“Venus is Earth Without the Trees”

Category : Environmental Issues, Forestry, Global Warming, Science

Carl Sagan and Charles Darwin were wrong about just about everything and yet both men continue to be worshipped by the scientific community. Sagan was a great showman; charismatic and committed. He was perhaps most famous for how he spoke passionately about the “billions and billions” of stars and the inevitability of millions of earth-like planets – many that must contain intelligent life. For Sagan, we live  in an ordinary galaxy, a non-descript solar system, and a hum-drum planet. It was called The Principle of Mediocrity. Evolution of life on earth was just an accident, but an accident that must have been repeated in some form on many other hum-drum planets.

The leaders in the scientific community tend to be naturalists. There are other labels and descriptions of this philosophy, but basically, they believe that nothing exists outside of the four dimensions (three plus time). They jealously protect science from any supernatural contamination. I have a different philosophy, but it is certainly appropriate to limit the scope of science to natural phenomena.

Problems develop, however, as theories are developed from new scientific learning and new understandings. Scientists generally filter all new evidence through their philosophy of naturalism, and it often makes them look ridiculous. This long introduction will lead us to an example of that.

Scientists involved in cosmology today now understand that Sagan was totally wrong about the earth. I doubt that any reputable scientist in the field today would argue that the earth is ordinary. Rare Earth, written by Ward and Brownlee, and published in 2000, changed the paradigm. Since then, new evidence has been overwhelming.  The earth is, in fact, quite special.

Scientists will argue that the earth is not designed, but those in the field today understand that everything about the progression that the earth has taken over the last 4.5 billion years strikes of “apparent design”. Even today Rare Earth is a remarkable story. The major developments that occurred over those 4.5 billion years always appeared to set the stage for the next era. And during that entire time, events progressed in a manner that prepared the earth for multicellular life, and then eventually for advanced life.

Some scientists still cling to The Principle of Mediocrity because it fits their philosophy, and frankly, they are not up to date with the evidence. Besides, that the earth is special requires some explanation of all that apparent design. An egregious example of clinging to this outdated theory was published in Miller-McCune, by John Perlin. The story is called The Tree That Changed the World, subtitled, Two planets diverged in a solar system, and the successful one took a path more wooded.

The author makes the ridiculous assertion that Venus and the Earth are similar planets, and the difference between the climate we enjoy and the hellishness of Venus, is the fact that trees evolved on earth. The sub-plot here is the environmental message that we better take care of our trees or we will end up like Venus.

Astronomers for the longest time have regarded Venus as the planet most resembling Earth. Having almost the exact size as Earth and being almost as close to the sun has led many to call it Earth’s twin.

The clouds always covering the Venusian landscape are another compelling example of Venus’ affinity to Earth. Pioneering astronomer Svante Arrhenius hypothesized great rains pouring from these clouds nurtured lush rain forests below. But when various space probes penetrated the Venusian atmosphere, this belief burst. Astronomers found an inferno rather than a tropical paradise.

Here they discovered the ultimate greenhouse effect: Although the carbon dioxide-laden atmosphere allowed sunlight to pass through, when the solar rays hit the surface of Venus and changed into heat waves, they could not escape the carbon dioxide cover. So the heat had nowhere to go and accumulated at the surface, where temperatures exceed 800 degrees Fahrenheit.

Earth has as much carbon dioxide as Venus. But instead of the gas blanketing the sky as happened on Venus, much of the carbon dioxide on Earth has been locked up inside and on the surface. This has made all the difference in the story of the two planets — one, a heaven bountiful with life, the other a hellish place where nothing animate as we understand it can survive.

Credit much of this carbon dioxide transfer from the atmosphere to the land to the rapid global spread 400 million years ago of the first (or among the first) true trees, Archaeopteris.

So we owe it all to trees. People can write whatever nonsense they want, I suppose, but it does make the Earth more hellish.

A found an article recently that highlighted just one area that makes the Earth special – the elements and the quantities of those elements that exist on Earth. Advanced life requires elements in just the proportion that happens to occur on Earth.

Earth is not at all ordinary in its assortment of elements and compounds. For the planet’s size and distance from its star, it possesses an anomalous (abnormal) amount of every measurable element and compound. Today, the list of such uniquely abundant or scarce substances includes water, carbon, sulfur, phosphorus, uranium, and thorium. Each of these anomalous amounts proves to be a vital requirement for advanced life and a significant piece of evidence that Earth was supernaturally designed for humanity’s benefit.

The previous passage is from Earth’s Unique Element Abundances. It is short, but very interesting. Please take a look.

Comments (3)

“Each of these anomalous amounts proves to be a vital requirement for advanced life and a significant piece of evidence that Earth was supernaturally designed for humanity’s benefit.” — or life evolved to take advantage of what was available. This information can easily be used to spin it either way for whatever the agenda of the writer may be. Life is always evolving to adapt to the environment, or changes in the environment.

Hi Jim,

Thanks for commenting. I am sorry to be so strong in some of my responses – I know it makes me seem like a jerk, but these are items I find it hard to compromise on.

“This information can easily be used to spin it either way for whatever the agenda of the writer may be. Life is always evolving to adapt to the environment, or changes in the environment.”

I am not sure what the first sentence means. But if you mean that life occurs, and then evolves by utilizing whatever exists in the environment, that is simply not true. Advanced carbon based life has unique and very specific requirements. Conditions must be very similar to present day earth. What’s more, the sequencing of events necessary to “build” a planet with the conditions that exist on earth is extremely complex. That is why the vast majority of scientists today doubt the existence of advanced life in othe parts of the universe. (They do insist, however, that single celled life must be common in the universe, since it arose so quickly and under such harsh conditions on earth. Just for example, Steven Hawkings just wrote a new book and that is his view also.)

As for non-carbon based life, that only exists in Star-Trek.

In regard to life adapting to the environment; it certainly does, and the adaptations can be extreme. However, most (perhaps all) of this adaptation is due to genetics, not mutations. The theory is that mutations are the leading cause of macro-evolution but the evidence od this is non-existent.

I am surprised no one defended Darwin. But since no one did, and since we are on the subject, I will force in a response here. Darwin was wrong about nearly all of the assumptions on which he based his Theory of Natural Selection.

• The earth and the universe are not near infinite in age and in fact both have specific and identifiable beginnings. Darwin taught a static-state universe.

• Darwin believed an abundance of pre-Cambrian fossils would be found – in fact MUST be found – for his theory to be confirmed. But he was wrong again.

• For Darwin, the emergence of new species (evolution) HAD TO BE an incredibly slow process, but he was wrong. The fossil evidence points to sudden appearance, stasis, and extinction. The sudden appearance of numerous multi-cellular organisms first occurred in the Cambrian explosion only about 550 million years ago. The sequence of extinction, sudden appearance, stasis, and then extinction again and has repeated itself as the five major extinctions have subsequently taken place.

• Darwin believed that extinction was even slower than the formation of new species – but, the evidence shows that although some extinction occurs gradually, most extinction occurs due to catastrophic events.

• Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection was an outgrowth of Charles Lyle’s theory of gradualism (Uniformitarianism) in geology. Darwin and Lyle were wrong in this case too, but this was not well understood until the last 20 years or so.

• Darwin believed that there were no limits to the breeding of domesticated animals. In other words such breeding would eventually result in new species. He was wrong. Chapter one in The Origin of Species.

• Darwin thought that the cell was a simple combination of chemicals – I believe he called protoplasm. Nothing could be further from the truth. The simplest cell is extraordinarily complex, beyond anything we have the ability to intentionally construct.

• Darwin also believed the white race was superior and destined to rule the world; that men were superior to women; and that killing female babies must be a positive “selection” event since it was, historically, so common in primitive societies, etc

My primary point here is that Natural Selection (Darwinian Evolution) is dependent on assumptions that have been proven false. Scientists “apapt” the theoy of evolution to the new evidence, but the result is mythology (“this is how it could have happened”), not science.

“”This information can easily be used to spin it either way for whatever the agenda of the writer may be. Life is always evolving to adapt to the environment, or changes in the environment.”

I am not sure what the first sentence means.”

What I mean is that the person that wrote “Each of these anomalous amounts proves to be a vital requirement for advanced life and a significant piece of evidence that Earth was supernaturally designed for humanity’s benefit” had a desired outcome in mind and used the information to reach that goal. The information is so readily applicable to different theories, that a different conclusion can very easily be made. It could be theorized that carbon life emerged because of what was available. And that if the makeup had been different, life could be different.

And I believe all theories of how we came to be fall under the umbrella of mythology.

Post a comment