Ammonite Fossil detected by the Rover on Mars? Curiosity Sol 551.

reply to post by wulff


Here's the Richard Hoagland fossil, created, according to some experts, by natural erosion and/or crystal formation:



....well, okay.

As you said, there is no way to know if any of these will be seen as fossils someday. When the Rover gets up into the higher sediment strata, and if some of these finds are repeated there, then at least the Mars-fossil-crowd will have a back catalogue to exhibit.

I still think the example that this thread focuses on is at least a good potential, or, in the American NCAA basketball terminology, it's one that's likely moved into the next bracket.

And here is a February thread by Jim Oberg about the newest finds in a Mars meteorite, and these look even more like traces of ancient life than the other meteorites which were brought forward as potentials:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is an intriguing possibility, but in my opinion we would need to see quite a number of specimens that exhibited similar-looking forms to even begin to think that the idea is accurate. At this point it is simply a possibility, and maybe not even a great one, depending on who is asked. As it stands now, the shape thought to be evidence of fossil life could be nothing more than a fluke, a combination of grooves caused by some natural processes, that simply resembles this life form. But if the same shapes appear in a variety of locations, on a variety of rock samples, then the argument for the existence of ammonite on the planet is bolstered significantly.

There is also the possibility that these are fossils, but that they were deposited from another planet, via a large impact which cast debris into space, eventually coming to rest in this location. I don't know what the probability of such an occurrence would be, but surely it is possible at the very least. Therefore it is hard to determine, first of all, whether these are fossils, and if they are, what exactly that means regarding the history of the planet. Interesting find nonetheless, and thanks for bringing it to our attention.

It looks like a hit to me, but with all the crabby posts it detracts from reading the whole thread.

DistantThunder
It looks like a hit to me, but with all the crabby posts it detracts from reading the whole thread.

It sure does. At least a notable image, worth the price of admission. Crabby posts give the thread character!

Violater1
reply to post by Arken

 

Arken,
I've never seen this type of sedimentary rock before, have you?
PS don't feed the troll, maybe he'll go away.

Someone tries to debunk an image of a fossil and his opinion is not the same as yours. Must be a troll! If you are as good as spotting fossils as you are finding "trolls" then we have no hope of finding any alien life from you or Arken...

The Cambrian explosion, or the first emergence of complex life on earth was about 500 million years ago. So in effect there was nothing but microbial life in the oceans for billions of years. Mars lost it's oceans much earlier in its history, probably long before complex life had time to evolve. So it's probably highly unlikely anything as advanced as a mollusk could have evolved, That being said, the fact that there was probably never a strong magnetic field might have resulted in a higher radiation flux and possibly more mutations and faster evolution. I think there is still life there. We are sampling such a small area of the planet it's hard to reach conclusions.

reply to post by DJW001



Honestly, the un-highlighted 'ammonite' stands out easily and is pretty obviously differentiated from its surroundings even on first glance.

Thank you. That 'ammonite' is awfully asymmetrical, don't you think?

In comparison to most Earth fossils perhaps...although this isn't Earth, and as far as i know, there are as yet no Mars ammonite specialists available to describe what lines of symmetry is typical for an ancient Martian ammonite..unless you know the email address of one?

MysterX

 

In comparison to most Earth fossils perhaps...although this isn't Earth, and as far as i know, there are as yet no Mars ammonite specialists available to describe what lines of symmetry is typical for an ancient Martian ammonite..unless you know the email address of one?

As previously mentioned in the potentials thread, the typical symmetry of ammonites is that of a logarithmic spiral. In the pic below we see a nautilus cutaway (left) and a golden spiral (right):


That's what the shape should correspond to if we assume it's a snail or ammonite kind of fossil. Erosion (eg. weathering & concretions) would certainly distort any such imprint to some extent. Yet, IMO, this particular find seems to be among the best matches we currently have to spiral-like fossil imprints on Mars.

reply to post by jeep3r


Thanks jeep3r.

I was more or less pointing out that a) This is only being described as an 'ammonite' so as to give us a common frame of reference to aid in seeing the thing, because it resembles an Earth ammonite and b) there's not much to be gained in rubbishing the OP about symmetry, compared to what we know of Earth ammonites, when we know nothing about what symmetry a Martian fossil ammonite ought to take.

We can easily assume it should follow the patterns and ratios we see here on Earth, but should we, given that this fossil (if that's what it is) is on a totally alien planet and would follow its own alien rules.

(am i explaining myself properly?..i feel I'm not)

reply to post by MysterX


Yes, shapes could look differently, although we tend to assume that features radiating from a central core or spiral patterns are following the same physics that should apply to Mars as well. But who can tell for sure?

I think we'd have difficulties recognizing or finding sharp & clear imprints of ancient life on Mars (here: complex & macroscopic life) because of what previously happened to the surface of the red planet.

Erosion, massive meteorite impacts & what not would probably have distorted anything beyond recognition, unless we find just the right spot that perhaps didn't get the same exposure to these past events (or some buried rocks ejected by a more recent impact ...), something along those lines.

So I do think the feature in this OP is very interesting (although it could be anything, geologically speaking). Of course, we'd need more images of such features to be sure, and much more 'context' as well as some kind of evidence for a past eco-system on Mars. But hey, this isn't the end of the mission yet so we can all still hope for more ...

reply to post by jeep3r


Some believe that since more of these exact shapes haven't been found (although close ones have) that it means nothing, nothing. But all we usually see are one side of a rock, or a hard place, and there might be dozens of these curvy shells/rocks just around the corner of every rock the rover passes in its relentless pursuit of sand....

I have hopes that the Buttes and especially beyond - upon the rising sediment of Mt. Sharpe - will either put the kettle on the burner or give Aunt Nellie nightmares.

jeep3r
Erosion, massive meteorite impacts & what not would probably have distorted anything beyond recognition, unless we find just the right spot that perhaps didn't get the same exposure to these past events (or some buried rocks ejected by a more recent impact ...), something along those lines.

I don't remember seeing any distorted Earth fossils (either in photos or when I was picking them), after becoming a fossil things either break or erode in the same way other rocks do.

reply to post by ArMaP


Depending on the organism, its complexity and the kind of event that led to its preservation in sedimentary layers, a certain distortion of a fossil's anatomy can certainly take place ... not a single bone or shell, but regarding the overall shape.

It's probably better to avoid the term distortion altogether and, instead, say that the looks of it can change in a way that it's sometimes hard to distinguish between a fossil and other geological features (especially when exposed to forces of erosion, embedded on the surface of a rock).

Aleister
reply to post by jeep3r

 

Some believe that since more of these exact shapes haven't been found (although close ones have) that it means nothing, nothing. But all we usually see are one side of a rock, or a hard place, and there might be dozens of these curvy shells/rocks just around the corner of every rock the rover passes in its relentless pursuit of sand....

Indeed, Aleister, indeed ... hopes are high and several weak indicators (or 'questionable' fossil-like features) could certainly add up to make a stronger case for a past eco-system on the red planet. On the other hand, one crystal clear outline of a recognizable & fossilized organism embedded in a rock on Mars would be enough to start a whole new chapter.

Perhaps that's a bit wishful thinking (at least based on the official images we get), but let's keep our fingers crossed and keep adding to the potentials thread. Perhaps your next find (or blueshift's, funbox's, char-lee's or someone elses contribution) will point to something that had been overlooked ...

reply to post by jeep3r


Something I just noticed looking at funbox's blow-up of the object: the part that seems incomplete, on the left side above the middle, that could easily have been something that broke off or chipped off sometime in the erosion process. If it was already a weak section, and fell off, if we envision it back up there then the piece continues along the curve in a logical and orderly fashion.

Not only that but, if the missing section was complete, the segments seem to continue within it and grow in size as they swing around from the objects "center" all the way to the "end", just as many earth marine-biological forms do.



It certainly seems like a clean-break, and the piece of tiny upraised rock which now can be seen where a missing piece may have been in a perfect spot to have weakened the fossil/rock enough so that it could have pried loose from the rest of the object at some point during its fossilization. (I'm not saying it's a fossil, although it seems to be playing one on TV)

ArMaP

jeep3r
Erosion, massive meteorite impacts & what not would probably have distorted anything beyond recognition, unless we find just the right spot that perhaps didn't get the same exposure to these past events (or some buried rocks ejected by a more recent impact ...), something along those lines.

I don't remember seeing any distorted Earth fossils (either in photos or when I was picking them), after becoming a fossil things either break or erode in the same way other rocks do.

Do you consider this one distorted? The measurements seem to equalize, and grow larger at an appropriate rate. When what I'm calling the missing-piece is visualized, the appropriateness of the potential fossil's dimensions seem to hold up (although there is way to tell what that missing piece looked like aside from surmising a continuation of the curve and dimension).

__________________________

Although this thread has brought this object to further attention of the ATS members, readers, and to those who may be linked to it within social media, at ATS, at least, I don't recall any professional geologist or marine-biologist commenting on or analyzing the object (although those of us here understand that any such analysis would, by the very nature of the beast, utilize eyesight only).

Aleister
Do you consider this one distorted?

Yes, it looks like it was slightly squashed on the sides.

When what I'm calling the missing-piece is visualized, the appropriateness of the potential fossil's dimensions seem to hold up (although there is way to tell what that missing piece looked like aside from surmising a continuation of the curve and dimension).

Maybe that's the problem, as I don't understand your description of the "missing-piece".

reply to post by ArMaP


I'll surmise two missing pieces. The first one is on the left side of the object, just above its mid-point. There is a jagged area in which the background rock can be seen. That's one possible missing piece.

The second one is what makes the right side look squashed. Notice that there is a rock protuberance right up along the whiter objects right side - a piece of rock taller then the object itself. Possible that a piece of the whiter object may have broken off because it was right up against this rock ridge.

Could that taller ridge have come into existence after the white object was formed on the rock they are now both a part of, and thus have cracked off a portion of its right side (in relationship to how we see it) ? Much of the object has well formed and well dimensioned sections, and those two "missing" areas, if continued unobstructed or unbroken, may have continued this shape. In that case it fits the shape surmised as a fossil. But there is no way to know if those areas were ever there to begin with, although if it was a single object its proximity up against the rock outcrop, on its immediate right, precludes the full sweep of the objects curve to appear to us fully complete. What remains of the white object does fit the category of "possible" fossil, imnho, rather than the more common category of "not even close".

Aleister
The second one is what makes the right side look squashed. Notice that there is a rock protuberance right up along the whiter objects right side - a piece of rock taller then the object itself. Possible that a piece of the whiter object may have broken off because it was right up against this rock ridge.

I understand now what you mean, thanks.

But I don't think that happened, as I don't see how more materialbeing added to the rock already with a fossil could break up part of the fossil, for that the added material should come from inside the rock to push part of the fossil and the fossil should be weaker than the bond between itself and the rock, so it could break instead of being separated from the rock.

What remains of the white object does fit the category of "possible" fossil, imnho, rather than the more common category of "not even close".

I don't have a "not even close" category if we are talking about sedimentary rocks.