now, the whole 20 year
Moon and Mars program would suffer the same fate.
Poof~
NASA doesn't want to find life on Mars, in fact
they're going out of their way to make sure
the rovers...can't find life.
Click this link for the last astrobiology conference
what do you see?
What does the astrobiology community think
about life elsewhere and especially on Mars?
https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/abscicon2017/authorindex.cfm
Everyone knows what they saw with the Opportunity spheres.
Everyone knows just a few meters underground life is
there to be found.
Can you explain the pic below using only geological explanations?
How can geology make them all the...SAME SIZE?
And spanning the entire Meridiani field hundreds
of square miles, countless billions of them
ALL THE SAME SIZE.
I should be more precise, the Martian spheres come in
three distinct sizes. And with the same highly uniform
intra population sizes among all three classes of
spheres.

Mineral concretions on Earth form inside solid rocks
and take the shapes and sizes of the cracks they
formed within, so sizes and shapes are highly site
specific.

On Mars they self organized in wet sand in an underground
body of water. As seen in this stunning pic below, note the
uniform size and especially the distribution.

This is a pic of a patch of soft clay like soil.
Yes...clay on the surface of Mars, hard to argue
it's been dry for billions of years at the
Opportunity site.

Loading Image....html



More pics...

Loading Image....html

Loading Image....html

https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/opportunity_m014.html

https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/105/1M137503553EFF2208P2956M2M1.HTML




PHY.ORG
Martian 'blueberries' could be clues to presence of life

Previous theories suggested these concretions were formed
by simple chemical reactions without the help of life.
However, new UWA research shows clear evidence that microbes
were essential in their formation.

This raises the possibility that Martian "blueberries" may
not only reveal that water was present on Mars - but life too.

UWA scientists David Wacey and Matt Kilburn used
high-resolution NanoSIMS technology at the University's
Centre for Microscopy, Characterisation and Analysis to
show clear relationships in the Utah concretions between
microbe-like forms and concentrations of biological
elements such as carbon and nitrogen.

Their findings - in collaboration with scientists from
the University of Nebraska - feature on the front cover
of the August issue of the journal Geology.

University of Nebraska Assistant Professor Karrie Weber
said UWA's CMCA facility - which is used to study
everything from early life on Earth to cancer drugs,
plant biology, rocks and soils, and nanotechnology
- was chosen because of its demonstrated success in
identifying microbial fossils.

Read more at:
https://phys.org/news/2012-09-martian-blueberries-clues-presence-life.html#jCp
Post by Jonathan
Only life can do this.
https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1
Robert Woodward
2021-02-26 06:05:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Jonathan
Zoom in on the rocks on the left, note they ALL
are chock full of curious holes. There must
have been something softer in those holes
that eroded away.
What was in these holes?
Some other kind of rock that was softer or more soluble
in water?
It would be wonderful to find life on Mars, and precisely
because it would be so wonderful, scientists discipline
themselves not to let their hopes run away with them, and
do not declare they have found what they so dearly want
to find until they have found evidence sufficiently unmistakeable
as to withstand the most intense scrutiny.
As they should.
John Savard
Problem is of course the rovers have never had
the scientific equipment needed to prove life
is on Mars now.
And that's deliberate. Perseverance could roll over
a field of moss and it couldn't prove it was life.
Unless a bird flew past it's camera, the discovery
of life on Mars can't happen.
Ahem, it has a camera; thus it can take before and after pictures of
rolling over a field of moss.
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
Jonathan
2021-02-26 12:24:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Jonathan
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Jonathan
Zoom in on the rocks on the left, note they ALL
are chock full of curious holes. There must
have been something softer in those holes
that eroded away.
What was in these holes?
Some other kind of rock that was softer or more soluble
in water?
It would be wonderful to find life on Mars, and precisely
because it would be so wonderful, scientists discipline
themselves not to let their hopes run away with them, and
do not declare they have found what they so dearly want
to find until they have found evidence sufficiently unmistakeable
as to withstand the most intense scrutiny.
As they should.
John Savard
Problem is of course the rovers have never had
the scientific equipment needed to prove life
is on Mars now.
And that's deliberate. Perseverance could roll over
a field of moss and it couldn't prove it was life.
Unless a bird flew past it's camera, the discovery
of life on Mars can't happen.
Ahem, it has a camera; thus it can take before and after pictures of
rolling over a field of moss.
I was being facetious about moss or birds, of course.

Pictures are not proof. Otherwise this pic would
be more than enough proof to anyone that knows
A WHIT about how mineral concretions form.

Only life can do this.

https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG



Which is why the astrobiology community has spent an
enormous amount of research with developing biosignatures
that would allow mere pics to rise to the level of proof.

But the scientific community wouldn't have to
rely on biosignatures as proof if NASA would
send the equipment needed to verify life.


Click this link, how many times is the term
biosignature seen?
https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/abscicon2017/authorindex.cfm

...443 times, and just in the *A-K author list* of research papers.
Not the papers themselves.

The astrobiology community is trying to prove life is there
....*DESPITE* NASA.
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1
Paul S Person
2021-02-26 17:22:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Jonathan
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Jonathan
Zoom in on the rocks on the left, note they ALL
are chock full of curious holes. There must
have been something softer in those holes
that eroded away.
What was in these holes?
Some other kind of rock that was softer or more soluble
in water?
It would be wonderful to find life on Mars, and precisely
because it would be so wonderful, scientists discipline
themselves not to let their hopes run away with them, and
do not declare they have found what they so dearly want
to find until they have found evidence sufficiently unmistakeable
as to withstand the most intense scrutiny.
As they should.
John Savard
Problem is of course the rovers have never had
the scientific equipment needed to prove life
is on Mars now.
And that's deliberate. Perseverance could roll over
a field of moss and it couldn't prove it was life.
Unless a bird flew past it's camera, the discovery
of life on Mars can't happen.
Ahem, it has a camera; thus it can take before and after pictures of
rolling over a field of moss.
I was being facetious about moss or birds, of course.
Pictures are not proof. Otherwise this pic would
be more than enough proof to anyone that knows
A WHIT about how mineral concretions form.
Only life can do this.
https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG
Which is why the astrobiology community has spent an
enormous amount of research with developing biosignatures
that would allow mere pics to rise to the level of proof.
But the scientific community wouldn't have to
rely on biosignatures as proof if NASA would
send the equipment needed to verify life.
Click this link, how many times is the term
biosignature seen?
https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/abscicon2017/authorindex.cfm
...443 times, and just in the *A-K author list* of research papers.
Not the papers themselves.
The astrobiology community is trying to prove life is there
....*DESPITE* NASA.
Apparently, one might almost say it was a religious mania for them.

"There /must/ be life on Mars! There must! There must!!!"
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
pete...@gmail.com
2021-02-26 18:51:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jonathan
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Jonathan
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Jonathan
Zoom in on the rocks on the left, note they ALL
are chock full of curious holes. There must
have been something softer in those holes
that eroded away.
What was in these holes?
Some other kind of rock that was softer or more soluble
in water?
It would be wonderful to find life on Mars, and precisely
because it would be so wonderful, scientists discipline
themselves not to let their hopes run away with them, and
do not declare they have found what they so dearly want
to find until they have found evidence sufficiently unmistakeable
as to withstand the most intense scrutiny.
As they should.
John Savard
Problem is of course the rovers have never had
the scientific equipment needed to prove life
is on Mars now.
And that's deliberate. Perseverance could roll over
a field of moss and it couldn't prove it was life.
Unless a bird flew past it's camera, the discovery
of life on Mars can't happen.
Ahem, it has a camera; thus it can take before and after pictures of
rolling over a field of moss.
I was being facetious about moss or birds, of course.
Pictures are not proof. Otherwise this pic would
be more than enough proof to anyone that knows
A WHIT about how mineral concretions form.
Only life can do this.
https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG
Which is why the astrobiology community has spent an
enormous amount of research with developing biosignatures
that would allow mere pics to rise to the level of proof.
But the scientific community wouldn't have to
rely on biosignatures as proof if NASA would
send the equipment needed to verify life.
Click this link, how many times is the term
biosignature seen?
https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/abscicon2017/authorindex.cfm
...443 times, and just in the *A-K author list* of research papers.
Not the papers themselves.
The astrobiology community is trying to prove life is there
....*DESPITE* NASA.
Apparently, one might almost say it was a religious mania for them.
"There /must/ be life on Mars! There must! There must!!!"
I can very easily believe that there was bacterial level life on Mars, back
billions of years ago. Almost as easily, I can imagine some of it
surviving to today in deep rock layers, in the Martian version of
Earth's "deep biosphere" [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_biosphere

What I can't believe is that large multicellular life forms evolved on
Mars. That step took over 3 billion years after the appearance of
bacteria on Earth; Mars didn't have enough time before losing its
water and atmosphere.

Despite Jonathan's ignorant protestations, NASA's Perserverance
rover is most definitely looking for signs of past life. It is gathering
samples to be returned to Earth for examination.

Pt
Jonathan
2021-02-27 11:54:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jonathan
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Jonathan
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Jonathan
Zoom in on the rocks on the left, note they ALL
are chock full of curious holes. There must
have been something softer in those holes
that eroded away.
What was in these holes?
Some other kind of rock that was softer or more soluble
in water?
It would be wonderful to find life on Mars, and precisely
because it would be so wonderful, scientists discipline
themselves not to let their hopes run away with them, and
do not declare they have found what they so dearly want
to find until they have found evidence sufficiently unmistakeable
as to withstand the most intense scrutiny.
As they should.
John Savard
Problem is of course the rovers have never had
the scientific equipment needed to prove life
is on Mars now.
And that's deliberate. Perseverance could roll over
a field of moss and it couldn't prove it was life.
Unless a bird flew past it's camera, the discovery
of life on Mars can't happen.
Ahem, it has a camera; thus it can take before and after pictures of
rolling over a field of moss.
I was being facetious about moss or birds, of course.
Pictures are not proof. Otherwise this pic would
be more than enough proof to anyone that knows
A WHIT about how mineral concretions form.
Only life can do this.
https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG
Which is why the astrobiology community has spent an
enormous amount of research with developing biosignatures
that would allow mere pics to rise to the level of proof.
But the scientific community wouldn't have to
rely on biosignatures as proof if NASA would
send the equipment needed to verify life.
Click this link, how many times is the term
biosignature seen?
https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/abscicon2017/authorindex.cfm
...443 times, and just in the *A-K author list* of research papers.
Not the papers themselves.
The astrobiology community is trying to prove life is there
....*DESPITE* NASA.
Apparently, one might almost say it was a religious mania for them.
"There /must/ be life on Mars! There must! There must!!!"
I can very easily believe that there was bacterial level life on Mars, back
billions of years ago. Almost as easily, I can imagine some of it
surviving to today in deep rock layers, in the Martian version of
Earth's "deep biosphere" [1].
Almost the entire northern half of Mars has soil comprised of
up to 50% water/ice just a few meters underground. And not only
do temperatures rise with increasing depth, so does the protection
from solar radiation. There's a iron, sulfur rich water zone
just underground.

Half of Mars is an ideal potential biosphere for microbial life
just meters underground. The water didn't all boil off into
space, most of it went underground instead, and it's still
mostly there.

On Earth the biosphere is largely formed between the
atmosphere and the surface. On Mars the potential biosphere
is formed between the surface and subsurface.

Here's a frozen sea the size of the North Sea still on
the surface of Mars, for instance.


EVIDENCE FROM HRSC MARS EXPRESS FOR A FROZEN SEA CLOSE TO MARS’ EQUATOR

"We have found evidence consistent with a presently-existing
frozen body of water, with surface pack-ice, around +5º
latitude and 150º east longitude in southern Elysium.

It measures about 800 km x 900 km and averages up to 45 m deep:
similar in size and depth to the North Sea. It has
probably been protected from complete sublimation by a
surface sublimation lag formed from suspended sediment
exposed by early loss of the surface ice. Its age
from crater counts is 5 ±2 Ma."
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/1741.pdf
Post by ***@gmail.com
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_biosphere
What I can't believe is that large multicellular life forms evolved on
Mars. That step took over 3 billion years after the appearance of
bacteria on Earth; Mars didn't have enough time before losing its
water and atmosphere.
Despite Jonathan's ignorant
I'm not ignorant, and I've done nothing to
provoke such a rude reply.

Fuck you asshole.




protestations, NASA's Perserverance
Post by ***@gmail.com
rover is most definitely looking for signs of past life. It is gathering
samples to be returned to Earth for examination.
Pt
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1
Jonathan
2021-02-27 11:41:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jonathan
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Jonathan
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Jonathan
Zoom in on the rocks on the left, note they ALL
are chock full of curious holes. There must
have been something softer in those holes
that eroded away.
What was in these holes?
Some other kind of rock that was softer or more soluble
in water?
It would be wonderful to find life on Mars, and precisely
because it would be so wonderful, scientists discipline
themselves not to let their hopes run away with them, and
do not declare they have found what they so dearly want
to find until they have found evidence sufficiently unmistakeable
as to withstand the most intense scrutiny.
As they should.
John Savard
Problem is of course the rovers have never had
the scientific equipment needed to prove life
is on Mars now.
And that's deliberate. Perseverance could roll over
a field of moss and it couldn't prove it was life.
Unless a bird flew past it's camera, the discovery
of life on Mars can't happen.
Ahem, it has a camera; thus it can take before and after pictures of
rolling over a field of moss.
I was being facetious about moss or birds, of course.
Pictures are not proof. Otherwise this pic would
be more than enough proof to anyone that knows
A WHIT about how mineral concretions form.
Only life can do this.
https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG
Which is why the astrobiology community has spent an
enormous amount of research with developing biosignatures
that would allow mere pics to rise to the level of proof.
But the scientific community wouldn't have to
rely on biosignatures as proof if NASA would
send the equipment needed to verify life.
Click this link, how many times is the term
biosignature seen?
https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/abscicon2017/authorindex.cfm
...443 times, and just in the *A-K author list* of research papers.
Not the papers themselves.
The astrobiology community is trying to prove life is there
....*DESPITE* NASA.
Apparently, one might almost say it was a religious mania for them.
"There /must/ be life on Mars! There must! There must!!!"
Can you explain how the spheres display highly uniform sizes
in such countless numbers with geology?

It's not possible, only life can do this.

https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG


You're looking right at direct evidence of life elsewhere
in the pic above, and many other pics like it btw, and you
can't see it, just astonishing!

Ya know, life elsewhere isn't going to tap you on the
shoulder and introduce itself, it requires careful
observation.
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1
Paul S Person
2021-02-27 17:58:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jonathan
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Jonathan
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Jonathan
Zoom in on the rocks on the left, note they ALL
are chock full of curious holes. There must
have been something softer in those holes
that eroded away.
What was in these holes?
Some other kind of rock that was softer or more soluble
in water?
It would be wonderful to find life on Mars, and precisely
because it would be so wonderful, scientists discipline
themselves not to let their hopes run away with them, and
do not declare they have found what they so dearly want
to find until they have found evidence sufficiently unmistakeable
as to withstand the most intense scrutiny.
As they should.
John Savard
Problem is of course the rovers have never had
the scientific equipment needed to prove life
is on Mars now.
And that's deliberate. Perseverance could roll over
a field of moss and it couldn't prove it was life.
Unless a bird flew past it's camera, the discovery
of life on Mars can't happen.
Ahem, it has a camera; thus it can take before and after pictures of
rolling over a field of moss.
I was being facetious about moss or birds, of course.
Pictures are not proof. Otherwise this pic would
be more than enough proof to anyone that knows
A WHIT about how mineral concretions form.
Only life can do this.
https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG
Which is why the astrobiology community has spent an
enormous amount of research with developing biosignatures
that would allow mere pics to rise to the level of proof.
But the scientific community wouldn't have to
rely on biosignatures as proof if NASA would
send the equipment needed to verify life.
Click this link, how many times is the term
biosignature seen?
https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/abscicon2017/authorindex.cfm
...443 times, and just in the *A-K author list* of research papers.
Not the papers themselves.
The astrobiology community is trying to prove life is there
....*DESPITE* NASA.
Apparently, one might almost say it was a religious mania for them.
"There /must/ be life on Mars! There must! There must!!!"
Can you explain how the spheres display highly uniform sizes
in such countless numbers with geology?
Don't have to.
Post by Jonathan
It's not possible, only life can do this.
https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG
demand extraordinary proof.

That's a Basic Rule of Skepticism, BTW.
Post by Jonathan
You're looking right at direct evidence of life elsewhere
in the pic above, and many other pics like it btw, and you
can't see it, just astonishing!
Ya know, life elsewhere isn't going to tap you on the
shoulder and introduce itself, it requires careful
observation.
People have the amazing ability to see what they /want/ to see.

Whether it's there or not.

One of the most productive functions of Science is to produce a view
of reality that everyone can agree on.

"Reality" here referring to physics, of course, not metaphysics.

And "physics" being used in its very most original meaning -- Nature.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Jonathan
2021-02-27 19:50:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jonathan
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jonathan
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Jonathan
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Jonathan
Zoom in on the rocks on the left, note they ALL
are chock full of curious holes. There must
have been something softer in those holes
that eroded away.
What was in these holes?
Some other kind of rock that was softer or more soluble
in water?
It would be wonderful to find life on Mars, and precisely
because it would be so wonderful, scientists discipline
themselves not to let their hopes run away with them, and
do not declare they have found what they so dearly want
to find until they have found evidence sufficiently unmistakeable
as to withstand the most intense scrutiny.
As they should.
John Savard
Problem is of course the rovers have never had
the scientific equipment needed to prove life
is on Mars now.
And that's deliberate. Perseverance could roll over
a field of moss and it couldn't prove it was life.
Unless a bird flew past it's camera, the discovery
of life on Mars can't happen.
Ahem, it has a camera; thus it can take before and after pictures of
rolling over a field of moss.
I was being facetious about moss or birds, of course.
Pictures are not proof. Otherwise this pic would
be more than enough proof to anyone that knows
A WHIT about how mineral concretions form.
Only life can do this.
https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG
Which is why the astrobiology community has spent an
enormous amount of research with developing biosignatures
that would allow mere pics to rise to the level of proof.
But the scientific community wouldn't have to
rely on biosignatures as proof if NASA would
send the equipment needed to verify life.
Click this link, how many times is the term
biosignature seen?
https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/abscicon2017/authorindex.cfm
...443 times, and just in the *A-K author list* of research papers.
Not the papers themselves.
The astrobiology community is trying to prove life is there
....*DESPITE* NASA.
Apparently, one might almost say it was a religious mania for them.
"There /must/ be life on Mars! There must! There must!!!"
Can you explain how the spheres display highly uniform sizes
in such countless numbers with geology?
Don't have to.
Post by Jonathan
It's not possible, only life can do this.
https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG
demand extraordinary proof.
Did you look at the pic? Do you know how mineral concretions
form? They form within cracks of rocks where water is
leaking through, which means the concretion shape and
size depends on the crack, the flow of water etc.

IOW the concretions vary widely in shape and size.

The highly uniform population sizes of the concretions
on Mars are a strong biosignature. But don't take it
from me, this cutting edge research dept thinks so
too.
Post by Paul S Person
That's a Basic Rule of Skepticism, BTW.
Post by Jonathan
You're looking right at direct evidence of life elsewhere
in the pic above, and many other pics like it btw, and you
can't see it, just astonishing!
Ya know, life elsewhere isn't going to tap you on the
shoulder and introduce itself, it requires careful
observation.
People have the amazing ability to see what they /want/ to see.
Whether it's there or not.
One of the most productive functions of Science is to produce a view
of reality that everyone can agree on.
"Reality" here referring to physics, of course, not metaphysics.
And "physics" being used in its very most original meaning -- Nature.
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1
Jonathan
2021-02-27 20:44:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jonathan
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jonathan
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Jonathan
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Jonathan
Zoom in on the rocks on the left, note they ALL
are chock full of curious holes. There must
have been something softer in those holes
that eroded away.
What was in these holes?
Some other kind of rock that was softer or more soluble
in water?
It would be wonderful to find life on Mars, and precisely
because it would be so wonderful, scientists discipline
themselves not to let their hopes run away with them, and
do not declare they have found what they so dearly want
to find until they have found evidence sufficiently unmistakeable
as to withstand the most intense scrutiny.
As they should.
John Savard
Problem is of course the rovers have never had
the scientific equipment needed to prove life
is on Mars now.
And that's deliberate. Perseverance could roll over
a field of moss and it couldn't prove it was life.
Unless a bird flew past it's camera, the discovery
of life on Mars can't happen.
Ahem, it has a camera; thus it can take before and after pictures of
rolling over a field of moss.
I was being facetious about moss or birds, of course.
Pictures are not proof. Otherwise this pic would
be more than enough proof to anyone that knows
A WHIT about how mineral concretions form.
Only life can do this.
https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG
Which is why the astrobiology community has spent an
enormous amount of research with developing biosignatures
that would allow mere pics to rise to the level of proof.
But the scientific community wouldn't have to
rely on biosignatures as proof if NASA would
send the equipment needed to verify life.
Click this link, how many times is the term
biosignature seen?
https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/abscicon2017/authorindex.cfm
...443 times, and just in the *A-K author list* of research papers.
Not the papers themselves.
The astrobiology community is trying to prove life is there
....*DESPITE* NASA.
Apparently, one might almost say it was a religious mania for them.
"There /must/ be life on Mars! There must! There must!!!"
Can you explain how the spheres display highly uniform sizes
in such countless numbers with geology?
Don't have to.
Post by Jonathan
It's not possible, only life can do this.
https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG
demand extraordinary proof.
Did you look at the pic? Do you know how mineral concretions
form? They form within cracks of rocks where water is
leaking through, which means the concretion shape and
size depends on the crack, the flow of water etc.
IOW the concretions vary widely in shape and size.
The highly uniform population sizes of the concretions
on Mars are a strong biosignature. But don't take it
from me, this cutting edge research dept thinks so
too.
Forgot the links.


Since the first paper made the cover of the journal Geology , it's
not pie in the sky research. Nor are the others listed below.

There's plenty of research supporting the idea the
Martian spheres are microbial fossils, see just a
few listed below.

I've done my homework on this subject.




PHY.ORG
Martian 'blueberries' could be clues to presence of life

Previous theories suggested these concretions were formed
by simple chemical reactions without the help of life.
However, new UWA research shows clear evidence that microbes
were essential in their formation.

This raises the possibility that Martian "blueberries" may
not only reveal that water was present on Mars - but life too.

UWA scientists David Wacey and Matt Kilburn used
high-resolution NanoSIMS technology at the University's
Centre for Microscopy, Characterisation and Analysis to
show clear relationships in the Utah concretions between
microbe-like forms and concentrations of biological
elements such as carbon and nitrogen.

Their findings - in collaboration with scientists from
the University of Nebraska - feature on the front cover
of the August issue of the journal Geology.

University of Nebraska Assistant Professor Karrie Weber
said UWA's CMCA facility - which is used to study
everything from early life on Earth to cancer drugs,
plant biology, rocks and soils, and nanotechnology
- was chosen because of its demonstrated success in
identifying microbial fossils.

Read more at:
https://phys.org/news/2012-09-martian-blueberries-clues-presence-life.html#jCp





Textures on Mars: evidences of a biogenic environment

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228829260_Textures_on_Mars_evidences_of_a_biogenic_environment





Journal of Astrobiology and Space Science Reviews,
Vol 1, 40-81, 2019

Evidence of Life on Mars?

1. Overview: The Evidence

Presented here is a body of evidence and observations which
do not prove but supports the hypothesis Mars was, and is, a
living planet hosting prokaryotes, lichens, and fungi.
This evidence includes:

https://www.astro.umd.edu/~hamilton/teaching/HONR289Vspring19/Handouts/LifeOnMars.pdf





Putative Martian Microbes Formed Plentiful Ooids on Mars

January 2015
Journal of Astrobiology & Outreach 04(01)


Abstract

NASA’s Mars Rover Curiosity discovered plentiful indigenous
spherical ooids at High Dune and Namib Dune in Bagnold dune
field, Gale Crater, Mars. Closely resembling ooids of Earth,
the Martian ooids are spherical in shape, similar in size,
mostly about 0.5 mm in diameter. Colors of the Martian ooids
are various, including white, yellow translucent, green, grey,
and yellow. The Martian ooids should have been formed by
microbes, because ooids of Earth have recently been found
to be formed by microbes and microbial borings are found
in ooids of Earth and Mars.

The Martian ooids are unlikely to have been formed by
non-biological mechanisms, because there was no highly
agitated water at the discovery sites.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304505124_Putative_Martian_Microbes_Formed_Plentiful_Ooids_on_Mars







UNIV OF OREGON

Oregon geologist says Curiosity's images show Earth-like soils
on Mars Ancient fossilized soils potentially found deep inside
an impact crater suggest microbial life
https://uonews.uoregon.edu/archive/news-release/2014/7/oregon-geologist-says-curiositys-images-show-earth-soils-mars




Possible organosedimentary structures on Mars

Our study shows that such laminated sediments and the spherules
they contain could be organosedimentary structures, probably
produced by microorganisms.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231904044_Possible_organosedimentary_structures_on_Mars




Possible microbial signs on martian rocks

“Since 2009 it has been pointed out that the sub-millimetric laminae
of martian sediments and the nicknamed blueberries (haematitic
spherules of millimetric dimensions) were not homogeneous but,
really, formed by structural aggregations of smaller
micro-spherules (from 1/10 mm to 3/10 mm).

By this way the imagine texture is, really, a genetic marker
depending on the sedimentary environment and bacterial activity.
This analysis, realized within a set of 40 couples of images
from martian rovers and from museum microbialite samples,
has highlighted the presence of intriguing textures made
by crossed filaments with close morphological parallels
at the same observation level”.

In the last years, these microstructural relationships have been
studied in detail: “University of Siena has performed an analytical
and multifractal approach of image couples whose results showed
that these images are absolutely alike. Another morphological
study conducted by Laboratorio de Investigaciones Microbiológicas
de Lagunas Andinas (LIMLA) on living microbialite samples, coming
from Atacama desert (Chile), has allowed to show, through their
organic pigmentation that these microstructures really exist and
are a product of bacterial metabolism” Rizzo goes on.

“However, as structures at meso and macro levels are
considered distinctive for microbialites identification, in
this late study the microscopic analysis has been integrated
with detailed observations at larger scales. The number, the
variety and the peculiarity of collected data confirm, in
a firm way, that such relationships are not pure coincidence”.

https://www.cnr.it/en/press-release/7224/possible-microbial-signs-on-martian-rocks
Post by Jonathan
Post by Paul S Person
That's a Basic Rule of Skepticism, BTW.
Post by Jonathan
You're looking right at direct evidence of life elsewhere
in the pic above, and many other pics like it btw, and you
can't see it, just astonishing!
Ya know, life elsewhere isn't going to tap you on the
shoulder and introduce itself, it requires careful
observation.
People have the amazing ability to see what they /want/ to see.
Whether it's there or not.
One of the most productive functions of Science is to produce a view
of reality that everyone can agree on.
"Reality" here referring to physics, of course, not metaphysics.
And "physics" being used in its very most original meaning -- Nature.
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1
Jonathan
2021-02-27 23:59:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jonathan
It's not possible, only life can do this.
https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG
demand extraordinary proof.
That's a Basic Rule of Skepticism, BTW.
It's also a basic rule of science one should study
the subject to provide for an informed opinion.
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jonathan
You're looking right at direct evidence of life elsewhere
in the pic above, and many other pics like it btw, and you
can't see it, just astonishing!
Ya know, life elsewhere isn't going to tap you on the
shoulder and introduce itself, it requires careful
observation.
People have the amazing ability to see what they /want/ to see.
Whether it's there or not.
You didn't answer my question, can you explain that picture
with a non living explanation? I've tried, so have many
respected researchers, and many come to the conclusion
only microbial life could explain the data.

Geology just doesn't produce billions of
nearly identical copies of itself.

Microbial mediated concretions regularly do.

Those are facts that can't be denied no matter
how hard you close your eyes to them.
Post by Paul S Person
One of the most productive functions of Science is to produce a view
of reality that everyone can agree on.
"Reality" here referring to physics, of course, not metaphysics.
Did you even read any of the papers I posted before dismissing
the idea out of hand?

Is this metaphysics?????


PHY.ORG

Martian 'blueberries' could be clues to presence of life

Previous theories suggested these concretions were formed
by simple chemical reactions without the help of life.
However, new UWA research shows clear evidence that microbes
were essential in their formation.

This raises the possibility that Martian "blueberries" may
not only reveal that water was present on Mars - but life too.

UWA scientists David Wacey and Matt Kilburn used
high-resolution NanoSIMS technology at the University's
Centre for Microscopy, Characterisation and Analysis to
show clear relationships in the Utah concretions between
microbe-like forms and concentrations of biological
elements such as carbon and nitrogen.

Their findings - in collaboration with scientists from
the University of Nebraska - feature on the front cover
of the August issue of the journal Geology.

University of Nebraska Assistant Professor Karrie Weber
said UWA's CMCA facility - which is used to study
everything from early life on Earth to cancer drugs,
plant biology, rocks and soils, and nanotechnology
- was chosen because of its demonstrated success in
identifying microbial fossils.

Read more at:
https://phys.org/news/2012-09-martian-blueberries-clues-presence-life.html#jCp
Post by Paul S Person
And "physics" being used in its very most original meaning -- Nature.
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1
Paul S Person
2021-02-28 17:35:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jonathan
It's not possible, only life can do this.
https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG
demand extraordinary proof.
That's a Basic Rule of Skepticism, BTW.
<snippo other stuff intervening>
Post by Jonathan
You didn't answer my question, can you explain that picture
with a non living explanation? I've tried, so have many
respected researchers, and many come to the conclusion
only microbial life could explain the data.
Not paying attention, are we?

/You/ are making the extraordinary claim.

The burden of proof is on /you/.

And handwavium and chanting the mantra "only living organisms could do
it" is /not/ proof.

Myself, I will wait until the actual /scientists/ decide what did it.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Jonathan
2021-02-28 19:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jonathan
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jonathan
It's not possible, only life can do this.
https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG
demand extraordinary proof.
That's a Basic Rule of Skepticism, BTW.
<snippo other stuff intervening>
Post by Jonathan
You didn't answer my question, can you explain that picture
with a non living explanation? I've tried, so have many
respected researchers, and many come to the conclusion
only microbial life could explain the data.
Not paying attention, are we?
/You/ are making the extraordinary claim.
The burden of proof is on /you/.
And handwavium and chanting the mantra "only living organisms could do
it" is /not/ proof.
Myself, I will wait until the actual /scientists/ decide what did it.
Did you read the papers I included where many esteemed scientists said
they must be from life ???????????????

You'll be waiting forever if you utterly refuse to read what
scientists are saying about them. I'm not making this stuff up
read below, that is if you can read. Right now I'm not
convinced your reading comprehension is adequate to
the task.



PHY.ORG
Martian 'blueberries' could be clues to presence of life

Previous theories suggested these concretions were formed
by simple chemical reactions without the help of life.
However, new UWA research shows clear evidence that microbes
were essential in their formation.

This raises the possibility that Martian "blueberries" may
not only reveal that water was present on Mars - but life too.

UWA scientists David Wacey and Matt Kilburn used
high-resolution NanoSIMS technology at the University's
Centre for Microscopy, Characterisation and Analysis to
show clear relationships in the Utah concretions between
microbe-like forms and concentrations of biological
elements such as carbon and nitrogen.

Their findings - in collaboration with scientists from
the University of Nebraska - feature on the front cover
of the August issue of the journal Geology.

University of Nebraska Assistant Professor Karrie Weber
said UWA's CMCA facility - which is used to study
everything from early life on Earth to cancer drugs,
plant biology, rocks and soils, and nanotechnology
- was chosen because of its demonstrated success in
identifying microbial fossils.

Read more at:
https://phys.org/news/2012-09-martian-blueberries-clues-presence-life.html#jCp





Textures on Mars: evidences of a biogenic environment

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228829260_Textures_on_Mars_evidences_of_a_biogenic_environment





Journal of Astrobiology and Space Science Reviews,
Vol 1, 40-81, 2019

Putative Martian Microbes Formed Plentiful Ooids on Mars

January 2015
Journal of Astrobiology & Outreach 04(01)


Abstract

NASA’s Mars Rover Curiosity discovered plentiful indigenous
spherical ooids at High Dune and Namib Dune in Bagnold dune
field, Gale Crater, Mars. Closely resembling ooids of Earth,
the Martian ooids are spherical in shape, similar in size,
mostly about 0.5 mm in diameter. Colors of the Martian ooids
are various, including white, yellow translucent, green, grey,
and yellow. The Martian ooids should have been formed by
microbes, because ooids of Earth have recently been found
to be formed by microbes and microbial borings are found
in ooids of Earth and Mars.

The Martian ooids are unlikely to have been formed by
non-biological mechanisms, because there was no highly
agitated water at the discovery sites.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304505124_Putative_Martian_Microbes_Formed_Plentiful_Ooids_on_Mars




Evidence of Life on Mars?

1. Overview: The Evidence

Presented here is a body of evidence and observations which
do not prove but supports the hypothesis Mars was, and is, a
living planet hosting prokaryotes, lichens, and fungi.
This evidence includes:

https://www.astro.umd.edu/~hamilton/teaching/HONR289Vspring19/Handouts/LifeOnMars.pdf





UNIV OF OREGON

Oregon geologist says Curiosity's images show Earth-like soils
on Mars Ancient fossilized soils potentially found deep inside
an impact crater suggest microbial life
https://uonews.uoregon.edu/archive/news-release/2014/7/oregon-geologist-says-curiositys-images-show-earth-soils-mars




Possible organosedimentary structures on Mars

Our study shows that such laminated sediments and the spherules
they contain could be organosedimentary structures, probably
produced by microorganisms.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231904044_Possible_organosedimentary_structures_on_Mars




Possible microbial signs on martian rocks

“Since 2009 it has been pointed out that the sub-millimetric laminae
of martian sediments and the nicknamed blueberries (haematitic
spherules of millimetric dimensions) were not homogeneous but,
really, formed by structural aggregations of smaller
micro-spherules (from 1/10 mm to 3/10 mm).

By this way the imagine texture is, really, a genetic marker
depending on the sedimentary environment and bacterial activity.
This analysis, realized within a set of 40 couples of images
from martian rovers and from museum microbialite samples,
has highlighted the presence of intriguing textures made
by crossed filaments with close morphological parallels
at the same observation level”.

In the last years, these microstructural relationships have been
studied in detail: “University of Siena has performed an analytical
and multifractal approach of image couples whose results showed
that these images are absolutely alike. Another morphological
study conducted by Laboratorio de Investigaciones Microbiológicas
de Lagunas Andinas (LIMLA) on living microbialite samples, coming
from Atacama desert (Chile), has allowed to show, through their
organic pigmentation that these microstructures really exist and
are a product of bacterial metabolism” Rizzo goes on.

“However, as structures at meso and macro levels are
considered distinctive for microbialites identification, in
this late study the microscopic analysis has been integrated
with detailed observations at larger scales. The number, the
variety and the peculiarity of collected data confirm, in
a firm way, that such relationships are not pure coincidence”.

https://www.cnr.it/en/press-release/7224/possible-microbial-signs-on-martian-rocks
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1
Hamish Laws
2021-02-28 23:49:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jonathan
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jonathan
It's not possible, only life can do this.
https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG
demand extraordinary proof.
That's a Basic Rule of Skepticism, BTW.
<snippo other stuff intervening>
Post by Jonathan
You didn't answer my question, can you explain that picture
with a non living explanation? I've tried, so have many
respected researchers, and many come to the conclusion
only microbial life could explain the data.
Not paying attention, are we?
/You/ are making the extraordinary claim.
The burden of proof is on /you/.
And handwavium and chanting the mantra "only living organisms could do
it" is /not/ proof.
Myself, I will wait until the actual /scientists/ decide what did it.
Did you read the papers I included where many esteemed scientists said
they must be from life ???????????????
a) mostly they don't, they virtually all say it's possible, they don't say it must be
b) cherry picking papers you can find support for a lot of things (see The Bell Curve controversy)
c) Mars is a very different environment than earth so it's quite possible that mechanism that don't happen on earth could happen there
d) Holes in rocks aren't all caused by organisms, one possibility is as simple as the rock was composed of different materials one of which was more water soluble and it was under water for a fair while.
Jonathan
2021-03-01 12:11:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hamish Laws
Post by Jonathan
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jonathan
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jonathan
It's not possible, only life can do this.
https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG
demand extraordinary proof.
That's a Basic Rule of Skepticism, BTW.
<snippo other stuff intervening>
Post by Jonathan
You didn't answer my question, can you explain that picture
with a non living explanation? I've tried, so have many
respected researchers, and many come to the conclusion
only microbial life could explain the data.
Not paying attention, are we?
/You/ are making the extraordinary claim.
The burden of proof is on /you/.
And handwavium and chanting the mantra "only living organisms could do
it" is /not/ proof.
Myself, I will wait until the actual /scientists/ decide what did it.
Did you read the papers I included where many esteemed scientists said
they must be from life ???????????????
a) mostly they don't, they virtually all say it's possible, they don't say it must be
b) cherry picking papers you can find support for a lot of things (see The Bell Curve controversy)
c) Mars is a very different environment than earth so it's quite possible that mechanism that don't happen on earth could happen there
d) Holes in rocks aren't all caused by organisms, one possibility is as simple as the rock was composed of different materials one of which was more water soluble and it was under water for a fair while.
Never said it's been proven, however the simple fact that geology
just doesn't create countless billions of nearly identical copies
of itself, while the Martian spheres do, is a glaring biosignature.

https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG

In addition no one has been able to find an explanation for the spheres
using non-living processes. Not to mention the fact mineral concretions
form inside rocks and take geologic time to weather out.

The Martian spheres grew in wet underground sand and many are pristine
showing they have not been weathering for geologic time spans.

There are just too many of them to explain away as simple mineral
concretions, and they are found on the surface of an exposed
underground sea floor.


And this exposed sea floor is coated from horizon
to horizon by the Martian spheres, all coming
in three /uniform/ sizes. Countless billions
of them like these.

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/530/tn/1P175230555EFF5702P2456L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/123/tn/1P139098299EFF2809P2267L5M1_L2L5L5L6L6.jpg.html

https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/opportunity_m014.html

https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/105/1M137503553EFF2208P2956M2M1.HTML


On Earth such highly uniform intrapopulation sizes
is only found with microbes.
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1
Hamish Laws
2021-03-01 13:31:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by Hamish Laws
Post by Jonathan
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jonathan
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jonathan
It's not possible, only life can do this.
https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG
demand extraordinary proof.
That's a Basic Rule of Skepticism, BTW.
<snippo other stuff intervening>
Post by Jonathan
You didn't answer my question, can you explain that picture
with a non living explanation? I've tried, so have many
respected researchers, and many come to the conclusion
only microbial life could explain the data.
Not paying attention, are we?
/You/ are making the extraordinary claim.
The burden of proof is on /you/.
And handwavium and chanting the mantra "only living organisms could do
it" is /not/ proof.
Myself, I will wait until the actual /scientists/ decide what did it.
Did you read the papers I included where many esteemed scientists said
they must be from life ???????????????
a) mostly they don't, they virtually all say it's possible, they don't say it must be
b) cherry picking papers you can find support for a lot of things (see The Bell Curve controversy)
c) Mars is a very different environment than earth so it's quite possible that mechanism that don't happen on earth could happen there
d) Holes in rocks aren't all caused by organisms, one possibility is as simple as the rock was composed of different materials one of which was more water soluble and it was under water for a fair while.
Never said it's been proven,
"many esteemed scientists said they must be from life" was your claim, your sources don't back that up
Post by Jonathan
however the simple fact that geology
just doesn't create countless billions of nearly identical copies
of itself, while the Martian spheres do, is a glaring biosignature.
https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG
You're drawing a huge conclusion from a photo
by the way, wander down to a beach sometime.
Post by Jonathan
In addition no one has been able to find an explanation for the spheres
using non-living processes.
a) That you've paid attention to
b) even if your claim is accurate add yet to the sentence

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/mineral-in-mars-berries-adds-to-water-story

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/12/eaau0872

https://archive.unews.utah.edu/news_releases/earth-has-039blueberries039-like-mars/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6281427/
Post by Jonathan
Not to mention the fact mineral concretions
form inside rocks
commonly in sedimentary layers
Post by Jonathan
and take geologic time to weather out.
and that's an argument against it why?
There are millions of years available
Post by Jonathan
The Martian spheres grew in wet underground sand and many are pristine
showing they have not been weathering for geologic time spans.
Or that they were much more resistant to what caused wearing than the surrounding rock.
Post by Jonathan
There are just too many of them to explain away as simple mineral
concretions,
That's your belief
Post by Jonathan
and they are found on the surface of an exposed
underground sea floor.
not an argument against them being a geological process
Post by Jonathan
And this exposed sea floor is coated from horizon
to horizon by the Martian spheres, all coming
in three /uniform/ sizes.
Uniform seems to be pushed beyond the limits there
Post by Jonathan
Countless billions
of them like these.
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/530/tn/1P175230555EFF5702P2456L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/123/tn/1P139098299EFF2809P2267L5M1_L2L5L5L6L6.jpg.html
https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/opportunity_m014.html
https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/105/1M137503553EFF2208P2956M2M1.HTML
looks to have more than 3 different sizes just in that photo
Post by Jonathan
On Earth such highly uniform intrapopulation sizes
is only found with microbes.
Jonathan
2021-03-03 16:34:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hamish Laws
Post by Jonathan
Post by Hamish Laws
Post by Jonathan
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jonathan
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jonathan
It's not possible, only life can do this.
https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG
demand extraordinary proof.
That's a Basic Rule of Skepticism, BTW.
<snippo other stuff intervening>
Post by Jonathan
You didn't answer my question, can you explain that picture
with a non living explanation? I've tried, so have many
respected researchers, and many come to the conclusion
only microbial life could explain the data.
Not paying attention, are we?
/You/ are making the extraordinary claim.
The burden of proof is on /you/.
And handwavium and chanting the mantra "only living organisms could do
it" is /not/ proof.
Myself, I will wait until the actual /scientists/ decide what did it.
Did you read the papers I included where many esteemed scientists said
they must be from life ???????????????
a) mostly they don't, they virtually all say it's possible, they don't say it must be
b) cherry picking papers you can find support for a lot of things (see The Bell Curve controversy)
c) Mars is a very different environment than earth so it's quite possible that mechanism that don't happen on earth could happen there
d) Holes in rocks aren't all caused by organisms, one possibility is as simple as the rock was composed of different materials one of which was more water soluble and it was under water for a fair while.
Never said it's been proven,
"many esteemed scientists said they must be from life" was your claim, your sources don't back that up
Post by Jonathan
however the simple fact that geology
just doesn't create countless billions of nearly identical copies
of itself, while the Martian spheres do, is a glaring biosignature.
https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG
You're drawing a huge conclusion from a photo
by the way, wander down to a beach sometime.
A beach? Come on? These are mostly 0.5mm iron/silicone spheres.
You won't find a single one like them on any beach. Not one.


The following research paper was by a cutting edge univ
with the most advanced equipment designed to determine
just these questions. And the paper made the cover of the
Journal Geology, the 'Scientific American' of geology.

And these highly respected researchers concluded...

"...new UWA research shows clear evidence that microbes
were essential in their formation."


Is there something about that sentence that doesn't compute???




PHY.ORG
Martian 'blueberries' could be clues to presence of life

Previous theories suggested these concretions were formed
by simple chemical reactions without the help of life.
However, new UWA research shows clear evidence that microbes
were essential in their formation.

This raises the possibility that Martian "blueberries" may
not only reveal that water was present on Mars - but life too.

UWA scientists David Wacey and Matt Kilburn used
high-resolution NanoSIMS technology at the University's
Centre for Microscopy, Characterisation and Analysis to
show clear relationships in the Utah concretions between
microbe-like forms and concentrations of biological
elements such as carbon and nitrogen.

Their findings - in collaboration with scientists from
the University of Nebraska - feature on the front cover
of the August issue of the journal Geology.

University of Nebraska Assistant Professor Karrie Weber
said UWA's CMCA facility - which is used to study
everything from early life on Earth to cancer drugs,
plant biology, rocks and soils, and nanotechnology
- was chosen because of its demonstrated success in
identifying microbial fossils.

Read more at:
https://phys.org/news/2012-09-martian-blueberries-clues-presence-life.html#jCp
Paul S Person
2021-03-01 17:21:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 15:49:20 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
Post by Hamish Laws
Post by Jonathan
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jonathan
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jonathan
It's not possible, only life can do this.
https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG
demand extraordinary proof.
That's a Basic Rule of Skepticism, BTW.
<snippo other stuff intervening>
Post by Jonathan
You didn't answer my question, can you explain that picture
with a non living explanation? I've tried, so have many
respected researchers, and many come to the conclusion
only microbial life could explain the data.
Not paying attention, are we?
/You/ are making the extraordinary claim.
The burden of proof is on /you/.
And handwavium and chanting the mantra "only living organisms could do
it" is /not/ proof.
Myself, I will wait until the actual /scientists/ decide what did it.
Did you read the papers I included where many esteemed scientists said
they must be from life ???????????????
a) mostly they don't, they virtually all say it's possible, they don't say it must be
b) cherry picking papers you can find support for a lot of things (see The Bell Curve controversy)
c) Mars is a very different environment than earth so it's quite possible that mechanism that don't happen on earth could happen there
d) Holes in rocks aren't all caused by organisms, one possibility is as simple as the rock was composed of different materials one of which was more water soluble and it was under water for a fair while.
And, if I may add one:

The evidence collected by the Rover hasn't been available /nearly/
long enough for any actual scientific conclusion to have been reached.

I apologize for piggy-backing, but one grows tired of saying "no
handwavium and religious chanting" only to met (by Jonathan) by more
of the same.

Not that he won't try it again ...
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Jonathan
2021-03-03 16:37:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 15:49:20 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
Post by Hamish Laws
Post by Jonathan
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jonathan
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jonathan
It's not possible, only life can do this.
https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG
demand extraordinary proof.
That's a Basic Rule of Skepticism, BTW.
<snippo other stuff intervening>
Post by Jonathan
You didn't answer my question, can you explain that picture
with a non living explanation? I've tried, so have many
respected researchers, and many come to the conclusion
only microbial life could explain the data.
Not paying attention, are we?
/You/ are making the extraordinary claim.
The burden of proof is on /you/.
And handwavium and chanting the mantra "only living organisms could do
it" is /not/ proof.
Myself, I will wait until the actual /scientists/ decide what did it.
Did you read the papers I included where many esteemed scientists said
they must be from life ???????????????
a) mostly they don't, they virtually all say it's possible, they don't say it must be
b) cherry picking papers you can find support for a lot of things (see The Bell Curve controversy)
c) Mars is a very different environment than earth so it's quite possible that mechanism that don't happen on earth could happen there
d) Holes in rocks aren't all caused by organisms, one possibility is as simple as the rock was composed of different materials one of which was more water soluble and it was under water for a fair while.
The evidence collected by the Rover hasn't been available /nearly/
long enough for any actual scientific conclusion to have been reached.
You know, you should at least have an entry level of knowledge
about this subject. Opportunity Rover, where the spheres
were found landed in ....2004.

17 years isn't enough time?

Come on man!
Post by Paul S Person
I apologize for piggy-backing, but one grows tired of saying "no
handwavium and religious chanting" only to met (by Jonathan) by more
of the same.
Not that he won't try it again ...
The following research paper was by a cutting edge univ
with the most advanced equipment designed to determine
just these questions. And the paper made the cover of the
Journal Geology, the 'Scientific American' of geology.

And these highly respected researchers concluded...

"...new UWA research shows clear evidence that microbes
were essential in their formation."


Is there something about that sentence that doesn't compute???
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1
Loading...