Consider, the tiny coccolithophore, they mutated and developed the ability to grow calcite shells and were so ubiquitous that hey created vast deposits of chalk. They created so much chalk that an entire era, the Cretaceous was named after the chalk that was created. No mutation, no chalk deposits, no Cretaceous.
Today, coccolithophores still exist but are no longer as ubiquitous as they once were. Today it is Diatoms that have become ubiquitous. Diatoms have silica shells which has resulted minerals like diatomaceous earth being deposited. In case you are wondering why diatoms have become so ubiquitous, it is because grasses mutated and developed the ability to grow very tiny very sharp silica barbs on the edges of grass blades. One effect of this was to increase the amount of dissolved silica in rivers, lakes and eventually oceans. Without the mutation to grasses enabling them to grow silica barbs, coccolithophores would still be depositing large amounts of chalk.
We now have two cases from earth's past where changes to biochemistry have resulted in new and different minerals being created.
SWM wrote:The only effect of life on Earth minerals described in the article is the creation of an oxygen atmosphere. The article does not suggest that different biochemistries results in different minerals.
However, reading the article more carefully, it does appear that the author is posing questions which had not really been asked before. I was interpreting the original poster too narrowly, distracted by references to Crystal Singer. It does appear that Hazen may have some good points. The common minerals should be similar, given similar starting elements. But it is plausible that local concentrations and conditions can cause rare minerals which are essentially unique.
So, I change my statement to: the reason stuff like that doesn't appear more often in fiction is because it wasn't a major consideration in science before.