Is common descent a fact?

[asbestosman]

Does the fact that there are items that were once accepted as fact that were overturned justify a denial of any of the above?

No, but it may justify us in saying that there is likely one of the above which are not true--we just don't know which one. It's like asking whether anyone in the USA has been struck by lightning. For any particular person, the chances are small, but when we consider everyone in the country, the chances are great.

There's a good chance that many controlled experiments are merely the result of chance instead of a real correlation between observations. If we set the standard at p = .01, then 1/100 such experiments we let through that bar can be explained by chance alone. However, we're not justified in claiming any particular observation is best explained by chance--at least not until we let omniscience enter the picture.

[Hick Preacher]

Yes, sexual reproduction actually fixes mutations as the gaps in one parent's DNA are filled in by the other parent's... this is why there are bacteria alive today that are pretty much the same as bacteria millions of years ago, they don't change because all the little changes are fixed in the offsrping...

I am a fan of HGT, rather than VGT...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HGT

Horizontal gene transfer (HGT), also Lateral gene transfer (LGT), is any process in which an organism incorporates genetic material from another organism without being the offspring of that organism.

HGT is not a single random mutation in which one individual is changed, but rather an entire group all undergoes the same change all at once - as they are all infected through the same virus/bacteria/bug bite... thus new traits are the product of an infection of sorts - new genetic info being placed into an entire group - rather than just a single random occurance in one individual.

HGT + panspermia explains the Cambrian explosion better than random mutations...

Very Interesting, thanks for your post.

I see that in the sea environments HGT may play a major role.

HGT occurs globally on a massive scale among marine microorganisms. Viruses, which, at total numbers near 1029 are the most common biological entities in the sea, are a major pathway for gene movement between different species. It has been estimated that, on average, 1013 virus-mediated gene transfer events occur in the Mediterranean sea each year. Endosymbiosis with an alga is identified as a route for HGT in marine dinoflagellates, the organisms that cause 'red tides'

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

I am wondering if mass virus

infection causing viable mutations is actually plausible among higher primates. It would seem that if HGT were a major mechanism, happening often, trillions of times a year world wide to trillions of organisms, then some common decent paths could be completely disrupted.

[TAO]

It's not like evolution is a new, flash in the pan idea. It's been around for a long time, and it keeps getting better established with more supporting evidence every year. As far as we can know anything we know evolution is a fact.

But nevertheless we cannot assume. It wasn't like the sun going around the earth was a flash in the pan idea at the time of Coppernicus, was it?

[Tarski]

No, but it may justify us in saying that there is likely one of the above which are not true--we just don't know which one. It's like asking whether anyone in the USA has been struck by lightning. For any particular person, the chances are small, but when we consider everyone in the country, the chances are great.

There's a good chance that many controlled experiments are merely the result of chance instead of a real correlation between observations. If we set the standard at p = .01, then 1/100 such experiments we let through that bar can be explained by chance alone. However, we're not justified in claiming any particular observation is best explained by chance--at least not until we let omniscience enter the picture.

It still doesn't make it rational to do anything but accept these as facts (the facts that they are ).

Consider each of the following:

A. Since something currently accepted as fact may turn out to be incorrect, I may as well deny that stars are far away. I never liked that idea anyway.

B. Since something currently accepted as fact may turn out to be incorrect, I may as well deny that humans have a common ancestor with other primates. I never liked that idea anyway.

I don't see either as being more rational than the other. I don't know about you but I can't fool myself like that anyway.

[TAO]

It still doesn't make it rational to do anything but accept these as facts (the facts that they are ).

Consider each of the following:

A. Since something currently accepted as fact may turn out to be incorrect, I may as well deny that stars are far away. I never liked that idea anyway.

B. Since something currently accepted as fact may turn out to be incorrect, I may as well deny that humans have a common ancestor with other primates. I never liked that idea anyway.

I don't see either as being more rational than the other. I don't know about you but I can't fool myself like that anyway.

However, Coppernicus might have also said

Since something currently accepted as fact may turn out to be incorrect, the earth rotates the sun.

The statement cuts both ways. Just because it is accepted by fact by the scientific community doesn't mean it isn't based on assumption. Nor does it classify it as a true fact.

[asbestosman]

It still doesn't make it rational to do anything but accept these as facts (the facts that they are ).

Consider each of the following:

A. Since something currently accepted as fact may turn out to be incorrect, I may as well deny that stars are far away. I never liked that idea anyway.

B. Since something currently accepted as fact may turn out to be incorrect, I may as well deny that humans have a common ancestor with other primates. I never liked that idea anyway.

I don't see either as being more rational than the other. I don't know about you but I can't fool myself like that anyway.

I've often wondered what it would be like to believe six impossible things before breakfast. I can't help but believe each individual fact of science. However, when the facts of science are considered as a group, we can be pretty sure at least one of them is wrong (if the group is large enough which your two statements are not). What we cannot do is point to the one that's wrong. It would be especially suspect to point out one of the statements as wrong which just happened to coincide with our own biases. That's why we use the scientific method to improve the accuracy of the list even though our biases still get in the way.

Epistemology would be so much easier if everyone would finally realize that my religious views are correct.

By the way, in my world the Axiom of Choice is true, there is no graviton particle, and dark matter is a key ingredient for the flux capacitor.

[Tarski]

However, Coppernicus might have also said

Since something currently accepted as fact may turn out to be incorrect, the earth rotates the sun.

And since Coppernicus was not an idiot, he made no such argument. Rather he used evidence and reason--something that science is rather better at these days.

It doesn't really cut both ways.

I'll say it again: Just because something now accepted as fact may be found wanting in the future a person is not thereby justified in believing in a flat earth or in Leprechauns.

It doesn't cut both ways. You don't know which if any fact will be overturned so all you are left with is the facts as we understand them.

But it is telling that this "maybe the earth is flat afterall" kind of thinking is what you find so helpful for maintaining faith.

Evolution may possibly be completely overturned in the same way that the helocenteric solar system may be completely overturned (in other words, we can safely say it will not be completely overturned).

[cdowis]

I'll say it again: Just because something now accepted as fact may be found wanting in the future a person is not thereby justified in believing in a flat earth or in Leprechauns.

It doesn't cut both ways. You don't know which if any fact will be overturned so all you are left with is the facts as we understand them.

I then assume that you will accept the "god of gaps" argument as valid, since the response to those terrible questions is that there will be new discoveries to overturn those arguments. As you say, but "all we are left with is the facts as we understand them."

Macro evolution is now oficially toast.

[TAO]

And since Coppernicus was not an idiot, he made no such argument. Rather he used evidence and reason--something that science is rather better at these days.

It doesn't really cut both ways.

I'll say it again: Just because something now accepted as fact may be found wanting in the future a person is not thereby justified in believing in a flat earth or in Leprechauns.

Wait... so tell me... what defines an idiot? I wasn't aware that all people who used such arguments are idiots...

Well, considering I used evidence and reason to reach my conclusion that nothing can be proved since everything is a perception... ya' know, I'd say I'm not an idiot by your definition.

That is unless your definitions for evidence and reason are wrong.

Evidence would be optical illusions, unsuccess of artificial eyes, etc. Reason would be the equality of all concepts in a world where nothing is known.

No, I don't think I'm an idiot. Rather I think your using the word idiot because you cannot respond to the point.

Well let me ask you this again then - were the people before Coppernicus justified in believing a falsehood? According to you, whatever the scientific community believes is fact is justified to believe in. So if the scientific community came up with a very complex theorem that only about 5 people in the world understood that said the moon's core is made of cheese, would that be acceptable to believe in? No, it wouldn't.

You are never supposed to believe in something because of peer pressure.

It doesn't cut both ways. You don't know which if any fact will be overturned so all you are left with is the facts as we understand them.

But how do we know they are facts? We don't. They are assumed to be facts. Facts, in my mind, means absolute truth. Obviously, science isn't fact, merely, it's interpretation based on the physical senses.

As an Autistic, I take things VERY literally. For example, 'chaos' means something different to me than it does to physicists. Mine means absolute chaos which is never understandable. Theirs means order that is not understandable at the current time.

Thus, if you are referring to true fact, your statement doesn't make any sense, since true facts don't exist in a world of perceptions.

If your referring to perceived fact, then I understand - but my faith falls under a perceived fact thus, and can be experimented with in the same way science can. However, because of the information gap in portraying spiritual experiences to each other, I am forced to rely solely on my own experiences.

But it is telling that this "maybe the earth is flat afterall" kind of thinking is what you find so helpful for maintaining faith.

Well your words are telling me that this "there is something wrong with realizing everything is a perception" kind of thinking is what you find so helpful for justifying not using faith.

Evolution may possibly be completely overturned in the same way that the helocenteric solar system may be completely overturned (in other words, we can safely say it will not be completely overturned).

Precisely, which is why evolution isn't fact.

Let me give you an example. Black holes. Considered by the scientific community by and large as almost perfectly fact. Yet we have no evidence of them. There is always an extreme scenario, no matter how unusual, that will explain all but one situation relating to black holes. What is that one situation? A black hole collision. It creates a unique gravitational wave sequence - one that we have not heard yet. Thus, black holes, are not considered fact by physicists, until they hear this gravitational signal on their instruments. However, most scientists like poking their way into theories (not proven facts), and thus why we have so much information on an object that hasn't been shown to exist.

So black holes are recognized by physicists to not have been proven. Why is it so difficult for you to do with evolution?

[Tarski]

I then assume that you will accept the "god of gaps" argument as valid, since the response to those terrible questions is that there will be new discoveries to overturn those arguments. As you say, but "all we are left with is the facts as we understand them."

No I do not. You are confused just as you were the last time you tried this tack. There is no parity.

Macro evolution is now oficially toast.

Macro-evolution is a fact. You are the result of it. You are a primate related to all other primates and it is sad that the light that entered the world with Darwin and Wallace has not penetrated your brain.

Some people just don't like the idea of being an animal.

I once came across an even worse reason for rejecting evolution. Some guy pointed out to me that if evolution were true, then we would all be related to blacks (or negroes as he put it). Having pointed this out he looked as me as if he were waiting for me to suddenly realize the disgusting absurdity of this.

[Tarski]

Wait... so tell me... what defines an idiot? I wasn't aware that all people who used such arguments are idiots...

CUT

So black holes are recognized by physicists to not have been proven. Why is it so difficult for you to do with evolution?

LOL

Simple question. Is anything a fact?

I suspect you will say no since it all might be a dream.

Fine. I can have no rational conversation with a person who continually considers it a live possibility that everything is a big dream or illusion and thereby that knowledge is impossible. On what basis could we communicate?

As for the relevance to religion, what are you left with? Jesus is the Christ and equally Gandalf is a good wizard?

Of course, Jesus being the son of God isn't a fact then either is it? At least we agree on that.

[TAO]

LOL

Simple question. Is anything a fact?

I suspect you will say no since it all might be a dream.

Fine. I can have no rational conversation with a person who continually considers it a live possibility that everything is a big dream or illusion and thereby that knowledge is impossible. On what basis could we communicate?

Good, your getting it I think. So, naturally, we must make some assumptions in life. However, if we are to make assumptions, all assumptions are equal. I can trust my physical sense, which I base science on, just as much as I trust my spiritual senses, which I base my religion on. Yes, I consider spirituality a sense. A sixth sense.

As for the relevance to religion, what are you left with? Jesus is the Christ and equally Gandalf is a good wizard?

Of course, Jesus being the son of God isn't a fact then either is it? At least we agree on that.

As I said, I consider spirituality a sixth sense. And yes, people are just as justified in believing what they want. But they are responsible for their beliefs. I am responsible for mine. I take what feelings I am give and formulate them, and this is what I get - what other people get doesn't matter.

Thus Jesus being the Son of God is a reality in my mind as much as persay, the pencil I'm holding is smooth, is a reality. It's all based on perception. There's no reason to trust a spiritual sense more than a physical sense. I trust the Holy Spirit as much as I trust the feelings of the hands that are typing this message on the keyboard.

[asbestosman]

So, naturally, we must make some assumptions in life.

Yes.

However, if we are to make assumptions, all assumptions are equal.

No.

Some assumptions are better supported by evidence than others. If I go outside in the morning and notice that my lawn is wet, I might assume that it rained, or I might assume that the Chinese decided to test a long-range water cannon with my neighborhood as the target. Which one do you think has better support?

I assume that the sun will continue to generate light and heat tomorrow even though I cannot truly prove that nothing will happen to stop it. Maybe an alien race will come in and destroy the sun. Maybe there is a small but non-zero chance that every atom in the sun will arrange itself in such a way that it ceases to be a star. I don't take either possibility very seriously even though I suppose both are technically possible. I assume it won't happen because experience and evidence support the notion that the sun will continue to produce heat and light just as it has been doing as long as I can remember, as long as humans have recorded history, and even as long as the earth has recorded evidence of the sun's influence.

[changed]

I am wondering if mass virus

infection causing viable mutations is actually plausible among higher primates.

AIDS is an incurable viral disease to which, we once thought, no one is immune. Studies are now suggesting, however, that some children of mothers with AIDS are born immune to the disease. This is the subject of a story in Science, "Can Some Infants Beat HIV?" (Clare Thompson, "Can Some Infants Beat HIV?" p 441 v 271, Science, 26 January 1996.)

"Among hundreds of children born to HIV-positive mothers, the studies found 21 who initially tested positive on HIV antibody and virus tests, but later came out negative. Referring to one of the studies, Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Maryland, says: "It's pretty compelling evidence that they were able to clear the infection, or were exposed to it, got transient infection, and then cleared it."

I would say that children born immune to the AIDS virus are evolved humans, they are different than the rest of us, and this difference came through HGT, through exposure to a virus. (not through "random mutation")

It would seem that if HGT were a major mechanism, happening often, trillions of times a year world wide to trillions of organisms, then some common decent paths could be completely disrupted.

The art of drawing trees has become more scientific, it is claimed, because now the actual sequences of genes can be compared. It is logical to hold that the more similar genes are, the more closely related are the organisms that carry them. Thus the gene for the RNA in the smaller unit of the ribosome, a gene all cells carry, has been sequenced for many species and used to draw a mathematical tree of life like the one at left.

Work like this has been under way since at least 1977. Carl Woese of the University of Illinios at Urbana Champaign is a pioneers of the new method. He first proposed that archaebacteria are different enough to warrant the recognition of a new third domain called archaea. This proposal became widely accepted by about 1996; it is corroborated by several lines of evidence, not just the sequence of one gene.

But, promising as the new method is, it turns out to be flawed from the Darwinian perspective. The problem is that when different genes are used to draw the tree, different trees result. This problem is explained if evolution makes extensive use of genes that are transfered horizontally, as in Cosmic Ancestry, instead of only vertically, as in Darwinism. Horizontal gene transfer produces complex trees with criss-crossing branches, instead of simple, fan-shaped trees.

(W. Ford Doolittle, "Phylogenetic Classification and the Universal Tree" [abstract], p 2124-2129 v 284, Science, 25 June 1999.)

Phylogenetic Classification and the Universal TreeW. Ford Doolittle

From comparative analyses of the nucleotide sequences of genes encoding ribosomal RNAs and several proteins, molecular phylogeneticists have constructed a "universal tree of life," taking it as the basis for a "natural" hierarchical classification of all living things. Although confidence in some of the tree's early branches has recently been shaken, new approaches could still resolve many methodological uncertainties. More challenging is evidence that most archaeal and bacterial genomes (and the inferred ancestral eukaryotic nuclear genome) contain genes from multiple sources. If "chimerism" or "lateral gene transfer" cannot be dismissed as trivial in extent or limited to special categories of genes, then no hierarchical universal classification can be taken as natural. Molecular phylogeneticists will have failed to find the "true tree," not because their methods are inadequate or because they have chosen the wrong genes, but because the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree. However, taxonomies based on molecular sequences will remain indispensable, and understanding of the evolutionary process will ultimately be enriched, not impoverished.

as far as ID goes:

"horizontal gene transfer is a form of genetic engineering." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HGT

[semlogo]

But nevertheless we cannot assume. It wasn't like the sun going around the earth was a flash in the pan idea at the time of Coppernicus, was it?

We don't assume. We know.

[semlogo]

No I do not. You are confused just as you were the last time you tried this tack. There is no parity.

Macro-evolution is a fact. You are the result of it. You are a primate related to all other primates and it is sad that the light that entered the world with Darwin and Wallace has not penetrated your brain.

Some people just don't like the idea of being an animal.

I once came across an even worse reason for rejecting evolution. Some guy pointed out to me that if evolution were true, then we would all be related to blacks (or negroes as he put it). Having pointed this out he looked as me as if he were waiting for me to suddenly realize the disgusting absurdity of this.

Many primitive peoples actually viewed animals as just another kind of people, ie the buffalo people, the bear people, etc. I've always liked that idea.

[cdowis]

No I do not.

I had assumed that you would not be consistent in your position. I was right.

You are confused just as you were the last time you tried this tack.

Actually I hit the nail on the head.

There is no parity.

Then you need to be consistent.

Macro-evolution is a fact. You are the result of it.

Are you then willing to deal with some of the "god of the gaps" issues? I have posed several of these terrible questions here on the forum, and noted the utter failure of evolution to deal with them.

I will start a new thread if you are ready to go. If I am the product of macro evolution, then you should, for example, answer some of those questions related to the evolution of the human body.

You are a primate related to all other primates and it is sad that the light that entered the world with Darwin and Wallace has not penetrated your brain.

OK, perhaps you can shine some light on my brain. Are you willing to deal with those issues?

Some people just don't like the idea of being an animal.

Clearly I am an animal. Both humans and animals have a spirit, only of a different nature. They are resurrected as humans are resurrected.

Why should that bother me?

I once came across an even worse reason for rejecting evolution. Some guy pointed out to me that if evolution were true, then we would all be related to blacks (or negroes as he put it). Having pointed this out he looked as me as if he were waiting for me to suddenly realize the disgusting absurdity of this.

And I could give some stories of the followers of Darwin that would chill your blood. A philosophy of survival of the fittest brings out some pretty bad behaviour.

Now, is that the best you can do. Telling horror stories?

[cdowis]

Tarski,

I have issued this challange several times. Perhaps you want to take a shot at it.

For example, I have already conducted a thread, for example, on how to falsify the theory on how mammary glands developed thru evolution. There is a very simple experiment that I proposed. Are you interested in that conversation?

Our evolutionists basically responded that I needed to "see the larger picture". When you get to the details of how evolution works in certain specific situations, it fails miserably.

I have even offered a simple scientific experiment to test evolution on this issue. Let's open a thread and see what you got.

[Hick Preacher]

<<<I would say that children born immune to the AIDS virus are evolved humans, they are different than the rest of us, and this difference came through HGT, through exposure to a virus.>>>

Sounds a little like Lamark

[Robert F. Smith]

There is an ultimately religiously motivated group of people who do not like what they see as the religious and philosophical implications of some well established standard science we call evolutionary theory. They are more convinced by the Bible than they are by the data so they figure there must be something wrong with the data or the science. But there isn't. If they insist that there is a conflict with their religion, then the fault is with the religion.

Rather than face this they come up with pseudo-science and various "realpolitik" strategies to get their disguised religious ideas into the science classroom to target students while they are too immature to know how science really works and what is really at stake epistemologically.

Since they made a special nuisance of themselves, a response from the scientific community was deemed expedient.

It is unfortunate that you are consistently unable to portray the creationists as anything more than a cabal of ignorant, religious boobs who have been conspiring to insert religion-disguised-as-science into the elementary and secondary science classroom.

While it is true that this effort and subterfuge is against the law (unconstitutional), and while I have personally seen to it that they have been unable to make headway with that surreptitious effort (in my neck of the woods), I have also advised them personally (both creationist scientists and state legislators) that they ought to have maintained strict adherence to a science-only curriculum in the elementary and secondary school science classroom. Since they were unwilling to follow that advice, they have consistently failed to make any headway in their absurd legislative efforts.

What is true is that not a few scientists are believers in God, whatever type of god that may be (and beliefs run the gamut). See Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers. Indeed, there are a plenty of legitimate scientists who are creationists, and who have consistently defeated evolutionists in open public debate -- usually at colleges across the country. The public humiliation suffered by the evolutionists is the primary reason why evolutionists have recently become so trenchant in their vitriolic attacks on creationists and their refusal to engage in further debate -- even though the debates were restricted only to discussion of scientific data. I attended many of those debates and was frankly astonished at the weakness of the evolutionist position. Yes, they were a "nuisance" all right.

Consequently, the effort now (by a biology dominated by evolutionists) is to exclude any creationist both politically and professionally, i.e., from publishing in refereed journals, and from teaching. For classroom teachers who formerly acquainted their students with a broad range of theories, only one theory may now be taught.

You should be ashamed of that inquisitorial, pontifical atmosphere of approved, scientific dogma, Tarski. It is as though you have forgotten the real meaning of the Galileo and Scopes affairs. For scientism has now become the approved "religion" of the day. Any real scientific discussion of the theoretical or factual issues is thus Verboten, including here on this blog, where you create a bigoted, straw-man version of creationism or ID instead of engaging in actual scientific discussion. Your arrogance = lack of humility in the face of scientific reality.

[Robert F. Smith]

Peer review is process wherein qualified third parties review a submitted work to make sure that proper scientific approach, accuracy, logical interpretation of data and reasonable conclusions. It is a process that religion (especially Mormonism) does not (and could not) tolerate.

In religion, and especially Mormonism, criticism of the dogma is not allowed. It is considered sinful to call into question the judgment or pronouncements of those in authority who are responsible for determining what the "truth" is and what the worldview of an adherent should be. Religion is the opposite of science. Where science is based on evidence and knowledge, religion is based on superstition arising from unfounded belief.

If there were any "universal objective truth" to religion, why would it be it that there are so many of them, each with a different idea of what constitutes "truth".

The saying that science seeks truth while religion claims to have it sums up the situation fairly well.

You are comparing apples and oranges, i.e., claiming incompatibilities among incommensurables -- all the while making a god out of science (see Richard Olson, Science Deified and Science Defied [u. C. Press, 1982]).

Mormon scholars in general (scientists, historians, philosophers, et al.) regularly submit to peer review both in Mormon publications and also in other peer reviewed scholarly journals throughout the world, and they seem to have had no difficulty in doing so. BYU Studies and FARMS publications have required peer review from the beginning, as have many other Mormon publications.

Official Mormon Church magazines and newspapers are not peer reviewed journals, nor should they be.

According to James Talmage, Jesus the Christ (1915), 81 = (1983) 77, miracles are merely "a higher manifestation" of "natural law." Non-Mormon scholar Thomas F. O'Dea argued that "There is actually no room in Mormonism for philosophy as distinct from theology" (The Mormons, 233). Leonard Arrington quoted Brigham Young to much the same effect (Great Basin Kingdom, 6), i.e., that temporal and spiritual things are inseparably connected. Cf. Jan Shipps, Mormonism, 125.

[thesometimesaint]

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=R1

[Robert F. Smith]

This thread is about proof, not "suggestions". There are many "suggestions" which disprove many of the claims of macro-evolution, so we can spend time "suggesting" many things.

If you want to open a thread on speculation, please do so, but here we are talking about Tarski's claim of proof, absolute certainty, established fact.

I was just trying to be nice. Didn't want to pull the rug completely out from under him.

[semlogo]

It is unfortunate that you are consistently unable to portray the creationists as anything more than a cabal of ignorant, religious boobs who have been conspiring to insert religion-disguised-as-science into the elementary and secondary science classroom.

A most accurate description of the creationists.

[TAO]

Yes.

No.

Some assumptions are better supported by evidence than others. If I go outside in the morning and notice that my lawn is wet, I might assume that it rained, or I might assume that the Chinese decided to test a long-range water cannon with my neighborhood as the target. Which one do you think has better support?

Well, until you have more information, neither. For example, let's say this occurs in that one desert in Africa where it's never rained in 32 straight years. It might be more educated to say your neighbor wanted to be generous and watered your lawn for you. But based solely on the information given in that situation, one cannot make a judgement as to what happened. For example, if that happened in China, option B would be significantly more likely than it would be in America. So under the information given, it is improper to call an assumption 'better' than another. Especially since you don't know if that plot of land is right in front of a Chinese Water Cannon.

So ultimately, your still basing it off of the senses, and assuming doesn't do you any good. When you first come into the world, you cannot make an assumption, thus, all assumptions are equal. They may be changed by past experiences, but that's something that effects your senses. It isn't inherently more right - it just seems more likely based on your senses.

I assume that the sun will continue to generate light and heat tomorrow even though I cannot truly prove that nothing will happen to stop it. Maybe an alien race will come in and destroy the sun. Maybe there is a small but non-zero chance that every atom in the sun will arrange itself in such a way that it ceases to be a star. I don't take either possibility very seriously even though I suppose both are technically possible. I assume it won't happen because experience and evidence support the notion that the sun will continue to produce heat and light just as it has been doing as long as I can remember, as long as humans have recorded history, and even as long as the earth has recorded evidence of the sun's influence.

Nevertheless, this is based on information of the senses. Without your senses, you wouldn't be able to have a clue to anything. Thus, all forms of senses are considered equal, because before you use them, you have no way to tell which is better or worse. But now that you have had experience with some senses, you tend to show a bias to those, since you've already experienced them. It doesn't make the other ones in-viable to train though. That's why you here of blind people who can tell who people are with their voices. Just because you would assign a bias to your sight, you wouldn't realize that was possible with your hearing, unless you met a blind person.

Thus all senses are equal. And to me, the spirit is a sense.