Slashdot Mirror
Evolving Rocks
SpaceAdmiral notes a new study making the claim that rocks have been evolving throughout Earth's history. "'Mineral evolution is obviously different from Darwinian evolution — minerals don't mutate, reproduce or compete like living organisms,' said Hazen in a statement announcing the study's findings. 'But we found both the variety and relative abundances of minerals have changed dramatically over more than 4.5 billion years of Earth's history. For at least 2.5 billion years, and possibly since the emergence of life, Earth's mineralogy has evolved in parallel with biology,' Hazen added. 'One implication of this finding is that remote observations of the mineralogy of other moons and planets may provide crucial evidence for biological influences beyond Earth.'"
but not as we know it?
What a misuse of terms.
Our Earth's surface is overwhelmingly shaped by biology - most of the surface carbon, for example (which on Venus is in the atmosphere) is in carbonate rocks, like limestone. There are whole island chains (coral atolls) made biologically. Soil results from biological processes (in fact, I would suspect that soil has evolved over time, as the organisms that make it have evolved). The marble in our public buildings results from biology (and metamorphism).
Could this be used to look for extra-terrestrial life ? Sure. Does this mean that the rocks are evolving ? No.
They turned into Dwayne Johnson
There ain't no monkeys in MY pet rock's family tree!
No its worse than that. They are using "evolved" to mean changed. Its like saying that spring evolves into summer, or a newspaper of paper mache.
It won't be long before the "Intelligent Design" crew start bringing up evolving rocks to show that "evolutionists don't know what they are talking about".
"Dr. Smith, we want you to study this rock."
"Silence, you blundering, bubble-headed boobie!"
Vincent J. Murphy
Spandex Justice
There's nothing in the article saying that. It's just the usual, overly dramatic journalistic nonsense.
And I don't even understand the point of the article. *Chemical* evolution / differentiation of the minerals making up the Earth is a fundamental understanding. How could you not appreciate it when you've got a Great Barrier Reef composed of many cubic kilometres of limestone, there are thousands of comparable examples past and present, and that's only one example of the linkage? Banded iron formations (related to oxygenation of the atmosphere - oxygen produced by photosynthesis), siliceous ooze and chalk (made of the bodies of planktonic organisms), soils in vegetated areas (e.g., affected by organic acids and sediment trapping by roots) -- there are all sorts of areas of interaction, especially because the atmosphere and waters of the Earth are so profoundly influenced by life. And even in the non-biological realm chemical differentiation is why the Earth has a crust and mantle, or why the crust of the continents and oceans is different in composition, for example. People have realized molten rocks and weathered surface sediments experience predictable chemical changes over time, with and without the presence of life, for almost as long as geology has existed as a science.
I'm sure there is something genuinely new in the scientific paper, but the way it's expressed in the press article is awful. It makes it sound like this is something geologists have never thought about or appreciated before.
The one that the ID-ists object to is Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection-- that is, the theory of the mechanism of that change in living beings.
(and, of course, the hardline creationist object to the fact that living beings change over time, since God created them all exactly as they are now. Except for the snakes, which were originally created with legs-- that's a special case. I don't think that they have any particular problem with the idea of rock types changing, though.)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com