Evolving Rocks 172
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.'"
The Galaxy Quest 'Rock Monster'? (Score:2, Interesting)
(Cue the F4 'Thing' jokes too...)
Re:The Galaxy Quest 'Rock Monster'? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Misuse of words (Score:2, Interesting)
I no longer recall whether I read this in one of Dawkins' books or somewhere else, but it seems that organic mollecules evolved (at least in part) as a by-product of "mineral life", i.e. replicating crystals in the soil.
My terminology may be off as it is not my immediate area of expertise and I've read it a while back, but I think that this is one of the reasons Dawkins was so ready to suggest memes as another form of life.
Re:ugh (Score:0, Interesting)
What is everyone talking about? It looks exactly the same as it has for quite some time. Firefox 3.0.4/NoScript/AdBlockPlus here, although it's irritating that they've changed the user preferences layout..
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.
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.
Re:Evolution is change over time (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 took a stand on rocks :) At least not while I was there.
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 evidence.
Re:No its worse than that (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm waiting for PETR (People for the Ethical Treatment of Rocks) to be formed. Who would question another club with which to bludgeon the mining industry?
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.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Gee... Thanks... (Score:3, Interesting)
Brace for more creationist idiots.