PDA

View Full Version : About Venus



MechaMadness
2013-May-15, 04:36 AM
Okay so, I was watching the Weather Channel because they had a special talking about how the weather on Venus is an example of a thick atmosphere and run-away greenhouse effect (which I knew, but ive watched this program like 25 times). Suddenly, I came with the craziest idea. Im not really sure if this Thread goes here, but I couldnt find anywhere else to put it. My idea is a bit crazy and stupid, might be hated for it but here we go (remember, just a thought):

I dont know if this is true, but on the program I was watching it said Venus was (or could HAVE BEEN) like Earth long after it formed and cooled down. It had water and could have fostered life. So I was thinking, hoyl crap what if, Humans first evolved on Venus? I was thinking, the first humans from Venus could have been just as advanced in technology as we are today (or mabye a bit more), and that they were responsible for the thick atmosphere on Venus. The planet became inhabitable, so they sort of pulled off a Noah's Arc and sort of built a rocketship carrying one human male and female to repopulate the next planet; Earth.
So thats my outrageous idea. Im sorry, I have no one to share this with so I figured I should tell you guys, the experts. Could this be possible? I know that it interferes with both the Theory of Evolution AND Religion all in one.
Once again, im not sure if this is supposed to go here, if it were to be moved to a proper location that would be nice.

Jens
2013-May-15, 05:35 AM
I don't think there's anything forbidden about that. It's certainly against the mainstream, but I think it's just idle speculation on your part. The answer: it's not likely at all. We have clear reason to believe that human beings evolved on this planet; just look at the resemblance between us and apes and other hominids. Why would the people who evolved on Venus just happen to look just like apes? In the same way, you could imagine that zebras originated on another planet and were brought to the earth on a UFO, but doesn't it make more sense to just accept that they are basically striped horses?

Shaula
2013-May-15, 05:48 AM
Thing is Venus only had an Earth-like climate for well under a billion years. You'd somehow need humans to evolve from nothing in less than an eighth of the time it took apes to evolve here. In fact in about the same time it took the simplest life to form on Earth from the point where the first rocks we see formed. And, as Jens says, you would also require their basic biochemistry (handedness of amino acids, DNA bases, protein functions) to be really, really similar to those that then evolved on Earth. Otherwise they'd have to bring a biosphere with them on their ark. And somehow sit out he Hadean period of Earth's history before finding somewhere even remotely hospitable to land. And leave no trace of their existence for another 3.5 billion or more years.

beskeptical
2013-May-15, 05:55 AM
Okay so, I was watching the Weather Channel because they had a special talking about how the weather on Venus is an example of a thick atmosphere and run-away greenhouse effect (which I knew, but ive watched this program like 25 times). Suddenly, I came with the craziest idea. Im not really sure if this Thread goes here, but I couldnt find anywhere else to put it. My idea is a bit crazy and stupid, might be hated for it but here we go (remember, just a thought):

I dont know if this is true, but on the program I was watching it said Venus was (or could HAVE BEEN) like Earth long after it formed and cooled down. It had water and could have fostered life. So I was thinking, hoyl crap what if, Humans first evolved on Venus? I was thinking, the first humans from Venus could have been just as advanced in technology as we are today (or mabye a bit more), and that they were responsible for the thick atmosphere on Venus. The planet became inhabitable, so they sort of pulled off a Noah's Arc and sort of built a rocketship carrying one human male and female to repopulate the next planet; Earth.
So thats my outrageous idea. Im sorry, I have no one to share this with so I figured I should tell you guys, the experts. Could this be possible? I know that it interferes with both the Theory of Evolution AND Religion all in one.
Once again, im not sure if this is supposed to go here, if it were to be moved to a proper location that would be nice.I don't want to sound mean, you seem like a sincere person, but your 'hypothesis' is totally baseless. Meaning you might as well have just invented Ringworld (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringworld) or something.

Just because you can imagine some bizarre scenario doesn't mean you actually have evidence for said scenario.

Shaula
2013-May-15, 06:00 AM
I don't want to sound mean, you seem like a sincere person, but your 'hypothesis' is totally baseless. Meaning you might as well have just invented Ringworld (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringworld) or something.
A lot of hypotheses are baseless. There is no reason for them not to be. Then you test them and see if they are remotely feasible. You do this not by assuming that they are false if they are whacky but that they are false if the evidence is more strongly weighted against them. In this case the evidence more strongly favours the alternative hypothesis that humans evolved in-situ on Earth. So we say "The balance of evidence (some of which is presented here) supports an alternative hypothesis more strongly". I think there actually is enough evidence from the timescales to say that "The balance of evidence supports the null hypothesis more strongly" too.

grapes
2013-May-15, 12:39 PM
just look at the resemblance between us and apes and other hominids. Why would the people who evolved on Venus just happen to look just like apes?
Not just superficial resemblances, either, but as Shaula mentions, in the DNA as well.

A lot of hypotheses are baseless. There is no reason for them not to be. Then you test them and see if they are remotely feasible. You do this not by assuming that they are false if they are whacky but that they are false if the evidence is more strongly weighted against them. In this case the evidence more strongly favours the alternative hypothesis that humans evolved in-situ on Earth. So we say "The balance of evidence (some of which is presented here) supports an alternative hypothesis more strongly". I think there actually is enough evidence from the timescales to say that "The balance of evidence supports the null hypothesis more strongly" too.
Too? What are you calling the null hypothesis? :)

mkline55
2013-May-15, 01:17 PM
You'd somehow need humans to evolve from nothing in less than an eighth of the time it took apes to evolve here.

Not disagreeing with you at all, Shaula. There are just too many things wrong with the OP's reasoning. This one sentence, though, led me to wonder if evolution could proceed at a faster rate if life evolved on Venus. I'm thinking, yeah, could be, but then again, could be slower as well, or just not at all.

Shaula
2013-May-15, 03:34 PM
Too? What are you calling the null hypothesis? :)
I broke it down to:
Hypothesis: Humans evolved on Venus.
Null hypothesis: Humans did not evolve on Venus.
Alternative hypothesis: Humans evolved on Earth.

We have good evidence for the alternative hypothesis (DNA, fossil record and all that sort of evidence showing mankind fitting into the tree of life on Earth) making it more likely than the hypothesis. However if we exclude any alternative hypothesis and just try to prove in isolation that the null hypothesis is more likely than the hypothesis then we have to use things like timescales, the lack of any signs of life on Venus and stuff like that, because we are not considering the alternative merely what evidence we have that would prove the null more likely.

grapes
2013-May-15, 04:20 PM
OK, that clears that up. The phrase "null hypothesis" is too general and actually controversial. Why not just say, Hypothesis A, Hypothesis B, Hypothesis C, and spell out what each is, and then it's clear what is being considered. More or less.

Shaula
2013-May-15, 04:58 PM
OK, that clears that up. The phrase "null hypothesis" is too general and actually controversial. Why not just say, Hypothesis A, Hypothesis B, Hypothesis C, and spell out what each is, and then it's clear what is being considered. More or less.
I take it you are referring to the split between the Fisher/Pearson methods? Afraid I am an old fashioned frequentist at heart which is why I use the A, not A, B structure for my ACH approach. A and not A are not independent which is why having them as separate hypothesis muddies things. Hypotheses being tested should always be largely independent. Sorry if it caused confusion, it is just how I have always been taught to build my tests up.

Noclevername
2013-May-15, 05:32 PM
I dont know if this is true, but on the program I was watching it said Venus was (or could HAVE BEEN) like Earth long after it formed and cooled down. It had water and could have fostered life.

The runaway greenhouse on Venus began about 2-3 billion years too early for human to have evolved there. At the time, life on Earth was still single-celled and the air not breatheable, so humans could not have settled here and survived anyway.

Squink
2013-May-15, 08:28 PM
Echoes of an Alien Sky (http://www.shelfari.com/books/202186/Echoes-of-an-Alien-Sky) by James P. Hogan:
Eighteen years have passed since the first manned mission to Earth arrived from Venus. With the first colonists already establishing themselves across the bright, sunny world of clear blue skies and wonderlands of towering mountains and ice deserts
...
constructs a theory of Venusians being descended from Terran ancestors. However, even allowing for the greatly exaggerated time scales that Terran science assigned to the processes of biological and planetary evolution, further research shows that there could have been no overlap. The Terrans were extinct long before life emerged on Venus.It gets weirdly more complicated. IIRC, time travel is involved.

Romanus
2013-May-16, 05:13 AM
We know that Venus has been like it is now for a long time, certainly at least as long as the Phanerozoic has lasted (based on crater counts). The thing is, getting from humans on Venus to humans on Earth while skipping the steps in between (and the numerous transitional forms in the fossil record).

NEOWatcher
2013-May-16, 02:18 PM
Echoes of an Alien Sky (http://www.shelfari.com/books/202186/Echoes-of-an-Alien-Sky) by James P. Hogan: It gets weirdly more complicated. IIRC, time travel is involved.
How does this scifi contribute to this thread?

Squink
2013-May-16, 03:00 PM
How does this scifi contribute to this thread?Read the OP:
hoyl crap what if, Humans first evolved on Venus? I was thinking, the first humans from Venus could have been just as advanced in technology as we are today...The SF angle was included.

neilzero
2013-May-16, 06:06 PM
Possibly humans are decendents of more advanced beings that were traveling our solar system as long as 4 billion years ago, so possibly Venus was evacuated about that time. There is no evidence and considerable evidence to the contrary as others have posted. Neil

NEOWatcher
2013-May-16, 06:36 PM
Read the OP:The SF angle was included.
I disagree. With that logic, I can link any story on the Weather channel and say it's part of the discussion. It was only in reference to the OP's line of thought leading to the topic of the OP's question.

The question asks "is it possible?"
That can not be answered with Sci-Fi.

Besides: I asked "how it contributes", not "was it mentioned".

Squink
2013-May-16, 07:24 PM
I disagree.That's nice. Do you wish to drag this thread completely off track over your objections now? I think it's better to just drop the matter. Those who might get something out of my post will have the opportunity to do so, and those who don't won't. It's not your call to decide what's relevant here.

PetersCreek
2013-May-16, 10:16 PM
That's nice. Do you wish to drag this thread completely off track over your objections now? I think it's better to just drop the matter. Those who might get something out of my post will have the opportunity to do so, and those who don't won't. It's not your call to decide what's relevant here.

Squink,

You probably should have posted the bolded text above and left it at that. While some topic drift is expected in a thread like this, posting the summary of a science fiction story without explaining how it might answer or significantly relate to the OP's essential question doesn't appear to be very helpful. And even though it's not NEOWatcher's call to decide what's relevant, he's certainly well within bounds to ask how a post is relevant if it's not clear...and it's not your call to scold him for doing so.