Origin of Life on Mars? - Page 7

Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
Author Message
John Radogno


Posts: xxx

Reply: 121



PostPosted: June 13, 2017 12:49 AM 

Lin,
Still, the issue with Wretch Fossil that you link to is a total lack of evidence for anything artificial. Simply not understanding the science, or at least the science to be, of an object does not even come close to being evidence of anything artificial.

Part of the problem is that Wretch Fossil is based on a pre-disposed belief system in a superstition based mythology that ignores science and insists that human beings were brought to Earth by God some 350 million years ago and that they then traveled to Mars and Jupiter. I struggle to find a polite way to say this. The vain attempts to find some evidence to support this faith based idea only adds to the lack of credibility Wretch Fossil has. I have to wonder if you are just trying to get enough traffic to generate advertising revenue.

The images in your link are examples of cross-bedding, which is very common on Earth and on Mars. The very delicate cross bedding structures should be more common on Mars than on Each due to the low atmospheric pressure and gravity on Mars:


Here is one of my favorite. It is amazing what nature can do!

And something more typical:

As far as some of the other rocks with 90 degree angles, here are a few things on the far right that look like bricks:

Again, nothing artificial here.

Lin Liangtai


Posts: xxx

Reply: 122



PostPosted: June 13, 2017 1:23 AM 

Martian meteorite ALH84001 contains ooids that were formed by Martian microbes:
[link]

Paul Scott Anderson


Posts: 53

Reply: 123



PostPosted: June 13, 2017 2:20 AM 

I feel the same way, John.

Lin Liangtai


Posts: xxx

Reply: 124



PostPosted: June 13, 2017 4:20 AM 

Re reply 121, John, how do you know your first and fifth photos shows natural objects? What are the sizes of objects in the 5 photos?

John Radogno


Posts: xxx

Reply: 125



PostPosted: June 13, 2017 5:20 PM 

Lin,
There is nothing un-natural about these images. There have been thousands and thousands of studies and analysis' on the geology of sedimentary layers all across the globe. Cross bedding is not a mystery. The horizontal layering creates flat plates. As I have shown in other post, when they crack, they most often crack vertically at around 90 degrees as do dried mud flats. Upwellings from deep in the Earth can cause the entire landscape to turn over sideways, even upside down. I was shown such an example by a ranger in Death Valley once that had ancient camel tracks cemented in a sediment wall that curved over my head. The science of these is very robust and well established. Modern dating systems include isotopic radioactive decay of any volcanic or clay based mineral layers to get a bench mark dating, with sedimentary layers below being older, the ones above being younger. This is also cross referenced with fossils, primarily shells of specific species that lived at only specific times across the globe, for further corroboration. The build up of these features, and the erosion of these features is not a scientific mystery.
When scientists do find scientific mysteries, they do not assign un-evidenced answers, they do scientific research. There would be no such thing as science if there were no mysteries!

The first picture is a sandstone structure photographed by Warren Krupsaw who does art photography of minerals and rocks. I am not sure of the size but you can see it is breaking up. The last picture is something I have covered extensively in other posts where I have shown how common and ordinary this is.

Here are some more examples of nature's work:

And a close-up:

This one shows tight cross bedding with looser cross bedding above and below:

Lin Liangtai


Posts: xxx

Reply: 126



PostPosted: June 14, 2017 6:52 AM 

The structures in https://www.facebook.com/marscuriosityimages/photos/a.584691531546000.149854.584605114887975/1770807006267774/?type=3&theater
are millimeter sized. However, you are not sure about the sizes of the objects in your first photo of cross-bedded sandstone. As sizes are very important in comparison of objects, no sizes mean no comparison.
Moreover, I see no cross bedding on Earth that contains mostly volcanic minerals, as do the 15 rocks drilled by Curiosity rover.
One scientist in the Curiosity team said the "riverbed" found at Yellowknife Bay had been a "sidewalk", according to the Principal Investigator Dr. Grotzinger.

LWS


Posts: xxx

Reply: 127



PostPosted: June 14, 2017 11:21 AM 

John;

Some really awesome images above in replies 121 to 125.

Thanks!

Some of them are totally explainable as images of portions of stromatolite rocks and not merely of cross bedding. The box work is particularly impressive and characteristic of a type of stromatolite.

Re. origins, I think you should give Lin some slack as no one knows for sure at this stage which of the explanations of the origins of life in our solar system is correct. i.e. if it was something divinely thrust onto our planet and perhaps others several hundred millions of years ago or if it is something that is immanent in geology and expresses itself in different ways depending on the environment with no guidance from any divine entity or entities.

One thing which is most noticeable from looking closely at and comparing the morphology of geological constructs on Mars (through the Mars Rover's cameras) and (through internet images) on Earth is the absolute visual match in the micro- geological building parts. There is no visual difference between the fine structure of images of verifiable stromatolites from Earth and those taken by Curiosity Mast and MAHLI cameras.

There must be a reason for this.

That reason at present is explainable either as the resultant of chance geology or chance divine intervention. There is no overweening evidence either way. Science is merely a way of explaining observations based on what might be marginally imperfect measurements while the divine intervention option is just a leap of unsupportable faith. I suggest that we do not know enough at this stage to throw out either one but merely to continue gathering the evidence that will hopefully resolve the matter in the distant future.

In the meantime let me suggest one scenario of what might have been or is.

Suppose the Cosmos is merely one (out of several) multi dimensional physical and non-material expressions of a non-dimensional entity. Our solar system exists in one of the physical dimensions.

Mars and Earth are two similar physical entities in the dimension which we inhabit hence the geological (and possibly biological) similarities between the two.

Life started with microbes on both planets. The activity of Microbes was essential to the development of solid land and thereby the landscapes which we see on both Mars and Earth.

Life has either not developed past the microbial stage on Mars or has developed and was then almost essentially eliminated by some horrendous calamity.

The activity of Microbes has been essential to the development of higher forms of life on Earth. Hence all living matter on Earth has been constructed using microbes as building blocks.

Mankind, and everything we interact with on Earth and beyond is the resultant of an ongoing cosmic experiment with microbes being an essential part of the Laboratory.

Winston.

Barsoomer


Posts: 344

Reply: 128



PostPosted: June 14, 2017 10:41 PM 

Winston, I know you have an interest in lichens. In the June 2017 issue of Scientific American there is an article that includes (on pages 52-53) beautiful images of a bewildering array of different lichen types. I had no idea they could be so diverse in appearance.

Just thought I would mention it.

LWS


Posts: xxx

Reply: 129



PostPosted: June 14, 2017 11:58 PM 

Barsoomer; Thanks!

Is there an online availability of the article?

Winston

Barsoomer


Posts: 344

Reply: 130



PostPosted: June 15, 2017 1:21 AM 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/magazine/sa/2017/06-01/

Unfortunately no. But in the above table of contents, it is the article "Naturalist Trevor Goward Helps to Overturn a 150-Year-Old Truth of Science" and there is a thumbnail of the lichens image.

Lin Liangtai


Posts: xxx

Reply: 131



PostPosted: June 15, 2017 5:24 AM 

NASA claims sandstones are found in Gale Crater, Mars. However, the chemistry of the 5 "sandstones" drilled by Mars rover Curiosity shows all the 5 rocks contain mostly volcanic minerals (notes 1, 2, 3), which are not seen in sandstone of Earth.
Morphologically, numerous "sandstones" in Gale Crater show many layers, which is never seen in igneous rocks. The apparent contradiction of volcanic minerals in sedimentary "sandstone" points to their artificial origin.

Note 1: The five "sandstones" drilled by Curiosity rover are dominated by volcanic minerals: "The mineralogy of this sandstone is dominated by plagioclase, pyroxene, magnetite and X-ray amorphous phases." (quoted from the fourth paragraph of
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/EGU2017-10808.pdf)
Note 2: Plagioclase, pyroxene, and magnetite are all volcanic minerals, according to Wikipedia: Plagioclase, pyroxene, magnetite.
Note 3: X-ray amorphous phases are volcanic glass or organics, etc.

John Radogno


Posts: xxx

Reply: 132



PostPosted: June 15, 2017 1:02 PM 

Lin,
First of all, Dr. Grotzinger is a well respected scientist and it is somewhat disrespectful to twist his words, out of context into the exact opposite of what he was saying in the various interviews he made. Commenting on when he first saw the image of the outcrop he said it "looks like someone jack-hammered up a slab of sidewalk," He also said, "but really it's a tilted block of ancient streambed." The reason why it matters is because, like fake news, if misdirects and deceives the real story. Casual visitors to the MRB who are not well informed about real science may end up thinking there is actually a sidewalk on Mars and then miss out completely on the fun, excitement, and education of the real science behind the story.
From a distance the outcrop looks like a flat smooth surface but Curiosity also took close-up images which show how it is mottled with pebbles. The bed itself is a sedimentary conglomerate, which is different than a concretion. It contains pebbles of all sizes but is mostly made of sand. The surface is more like gravel (would not make a good sidewalk). The real interesting science was in analyzing the pebbles, counting the various sizes, tracing their paths and distribution down stream, calculating the amount of force it would take to move the different sized pebbles, studying how they accumulate in some areas. As a result they were able to determine the speed and depth of the water flow the stream carried (ankle high to hip high at walking speed). This is great science in action!

For my pictures, the first one in #121 was made by Warren Krupshaw who is a noted photographer of unusual and unique geological and mineral images. I included this image because it is an extreme example, not a comparison. In both #121 and #125 I tried to present a variety of different sizes and shapes to generally show that nature has no limits to what it can form. The cross bedding reference I used was actually from same-looking nearby rocks that NASA has already determined to be cross bedded. As you know, rocks on Mars may have very delicate features and shapes that would be impossible to find on Earth (remember the "floating spoon"). It is also possible that as these delicate features do break up, if they stay in one place long enough, they may collect additional layers of dust and re-concrete (re- lithify?), creating even more bazaar and twisted forms.

We already know that the area Curiosity is in has been exposed to a lot of volcanic material. It is not surprising since the orbiters have found volcanic material to cover about 50% of the Martian surface. Volcanic material can lithify and mix into sandstone and is found in many sandstones on Earth. Volcanic dominated sandstone in the area around Naples (Mt. Vesuvius) is very, very common.

About your Arrows in the Wretch Fossil link, They do not point to anything interesting, even in the larger size. I fact they are worse in the larger size which has been zoomed to the level of pixalization which then obscures and distorts the actual image. A pixel is a digital square that takes the color of most dominant in the area it is imaging. There may be other features in the area but they will not show up, the whole square is one color. If you have a one hundred pixel square in a ten by ten arrangement (not uncommon) it might look like a flat, evenly colored square but hidden behind the pixels there could be intricate features and folds that you can't see. If someone with a pen scribbled some graffiti across the ten by ten area that said, "First on Mars," it would not show up. Which is too bad because finding graffiti like that would be actual evidence of something artificial!

But in the end, even without all this reality fact checking, the point is, still, Wretch Fossil does not provide any scientific evidence for anything being artificial.

Dana Johnson


Posts: 1195

Reply: 133



PostPosted: June 15, 2017 5:06 PM 

I haven't been here for a week or longer, and this is getting interesting.
A point or information missing in the conversation is the acknowledgement by all that we do not know a precise explanation for the shapes and patterned objects which we have passed in the rovers travels by the several rovers, and the most challenging shapes were bypassed without chemical tests for whatever reasons.
I have carefully watched Oklahoma 'red dirt' and sand moved by bobcats and other earth moving machinery as well as hand shovel thrown layers of human assembled layers of this material result in stacks of not 'natural' crossbedding, yet they assemble into layered solids which cement within weeks to a few years as a fairly strong 'rock' showing 'human' layered items which resemble 'natural' sandstone.
While we make may presumptions as to what an object is, we also do not 'know' the true cause and effect, we simply presume to know the history of both Mars and Earth.
I often find it difficult to distinguish between human layered material and natural.
I am not making claims in any images referred to in these topics, only making a new addition referring to our inability to distinguish methods of stacking and cementation.
We would not know between tool assembled layers and wind or water erosion except where patterns looked calculated to be mathematically patterned by choices.
I was surprised that shovel loads of red dirt would become distinct layers even when thrown chaotically one over another in varied patterns. Sequences of human effort can create crossbedding structures. Subsequently concretions can form internally or externally in just a few years. The timing seemed 'unnatural'.

LWS


Posts: xxx

Reply: 134



PostPosted: June 15, 2017 6:20 PM 

Dana;

Agree with you 100% about similarity between human and natural layering. Have you ever looked at the layering in slices of meat? It would seem that layering is a universal phenomenon in living and "non-living" materials. Perhaps we are operating on insufficient evidence and that we might find that "living" and "non-living" objects are much closely related than we think.

Winston

John Radogno


Posts: xxx

Reply: 135



PostPosted: June 15, 2017 11:12 PM 

Winston,
Re: 127 I like your take on cosmology. You are right, we really can't prove how everything began. I have read Brian Green's book about string theory and the multiverse; some mathematics to make it a hypothesis, but no known way to test, so not yet a theory. The Big Bang is genuinely mind blowing. It starts with a singularity which may have infinite gravity but no space. As we know, time is relative to movement through space, acceleration and gravitational fields. This means there was no time in that singularity and therefor there is no such thing as "before the Big Bang.

I am not trying to give Lin a hard time. Wretch Fossil is capable of doing good research on Mars and I have commended them on their work with kids, which is very plausible. But they end up more often up not contributing to the discussions like the rest of us. They never demonstrate give and take, never admit they are wrong (like Trump), and continue to push their un-scientific, creationist based agenda on the blog insisting that every unusual finding on the planet is evidence of artificial origin and that is just not science, it is wishful thinking based on a predisposed implausible belief system. This has caused them repeated embarrassments so in a way I am trying to help them.
When it comes to origins, Re: 121, I was not writing about microbial life, I was writing about the implausible Wretch Fossil idea that HUMAN BEINGS were put on Mars by God between 2.5 and 4 BILLION years ago, then took them to another solar system for a while, then physically brought them to Earth 350 million years ago which is when humans built had the technology to travel to Mars and Jupiter. I can not imagine more than 6 or 7 people believing in this stuff but then again, there are still thousands of people who believe the Earth is flat. It takes a lot of cognitive dissonance to keep these beliefs alive in the face of a growing body of scientific knowledge. But people can change. For more than a millennia Aristotle ruled philosophy and Earth was the immobile center of the universe. This idea came about with the best knowledge available 2,500 years ago. After the church burns Bruno at the stake and held Galileo in house arrest, eventually the idea of the Earth being the center of the universe became implausible due to being overwhelmed with new knowledge. By the 1960s the very conservative Vatican understood that scripture and science are two different things and accepted evolution as the source of the deployment of the human body. Whatever one wants to say about divine intervention (which does not belong on a science blog, in my humble opinion), the idea that HUMAN BEINGs lived 3 billion years ago is not plausible, not just because there is ZERO evidence for it, for that alone would not be proof, but because we have absolute proof it is not true due to our current knowledge base and our extensive fossil record.

Think about how amazing this real science is. Can you imagine what it was like in Africa 3.8 to 3.3 million years ago when four separate species (not tribes) of hominids lived side by side with each other? Did they fight? Did they share stone tool technology? How did they act when they first met each other? Chimps in deep jungle areas, when first exposed to humans are very curios and watch intensely from a distance. How curios would a Pliocene era hominid be when discovering anther hominid species? Would it be like us coming face to face with extraterrestrials? The real history and science is fascinating and moving. It makes us hunger for more knowledge. Think also of Grotzinger's stream bed. Can you imagine what it may have looked like on a sunny Martian day with a few soft white clouds lazily passing by above and a cool stream of gently flowing water cutting across the landscape? Was the water so clear that one would be able to to see the pebbles shining blow, or was the water cloudy as it carried volcanic dust into Gale crater from distances beyond the crater wall? Once you think about it don't you want to know more? Don't these two scenarios above sound more interesting than a fake sidewalk?

Lin Liangtai


Posts: xxx

Reply: 136



PostPosted: June 16, 2017 1:24 AM 

It is useless to return samples from Mars when scientists cannot recognize remains of ooids and neurons in Martian meteorite ALH84001. Remains of ooids and neurons in ALH84001 were respectively described in
[link]
and in [link] ?q=neuron+in+alh84001
Any sample return from Mars will cost billions of American dollars. The amount of sample returned from Mars will be very limited, in the range of grams. It is useless to return samples to Earth in view of the above.

Lin Liangtai


Posts: xxx

Reply: 137



PostPosted: June 16, 2017 1:47 AM 

"One scientist in the Curiosity team said the "riverbed" found at Yellowknife Bay had been a "sidewalk",according to the Principal Investigator Dr. Grotzinger."
I did not say that one scientist was Dr. Grotzinger. There were about 400 scientists in NASA's team for the mission. I remember someone in the team, not Dr. Grotzinger, said a scientist in the team said the streambed was a "sidewalk". Anyway, an uneducated road construction worker may also that. Dr. Grotzinger and many other scientists in the team are experts in ooids. No one publicly said ooids were found on Mars or in meteorite ALH84001. One scientist on the team even denied there were ooids in Namib Dune.

Lin Liangtai


Posts: xxx

Reply: 138



PostPosted: June 16, 2017 10:37 AM 

Ancient people on Earth and on Mars used basalt to manufacture artificial rocks.
Evidences:
1. Columnar Basalt on Earth was used in architecture: [link] ?q=basalt
2. Basaltic minerals were found in artificial rocks of Yellowknife Bay, Gale Crater, Mars:
see note 1 in [link]

LWS


Posts: xxx

Reply: 139



PostPosted: June 16, 2017 11:09 AM 

John;

Point re. Lin taken.

Check out this article in Newsweek re. a physical manifestation of the Multiverse in the human brain:

http://www.newsweek.com/brain-structure-hidden-architecture-multiverse-dimensions-how-brain-works-624300?utm_source=internal&utm_campaign=most_read&utm_medium=most_read4

Winston.

Dana Johnson


Posts: 1195

Reply: 140



PostPosted: June 16, 2017 4:31 PM 

The idea that ET's are related to human form is not an improbable concept.
The probability of ET's is current accepted science.
Timing is more probable in the past.

Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7


Join the conversation:















Very Happy Smile Sad Surprised
Shocked Confused Cool Laughing
Mad Razz Embarassed Crying or Very Sad
Evil or Very Mad Twisted Evil Rolling Eyes Wink
Powered by MTSmileys