Mushrooms on Mars

[angrysoba]

Yep. There are many images available, going way back even before the ones under discussion.

A google of mars rover hematite is plenty enough to debunk the fungi idea. Otherwise the place is a veritable mushroom farm (blueberries too)!

Oh yeah, Mr Let's STay in Africa and not Explore the Mysteries of the World, have you ever considered that the mushrooms were grown by this guy? Huh?

Mushrooms grow on Mars. You can't explain it.

 

[smartcooky]

Yes, but it's the only explanation.

Again, evidence? For example, do you have any wind speed data for Opportunity from Sol 1145 to Sol 1148?

Your claim = your burden to prove. Simply saying "its the only explanation" might count as evidence in woo woo land, but it doesn't cut the mustard in the world of skepticism or science.

You could of course, simply say that you don't know for sure, and that its just your opinion, but then we would be back to it being an unexplained mystery, which you disagreed with... you have a decision to make.

It's all there is, barring some weird expansion of the substrate pushing them upwards.

Ah, so another possible explanation.

Either way, they're not fungi.

Yes, we have established that already

It isn't dodging, it's central. If they can't be fungi then we can rule out fungal growth as an explanation for the apparent increase in size, no?

For the fifth time, I already agree with you that it is not, or is extremely unlikely to be fungi, or even anything living for that matter, but all that is a non-sequitur to the question I asked you.

I asked you for evidence to prove your claim. Your repeated diversion into already established areas of agreement is an obvious dodge.

 

[angrysoba]

Simply saying "its the only explanation" might count as evidence in woo woo land, but it doesn't cut the mustard in the world of skepticism or science.

Bwahahahahaha!

 

[smartcooky]

They'd been seen before. Why are you being such a moron to rescue this moron?

I'm not trying to rescue a ******* moron (and he is a moron)

I disagree with his claim of fungi and mushrooms

I think there is a mystery here, one that has NOT been satisfactorily explained - the wind blowing dust away is a "because it is" claim that is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. Its just opinion and speculation.

 

[angrysoba]

I'm not trying to rescue a ******* moron (and he is a moron)

I disagree with his claim of fungi and mushrooms

I think there is a mystery here, one that has NOT been satisfactorily explained - the wind blowing dust away is a "because it is" claim that is unsupported any any evidence whatsoever. Its just opinion and speculation.

Can you clarify what the mystery is?

In science, you need to come up with a testable hypothesis, not just bandy the word mystery around and refuse to believe anyone who says that the mystery is solved (or likely solved) by prosaic explanations.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I think there is a mystery here, one that has NOT been satisfactorily explained - the wind blowing dust away is a "because it is" claim that is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. Its just opinion and speculation.

Which is fine when arguing against the opinion and speculation of a known nutcase. If you think there is some mystery here maybe start a new thread that isn't tainted by this nutcase thread that really belongs in the CT section? Even if there is some legitimate mystery here, I'm disinclined to make this look like a subject to be taken seriously.

 

[SezMe]

"Fungi can readily absorb and metabolize a variety of soluble carbohydrates, such as glucose, xylose, sucrose, and fructose. Fungi are also characteristically well equipped to use insoluble carbohydrates such as starches, cellulose, and hemicelluloses, as well as very complex hydrocarbons such as lignin. Many fungi can also use proteins as a source of carbon and nitrogen. To use insoluble carbohydrates and proteins, fungi must first digest these polymers extracellularly. Saprotrophic fungi obtain their food from dead organic material; parasitic fungi do so by feeding on living organisms (usually plants), thus causing disease." One of many such sources

Show me some available carbohydrate or protein on Mars and I'll be less dismissive. But those organic materials come from living organisms, so evidence of living organisms would do nicely.

All of this is based on fungi with an evolutionary history ON EARTH. The fact these "things" whatever they are, exist in, and come from, and entirely different environment makes your reference to Earth-only references useless.

I don't know what these things are and I am entirely unsatisfied with the blowing sand explanation. I agree with smartcookie that dismissal out of hand is unhelpful.

 

[angrysoba]

All of this is based on fungi with an evolutionary history ON EARTH. The fact these "things" whatever they are, exist in, and come from, and entirely different environment makes your reference to Earth-only references useless.

I don't know what these things are and I am entirely unsatisfied with the blowing sand explanation. I agree with smartcookie that dismissal out of hand is unhelpful.

Are mushrooms back in play? I think if they can grow without the necessary nutrients to support life as we know it they could be considered magic mushrooms.

 

[smartcooky]

All of this is based on fungi with an evolutionary history ON EARTH. The fact these "things" whatever they are, exist in, and come from, and entirely different environment makes your reference to Earth-only references useless.

I don't know what these things are and I am entirely unsatisfied with the blowing sand explanation. I agree with smartcookie that dismissal out of hand is unhelpful.

Dismissal out of hand is always unhelpful. It is also a very unscientific approach.

ETA: It is always the case in science that we don't know what we know until we know it. There are numerous scientific theories that were once accepted a fact, and in which any and all suggestions that the science might be wrong were dismissed out of hand by establishment scientists until the evidence became overwhelming that the science was wrong. Examples include Spontaneous Generation, Lysenkoism, Vitalism, Matrnal Impression, Preformationism, the existence of Phlogiston, Caloric Theory, Electrochemical Duelism, Lumininiferous Ether. In physics, the atom has undergone huge theoretical and model changes - Dalton's model, Thomson' model, Rutherford's model, Bohr's model, the Electron Cloud model. All of these at one time held sway. Many scientists dismissed challenging theories out of hand. Every one of the above, and more, turned out to be wrong.

This is why Sagan refers to science as a "self-correcting process" - the pity is that some scientists are not on board with this philosophy; they would rather protect their reputations.

 

[angrysoba]

Dismissal out of hand is always unhelpful. It is also a very unscientific approach.

It depends what you are dismissing.

"Are these mushrooms?"

"No!"

"Come on, that is unscientific. We need to spend a lot of time and effort looking into the possibility that these are mushrooms!"

"I think such a waste of time and effort is unhelpful."

 

[angrysoba]

ETA: It is always the case in science that we don't know what we know until we know it. There are numerous scientific theories that were once accepted a fact, and in which any and all suggestions that the science might be wrong were dismissed out of hand by establishment scientists until the evidence became overwhelming that the science was wrong. Examples include Spontaneous Generation, Lysenkoism, Vitalism, Matrnal Impression, Preformationism, the existence of Phlogiston, Caloric Theory, Electrochemical Duelism, Lumininiferous Ether. In physics, the atom has undergone huge theoretical and model changes - Dalton's model, Thomson' model, Rutherford's model, Bohr's model, the Electron Cloud model. All of these at one time held sway. Many scientists dismissed challenging theories out of hand. Every one of the above, and more, turned out to be wrong.
This is why Sagan refers to science as a "self-correcting process" - the pity is that some scientists are not on board with this philosophy; they would rather protect their reputations.

I don't think Lysenkoism "held sway", except in Russia.

But besides, what if it was argued that Lysenkoism should be tried again. Would you:

a) think it is an open question that it is worth trying out, because you never know...the laws of nature may have changed since the 60s

or

b) dismiss it out of hand as being an unsupported idea.

In fact, the vast majority of time, people do (b) and you have to, because you simply do not have the time to assume that we are starting every exploration of every single phenomenon from a totally blank slate.

When we see something on Mars, the most dismissive attitude is to assume that wind, and the building blocks of life that we know of don't apply and that we are in utterly new territory.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Which is fine when arguing against the opinion and speculation of a known nutcase. If you think there is some mystery here maybe start a new thread that isn't tainted by this nutcase thread that really belongs in the CT section? Even if there is some legitimate mystery here, I'm disinclined to make this look like a subject to be taken seriously.

Ouch!

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm not trying to rescue a ******* moron (and he is a moron)

I disagree with his claim of fungi and mushrooms

I think there is a mystery here, one that has NOT been satisfactorily explained - the wind blowing dust away is a "because it is" claim that is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. Its just opinion and speculation.

I don't know. Maybe it's a horses and zebras question. Having heard hoofbeats, you can't rule out zebras without more investigation, but you could assume that it's probably horses.

Also, the fact that a group of scientists with good reputations said they were hematite, and had access to this data when they reached their conclusions, suggests hematite and wind fits all the available data, and should be considered the "horse" explanation.

ETA: One of the things I wonder about is whether there is any evidence that does not fit the "wind and rocks" explanation.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not trying to rescue a ******* moron (and he is a moron)

I disagree with his claim of fungi and mushrooms

I think there is a mystery here, one that has NOT been satisfactorily explained - the wind blowing dust away is a "because it is" claim that is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. Its just opinion and speculation.

Without any of that, what is the date the mushroom people are saying the images that are looking at were taken? Because the Curiosity images are years old.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It depends what you are dismissing.

"Are these mushrooms?"

"No!"

"Come on, that is unscientific. We need to spend a lot of time and effort looking into the possibility that these are mushrooms!"

"I think such a waste of time and effort is unhelpful."

For the record, my goal here is to consider out of the box thinking, not necessarily prove or support the mushroom people.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Question: If Perseverance encounters more of these, does it have a tool that can be used to touch them and determine if they are soft squishy bodies or if they are hard crystal or rock structures? Also, could it pick one up and see if it's attached to an underground root?

Perseverance does have tools small enough to examine these objects, but I'm not sure exactly what it can and can't do. These "mushrooms" are very small--about the size of a BB, although they can be up to a quarter of an inch.

Opportunity did not have tools small enough to examine such small objects individually. Opportunity drove to a place where there was a large concentration of these objects to do an analysis. That analysis showed that where there were large concentrations of these objects there was a higher level of iron than in nearby places that did not have these objects. That would be consistent with hematite, which is an iron oxide. Orbital observance had already indicated a large concentration of hematite in that area.

The objects are grey in color (they look blue in pictures due to false color corrections used by NASA, which led to calling them "blueberries"). That would be consistent with hematite. The spheroid hematite concretions on Earth in such places as Utah are rust colored because they still contain...well, rust. The spheroids on Mars would be more like pure hematite, which is grey.

Perseverance is not going to the same area, so it is not known if it will encounter any of these objects.

 

[angrysoba]

I hope Perseverance also brought some butter and garlic and a frying pan.

 

[smartcooky]

Without any of that, what is the date the mushroom people are saying the images that are looking at were taken? Because the Curiosity images are years old.

1. April 16 and 20, 2007

2. They are Photos from Opportunity's Microscopic Imager, not from Curiosity

 

[smartcooky]

For the record, my goal here is to consider out of the box thinking, not necessarily prove or support the mushroom people.

But some people need to cling to the false narrative so that they can continue to argue against that which no-one is arguing for.

 

[angrysoba]

But some people need to cling to the false narrative so that they can continue to argue against that which no-one is arguing for.

No one is arguing for "mushrooms on Mars"?

Popular Mechanics is lying then?

Scientists claim NASA photos show mushrooms growing on Mars.In their paper, the scientists analyze a variety of images taken by NASA’s Opportunity and Curiosity rovers, as well as the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter’s HiRISE camera.
Mushrooms could be great for multiple purposes for Mars settlers.

I am pretty sure some people are claiming that.

Maybe you are not claiming that any more, but what are you claiming?

You haven't clarified. All you have said is that it is a mystery.

Is it a mystery?

Not really. A plausible explanation has already been given. What remains to be solved?