The emerging field of "mineral evolution" strikes me as highly promising for understanding Earth’s history. What are your views?

[u/Fede-m-olveira]

As a geology student, during an advanced mineralogy lecture, I was introduced to the work of Hazen et al. titled Mineral Evolution. Their framework proposes that terrestrial mineral diversity is not static but has instead increased incrementally over 4.5 billion years, driven by the dynamic interplay of geological processes (e.g., plate tectonics), global geochemical shifts (such as the Great Oxidation Event), and crucially, the influence of life. A paradigmatic example is clay minerals, whose complexity is directly linked to biological activity.

The model, elaborated in publications such as Mineral Evolution (Hazen et al., 2008) and Clay Mineral Evolution (Hazen et al., 2012), has garnered significant interest among mineralogists. It is no coincidence that Hazen has been honoured with distinctions such as the Roebling Medal (2016) and the Mineralogical Association’s Medal of Excellence in Mineralogical Research (2021).

However, I interested to know whether substantive critiques or alternative perspectives to Hazen’s model exist in the literature. While I have yet to encounter systematic counterarguments, this does not preclude their existence. I would be grateful if anyone could direct me to such studies.

What are your thoughts on this integrative approach to mineralogy? Do you consider it a robust framework for reconciling geological, biological, and planetary processes, or does it risk overextending its theoretical scope?

Edit: The thing about the name, just a personal reflection, is that I think it can be a bit confusing at times. When I talk to people outside the field of geology about how interested I am in mineral evolution, they often imagine something completely different. That’s why I have some doubts about the term. I even had a situation with a faculty member in my program who didn’t take my mention of mineral evolution very seriously. But maybe it’s just a matter of explaining more clearly what the concept actually means.

[u/loki130]

I think the basic idea is probably sound, and at a very basic level it makes sense that if you start with a fairly homogeneous planet and then start making minerals that can be metamorphised or alterred to other minerals you will gain more mineral diversity over time even before accounting for shifts in tectonics or biology. But yeah in a sense the name isnt doing it any favors, a lot of people even in academia forget that "evolution" can have a non-darwinian meaning, and it might get confused with some variant abiogenesis models involved pre-genetic evolution in proteins or clay minerals.

[u/horsetuna]

I like the idea. Have you read Hazens other book on it?

It's definitely a good premise I think for understanding earth and planetary evolution... Certain minerals can't exist without certain conditions etc .