Evolution, Human Evolution, Theory Of Evolution

The theory of the evolution of life is not the only "science" not supported by facts. In these days of space exploration, the theories behind the evolution of the solar system are not quite on solid ground either.

The theory held by many scientists concerning the evolution of our solar system is basically that a large gas cloud in space condensed into what we now call the sun. Chunks of this cloud flew off into orbit around the sun and eventually condensed into planets. That is, the other planets in our solar system were allegedly formed by the same process which formed our own planet, earth.

Sound logical? It might have--in the eighteenth century. Not today. Space exploration does not seem to support this.


On February 12, 1961, the Soviet Union launched Venera 1 into solar orbit, making it one of the earliest attempts to probe Venus. By the time Veneras 13 and 14 landed on Venus in early 1982, man had already landed several modules on Venus which relayed good data back to earth. Throughout these missions it became painfully clear to scientists that the real Venus had no resemblance to the Venus about which they had theorized before the probes.

Venus was once thought of as "earth's twin." It is our nearest neighbor in the solar system, and it is approximately the same size and density as earth. Although Venus intercepts twice as much sunlight as earth because it is closer to the sun, it was thought that its surface conditions were similar to earth's since the thick global clouds of Venus reflected most of the extra light. Scientists reasoned further that since earth and Venus condensed from the interstellar clouds of the same region in space their elemental composition must be roughly the same.

The theories about Venus went as far as saying that its atmosphere was made up of the same gases as that of earth, and one day on Venus was about the same length as a day on earth.

The picture we had of Venus was of a planet similar to earth except for something of a "murky jungle" spanning the entire globe. The impression scientists gave was that astronauts landing on Venus would need little more than London Fog coats.

As exploration of Venus proceeded, facts began replacing completely erroneous theories. Not only were conditions on Venus not what we had anticipated, but the data returned by the Venera and Mariner missions showed Venus to be so different that it appeared highly unlikely that earth and Venus could have evolved from the same gas clouds. We found Venus to be a far more hostile environment than the "murky jungle" we had envisioned.

So much so, that Venus' climate is probably more hostile than any other planet in our solar system. The only ones more disappointed than scientists were Bangladesh tigers--they were convinced that after death they went up to the jungles of Venus.

Here's an idea of what it's like on Venus: the temperature is around 900 degrees Fahrenheit--that's great vacation weather, if you happen to be a tube worm with poor circulation. The atmosphere is about 97 percent carbon dioxide, as compared to earth's atmosphere of about 90 percent nitrogen and oxygen.

Bright sunny days on Venus are nonexistent; every day is like a heavy overcast. And if the sun did come out, you could never go to the beach on Venus because there are no oceans. Venus is so dry that the relative humidity rarely reaches one percent; forget about "raindrops fallin' on your head." But then, on Venus, the last thing you'd want is rain. Rain on "earth's twin" consists of sulfuric acid. Such a rain would dissolve sulfur, mercury, lead, tin, and most rocks. To go out in weather like that your Totes hat would need a lining made of tempered steel, and Tarzan would have to wear a lot more than "Fruit of the Loom."

If you still think conditions on Venus are similar to those of earth, I strongly suggest you move to another neighborhood-- your present one has completely deteriorated.

Venus has a surface pressure of about 90 times that of earth, which is the equivalent of going about a half mile down into the ocean. The sun rises in the west and sets in the east.

One day on Venus takes approximately eight earth months; a couple living on Venus could have a baby almost every "day."


Of all the great differences between earth and Venus, one in particular poses a very strong and obvious question: if earth and Venus formed of the same gas clouds, how can 70 percent of earth's surface be covered with water yet the only trace of water on Venus is a relative humidity of about one percent? What happened to all the water on Venus? Or, where did all the water on earth come from?


One theory, and perhaps even the only one, about where all the water on Venus went is this: millions of years ago, the greenhouse effect of Venus' atmosphere caused its temperatures to soar above 2000 degrees Fahrenheit. This caused water to break up into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen escaped into space and the oxygen mixed with molten rock forming the Venusian crust.

Then why is there a large volume of water on earth?

Scientific studies suggest that earth, during its alleged formation, was hot enough that to this day it retains a molten core. So, if earth also went through extreme heat during its infancy, why didn't water on earth take the same course as water on Venus? By the time earth cooled, there should have been about as much water left on it as there is on Venus today--practically none.

Furthermore, there is no evidence indicating that there was ever any large volume of water on Venus. There are no gullies, trenches, or craters left vacant by oceans, lakes, or rivers. If all the waters on earth were to disappear, they'd leave some unmistakable natural landmarks behind.

The answer given by some is that perhaps Venus' high temperatures never allowed water to even reach a liquid state.

Then why is there no water on Mars? Mars is cooler and farther away from the sun than Venus and even earth; it has no scorching atmosphere, but it is an extremely dry planet. That is, Mars does not have the kind of atmosphere which might have kept water from condensing or might have caused water to disappear as it allegedly did on Venus. Yet, Mars has only some ice at the poles and small traces of water vapor in the atmosphere. No oceans, rivers, glaciers, or even ponds. Where did all the water on Mars go? Or why wasn't any there to begin with?

So, you see, no matter what your vantage point, earth's surface being 70 percent covered with water is, from an evolutionary standpoint, an inexplicable phenomena. Did the planets really evolve of the same stuff in space? Did they evolve at all? It certainly does not seem that way. How do you explain three planets are right next to each other and one is a dry oven, one is an arid desert, and the one in the middle is flooded with water? Evolution? Think again.

And while you're thinking, try explaining why earth has a magnetic field while Venus does not. And why Venus revolves differently from the other planets. And why most of the planets are flat at the poles while Venus is round. And why the surface of Venus is smooth in comparison to that of earth and Mars.

Because the planets in our solar system were formed by the same evolutionary process? There is no better proof than the planets themselves that presently held theories of planetary evolution do not "hold water."


Maybe what we need is simply another imaginative theory concerning the disappearance of water on Venus: About 648 million and a half years ago, 7 billion little aliens with big bladders landed on Venus in a spaceship the size of Krakatoa.

They drank up all the water, then flew to earth and went to the men's room. (The women stayed home to take care of the babies-- with bladders like that, babies need a lot of attention.)


The question of whether scientific accounts of the origin and evolution of the planets actually occurred is premature at this point. There's a more fundamental question here: do theories of planetary evolution make any sense? In spite of the onslaught of "scientific" theories, which sometimes give the impression of being designed to make sense out of the irrational, our space explorations seem to indicate that these theories make no sense.

Strangely, here on earth, accurate weather predictions are limited to a matter of days. The course of such commonplace weather conditions as storms and hurricanes sometimes cannot be accurately predicted a mere twenty four hours in advance. But somehow, there are "experts" who can state with astonishing certainty how the weather patterns on Venus over alleged billions of years caused entire oceans to go up into space and down into rocks. Maybe we ought to send some scientists to live on Venus so they can give us better weather predictions here on earth?


The problem apparently is that scientists are trying to solve new puzzles--puzzles brought about by space exploration-- with outdated "tools"--old theories. It's time to stop bending and twisting these tools in a futile attempt to make them fit the facts. It's time to get new tools. What we need are theories which fit the facts and do not pretend to explain what they cannot. We need theories which do not become obsolete every time science takes another step forward. Perhaps such theories will come when we finally realize that although every physical phenomenon must have an origin, not every origin must necessarily be of a physical nature.