Earth's mineralogy unique in the cosmos

originally posted by: Noromyxo
Fascinating article, thanks for posting.
I had no idea that biological processes were so linked to mineral creation.
a reply to: Triton1128

Me neither. I'd be happy with myself if I retained what I learned. Biology is responsible for 2/3's of all the 5000+ minerals we've produced since the early solar system--starting at a mere dozen or thereabout. And hte combination of minerals is unique. If the Earth restarted anew, the combination would be different. It's like how people are different from each other, kind of? We say we're equal, but there're "small" differences. These differences don't just stem from DNA but from environment (or nurture).

a reply to: TrueBrit

That was close to my knee-jerk reaction as well but I'm not so sure after considering the article.

If I built a fully functioning and evolving earth on the table, I'd expect a repeatable and fairly uniform result to the experiment. It didn't occur to me at first that microscopic traces of unreacted, adulterated, or otherwise unusual ingredients in the experiment would be the size of a mountain on a real planet.

And it wasn't until you said it had no relation to the probability of aliens existing that it occurred to me it might change the probability of aliens coming by to take samples.

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that there is or was a bacteria somewhere at some point that changed the way pourous rock evolves as aquifers are depleted, maybe causing the void space in what would normally become a sink hole to instead accumulate a deposit of pretty pebbles that would make good jewelry. I can imagine how even if we could get to other stars it might be easier to just go pick up some of that stuff than to design it ourselves or to make our cities levitate over sink holes.

I think this has an impact on how we should see the drake equation because it suggests both a new motive that might cause a civilization to exist in more places (which may extend their longevity beyond that of one star) and it opens the possibility that even when we are too late to actually see traces of extra terrestrial life that we may be able to prove it once existed based on geology, which would allow us to fill in some time variables in that equation with enough study.

From the article:

"Minerals follow the same kind of frequency of distribution as words in a book," Hazen explained. "For example, the most-used words in a book are extremely common such as 'and,' 'the,' and 'a.' Rare words define the diversity of a book's vocabulary. The same is true for minerals on Earth. Rare minerals define our planet's mineralogical diversity."

The whole article makes sense from a common sense perspective. Meaning that it makes all the tech-speak from a specific field easy understand by using words the average person can understand.

Okay.......now that I've got the days irony out of the way.......

I think this discovery can do wonders in helping us understand not only our own planet, but others as well, and then the corresponding equalities or differences that they all share. This in turn can help us understand our own place in it all.........

Where does the earth fit in to the whole equation?

Where do WE fit in to the whole equation?

I don't know why, but I think that's an important step for us to take.

originally posted by: Triton1128

originally posted by: Trueman
a reply to: Triton1128

To believe a planet is unique is wrong unless you know the entire universe and all the parallel universes too.

That's "a personal opinion". Which is fine. But it does not belong on the same playing field as "the Carnegie Institution" specializing in mineralogy.

** to note: its posts like yours that cause this site to be filled with "assumptions". Have we actually proved "parallel universes exist yet?"

I belive he makes a good point.
If a human lives on a iland.
should he belive hes the only human left on earth?

they (NASA and the rest)
have No idead about the other planets.
maybe a little about Mars and Venus.
with stars they now only a little.

if you pick up a rock
do you think ALL rocks are the same.
and dont trough rocks.

a reply to: Triton1128

I don't know what to think of the idea that we are unique. Part of me thinks that the exact steps taken by Earth that created all the minerals cannot be replicated exactly.
However in an infinite universe would it not be inevitable that nothing will be unique as every possible combination under every possible condition will be achieved again and again. What would happen when every possible mineral variation occurred? Would everything end?
The monkeys with typewriters writing the works of Shakespeare jumps to mind.

Basically I FEEL that nothing is unique. This idea of uniqueness is a psychological mechanism to create purpose in one life. The world would be a strange place if everyone knew that there were many versions of them. Would it create a negative effect or would it create motivation to be so unique that it will take a longer time to duplicate.

My head hurts.

originally posted by: Triton1128

originally posted by: Trueman
a reply to: Triton1128

To believe a planet is unique is wrong unless you know the entire universe and all the parallel universes too.

That's "a personal opinion". Which is fine. But it does not belong on the same playing field as "the Carnegie Institution" specializing in mineralogy.

** to note: its posts like yours that cause this site to be filled with "assumptions". Have we actually proved "parallel universes exist yet?"

So your rebuttal is an assumption, based off an assumption. Its absurd.

Say : "All the planets are different", is an assumption.

My "personal opinion" has more common sense than that Carnegie's research.

Don't believe all they tell you just because they are more educated than you. Ask proof (which in this case is impossible to provide).

I predict you will stand with 2 fists to defend your ideas.

a reply to: wildespace
You have raised a very interesting question. Certainly, amino acids and other hydrocarbons are a prerequisite for the origination of life, but perhaps some rare mineral also played a role. One example might be that only a certain type of mineral could be a substrate upon which early DNA could latch. Probably you can think up others.

a reply to: Glassbender777
If I was tasked to estimate the number of undiscovered minerals, I would make a chart of the number of new minerals discovered each year divided by an estimate of the number of people who are looking for them. If this curve, smoothed to fit something like N[1-exp(-at)], with N and a to be determined by a best fit, was well correlated with the fit, then N would be an estimate of the total number of minerals, and N-Nx, where Nx is the number determined to date, would be the number of yet undiscovered ones. There are probably better ways, but that's my 2 minute solution.

originally posted by: Darkblade71
a reply to: Urantia1111


Earth is very special.

We are here, and that makes it so.
Although I get what you are saying.

But others may be out there and the mere fact that we are here makes that highly probable.

originally posted by: StanFL
a reply to: wildespace
You have raised a very interesting question. Certainly, amino acids and other hydrocarbons are a prerequisite for the origination of life, but perhaps some rare mineral also played a role. One example might be that only a certain type of mineral could be a substrate upon which early DNA could latch. Probably you can think up others.

Very good point (so I gave you a star). However there is nothing we currently know to suggest that. In fact research tends to point in the opposite direction.

a reply to: The Vagabond
Thanks for posting. Your post sent me off to learn a bit about the origin of minerals. I found it was mostly about the cooling of magma, with different minerals precipitating out separately. I didn't see how the earth could have unique ones, though.

a reply to: JadeStar

That doesn't make us any less special.


Just a special kind of special...

Having always beaten another drum when it comes to life in the universe because although I don't think it doesn't exist its just that I have always doubted it doesn''t exist as we would know it, recognise it and equate to it. I shall sleep better tonight knowing that I might just have been thinking differently and may not have been wrong about my instinct on this.

a reply to: Darkblade71

Everyone and everything is special in their own special way.
You get a gold star. And you. And you too.
(hmm. It's a green star. Never mind)

Please note that while the thread title uses the word "unique", the article uses the term "rare". And in the incomprehensibly vast universe, "rare" is all over the place.

originally posted by: Trueman

originally posted by: Triton1128

originally posted by: Trueman
a reply to: Triton1128

To believe a planet is unique is wrong unless you know the entire universe and all the parallel universes too.

That's "a personal opinion". Which is fine. But it does not belong on the same playing field as "the Carnegie Institution" specializing in mineralogy.

** to note: its posts like yours that cause this site to be filled with "assumptions". Have we actually proved "parallel universes exist yet?"

So your rebuttal is an assumption, based off an assumption. Its absurd.

Say : "All the planets are different", is an assumption.

My "personal opinion" has more common sense than that Carnegie's research.

Don't believe all they tell you just because they are more educated than you. Ask proof (which in this case is impossible to provide).

I predict you will stand with 2 fists to defend your ideas.

Nah. I prefer civilized debates. I agree with the multi-verse theory. But I don't use it as verified proof to back up an idea. Not until we can verify that they do exist. I love the idea, and to me it makes more sense then one big balloon expanding and deflating over and over.

We've discovered / cataloged just about 2000 exo planets. We can also spectral analyze their light to determine what sort of atmosphere.. composition.. they consist of.

As of yet. Earth, our home. IS the ONLY planet yet to contain both oxygen / nitrogen / and vasts amount of water in a region that is warm enough to allow liquid water to remain liquid.

So at what point do you determine something unique?

IF 5 planets out of 5000 are identical to Earth.. does that still make those 5 unique?

What if only 1 in 1,000,000 are like Earth does that make it unique?

Its not like 500 of the 2000 planets we've discovered are like Earth, so going with what we know. It DOES appear that Earth does hold a degree of uniqueness.

Again.. I'm going at this logically. Assumptions aside. I'm only using what we've verified up to date. Not to say next month we might discover some region that contains thousands of Earth like plants, but up until today .. 8/30/2015. Earth, from our point of view. Does seem unique.

originally posted by: Triton1128


Don't kill the messenger.

I'm just sharing an article "I found" to be interesting.

I share that rationale... but there is an implied notion that the underlying premise is elevating the planet Earth to a glorified station in the scheme of things....
religion used to have that bias also, 'the center-of-the-universe', 'Earth Centric' etc.


there are likely other rocky planets with liquid water, in the goldilocks orbit zone, having a similar size-density-gravitation even a mostly nitrogen atmosphere combined with numerous other gasses (including a catalyst such as oxygen)
in this cosmos..... which might be a similar enough laboratory or crucible in which to combine variations of elements to create the same variety of minerals we have on Earth....

Mars & Venus are two examples to take a lesson from on the extreme differences of the mineral landscape from that of Earth... even though Mars/Venus might well be within the range of size & distance from the Sun to have possibly become Earth's almost twin at some point in history or in a future time

I think the message here is that every planet -- not just Earth -- has a unique (or extremely rare) combination of minerals.

So Earth may be just like every other planet in that way. Pick a planet out at random, and its combination of minerals will probably be unique (or extremely rare) in the cosmos.

a reply to: Triton1128

The minerology of < insert country > is unique - and not duplicated anywhere else on this planet

it kind of puts the usefulness of this study in perpective

originally posted by: Triton1128

originally posted by: Trueman

originally posted by: Triton1128

originally posted by: Trueman
a reply to: Triton1128

To believe a planet is unique is wrong unless you know the entire universe and all the parallel universes too.

That's "a personal opinion". Which is fine. But it does not belong on the same playing field as "the Carnegie Institution" specializing in mineralogy.

** to note: its posts like yours that cause this site to be filled with "assumptions". Have we actually proved "parallel universes exist yet?"

So your rebuttal is an assumption, based off an assumption. Its absurd.

Say : "All the planets are different", is an assumption.

My "personal opinion" has more common sense than that Carnegie's research.

Don't believe all they tell you just because they are more educated than you. Ask proof (which in this case is impossible to provide).

I predict you will stand with 2 fists to defend your ideas.

Nah. I prefer civilized debates. I agree with the multi-verse theory. But I don't use it as verified proof to back up an idea. Not until we can verify that they do exist. I love the idea, and to me it makes more sense then one big balloon expanding and deflating over and over.

We've discovered / cataloged just about 2000 exo planets. We can also spectral analyze their light to determine what sort of atmosphere.. composition.. they consist of.

As of yet. Earth, our home. IS the ONLY planet yet to contain both oxygen / nitrogen / and vasts amount of water in a region that is warm enough to allow liquid water to remain liquid.

So at what point do you determine something unique?

IF 5 planets out of 5000 are identical to Earth.. does that still make those 5 unique?

What if only 1 in 1,000,000 are like Earth does that make it unique?

Its not like 500 of the 2000 planets we've discovered are like Earth, so going with what we know. It DOES appear that Earth does hold a degree of uniqueness.

Again.. I'm going at this logically. Assumptions aside. I'm only using what we've verified up to date. Not to say next month we might discover some region that contains thousands of Earth like plants, but up until today .. 8/30/2015. Earth, from our point of view. Does seem unique.

We have no spectra for analysis of terrestrial planets only gas giants, ice giants and hot superearths.

Until we have the spectra of 500 habitable zone terrestrial planets any talk of Earths uniqueness is highly premature.

Based on Kepler data, there are certainly billions of other planets the size of the earth in habitable zones in our galaxy.

The nearest ones (which can be analyzed) await discovery and characterization over the next two decades. That is why missions like TESS, the James Webb Space Telescope, PLATO and huge ground based telescopes like the E-ELT, TMT etc are important.

All we have so far is the most basic information on terrestrial sized exoplanets.

We do not have the tools to say much else right now but that will start to change with the launch of TESS in 2017 and JWST in 2018.