Berries: Biology vs. Geology

I think the berries seen at the Opportunity site are geological formations and not biological fossils. Here is why:

1. There is no gross differentiation in a cross section of the RATed berry. Obvious specialization of tissue is needed at the size of the Mars berries. Even more so at the low level of nutrients and solvents.

2. There is no gross diffusion system for liquids or nutrients in the berries. you need lots of pores, not just one on a berry this size. It has been pointed out in this blog that similar earth fossils of sponges had MANY dimples. These berries are too smooth.

3. There is no representation of berries at various life stages. You would have fossilized decaying berries if these were once alive. In fact most of the berries would be in the decaying stage. This was not a one time fossilization event because there are berries of similar size at various layers.

4. If these were bacteria forming these spheres, they would not be exactly round and they would not stop growing. You would find lots of HUGE deformed spheres.

5. These are not currently living things because there is no solvent or nutrients present on the surface. In fact many similar berries are embedded in the rock still. Most of these berries have no nutrient or solvent collection system. They easily sink into the sand when pushed. Also, most berries embedded in the rock show no "root" system. All the berries would be sticking out on stems if this was their biology.

6. These are not spores or seeds because they are too big and the atmosphere too thin. There is no means to disperse these berries. They are also only located inside the crater. There are no other structures (trees,mushrooms)present to make these seeds or spores. Again you need differentiation of tissue to bring nutrients to these spheres.

1. Well there can be subtle differentiation and when I look at them I see it.

2. They have to be smooth to keep water and heat inside the best way. There can be microscopic pores that can't be seen with MI:

3. There ARE smaller and bigger berries.

4. They are not exactly round. Anyway: Why that ?

5. Where do you know about solvents ? There could be brines. Where do you kow they have no collection system ? You don't know about a root system. Many seem to have stems.

6. here do you know how big seed can grow. Atmosphere is no problem. There ARE outside the crater. THEY have structures. There are stems. Again: Differentiation is subtle.

Karl - you don't make any compelling argument that they're not biological. To add to chaosman-

The outcrop rocks are very soft. In fact, several clearly broke/crumbled apart after being rolled into by the rover wheel. any root system could easily penetrate them.

With visual evidence on the surface of salt seepage (on the top most layer), it is possible that a heavy brine flows not too far below the surface.

Take a look at the rat on bounce rock. If that is biologic sediment - which it strongly resembles - there could be plenty subsurface nutrients - and current microbial life.

Finally, there seems to be all stages of berries. From small to mature to decaying to fossilized.

NASA could help clear this up by releasing APXS berry bowl data - they have not. I'm waiting.

One could argue that many berry stages exist in this one single patch:

Another interesting note is that spectral data show these things become highly reflective as you approach the UV range. Something any current surface bio would have to effectively manage.

Illustrating the above - berry reflectance with wavelength:

addressing reply #1:

1. There needs to be obvious big structural differences. Otherwise you cannot construct a large organism bigger than a few cells.

2. Even sponges have bigger pores. You need to have bigger surface area to collect nutrients or moisture. Otherwise you are hiding from the moisture or nutrients. Even bacteria colonies have ridges to increase surface area.

Many/most lower lifeforms operate at ambient temperature and don't need to conserve heat.

3. Im talking about pea size to boulder size. Very few berries even appreach the size of a golf ball. Most lower life forms just keep growing as long as they live.

4. Distribution of nutrients and temperatures affedct the growth rate. This leads to uneven growth so you won't get perfectly round living things most of the time.

5. You need asmazing osmotic gradients to collect water out of dried brine/salt. Basically, You need to be salt to do it. If living things cannot do it here on earth, what make you think life on Mars could do it?

A few have stems. Most are free or embedded in rock. The ones sitting on rock do not have collection systems. the ones in rock hve no visible root systems. None of them have root systems. And you need BIG root systems. The berries are too easily pushed into the soil and leave no indents. It would not be the case if there were roots or mycelium.

6. Seeds need to disperse. Thses berries are too big. They would land were they grew and compete against the parent and siblings. This is selected against.

thin atmosphere needs even more wind to blow an object. This is figureative but, a dandelion seed on Mars would need a 100 mile an hour wind to move it because the atmosphere lacks density.

They all have to have stems if that is their nature. Ther is no biological reason only a few would have stems.

Karl - some things can live in extreme brine environments on earth.. even the dead sea is not dead.. there are biological methods for dealing with those conditions. it's mostly accomplished by maintaining/regulating a high potassium level in cells w/selective membranes.

Also - hopefully you may have an answer for this because I don't - and NASA hasn't expained it. If these things are concreting and falling out of things like eagle crater bedrock - what's causing the Fe+2 to Fe+3 oxidation? Outcrop rock = Fe+2 iron, berries = hematite/Fe+3 iron. Explain a concreting process that can do that. It makes absolutely no sense to me... ps - please don't tell me photochemical because concretions happen in the ground..

Here is my reply:

1. I simply see no reason for that.

2. But that depends on the organism. We are on Mars, not earth. Who knows for example what kind of membranes could evolve under martian conditions. We have no example on Earth for that.
Don't underestimate the power of evolution.

3. "Most lower life forms.."
YOu are again making assumptions based on eath analouges. We are on Mars.

4. If it's important to stay round due to thermal/water issues you can bet that evolution finds a way to keep organisms round.

5. Because I understand the power of evolution. But as scidude said:

We also have examples for halophlies on Earth.

6. I also don't think they are seeds. I agree with that argumentation.

I think it's possible they are the remanents of living things or are still living (at least some of them).

I'm not sayind I'm 100% sure or I have proof

Karl don't underestimate the power of evolution.

To reply #2:

The rock outcrop may be soft but it is still rock. You need a steady supply of solvents to grow biology in rock.

If water was wicking up through a salt and sand, the surrounding dunes would be cemented in place. Also, the dust in the crater would be cemented into place like concrete. As I read it, the surface dust is very slippery in the crater.

There is a difference betwwen growing in salt water and growing in salt. As far as I know, nothing on earth lives in pure salt or mostly salt. You have to admit that Mars is pretty dry.

If a cell has the same osmotic gradient of salt, it would be the same as salt and genetic instructions or anything else could not travel the cell.

To reply #6:

I am guessing for the iron oxide question. There is oxygen in the Mars atmosphere and you have solar rays. It seems to me that you would have photo-oxidation. i.e. The light bleaches the surface of everything, regardless of how it formed?

Also, doesent iron rust in the presence of oxygen? Iron in salt might be able to extract oxygen from water? This is a better question for the goelogy thread.

Many of the spheres have a topmost object- mounted always on top only.
Many of the spheres have a root system.If you haven't seen these things and need refererences to photos I will try to provide some while I am online an hour or two per day.
Some of the spheres have a rod which is surrounded by a collar shaped tubule.
Some of the spheres have a visible central transport or tubule system with arched segmented walls. The outward arching of the central tubule segments is just discernable.
The spheres have an approximate maximum size, equal to three layers of the laminated embedment. That probably indicates three seasons, or six years, if depositioned.
There is a visible complete sphere with collar and the spoon or wing shaped accessories as a cast 3D object in the embedment. It is small, but identical to the items we see lying on the embedment layers as full sized objects.I will find that image today or tomorrow, 3rd or 4th of April.
These objects if they were geological would have a formation requirement of H2O or acidic similar fluids, as do the embedment materials originally when converting from ash and or detritus.
The water reserviour would be a bathtub at the surface waiting for a swimmer. The material forming these is prone to decay at the surface to a dessicated granular sand concretion in appearance, perfect for entrapment of dew and frost scavenging as well as straight capillary absorbtion, depending on the material we see disappearing during decay. I mentioned previously that these were two or more minerals and minor chemicals favoring this particular shape. The grains are multiple toned when looking at a ratted sphere. Concretions form by assembling chemistry and minerals in transport with H2O or another fluid into and out of the sphere body.

Regardless as to whether you each have seen a sufficient number of convincing details in looking at each and every photo so as to convince yourselves of the leap to confirming biology in these spheres, even the simple opportunistic circumstance should provide enough suggestion of the possible role these would provide. Should we agree that the biology is there currently, or perhaps was there, why would it be seen?
I can't explain how difficult is has been for me to look at presumed geology photos, after spending many years in the desert collecting dry rock, only to see these for two months, with the help of others in this blog, describing item after item which cannot be found anywhere on Earth as dead or dry stone. This planet appears to be swarming with fossiliferous material.
I have seen a fungi lying in the sand on Mars.
I have seen tubes with hollow centers larger than a hair, smaller than a toothpick. The end is finished with beaded button shapes.
The starfish objects look sometimes like miniature real starfish from Earth.
The starfish objects that top some spheres as a carapace are different slightly and have an attraction to just the spheres as I have seen only a few attach to the embedment.
The bead strings which are straight or circles,rigid in 3D and cast shadows on the surrounding soils grains and rocks are possible perhaps with just geology, but I have never seen anything like it on Earth.
The alteration in the Bounce rock and the crater area embedment stone is a little confusing to me and can account for some shaping repetition. It is difficult to tell how long a stressed stone on Mars might bake in an impact event, and how many times volcanism might repeatedly bake the near surface. The textural qualities of bounce is obviously a shocked and cooked rock, but it carries twenty or thirty fossil looking shapes even in the vugs and movement areas, complete with oolites, spheres, segmented 'stalks',fluted bowl shaped hollows, and tubes patterned with two parallel filled rods side by side, a obvious indication of a two lobed worm-like shaped elongate object which could be possibly be either plant or animal. A mineral or gas eruption? Two contacual parallel tubules extented in lines and arches for a distance in comparison to the diameter?
Hundreds of lobed fungi looking strucures attached to stalk-like structures? They do pattern in near parallel in large percentage, and may indicate force lines.
This stone does not relate directly to the berries, or spheres in the crater, and seems to not harbor a substancial number of the starfish shaped objects.
I did see some of the spheres in the soil outside of the crater from sol056-063.
I haven't studied opal and salts and metals in an oxygen deficient atmosphere under acid coditions. It isn't Earth in that regard and it is cold enough to produce frost and frozen CO2 sufficient to make a soil surface structure pattern everywhere.
Even if the soil surface were not crawling with activity, I would still say that I had seen enough for a convincing argument for life now and not just fossil evidence.
We haven't given sufficient investigation of the spheres and tubules that appear to harbor life.
As the equipment to find life is not on board these two machines currently, it may have low priority just for that reasoning.
A microscope at 2,000x and stains should be possible, as should a UV LED lamp setup for night photography. Most life on Mars is obviously probably adapted to below the surface and night time functioning when the water and CO2 is frosting the surface.
Without depolarizing water around in quantity the chemistry may be a virtual battery, or fuel cell waiting for consumption.
Some minerals retain a balance of 20-30% water.
When water is deficient in soil it draws the atmosphere in as a compensation.
Most life could function without a large percentage of Oxygen originally, functioning on CO2 as fuel in addition to chemicals.

For anyone interested Scientific American has a special edition out dated June 2004, titled 'Dinosaurs and Other Monsters' with a article showing almost identical life forms to those objects we can see on Mars in many of the photographs from both sites.
The resemblence of the items in that one article on Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian types is deficient in the matter of these spheres, however it provides examples of look-alikes for each other object seen on Mars.

Great/thorough synopsis dana. if the berries are bio based then my closest physiological analog on earth would be puffball fungi. All these features can easily be seen in berries too:

they grow in lines and rings:

decay/deflation shapes:

smooth or textured appearance based on life phase:

they dimple:

they can be diploid:

they ocassionally grow potato shaped:

Just a few interesting analogs to puffballs. obviously many of the bio processes would have to be vastly different - i just think the similarities are striking tho.

I appreciate your investment and preparation in the subject. Looks as though you might be a teacher, or professional. I am not able to place my photos and 'paint' demarked photos online as yet, but I have seen some things that are not visible to others who look at the photos as issued at NASA. I am suprised there has been no issuance to the public by of the technical enhancements which are available easily to themselves. It may be related to licensing and to quell claims of altered photos. I could not see half as much if I avoided photo enhancement of these.
Does your collection of Fungi include any segmented types? I can see the segmented tubes are associated with the strings of 'berries' in the stone face of Bounce, and there is a perpendicular ridged cross-pattern resembling Trilobites shapes, especially in one of the tubes. These materials and the Ratting process don't seem to produce much improvement in the amount of detail, and from my experience in lapidary work with stones I would not expect a coarse cut to provide much in the best fossil material. It takes a polish to show information usually. Good for the instruments measurements and removes the 'desert varnish'.
The photo of sol068, at the center and just above the large blackout at the middle includes a 'eel' head shaped stone with a curious flat white button shape and extending upward a pillar with a tiny knob, all sitting within what would appear to be the mouth of the 'eel'.
I also was interested in the textured 'coral' appearing tuffa type draped material from sol 067, which the Mossbauer face seems to have crushed slightly.
Any ideas? I have seen worms turn dirt and sand into large sculptures similarly, and I see three or more long rods with lobed ends, looking like 'something from Mars' and I still see too much space gapping for a worm cast structure. That is more open pored than most coral.

To reply #9.

I have seen pictures of fossil earth fungi and these are not anywhere close. The filiment roots would be clearly evident in the sediment layers as they would be the same mineral as the berries. I mean CLEARLY, not sort of or some of. These are not present on the mars berries. Many berries are loose, there are no stalks for all of them. The place would be littered with stalks.

Stromatolites have much more obvious layers than these berries. In fact, if the berries were living , they would look like stromatolites.

"Most lower life forms just keep growing as long as they live."

quorum sensing.

Anything analogous to Terrestrial fungi would find life in the frigid, dessicated near vacuum of Mars extremely difficult to say the least. Fungi, in my experience (I have no scientific credentials whatsoever,) prefer damp situations.

The blueberries may be fossils, but almost certainly cannot be living organisms. Probably the most direct observation supporting this are the images of berries ground down by the RAT. There's just a smooth polished surface with not even a hint of moisture. If these were organic lifeforms they would be wet inside and smearing would be evident.

Karl: While I agree that these spherules are alost certainly non-biological, I think it would be wise not to write of the possibility of extant life on the surface of mars.

For the following reasons:
Life can be found living in all environments found on earth. ALL environmets, this implies that there are no environments on earth that exceed the capacity of life to adapt. So we dont really know what the absolute environmental limits for life are.

Also I would like to point out: Most of the estimates for the hardiness of organisms have been limited by the assumption that all life must contain DNA. This is a fairly delicate molecule that becomes unstable above about 130C. It is generally agreed however that life has not always possesed DNA, rather it evolved it. Although most believe that the precursor was RNA that functioned as both protein and information character it is by no means settled. Many have approached the problem from a purely theoretical perspective and these suggest that the autoctalytic reactions that are almost certainly the beginings of life might have had an entirely different origin. This implies that life might have evolved to use the current rna/dna mechanism as a result of the current conditions found on earth. Different conditions could have produced different mechanisms for the storage and translation of genetic information. If life is something that is the natural result of the structure of matter/thermodynamic properties of our universe as many believe, then I would suggest that imagining that life that evolves in environments differing from our own would would closely resemble our own, is unwise.

Personaly I hesitantly perscribe to a theory called panspermia, which suggests that life has a common origin not of this earth. I refer you to a fascinating paper that investigated the possible extraterrestrial origin of microorganisms discovered in red rain that fell on india some time ago. These organisms were found to have an optimal growing temperature of around 300C. While I'm not entirely sure of the validity of the paper it does appear to be genuine. Then theres the case of the nanobes/nannobacteria, look into this stuff, we live in exciting times.

to reply #7:

Certain physical laws have to be obeyed. That is why there is convergent evolution. We would have some analogous life forms here on earth if these berries were living/once living. Antarctica would be packed with berries as there is no competition there and the conditions are most similatr to Mars. In fact, the conditions in AntarcticA are more hospitable and yet no blueberries or anything close.

To reply 15:
I'm saying the berries are not life. I do believe we will find life or evidence of life on Mars. I also believe in panspermia to the point that our cambrian explosion of life was partly possible to Mars infection of earth. Earth has fossil evidence of life shortly after the crust cooled. I beleive this early life was also Mars infection of earth.

I would love one geo formation proponent to offer or even start to offer a viable 'berry' theory. One that covers the formation dynamics and details the chemical composition of host rock and resulting concretion makeup. NO ONE - not even NASA has even put forth anything resembling a developed/supportable/viable theory. They will eventually be required to match data to science. That's how it works - competing theories and survival of the fittest.

Let me ask this too. Why has NASA retained all results of their berry bowl APXS integration? On mazatzal they were out with x-ray data within hours. And yes they can integrate out carbon data. Anyone who doubts that the APXS's (in alpha mode) ability to see both carbon and oxygen in a target - despite the CO2 atmosphere - read this:

http://wriba.com/mars/alpha-carbon.pdf

The only answer I have as to why we've not seen the data is it doesn't support their current theory. What other reason is there? It's under wraps for now.

So a viable geo theory will need cover the concretion process/environmental conditions - providing some earth analogs would be nice. We certainly have detailed chemistry makeup of a sample host/concretion hatching rock/soil at the eagle crater outcrop. On the chemical side -until more data is available- it should at least cover the dramatic shift in BIFs between host and concretion. I would be fascinated to know this because I have no idea how that might take place. Also, NASA's response to the following questions will require further explanation- 1) where are the rocks on the plains that created the concretions? NASA answer- they've disappeared (note: and leaving berries as the topmost object).. as for the near subsurface filaments seen below the berries during trenching? NASA answer- we see them but believe they might be possible ball bounce contamination.. more trenching away from any landing bounce will certainly clear up question 2.. As to the environmental conditions that caused all the rocks to go away- leaving the berries to rest on top of the soil- that answer needs to be incorporated into a viable geo theory.

On the bio side - of course theories developed there will also have to stand up to review as well. A well developed theory will need to cover metabolic processes, environmental survivability, physical analogs to earth help - and obviously account for all visible and chemical data taken.

All one has to do is look at a colorized pan shot to see that these berries cover the meridiani plains as far as one can see:

They are the overwhelming signature of this location. Obviously, there will be a lot of work going into theories related to their formation - and the way i see it - right now there are more signs of a viable theory coming to life (pun intended) on the bio side than on the geo side.. good science will win out---

I offered the puffball bio analog only as a physical model on how life can similarly organize/reproduce/gather nutrients- etc. i am not implying that this earth/mars analog extends to a metabolic equivalence.. to the contrary it would have to be very different..

as for those that suggest there's no evidence of fossilized mycelia or mycelial cords that would interconnect above surface reproductive organs would not be correct in my opinion.. here's why:

but that's beside the point because there's evidence of current (top surface) ones as well. as for mycelia - with a good picture viewer anyone can see filaments in the microscopic images of the eagle trench. NASA acknowledged they are there (per above) so it's something i consider beyond debate at this point. for evidence of subsurface mycelial cords on current ground 'berries' i show this:

the cords are important to explain why the berries so often line up in formations. any pan shot shows examples of that.. one:

Anyway, it's kind of irrelevant to the argument, but i think the puffball physical analog holds up pretty well..

To reply #3
one could equally argue that those berries are in various states of weathering.

To reply #4
Earth photosynthesis operates in the UV range. Thats not to say that Mars life Photosynthesis would not have another range. I think if Mars and Earth exchanged algea spores, both planets would have similar photosynthesis ranges.

to Reply #17 and #18:
Berries outside the crater could still be inside the blast ejecta zone.

to reply #18:
Nice pictures! YEs I saw the different filaments in other pictues form this blog. Lets guess the sources?

1. Biology of berries? In all the pictures of berries, does anybody have filaments sticking out of Berries? Why not, I've seen good ones sticking out of the dirt. That's not to say there is another biological source but there is not flowing solvents. Wicking through a salt bed would be a great challenge for living cells.

2. Volcanic? Pele's Hair? Clumps of Pele's Hair? Seems to me it would be weathered below the surface unless recently expossed.

3. Crystals? It is possible in undisturbed ground. there is plenty of salt and other minerals in the ground. Good question for the Geology Forum in this blog.

first, i would like to to state, i have no extended education of any kind, all my knowledge has been based on, the need to know method. I have not typed a word until 4 weeks ago, so its diffacult to convey my observations and thoughts to words. Oxygene, i don,t believe all the berries are 1, The same age, as the berries in the outcropping could be much older, even fossilized, along with the stems. 2 i do not not believe the berries are all from exactly the same source, some divercity is evident. 3 the ratted berries do show some smearing. However the berries in this image appear quite different from the berries in the out cropping. Notice the fuzzy berries, the spikes protruding off them, the split berries,and the exit holes in berries at pixil locals,412,811 and 934,1. winged tubes,what is this tube extending from, it appears very (fresh), 987,12. a smaller winged tube,342,154, What comes first, and how are they related, tubes, or the berry. While i'm at it, these three objects, are biological in nature i believe,355,86 119,289 101,984. different stages of the same object this image is one of a very few showing, a very diverse, piece of ground. i also believe it might be damp, from wicking, or some form of condensation, from the heating and cooling of the ground. so many questions, so little data.