[Coral-List] Darwin was WRONG about reef formation

Bill Allison allison.billiam at gmail.com
Tue Oct 20 15:20:48 UTC 2020


I take issue with the description of Dobbs's book as "great". Just as
Alexander Agassiz seemed bent on using "the coral reef problem" as a means
of avenging his father's defeat by Darwin, so Dobbs seems to be bent on
rehabilitating Alexander after Davis's 1928 review of the problem in which
Alexander was critiqued, Dobbs misrepresenting Davis to do so.

On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 10:56 AM William Precht <william.precht at gmail.com>
wrote:

> *Darwin and Atoll Formation*
>
> Many years ago I was in a debate about the origin of Florida's coral reefs
> with some colleagues -
> I used many papers by T. Wayland Vaughan in my argument.  Using the Darwin
> mosel of reef formation - the response I got back was as follows:
>
> "*Although Vaughan was bright and savvy, he was not always right. For
> example, because of the shape, Vaughan (1914), called the Dry Tortugas an
> atoll. By convention and consensus, an atoll is a reef superimposed on a
> subsiding volcano. Dry Tortugas does not meet these criteria."*
>
> My response to this comment goes back to the historical discussions of
> this argument and follows below:
>
> Much of the original work that systematically described the geology and
> the organisms found in and around the coral reefs of the Florida Keys was
> reported in a series of publications by T. Wayland Vaughan (1909, 1910,
> 1911, 1912, 1914a, 1914b, 1914c, 1914d, 1915a, 1915b, 1916, 1918, 1919).
> Much of this seminal work stands to this day for its insightfulness and
> incredible accuracy.
>
>
> The indictment of citing Vaughan’s work as being 'incorrect' deserves
> attention.  For instance, Vaughan (1914) correctly interpreted the Tortugas
> to be an atoll of constructional phenomena owing their configuration to the
> prevailing winds and currents (also discussed in Shinn et al. 1989).
>
> Based on his subsidence theory of atoll development, Darwin (1842)
> believed that there were no true atolls in the Atlantic. Interestingly,
> Darwin never visited the Caribbean and in the First Edition of his book, *On
> the Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs*, he downplayed the
> importance of coral reefs in the New World altogether.
>
> Today, however, most reef scientists define an *atoll* following the
> terminology in McNeil (1954) as "...an annular reef enclosing a lagoon in
> which there are no promontories other than reefs and [islets] composed of
> reef detritus" and Fairbridge (1950) "...in an exclusively morphological
> sense, [as] ...a ring-shaped ribbon reef enclosing a lagoon in the center."
>
>
> Atoll comes from a very specific administrative Maldivian term that has
> been inadequately used to only designate annular-shaped reef structures in
> the Pacific.  By defining an atoll by its intended geomorphic form rather
> than by origin (a ringlike coral island and reef that nearly or entirely
> encloses a lagoon. [Maldivian *atolu*; probably akin to Sinhalese *ätul*,
> interior [from the interior lagoon]), atolls have been described for all
> tropical oceans basins and there have been at least 15 atolls recognized in
> the coral reef literature for the Caribbean (see papers by Milliman,
> Stoddart; Gischler, Carricart-Ganivet and Beltrán-Torres 1998; van der
> land; Diaz et al.; ) including those of the Dry Tortugas (Vaughan 1914;
> Shinn et al. 1977; 1989).  None of these Caribbean atolls conform to the
> classic Darwinian mode of formation that was based entirely on observations
> from the Pacific (French Polynesia).  In fact, much of the discussion of
> coral reef theory has been waged over the interpretation of these relations
> (see Dobbs 2005) and many of these continue (see Smith 1971, for a dated
> but excellent review). It is precisely the fact that Caribbean atolls were
> fundamentally different from their Pacific counterparts that led Vaughan to
> seek an alternative explanation. As Ladd (1950) pointed out “the more that
> is discovered about the geological history of any reef or reef-encircled
> island, the more complicated its history appears.” There is certainly no
> convention or consensus that *all* atolls are “*reef*[s]* superimposed on
> a subsiding volcano.”  *
>
> *So let's all give Darwin a break - and also his due.*
>
> As Bill Allison noted - the press release is the thing that spurred this
> debate.  Darwin wasn't wrong - especially from the examples he saw in
> French Polynesia.  It's just more complicated than most introductory texts
> on reef formation lead us to believe.
>
> For those interested in reading a great book about the orgins of the Atoll
> debate get your hands on "Reef Madness: Charles Darwin, Alexander
> Agassiz, and the Meaning of Coral." By David Dobbs. Pantheon, 320pp.
> Publication Date: January 4, 2005
>
> http://daviddobbs.net/smoothpebbles/darwins-first-theory-of-evolution/
>
> enjoy
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 8:13 AM Bill Allison via Coral-List <
> coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> wrote:
>
>> I have read the paper. It does not claim that Darwin's coral reef theory
>> was "fatally flawed" although it does little to discourage that
>> interpretation.  It seems to be focused on coral reefs and atolls
>> sprouting
>> atop carbonate banks and does not seem to address evidence such as almost
>> atolls on subsiding volcanoes (e.g., Bora Bora) and does not consider the
>> origins of the carbonate banks atop volcanic basements. It seems like the
>> press release writers have as is commonly the case, indulged in inaccurate
>> hyperbole to attract eyeballs.
>> Cheers,
>> Bill
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 8:28 AM Douglas Fenner via Coral-List <
>> coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> 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-atolls-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=2c6057c528fdc6f73fa196d9d&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=2c6057c528fdc6f73fa196d9d&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-change-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-silent-storm-of-heat-deaths
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Coral-List mailing list
>> > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>> > https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>> _______________________________________________
>> Coral-List mailing list
>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>> https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
>
>
> --
> William F. Precht
>
>  “You never know how strong you are until being strong is the only choice
> you have”
>
> Bob Marley
>
>
> "Courage is not having the strength to go on; it is going on when you
> don't have the strength."
>
> Theodore Roosevelt
>
>
>


More information about the Coral-List mailing list