Since I have about 1,000 trilobites in my collection, you are right. I don't
see any in the picture. The biggest problem you have with your "trilobite" is
that the rock this alleged fossil is "deposited" ion consists mainly of pyroxene
with some plagioclase. In fact, it is a very rare meteorite called a
sherghottite. It did not form in a sedimentary environment. So, if it is a
trilobite, it was swimming in 2,000 degree magma before it died. Sorry, even
earthbound trilobites never accomplished that feat.
You can go back to sleep now.
Since NASA doesn't have the relative intensity data for the IR filters and
since they have not SHARED the spectrographic data I find their
announcements HIGHLY suspect at best. And George you are assuming the whole
rock is uniform ...bad assumption in fact many of their explanations are
highly suspect to me .....
I havent seen any of your trilobites george i dont belvie you and if you
posted pics of them i wouldnt beleive you either......as you point out
Pictures cant be trusted. Even from NASA and they have for more crediblity
then you will......i might be giving them ( NASA) a bit more credit then i
and george you cant prove Sir Charles Shults wrong. and insults are not
technical discourse but since i have no claims to being anything other than
observer i can say i want.......BITE ME
so here is the link for those of you that would like to see what this
argument is about..... take a look http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsx.htm
There is no reason not to assume that the entire rock is uniform. Having said
that, there is no reason to believe that any other part of the rock isn't
igneous. Pyroxene and plagioclase form under much higher temperatures than
anyone can possibly expect a trilobite to survive long enough to die and become
a fossil. Since you are not a scientist, nor specialize in geology, nineralogy,
nor paleontology, it comes as no surprise to anyone that you suspect anything
you don't understand.
I haven't published anything on trilobites. I do, however, have a modest
trilobite collection. But it doesn't take a trilobite expert to prove you
Then what is the point in having this conversation, dork? If you want to prove
to me that you are an idiot, you afre doing a fine job of it.
I already have. Several times.
and insults are not
Do you always try to prove someone else is untechnical by spewing insults?
And here is a link to the explanation that proves that page totally incorrect:
well it doesnt matter who is right or wrong the truth will come out......it
always does.....and to those that are blind will not even know it ....and
that is sad.....well i took a looked at the page today again and saw this
fossil%20(Small).jpg very cool indeed now i know that george will have
something to say about it as he cant keep still about anything ......but on
this other page is the smalles one i have seen yet of a trilobite its a
direct link to it
also here is
of something of note the tiny Urchin never seen one so small so i guess MARS
might have them that small.......as well as the trilobites well that makes
since alot of what we see from the rovers or did till they wnet hush
hush......was microscopic on these little guys...
Gee, what do you want, a medal? Are you going to tell me that you found that
one on Mars as well? I only have one more question for you? Did the Martians
loan you that pen, or did you take it with you on your trip?
Yes, I enjoy your rants. It helps rejuvinate my faith in my own education. It
is a shame you never received one. You should sue your teachers for dereliction
of duty, and ask for your money back.
well no , and yes , of course not you dolt.........sheeeeeeeeeeesh you
are crazy....to think that .
I think i answered your questions a s good as i can.
ok here it is again for you Georgy
............thanks for holding up the model i have in my head of
you.............so far you have done everything i thought you
would.........i was right a sad pitiful man behind the keyboard.
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsx.htm some think its not.......but
explain how it is eroding and falling apart georgy?
why are you being so dam stubborn ? also too you know that the Rock is
sedimentary........I would like your input on that rock you being a
geologist and all........... thought you would know......I haven't come
across any ingenious rocks that pieces fall off or crumble apart to dam
easily......of course living out I the desert you tend to know ........this.
was wondering what your thoughts were...........( cant wait to hear this
one. not holding breath) see the picture at
No, I don't know that at all. To suggest that Mars has the not only similar
animals, but specific classes of animals in common with the earth is so
far-fetched that no geologist in his/her right mind would even suggest it.
Read above - and below.
Way wrong answer. If I was teaching you mineralogy, you would have just
flunked, big time. The rock has the exact same spectrographic signature as a
shergotty meteorite. If you were to sit them side by side, and examine the
mineralogy in detail, I'd wager that you'd have a very hard time telling them
Many igneous rocks fall apart quite easily after they weather for a time, in
fact, as do many meteorites. You have to remember that this rock is likely very
old, and has been weathering on the Martian surface for eons. It didn't form
yesterday. The fact is that many plagioclase-bearing rocks do disintegrate
rather easily. If water was present at some time, the pyroxene would also
weather readily. In fact, in the presence of water, some pyroxenes are altered
chemically to form hornblende (which wasn't seen in the spectrograph - it's
presence would have been a strong indicator for the presence of water at the
time, or some time after the rock was formed). The fact that the pyroxene is
present in the rock , and not hornblende indicates that it likely hasn't been
chemically altered by the presence of water. Other pyroxenes weather to form
smectite clay. Smectite wasn't seen either. Given that spalling and fraturing
is evident on the rock surface, I'd wager that frost-wedging is evident as a
modifier of the rock surface, as well as abrasion from the Martian wind. If
you'll note in the photograph, there is at least one chunk of the rock just
below your"trilobite". Smaller particles likely were sandblasted away in the
Martian wind, or otherwise turned to dust.
What makes you think I live in a desert? I look out my window and see a forest
of pin oaks and maples.
You see what you want to see. Take a rorschach test sometime. You see a
trilobite. I see spalling, fractures, fracture fluting, pits, and grooves in
the rock. I have chipped and split tons of rock in my 20 years as a geologist,
and as a result produced fluting exactly like what you are seeing on that rock,
and done it with many types of rock (from mafic rock to granite to metamorphic
rock to limestone to chert, and even some thick, hard shales). I have also seen
fluting of this nature on rock that has been frost-wedged. To suggest, based on
an out of focus, poorly lit photograph, that this weathered surface (and it is a
weathered surface) represents a specific class of aquatic earth animal is to
stretch credibility beyond all reason. Occam's razor says "ll things being
equal, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one". What is the easier
A) That a trilobite somehow was transported to a very arid planet from the
earth, or let's say, from trilobite heaven, and miraculously survived the trip,
and even more miraculously survived a fiery baptism in a lava flow, later died,
was somehow not consumed by the fiery lava flow, and was preserved within it, to
be discovered at a later time by MER-B.
B) That microscopic life erupted on Mars when it was wetter, and just by
happenstance evolved into the exact same class of animal that is found as a
fossil right here on earth (when there is no evidence of the other life that
would be associated with it - it has to gather sustenence somehow, since
trilonites are believed to have been scavangers), and somehow managed to
preserve itself inside a meteorite that was likely formed oriiginally in a fiery
igneous eruption or intrusion and later blasted nearly into orbit by an asteroid
or meteor impact, where it came down in the location where it sits today. Even
if you consider that the rock might be sedimentary, which is certainly out of
the question, and even if you consider that it could have been formed in a
shallow sea (which would be necessary in order for this rock to be sedimentary
and contain any fossils at all except microscopic bacteria-like life forms,
which could exist in igneous rock) you still have to be able to explain the rest
of the scenario.
C) That the markings are an artifact of the weathering process on Mars acting
on a pyroxene and plagioclase-rich rock that is susceptible to fracturing,
spalling, pitting, fluting, and frost-wedging in a bitterly cold Mars
Now, I've done your homework. Be sure to give me the credit for it.
My mistake. I'll make a note of it, and the fact that you took no issue with
the rest of the post. So I assume that you finally got it straightened out in
your head that that picture is not of a trilobite on Mars.
god i had to get rid of all the *other crap* you say *snip*
well georgy i think maybe that trilobite on Mars is a TRILOBITE that is ON
if you think for a sec or if ya can think look at this....for a sec.
Both planets were formed at the same time and from the same materials. It
is probably safe to assume that they were very similar even in their
atmospheres, but since Mars has such weak gravity, its atmosphere literally
"blew away" into space over time. It is known that solar wind (a stream of
energetic particles from the Sun) is constantly wearing away the Earth's
atmosphere. Also, Mars has a very small core, and its volcanoes stopped
erupting long ago. On Earth, we know that volcanoes help to replace
atmospheric gases all the time. Mars is unable to do this. here is a link
you can look at georgy http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Mars/atmosphere.html
there are still many organisms that can survive near vacuum, lots of salt,
and extremes of temperature. And in the case of Mars, those organisms would
have had nearly half a billion years to evolve protective mechanisms that
would help them to survive. We could expect that we might still find
bacteria, perhaps some simple plants below the soil, and maybe even small
arthropods or worms that could take those conditions. And there are also
bacteria that live inside rock, digesting petroleum and iron. Also,
bacteria can remain trapped in salt crystals for millions of years and still
be revived successfully. So samples of Martian brine crystals can easily
hold living bacteria that we can release and study. (NASA has been taken
what is found in mono lake as a very harsh inviorment for aything to live in
and thinks maybe that life could be elsewherethen on earth)
But not trilobites. They lived in the seas of the earth hundreds of millions of
years ago. The fact that they lived in the sea is just one line of evidence in
a mountain of evidence that earth had a substantial atmosphere at that time.
Most, if not all trilobites lived in warm seas that varied little in temperature
over a long period of time. That fact may be an explanation for their eventual
demise. If they were warm-water adapted, and it appears that they were, then
drastic changes in water temperature would have likely killed then off. They
happened to have gone extinct during the Permian "great dying", when most of the
earth's organisms were wiped out. Needless to say, whatever you want to ascribe
to explain this event, the climatic effects were obviously dramatic, and had a
profound effect on the earth's ecosystems, including its oceans.
That is a contentious debate. Geologists found bateria in gypsum deposits in
Indiana that they claimed to have revived. Others looked at the data and
determined that their de-contamination proecedures where inadequate to prove
that the bacteria that they grew did not come from lab contamination. The
authors despute this claim. Until it can be recreated by others with
satisfactory results, it will remain desputed territory.
The problems with all of this are many. First of all, trilobites don't appear
on earth until the earliest Cambrium, after the earth had already existed for
about 4 billion years. And they evolved on earth in near "ideal" conditions.
And do note that they are now exinct. Whatever conditions that existed at that
time to have allowed them to evolve and flourish in the Paleozoic may not exist
anymore, or at least went lacking for a long enough time for them to have
disappeared altogether. Even if ideal conditions returned at a later time, do
note that none have "re-evolved".
Mars, however, likely never had such ideal conditions, or if it had, it didn't
have them for a long enough period of time for these complex animals to have
evolved. Mars hasn't had a sustainable atmosphere for billions of years. When
it went dead, tectonically speaking, the atmosphere lost it ability to be
replenished, so that today, the atmosphere at the Martian surface is something
like the barometric pressure of the earth's atmosphere at about 20 - 30 miles
up. It is unlikely that the atmospheric pressure was high enough to have
sustained free flowing water for a long enough period of time to have allowed
free-flowing water to pool long enough for creatures as advanced as trilobites
to evolve. Hence, it is unlikely that there was ever enough water for a long
enough period of time for creatures such as trilobites to have evolved. The
fact that it took billions of years under earth conditions for these creatures
to evolve says volumes in opposition to your apparent claim that these creatures
"co-evolved" on another planet, under much less than ideal conditions, and in a
fraction of the time. And I do note that you haven't provided for a mechanism
to explain how apparently identical creatures could evolved under such different
conditions and in such varying rates of time. The fact that you interpret
weathering features on a igneous meteorite found on Mars by a robot explorer as
evidence of the existence of trilobites having once existed there only proves
the anthropometric view in which you see and interpret the world around you.
And who said anything about its shape in reference to its temperature needs?
I'll add that even if it was a cold water trilobite, if such a thing ever
existed, it wouldn't exist on Mars. Are you trying to become the internet kook
of the month, or what?
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.