[Coral-List] Darwin was WRONG about reef formation
Jacki O
northwestpets01 at gmail.com
Mon Oct 19 18:26:27 UTC 2020
Hi Denny, thank you for posting what you found. I love when people
investigate history and share!
~Jacki
Marine Bio student
University of Washington
From: [1]Dennis Hubbard via Coral-List
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 10:51 AM
To: [2]Douglas Fenner
Cc: [3]coral list
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Darwin was WRONG about reef formation
Hi Doug:
Great commentary.... thanks. The whole issue with Darwin's "reef
theory" is
incredibly complex and illustrates how much we as scientists are just
as
fallible as lay folks. It's just my opinion, but I think that part of
the
"controversy" arose from the fact that Darwin chose to publish his
theory
in a book titled "Coral Reefs". It is a wonderful volume but the title
infers that it provides an explanation for all reefs. A long time ago,
I
tracked down a series of papers (mostly in Nature) that were written by
the
big thinkers of the day, including Darwin, Dana, Gieke, Agassiz and a
host
of other excellent geomorphology scholars. The bottom line is that few
agreed with each other (surprise!!). As an interesting sidebar, I spent
some time tracking all the disparate articles by Darwin and his
contemporaries, assuming that they each had their own theories and were
making their arguments in separate venues. On closer examination, I
realized that nearly all the discussions were published in Nature. My
initial assumption was that this was perhaps a special issue on what
was
called the "reef problem". Once I gathered all the papers, I realized
that
they were largely letters to the editor of Nature over a single year
(hence
the common publication dates). Given the location of Nature's
publication
house close to most of the reef workers at the time, I can imagine
these
learned scholars reading each issue, sitting down and composing a
contrary
letter to the editor and walking it over to *Nature*. I bring this up
because it sounds a lot like the Coral Listserve..... you are in good
company.
Denny
On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 8:43 AM Douglas Fenner via Coral-List <
coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> wrote:
> I've just been told by a source that surely knows, that the
Annual
> Reviews are NOT peer reviewed!!!! I am astonished, how can this
be???: So
> beware. I'd suggest that needs to be changed.
> One comment I received said most reefs aren't atolls. I don't
know
> what the count is, but Wikipedia says there are about 440 atolls. No
> theory covers everything in the universe. That is true with Darwin's
> theory of reef formation. His theory applies to reefs on oceanic
> volcanoes, and it doesn't include the theory about sea level changes,
which
> describes very real aspects of coral reef formation which Darwin
didn't
> cover. In addition, the world's three largest barrier reefs, the
Great
> Barrier Reef, the barrier reef of New Caledonia, and the Belize
Barrier
> reef, are all on continental shelves and Darwin's theory does not
apply,
> they did not form because the continents were sinking (New Caledonia
is a
> small fragment of continent). Further, the Caribbean has four atolls
east
> of Belize and Mexico, three in Belize and one in Mexico (Chinchorro
Banks)
> which are on raised continental blocks not volcanoes, and thus the
theory
> doesn't apply to them (Cozumel may become an atoll if sea level rises
> enough, it is similarly on a continental block). I read in Wikipedia
that
> Nicaragua has eight atolls in the Caribbean, my guess is they are
similar.
> And then there are a wide variety of reef shapes that don't fit into
any of
> the three shapes Darwin had in his theory. Patch reefs, faroes, bank
> reefs, etc etc. Atolls aren't always complete rings, there are
crescents
> and a variety of other shapes.
> As an interesting side bar, there is a book entitled "Reef
madness,
> Charles Darwin, Alexander Agassiz, and the meaning of coral" by David
> Dobbs, 2005, Pantheon Books. Recounts the story of how Louis
Agassiz,
> famous biologist at the time, argued that Darwin's theory of natural
> selection was wrong, and of course lost. His son, Alexander Agassiz,
tried
> to avenge his father by proving that Darwin's theory of reef
formation was
> wrong. He was no more successful than his father.
> Even given all that, Darwin's theory would not predict that all
reefs
> would be atolls, unless volcanoes had ceased forming in the oceans
and
> there were no reefs on continental shelves, neither of which are the
case.
> He'd predict reefs in a wide variety of stages from fringing to
barrier to
> atolls on oceanic volcanoes, depending on their age. Which is pretty
much
> what we have. By the way, not only do volcanoes in the ocean
subside, but
> a large part of the loss of material above the water line is due to
> erosion, not subsidence. I live on such a volcano, Tutuila in
American
> Samoa, and erosion is VERY active here in the relatively high
rainfall.
> HUGE volumes of material have been eroded from Tutuila (which is tiny
> compared to the main islands in Hawaii), I estimate cubic MILES of
basalt,
> much of which was weathered into clays and then eroded into the sea.
In
> spite of vast amounts of erosion into the sea, the sediment didn't
kill the
> reefs, they are alive today. Because it has been going on for about
a
> million and a half years, it is slow enough that at any one time the
amount
> of sediment is something the reefs can survive. By and large the
reefs
> look clean today. It is amazing what you can accomplish if you have
enough
> time.
> Darwin didn't know why volcanoes subsided. There are two
processes.
> One is that the growth of a volcano in the ocean puts that weight on
the
> plate on which it stands, which in turn floats on the very viscous
> semi-fluid of hot rocks below the plate, just as continents float
like
> icebergs in the same way in what is called "isostasy". As a result,
as the
> volcano builds, it depresses the plate at that location, much as a
weight
> on a water bed depresses the bed surface where the weight is. Even
small
> islands have surprisingly large volumes, the volume of Tutuila where
I
> live, tiny compared to the main Hawaiian Islands, is over 2000 cubic
> KILOMETERS of basalt rock. Yeow. Some shield volcanoes are
enormous,
> Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea on the Big Island of Hawaii are volcanoes
that are
> not only the world's tallest mountains (tallest from base, not
highest
> tops) and the volume of Mauna Loa alone is greater than the entire
Sierra
> Nevada mountain range in California, I've been told. The volcano
depresses
> the plate underneath it, and so as the volcano builds it also sinks
some.
> I've read that there are fossil reefs on the side of the Big Is of
Hawaii
> that are over 1000 feet deep in the ocean, they formed at the surface
and
> were carried down as the volcano sank. Obviously the volcano builds
faster
> than it sinks usually. The sinking is slow compared to the building
of the
> volcano and so it is always behind and so continues for a while after
the
> volcano ceases erupting. All this happens relatively quickly on a
> geological time scale, it stops in a few million years. This is not
the
> process that produces the reef sequence Darwin outlined, it takes
about 12
> million years at a minimum to produce an atoll. The second process
is that
> the plate itself sinks. The plate is formed at a mountain ridge that
is a
> spreading center, in the Pacific it is in the southeastern Pacfic.
Lava
> erupts at the crest of the mountain range in between two plates that
are
> moving away from each other opening a crack between them. The plate
is
> initially hot and the surface is relatively shallow. The plate then
moves
> away from the spreading center (often at about 7-10 cm a year, about
the
> speed growth of toenails), carrying any volcanoes that form on the
plate
> with it, and as it cools it very slowly sinks. Eventually it reaches
a
> trench, where the plate is subducted down into the earth. Usually a
trench
> is reached within about 100 million years. That might seem like a
long
> time, but the ocean floor is young everywhere compared to most
continental
> material, which can be well over 3 Billion years old in places. The
reef
> carbonate at the bottom of the drill hole, right above the volcanic
basalt
> rock of the volcano it sits on at Einewetak Atoll in the Marshall
Islands
> where an atoll was first drilled, is 60 million years old. This
article is
> talking about atoll formation on the order of a few hundred thousand
> years. That's on top of a stack of carbonate atoll that is up to at
least
> 60 million years old. What they are talking about is relatively
> superficial and young. Which doesn't mean it isn't real, it
certainly is
> very real.
> I await comment from a geologist or anyone who has read the
review
> article, will surely be a while before we hear.
> For an author of a book or annual review, which doesn't get
peer
> review, I'd suggest that in the long term, your reputation will be in
> better condition if you try to get lots of comment voluntarily before
> publishing, to try to avoid the situation the authors of this review
may
> find themselves in, of public criticism by experts in the field. It
is to
> the long term best interests of authors to have peer review, even if
in the
> short term it can be very painful and without it can lead to
significant
> notoriety. Best to avoid the wrong kind of attention in the long
term, by
> getting comments from experts and following their advice where
possible.
> That's just my personal opinion.
> So this will continue to be interesting to see how it unfolds.
> I think there is also a parallel with Darwin's theory of
natural
> selection. Not having read all of Darwin's works, I'd lay a bet he
never
> said that his theory covered everything about evolution. Indeed, he
> himself not only wrote a book on natural selection, but also a
complete
> separate book on sexual selection. A different mechanism, not as
famous,
> as far as I know it is still supported by evidence. It's why male
> peacocks have such giant tails they can barely fly, and why male
seals of
> many species are huge compared to females. He recognized very well
and had
> strong evidence that natural selection was not the whole story. And
it has
> been added to further and probably will continue to be added to. So
there
> is "genetic drift" which is random and in very small populations
genetic
> drift can be more powerful than natural selection. And there is
punctuated
> evolution, sociobiology ("selfish gene") and probably others. Nature
is
> more complicated than any one theory, and coral reefs are especially
> diverse and complicated. None of which proves that Darwin was wrong,
and
> natural selection is still well known to be one of the major drivers
of
> evolution. And of course Wallace came to the same conclusion as
Darwin on
> natural selection at the same time, their first papers were read at
the
> same time, and Steven Jay Gould points out that a forester actually
> outlined natural selection in print well before both of them. But
Darwin
> spelled it out in so much detail with so much supporting evidence in
his
> book "The origin of species" that he became famous and we remember
him as
> the father of evolutionary theory. By the way, there are a few
> evolutionary processes that actually follow Lamarkian evolution, even
> though he was long pilloried for an incorrect theory. The latest is
> "methylation" of DNA, an acquired genetic character that is passed on
to
> subsequent generations. Currently a hot topic.
> Cheers, Doug
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 11:51 AM Douglas Fenner <
> douglasfennertassi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > or so says a new article:
> >
> > Popular piece:
> >
> > Study: Darwin's theory about coral reef atolls is fatally flawed
> >
> >
> >
>
http://news.rice.edu/2020/10/12/study-darwins-theory-about-coral-reef-a
tolls-is-fatally-flawed-2/
> >
> > Original review:
> >
> > The origin of Modern Atolls: Challenging Darwin's Deeply Ingrained
Theory
> >
> >
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-marine-122414-034137
> >
> > My thoughts, based on reading the popular article and the abstract
for
> the
> > review:
> >
> > Yes, if you define an "atoll" as a ring of coral at the surface,
and you
> > carefully ignore that it is on top of an accumulation of up to a
mile of
> > coral reef carbonate, which is in turn on top of a two mile tall
volcano
> > which all the evidence shows has indeed subsided with the ocean
floor
> plate
> > as it moves across the ocean, then yes, sea level fluctuations with
the
> > glaciation cycle are widely acknowledged to affect the coral reef
> > structure. It appears that maybe the new thing in this review is
that
> the
> > present ring is relatively young and built on top of the raised
ring left
> > from low sea level stands when rainwater was dissolving the
carbonate in
> > the center of the ring. Actually, I don't think even that is new,
though
> > their being a flat topped bank in between time may be new. This is
a
> > further embellishment on top of the Darwin theory, NOT a disproof
of his
> > theory, which is heavily documented. The argument back then was
whether
> > there was a volcano under the carbonate, which drilling proved was
> correct
> > and is no longer in doubt.
> > Perhaps by reading the entire review it will be clear that the
> review
> > isn't saying that Darwin was wrong about subsidence and a volcano
being
> > under the carbonate, or that there was a sequence from fringing to
> barrier,
> > to atoll, but even the title of the review implies it is. But of
course
> > you attract a lot more attention saying that "Darwin was wrong."
> > What do geologists think?
> > Cheers, Doug
> >
> >
> > --
> > Douglas Fenner
> > Lynker Technologies, LLC, Contractor
> > NOAA Fisheries Service
> > Pacific Islands Regional Office
> > Honolulu
> > and:
> > Coral Reef Consulting
> > PO Box 7390
> > Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA
> >
> > "Don't think of it as the warmest month of August in California in
the
> > last century. Think of it as one of the coolest months of August in
> > California in the next century."
> > <
>
https://nature.us17.list-manage.com/track/click?u=2c6057c528fdc6f73fa19
6d9d&id=38d5d14948&e=190a62d266
> >
> >
> > The toxic effects of air pollution are so bad that moving from
fossil
> > fuels to clean energy would pay for itself in health-care savings
and
> > productivity gains
> > <
>
https://nature.us17.list-manage.com/track/click?u=2c6057c528fdc6f73fa19
6d9d&id=c9f70ba54f&e=190a62d266>
> --
> > even if climate change didn't exist. In the US alone,
decarbonization
> > would save 1.4 MILLION lives in the US alone. And save $700
Billion a
> > year.
> >
> >
>
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/8/12/21361498/climate-c
hange-air-pollution-us-india-china-deaths
> >
> > "Already, more people die
<http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats.shtml
> >from
> > heat-related causes in the U.S. than from all other extreme weather
> events
> > ."
> >
> >
>
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/09/624643780/phoenix-tries-to-reverse-its-s
ilent-storm-of-heat-deaths
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
--
Dennis Hubbard - Emeritus Professor: Dept of Geology-Oberlin College
Oberlin OH 44074
(440) 935-4014
* "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"*
Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*"
_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
References
1. mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
2. mailto:douglasfennertassi at gmail.com
3. mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
More information about the Coral-List
mailing list