animal, vegetable or mineral?

There a quite a few people on this board who are convinced they can see life or at least fossils, in rover images. OK, so here is a little test. I have 12 images of terrestrial features, some of fossils, some of living organisms, some of plain old rocks and minerals. So as not to make it too easy, they are all B&W, generally without scale and I have not given a context.

I want people to tell me, for each image, whether they think they are features of biological (including fossils) or non biological origin. Obvious grasss, tree etc. don't found. After a few people have voted, I will give the results - and tell you what they are.

Cheers

Jon

OK, I’ll take a go at it.

1. algal mound structures
2. evaporite (sulfate?)
3. cave floor (gyp)
4. carbonate, micrite perhaps
5. zoned spheres, maybe large oolites
6. algal
7. mineralization along fracture
8. erosional, nonbio
9. algal mat buildup
10. ripup or erosional clast in matrix (hopefully not a bone)
11. lacustrine shale (hard to tell which is subject)
12. mineralized fossil remain or concretions

Possibly six out of the twelve appear to be of biologic origin. The lesson, without geologic provenience, it’s difficult to discern bio or nonbio for spherical shaped objects. Did I pass ??

Top to bottom (in order presented):

test_8 = "mudstone" concretions (formed by mineral cement reacting around a nucleation site or spreading reaction mediated by bacteria (nucleating site may have dissolved fossil) - formation process is unclear. Note, there may be micro fossils present in mudstone adjacent to concretions.

test_7.jpg = surface mineral precipitates - (no micro fossils) something like halite/gypsum

test_6.jpg = halite (micro-organisms likely)

test_5.jpg = stained micro-organisms (microscope)

test_3.jpg = "nodules" – unknown location, unknow composition...

test2 = don’t know - algal laminations (domal stromatolite) - fossils (and some liken)?

DCP_0075.jpg = likens - alive now

DCP_0068.jpg = Just a hard layer of rock remnants - likely volcanic (no micro fossils).

DCP_066 = Clay layer in sand stone (possibly contains micro Fossils, but unlikely)

DCP_0111.jpg = fossils - dinosaur bone and micro fossils

DCP-095 = fossils - petrified Wood

dakota.jpg = fossils - shells and micro fossils

That's "lichens" not "liken" - MS spell check seems to like liken...

There are several factors to prevent to project results of this test to MER images. Given Earth images are far more rich in features because they are taken from interesting geological sites and not only from relatively flat landscapes that rovers can navigate but on trenchs, on digged sites, etc. Secondarily, Mars rocks appears significantly featuress or uniform compared to Earth, maybe because less geological and environmental activities and all these images are taken in two small sites on the path of rovers. This uniformity and consequently simpler reasoning as an advantage in general allows to guess better the origin of features.

I'll take a quick shot at it.

1. Inorganic concretions, or perhaps fossilized bacterial colonies. Impossible to tell from picture.

2. Evaporite/anhydrite deposits

3. Brine/salt deposit

4. Thin section or microscopic image of cyanobacteria

5. Igneous spherical structures

6. Fossilized stromatolitic structures

7. Lichens

8. Erosional features

9. Layers of more resistant material in an outcrop of less resistant material(erosional features).

10. I'm not sure, this could be many things. It looks like simple layer deformation.

11. I can't guess. What is the scale here, what size is the device/manmade object pictured here.

12. This appears similar to the St. Peter Sandstone/Platteville Ordovician spheroids. These look more like the iron-rich, less spherical varieties. I would guess that these are sandstone concretions.

So out of these I would guess that numbers:
1, 4, 6, and 12 could be fossils or fossil related. Only numbers 4 and 6 appear very likely to be fossils. Number 7 is likely currently living.

Thanks guys, your guesses are most interesting. You'll get your marks later .

Come on jamdix, be a sport and have a go. Mann, marsman, greg and dana, have a go too. If you can pick'em on Mars you can pick'em on earth!

Jon

My take on responding to Jon’s photo challenge and life in general -

To try and be wrong ok – getting something wrong then understanding why it is wrong is a fundamental part of the learning (and scientific) process – but to not try is failure.

Very difficult, just like the Mars images. Not enough information but here goes:

1. Large concretions
2. Evaporite crystal aggregates
3. Salt pan
4. thin section – algal material? Scale?
5. orbicular granite
6. Disrupted algal structures?
7. Lichen on weathered outcrop of vuggy sediments/carbonate?
8. weathered sedimentary rock
9. Cliff in weathered semi-consolidated sediment
10. Disrupted unconsolidated sediments – glacial effects?
11. Quarry working a siltstone dimension stone, or is it wood?!
12. Concretions.

So 4, 6 and 7 are organic. Need close-up of 11.

The first one is definately a telephone pole and the second I'm almost sure I see a hammer. I also saw a glove in one of the pictures. I think these things point conclusively to a biological origin. But, maybe they are rocks.

I'm playing with you a little here, but there is a point. There are things that are clear as to what they are, things that are not, and a wide range in between. Just becuase it is hard or impossible to tell what some things are, it does not mean other things are not clear.

Personally, I usually see rocks where others see fossils (in rover pictures). However, there have been a few that I would give odds on being fossils.

Stan

Ok, a forum post edit feature would be nice... That last post should have had another is:

To try and be wrong IS ok – getting something wrong then understanding why it is wrong is a fundamental part of the learning (and scientific) process – but to not try is failure.

[The super tiny little post edit box it trying sometimes...]

1 Looks like the clay nodules i find in sandstone, here on the coast.
2, hot springs, or simular, calcium or limestone deposit.
3 salts

4 bacteria

5 orbical jasper

6 no guess

7 symbiotic growths, lichen, mold, algae

8 Glacier do that?

9 what cased the vertical grooves? water or sand? But looks like a cliff to me.

10 Bio crust

11 Wow

12 concreations, any sems?

I'm working on yours now Jon

Let's get some thin sections under the petrological microscope, some basic mineralogical compositions and some contextual information, and only then will I begin to form some working hypotheses.

Personally I wouldn't want to risk my reputation by guessing from a monochrome image In a monochrome pricture, calcite nodules can look like apatite nodules or even glauconite nodules.

I think that's the essence of the point you are trying to make.

Exactly Ald. It's a bit of fun while demonstrating that unless we get good visual confirmation of a fossil, it ain't a fossil.

Here's an article which may help clarify what the experts really think. [[A Deployable Instrument Package for Paleontological Research]]

in very simple terms:

1>fossilized sea animal
2>same as 1
3>mineral
4>microscopic veg matter
5>same as 1
6>same as 1-crinoid perhaps
7>mould (you have a glove on)
8>mineral
9>same as 8
10>fossil
11>scrap wood pile
12>fossilized lichen

thanks

yt
dx

1) An advanced culture preceded us. Almost looks like a telephone pole!

2) Possible fragment from a lander, but maybe just an umbrella.

3) Strange artifact. Maybe a “marks-a-lot” or “Bic pen”. Definitely alien.

4) Unknown.

5) Alien device. Maybe a “Barbie” pocket-knife.

6) Possibly a metallic disc left edge of image-center. Please pan left.

7) The “glove-like” object is probably just a pile of rocks.

Possible needle-like structure on horizon needs more scrutiny.

9) Possibly levitated probe, or maybe an Earthly pen.

10) Just dirt. Possibly the foot of a cadaver.

11) The “electronic device” is likely a trick of lights and shadow operating on a pile of rocks.

12) The “Roll-O-Dex Card” artifact needs more scrutiny. An address or phone number possibly?

This is a very interesting experiment.

I think it is demonstrating the great similarity between living and non-living structures at the micro and macro level and the great difficulty in distinguishing the two if significant visual, textual and experimental clues are not provided.

I think it is quite possible for a biologist to rationally identify practically all of the images as being likely biological entities and similarly for a geologist to identify practically all of them as being geological entities since
the only way one can be certain of their true classification would be if the pictures were in colour, a proper scale were given, one could touch the material, it could be observed for a period of time to note if it grew or reproduced, microscopic and sub-microscopic slides could be made for further examination, etc.

To me, the lessons that this teaches us as far as the MER Rovers are concerned is that neither the Geologists nor the Biologists should claim unequivocally that their view is the correct one when commenting on those interesting images from Mars. No one can know for certain.

In addition, we may yet come to a Gaia-type conclusion that everything is alive in some way, even the rocks.

Winston Small

To me, the lessons that this teaches us as far as the MER Rovers are concerned is that neither the Geologists nor the Biologists should claim unequivocally that their view is the correct one when commenting on those interesting images from Mars. No one can know for certain.

LWS, sorry I couldn't resist, get a biologist with some credentials, sit his butt in front of any questionable "bio" picture taken by either rover and see what he/she says. I'll spare someone the effort, I know what they'll say, "looks like a rock to me". I hope no one fools themselves into thinking there is a great debate between geologists, biologists, chemists, etc on what's been viewed by the rovers to date. There's not. Sorry.

PS. There is some debate over a certain SNC meteorite however. Now on with Mr. Clarks examination.

I can't say that I know enough about fossils and geology to identify much. I do see some geological formations. And some lichen.

The comment by LWS, refferenced by ArizonaSt, made me realize something. Many people in this forum think that geology and biology are belief systems. They are not. Those two sciences are not even a little bit at odds with each other.

A biologist does not believe in biology more than a geologist. He or she simply knmows more about biology than the geologist does.

One thing is for sure...A biologist is not one bit more likely to see biological origins in these pictures from Mars than a geologist is. In fact, a true biologist will be much less likely to resort to biological origins as explanations for formations that we see on Mars.

I know this is just a bit of fun, but you are actually conducting the first stage of a well know market research technique called the 'delphi method'. I have actually implemented one of these for retail store sales forecasting! Here is how it works.

1 - Select panel of 'experts'

2 - Prepare pack of derivable information about n cases that have already happened and you know the results, but your 'experts' don't.

3 - Forward pack to experts and ask them to forecast the n results based solely on the information pack (first guess)

4 - Circulate everyone's first guess to all your other experts and allow them to make a set of n 'second guesses' armed with all the other experts guesses.

5. Repeat Step 4 until the answers converge upon a 'group consensus' for each of the n cases

5 - Take your known results and calculate how accurate each experts 'first guess', second guess, and the 'group consensus' is.

6 - Repeat steps 1 to 4 with m new cases that you do not have any results for.

7. Based on results from step 5 and responses to step 6 calculate likely results and also confidence interval for that prediction.

This method works really nicely and has been used in MR for at least 40 years, and I know of at least three household names who make business decisions valued in the 100s of $Ms heavily influenced by results from it. Have you 'hard science' guys ever come across it being used in your fields? If not do you think it could work?