Slashdot Log In
Evolving Rocks
Posted by
kdawson
on Wednesday November 26, @08:02AM
from the survival-of-the-firmest dept.
from the survival-of-the-firmest dept.
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.'"
Related Stories
Evolving Rocks
More |
Login
| Reply
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
its life Jim (Score:5, Funny)
but not as we know it?
Reply to This
Misuse of words (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Reply to This
Re:Misuse of words (Score:4, Informative)
Misuse of words it isn't. Saying rocks evolve is like saying technology evolves : of course it doesn't do it by itself, but it does nonetheless.
Reply to This
Parent
No its worse than that (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
Reply to This
Parent
Even worst still... (Score:3, Interesting)
he is part of the ID crew.
According to this article:
http://cgc.rncan.gc.ca/dir/index_e.php?id=14970&_h=bleeker [rncan.gc.ca]
He went to the "Free University of Amsterdam".
A theology school.
http://www.godgeleerdheid.vu.nl/english/index.cfm [godgeleerdheid.vu.nl]
I can get a Phd in Theology in 5 minutes on the internet, and yes it would qualify as a 'Doctorate'. Because, you know, religion always gets a special pass.
Maybe I misread, or miss interpreted some information...I certianly hope so.
I did notice he offers no falsifiable tests or eviden
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He went to the "Free University of Amsterdam".
A theology school.
I can get a Phd in Theology in 5 minutes on the internet, and yes it would qualify as a 'Doctorate'. Because, you know, religion always gets a special pass.
I think that the Free University of Amsterdam is a "theological school" in approximately the same way that Harvard University is a "Congregationalist seminary"; i.e., not much any more. Of course, I've never been to either.
Besides, his doctorate is not in theology, and his C.V. seems to indicate that his peers approve of his work. As for "falsifiable tests or evidence", I wouldn't expect to find that in a news service article in the Vancouver Sun.
And while non-accredited degrees can be obtained quickly and
Re:No its worse than that (Score:4, Insightful)
But "evolved" does mean changed. It is the biologists who have specialized the word far more tightly than its original meaning, not the other way around. Just because biological evolution by means of heredity and natural selection is on our minds doesn't mean that is the exclusive meaning of the word.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:No its worse than that (Score:5, Interesting)
If you bother to RTFA, they say that the earth's mineralogy and crustal composition has changed and is affected by biology.
Yes, and this is not news. This would have been news in 1908,
maybe, so as news this is at least century late, probably more.
Now, the America Heritage Dictionary says
evolve
v. tr.
To develop or achieve gradually: evolve a style of one's own.
To work (something) out; devise: "the schemes he evolved to line his purse" (S.J. Perelman).
Biology To develop (a characteristic) by evolutionary processes.
To give off; emit.
Are the rocks developing this gradually ? Are they working out how to adapt to changing oxygen levels ? No. This is like saying "As Christmas approaches, the mall parking lot will evolve to be full of cars." It is a misuse of words (which is different from saying that it is wrong).
Given the politicization of biology, this misuse of words makes me suspicious, but it is more probably just over-enthusiasm.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Misuse of words (Score:4, Funny)
Give 'em a break, they study ROCKS for pete's sake.
This is as exciting as it gets for them.
Reply to This
Parent
A good read, if you are interested. (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's a paper from 2003 that is an excellent read, if you are really interested in a very strong, coherent, and comprehensive hypothesis of the change from geochemistry to biochemistry, that is, abiogenesis:
In a nutshell, it offers a hypothesis of life having evolved in FeS and NiS deposits around ancient deep sea geothermal vents. The nature of such rocks is that they form small compartments which acted as "cell walls" to hold early biomolecules in such concentrations to be able to begin biochemistry. Over time, the biochemistry for lipid synthesis began, at which point eubacteria and archaebacteria diverged as they evolved very different mechanisms for making lipid membranes. This gave rise to the first free life forms, prokaryotic bacteria. It is then further hypothesized that Eukaryotes evolved from archaebacteria involved in a symbiotic relationship which became endosymbiotic with a eubacteria that eventually became mitochondria. And so on and so forth. Read the paper. It lays it all out very well and the hypothesis seems to fit very well with available data, both in the geologic record and the phylogenies of various modern archaebacteria, eubacteria, and eukaryotes.
It is perhaps the most coherent, comprehensive, well-supported treatment of the idea of abiogenesis I have ever read.
Reply to This
Parent
evolution-shmevolution (Score:5, Funny)
Reply to This
One Scientist trying to convince the other... (Score:4, Funny)
"Dr. Smith, we want you to study this rock."
"OK, what am I looking for?"
"Well, we believe that it's changing."
"Ahhhhh....Right. OK, would you mind passing me some of that good stuff you're smoking? Rather obvious at this point I'm gonna need some too."
Reply to This
Re:One Scientist trying to convince the other... (Score:5, Funny)
"Dr. Smith, we want you to study this rock."
"Silence, you blundering, bubble-headed boobie!"
Reply to This
Parent
I see what they did there (Score:4, Insightful)
Thereby neatly summarizing why it's idiotic to call this process "evolution".
But, holy shit! Earth's mineral composition changes over time? And here I thought that the obvious hypothesis was that it has remained completely unchanged over the last couple of billion years.
Reply to This
On A Serious Note (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder, is evolution, really at a fundamental level, the inverse of entropy?
If entropy, as a concept, is the movement from an ordered state to a disordered state then evolution is the concept of moving from a lower ordered state to a higher or more advanced\structured state. (The whole entropy is a measurement issue)
If things can evolve from basic to complex then doesn't that impact the concepts of our universe decaying into a cool nothingness?
Just a passing thought is all...
Reply to This
No,it isn't (Score:4, Informative)
First of all, entropy only increases with time in what is called a closed system. Nothing in, nothing out. If I mix water and salt, I increase the entropy (there are more ways the atoms can be arranged, in effect.) But if I am allowed to bring in energy from outside, I can fix this. I could boil the mixture in a flask, asnd condense the steam. Now I have the water and the salt separated again, but only because I fed "high grade" heat energy in, and I removed "low grade" heat energy from the steam. The water and salt have lost entropy, but the heat source and sink show a net gain. Overall, it can be shown that the entropy gained by the heat source alwasy exceeds the entropy lsot by the water/salt solution.
In the same way, life on Earth can use high grade energy from the Sun to reduce entropy locally, but that energy then has to be re-radiated as low grade energy, with a net gain in entropy. (If the energy wasn't re-radiated, the Earth would get hotter and hotter, gaining entropy. There is no fix for this.)
However, there is an additional point. Evolution does NOT mean evolving from a lower to a more organised state. You need to read Jay Gould on this, he explains it very well. But, in a nutshell, suppose that as a result of human or other activity the earth became unsuitable for any life forms other than high temperature sulfur bacteria. Evolution would ensure that bacteria evolved to fill this ecological niche and more complex lifeforms died out. This is the "survival of the fittest", which does not mean "survival of those with the biggest muscles".
Life maintains itself by keeping down its local entropy. It does this by, in effect, causing entropy to increase somewhere else and then getting rid of the high entropy "waste products", ultimately into space.
In doing so, life may cause geological changes by e.g. depositing calcarious skeletons in rivers and seabeds, or changing the atmosphere and rainfall patterns. You could say that some rocks are INVOLVED in the evolutionary process, and to that extent at least the article is correct.
Reply to This
Parent
Evolution is change over time (Score:5, Informative)
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.)
Reply to This
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For what little it's worth around here, I used to belong to one of those churches in my youth. This is the part that they do not object to.
They do believe in adaptation - that a species changes over time due to natural selection. But they do not believe in evolution - that one species changes into another (as in monkey to human).
No, they never t
Rock Lobster!! (Score:3, Funny)
We were at the beach
Everybody had matching towels
Somebody went under a dock
And there they saw a rock
It wasn't a rock
It was a rock lobster
Along the lines of evolution and rock, man didn't evolve from The Monkeys, he evolved from The Beatles!!!
Reply to This
And In Other News .... (Score:3, Funny)
*
Scientists are still unsure whether the common European Swallow has a sufficient airspeed velocity to assist in coconut migration.
Reply to This
Gee... Thanks... (Score:3, Interesting)
Brace for more creationist idiots.
Reply to This
Re:But where did it go? (Score:5, Funny)
They turned into Dwayne Johnson [wikipedia.org]
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So we're not 2nd generation? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [wikipedia.org] (related to oxygenation of the atmosphere - oxygen produced by photosynthesis), siliceous ooze [wikipedia.org] and chalk [wikipedia.org] (made of the bodies of planktonic organisms), soils [wikipedia.org] 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.
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Calling it "evolution" is a mistake, because there's no appreciable way an arbitrary collection of minerals can evolve in the same way that, say, life forms evolve. It's like saying poop evolves. It doesn't. It changes solely due to external influences. Evolution is a response to internal as well as external influences, and that's what makes it special.
But hey: geology is pretty simplistic. They've got to have something to crow about.