From my limited understanding, Darwin started the idea of evolution, but most modern scientific understanding of evolution has little in similarities to Darwin's original beliefs.

No

Yes.

Keep it civil, you two.

Ask this question. If we evolved from Apes...Why are their still Apes? Why is there nothing in between Apes and Humans?

This theory was created and shoved down our throats since grade school with one purpose...Too make us feel insignificant!!

We evolved from a common ancestor. Humans didn't evolve from apes, we split 100's of thousands of years ago if not millions.

Fake news? Typical clinton crony redorick. You need to get out more

Wtf does that have to do with Clinton? Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t make it not true.

You are just trying to spout off Clinton foundation rhetoric. I mean... You're basically acting like Alex Jones. Most scientist believe we came from aliens or God

Oh I get it, you’re one of those nonsense trolls that are here to make everyone look stupid.

And not addressing my argument implys you're smart ??

What’s your argument? That most scientists say something that they absolutely don’t say? That’s not an argument it’s literally a lie.

If we evolved from Apes...Why are their still Apes?

If dogs came from wolves, why are there still woves?

In 1999, a study emphasized that while molecular genetic data seem to support the origin of dogs from wolves, dogs may have descended from a now extinct species of canid whose closest living relative was the wolf. The dog's lineage may have been contributed to from a ghost population.

"Evidence says they came from wolves, but it's possible they didn't" wow, such science.

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004016

We find that none of the wolf lineages from the hypothesized domestication centers is supported as the source lineage for dogs, and that dogs and wolves diverged 11,000–16,000 years ago in a process involving extensive admixture and that was followed by a bottleneck in wolves.

There's no questioning here of a common ancestor.

These "questions" are answered on day one in the evolution portion of grade 10 biology.

If you are like my brother in law and attended a Catholic school you may not be privy to actual science learning though.

Hey mate, Its all just a theory, same as the Bigbang, blackhole, whitehole, string, flat/concave/convexe earth.

The only thing we know for sure is that we live in a computer simulation...

😂

In science, theory means a lot more than you think.

The theory is apes and humans came from a common ancestor. This is the missing link everyone talks about, we have no fossil record of this creature. I find evolution from a single cell to a human hard to believe. I know one thing God created us. Evolution can still work with God in the picture.

"Liking" something doesn't make it true.

I'm don't ascribe to any religion, at all--- But yes, I agree. I never understood the problem that many people have with the notion of God being like, " Well, here are the seeds of existence. Let me plant them in this bullshit over here and see what happens".

How does that ruin God for people?

There is no "missing link".

Ok so what is the common ancestor apes, and humans evolved from?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus

Yeah we are talking about very small changes over a long long time. I would think we would find tons of transitional fossils through out the time line. Like when we came from the ocean, imagine it, we were fish like creatures then, and one day we started trying to go on land. Where are the fossils of those creatures starting to grow legs overtime? I can only imagine the process going from water to land had to take millions if not billions of years, we should see in the fossil record some transitional fossils.

Here's one for you

All living things were in the ocean at one point according to evolution. I am having a hard time seeing that transition from water to land. One day an animal started to come to the surface, naturally it does not live on the land so it dies. These creatue/creatures kept doing this over and over until lungs evolved. Why would they do this? What would motivate the creatures to come to land, they cant survive on land, why would they continue to try?

Why would they do this? What would motivate the creatures to come to land, they cant survive on land, why would they continue to try?

Why reply to his post if you aren't going to read it? He already answered these questions:

They didn't just swim and then one day pop onto land. Rather, some species lived mostly in water and would visit the land occasionally (like some fishes still do today, like mudskippers) to mate or hunt.

My understanding of evolution is at one point ALL living creatures lived in the ocean, they lived, ate, and died in the ocean, during that time there was not a creature that sometimes went to land. If this wrong, tell me how? So if my understanding is correct, at some point a creature that always lived in the water, decided to try and start going on land, and that very first attempt to do so would have killed it, because it can't live on land.

and that very first attempt to do so would have killed it

This is where you are wrong. Fish do not die immediately after leaving the water.

Well if they stayed on the land long enough it would. I'm trying to get people to think about this harder. I don't understand the creatures motivation to go land, another poster pointed out that no predators were on the land, so that's possibly why they wanted to go to land, however, if they got on the land and stayed they eventually die. So millions of generations of this creature kept going to land to die, then evolution kicked in and these creatures started to evolve lungs to breath.

Maybe you are the one who needs to try and think harder, hm?

I am a fish, I live in the water, but there are predators.

another poster pointed out that no predators were on the land, so that's possibly why they wanted to go to land, however, if they got on the land and stayed they eventually die.

So they go back in the water.

Multiple fish try to do it, the vast majority die. One in a million has a mutation which allows it to survive for a few seconds, which is just long enough to evade a predator and then slip back into the water. That fish has babies which can all do the same thing. Repeat.

Why would they do this? What would motivate the creatures to come to land, they cant survive on land, why would they continue to try?

For one thing, 100% of their predators are not on land.

I would think we would find tons of transitional fossils through out the time line

See the thing is fossilization is rare and finding them is really hard. I don't expect we'll ever have anything resembling a 'complete' timeline

Missing link. What do you mean by missing?

I am going to take the opinion of an evolutionary biologist over a stand up comedian on this subject.

There is no missing link. It was a slow process where we started looking less like apes and more like we do now.

So we have always been human, and we just changed appearance? There has to be a missing link somewhere on the line cause supposedly we were living in the ocean at one point. Didn't walk up right and have arms at that point. So we're are all these fossils were fish started to grow arms slowly?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuqFUdqNYhg

Process took billions of years. It's a very slow process. What the video does not show is transitional fossils. The video show sea creatures with no arms or legs, and the bam we are not fish, but walk on all 4. This is my problem, and dr. Carson problem, there should be a ton of transitional fossils, There are still gaps, and assumptions being made.

It shows tons of transitional fossils.

What the video does not show is transitional fossils.

That's all it shows, and since evolution is a constant process, all fossils are technically transitional. This idea that only some are is an invention of people who don't actually understand evolution.

The video show sea creatures with no arms or legs, and the bam we are not fish, but walk on all 4

No it doesn't.

There are still gaps, and assumptions being made.

There will always be "gaps". They get smaller and smaller every year that goes on, until people like you will be demanding one, long, uninterrupted chain of every single generation.

Here's something that's not an assumption: We have fossil proof of hundreds of thousands of species that did not exist...then did exist...then ceased to exist and were replaced by extremely similar species that were slightly better adapted to the environment.

Unless you think God or aliens are picking up and putting down a bunch of species over the course of millions of years to create the illusion of evolution , then there's nothing to talk about. Evolution is obvious by the mere fact that the fossil record shows that each species has a point of entrance and point of exit; as opposed to all the species existing at the beginning and slowly going extinct one after another.

Many flippered creatures had hands that changed to flippers. Whales and dolphins come from land animals.

Like here

Do we really come from apes?

Literally, no. Humans have certain DNA similarities. Darwin never said that Humans were directly descended from Apes. That was propaganda put forth by the Catholic Church.

We didn't come from chimps , but both us and chimps are apes.

We didn't come from chimps, but both us and chimps are apes and came from apes.

You need to conduct some fair and unbiased research. You are misinformed.

No, you need to.

Humans are in the homo genera, which along with pondo , pan , and gorilla , are in the hominidae family, the Great Apes, which is a branch of hominoidea the Apes.

I can't believe I'm responding to this.

Human's didn't "come" from "apes".

Humans and apes have a common ancestor. Just like poodles and wolves had a common ancestor.

A long time ago, they branched off. Their evolutionary lines forked . One line continued on to eventually become poodles. Another line continued on to become modern day wolves. They evolved different traits at different rates but had a common ancestor.

Humans and apes shared a common ancestor, but forked off a long time ago, and evolved different traits at different rates. (Ours happened to be intelligence).

Humans and chimps are both apes, and share a common ancestor which is also an ape.

Primates is a better word than apes IMO.

Just a theory though. From a guy that married his cousin

it's a way better theory than "God did it!". Speciation has been observed in real time, so the mechanism is well established.

Not that much better.

Isn't evolution sposed to be over millions of years? Yet we watched it post Darwin?

Big changes happen over long time periods, yes, but changes can occur over shorter periods as well. Just look up "contemporary speciation" and you'll find lots of examples.

Macro evolution can take millions of years depending on the species, micro evolution not so much.

Creationists don't get to talk down on other people for fucking their cousins.

Cause they do. Cousin fiddler

Removed. Rule 10.

No. Micro evolution sure. Brown fox with big ears turn into white fox with short ears.... Fine. Fish turnes Into a monkey, well, that's some bullshit.

Actually, it's not some bullshit. There is plenty of material about evolution on the web. Read some of it.

It's not like I don't understand what their claim is you goofball. I don't believe it because i see too many problems with it. Believe what you want. I don't care what you believe.

Microsoft evolution is macro evolution just Ina smaller scale. Our existence doesn't allow us to have witnessed macro is all.

Humans hav evolved before our very eyes. Less and less people get all four wisdom teeth.

Microsoft evolution is macro evolution just Ina smaller scale. Our existence doesn't allow us to have witnessed macro is all.

how convenient

Humans hav evolved before our very eyes. Less and less people get all four wisdom teeth.

Can you fuck that person with no wisdom teeth and have a child? Okay then! you just described micro-evolution.

Your example shows you don't understand the mechanics of evolution.

I understand what the claims are! I just don't fucking buy it! Do you understand the difference?

I know that a little knowledge is a scary thing... And man are you scary!

Learn English

Learn human

The "difference" is invented by creationists, it's not real science.

You watch too much X-MEN. I get it dude, I've taken the same courses in school and uni as you. I've watch the same Nova, BBC, nature and discovery (back when it was an actually a good science channel) shows as you. I used to buy into it as well. But I simply don't anymore. No matter how many time you change the shape and size a species nose (micro) that does NOT mean that there is a chance you're going to have a child that is born with a sonar detector on its face! no matter how many years. Humans have bread dogs crazy! The evolution of dogs are a great example! no matter how many times you change a dog, you'll always end up with a dog, and at no point, any of these dogs will end up with a 5mw laser gun on their head!

You can't answer my questions, so you're just repeating yourself.

What causes "micro evolution"?

What prevents micro evolution from becoming macro evolution?

You can't answer my questions, so you're just repeating yourself. All you do is just say "A dog cannot evolve into something that isn't a dog! It just can't" which is just an assertion, you need to explain the mechanism in order for this assertion to be plausible.

You didn't explain shit! This is your fucking explanation! ready for the fucking hypocrisy?

If you add up enough Micros, you get a Macro, it's that simple.

HAHAHAHAHAH literally wut? Simple alright! simple minded. SHOW ME evidence. If you do enough herp, you get a derp! And then you say:

Some make the species fitter, some make it less fit, some are benign. Some add DNA, some subtract it, some change it. Eventually the genetic differences are so great that the chromosomes are no longer compatible to mate, that's when you have speciation.

And some create a FUCKING SONAR DETECTOR on your face! it's that simple! you just set it, and FORGET IT!!!

What causes "micro evolution"?

fox move from warm to cold snowy area. Some fox have lighter fur. They survive. Their kids will have lighter hair. they survive. The ones in bright orange get eaten up by the eagles. More whites ones breed. Now you have white fox! congrats. at no point, any of them, grew a fucking twisted unicorn horn. YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT HAPPENS. NOT ME.

What prevents micro evolution from becoming macro evolution over enough iterations?

read what I wrote above again. This time slowly. apparently you think im repeating myself yet here you are repeating yourself.

Don't just say, "It can't", explain the mechanism.

no! you show the mechinsm of bunch of amino acids in a pool turning into a cell and then a fish and then a goat and a sweedish model.

erratic capitalization and childish taunting

Dude, fucking calm down.

fox move from warm to cold snowy area. Some fox have lighter fur

What causes the lighter fur? How can a Fox have lighter fur out of nowhere?

And some create a FUCKING SONAR DETECTOR on your face! it's that simple! you just set it, and FORGET IT!!!

read what I wrote above again.

You didn't explain why they can't add up, you just cited the beginning and end of an iteration and expressed incredulity that the spots in between could be filled in. Nobody is saying a creature is born with a fully functioning sonar detect out of nowhere. Rather, I could imagine a small mutation making a nose capable of feeling slight changes in air pressure, which might help it predict weather. Over time it might be sensitive enough to function sort of like an ear and "hear" things, at first very faintly and eventually more precisely. At some point that organ might mutate to hear higher and higher frequency vibrations, eventually beyond the audible range. If that creature happens to live in caves, this could lead to sonar like bats have.

Nobody's saying a nose turns into a sonar detector overnight, nobody, so you're refuting a strawman.

You didn't explain why they can't add up, you just cited the beginning and end of an iteration and expressed incredulity that the spots in between could be filled in. Nobody is saying a creature is born with a fully functioning sonar detect out of nowhere. Rather, I could imagine a small mutation making a nose capable of feeling slight changes in air pressure, which might help it predict weather. Over time it might be sensitive enough to function sort of like an ear and "hear" things, at first very faintly and eventually more precisely. At some point that organ might mutate to hear higher and higher frequency vibrations, eventually beyond the audible range. If that creature happens to live in caves, this could lead to sonar like bats have. All sonar is is just high-frequency sound that's mapped by the brain into a sense of location, that's it.

you're simply extrapolating. That is not proof.

Any organ can become any other organ if it mutates enough and the mutations cause advantages.

proof?

Sometimes the advantages don't go in a straight line either, sometimes an organ will evolve for one use and then coincidentally also be sort-of useful for another thing, and that will re-set their evolutionary course in another direction. Ears likely came from gills, for instance. Since gills were made up of very tiny, sensitive membranes, it's not hard to imagine how they might be able to sense pressure waves in the water, which on land translates into ear-like capabilities that can be built on in successive generations.

again. You're just making shit up. You can also imagine a tiny elf that comes every 40, 000 year and gives creatures new features. You'd have to wait another 32,000 years to see it for yourself. it works very slow you see?

What matters is what I described could happen, and you can't tell me why it can't.

I thought science was all about evidence and not "well, it -could- happen". Scientologist claim Xeeno or something sent alien soles into volcanoes on earth. That could happen i guess. I mean your story is as fantastic as that. If there are billions of galaxies and billions of billions of planets and billions of years i guess you can have advance aliens who came here with some other alien soles. could happen. now prove it didn't happen.

Explain what stops a nose from slowly evolving into something that's no longer a nose. What stops it? Is it something in DNA?

You have no mechanism, your "theory" is horse shit and it falls apart under examination.

Just because I don't have an explanation, doesn't mean I should subscribe to a ridiculous idea. Believe what you man, by all means dear.

I mean just look at us, we do look a lot like chimps. I mean I don't, but lots of other people do. But yea, I think we did evolve from an ape-like creature.

We are apes, we came from apes, and current apes share a common ancestor with us.

Darwin didn't really say anything wrong about evolution, he just laid out the simple base for it, and science has expanded it as time has gone on.

We're still missing the missing link

Aliens.

We are finding new hominins all the time, making the "gap" between links smaller and smaller.

No, it's still missing http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170517-we-have-still-not-found-the-missing-link-between-us-and-apes

I like Terrence Mckennas Theory on this that we came down from the trees and ate Magic Mushrooms which expanded our consciousness!

I like the aquatic ape theory

I like the stoned aquatic ape theory.

Where we came down front he trees got high and hung out in hot springs.

I'm pretty sure these guys are the most advanced species on Earth, not the one that locks itself in coal mines and factories all day.

"we come descended from monkeys"

Nah, we were created in one way or the other. -intelligent design-

YT Docu on evolution vs creationism

We are a mix of apes and aliens.

We were savages and then the aliens messed with our DNA, then enslaved us to build stuff and mine gold for them.

This is an extremely loose explanation.

but a good start...

I’ll attempt to delve more into it after hours and when I can list sources.

There are no reliable sources for this information. It's all baseless conjecture and confirmation bias.

you might try looking up goethe's "ur-form / Urpflanze" theory - recently there's been some compelling research on non-Darwinian evolution within continental academic science. While in US there's also ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould#The_"Darwin_Wars "

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould#The_"Darwin_Wars "

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 167287}

Urpflanze

This is a good scholarly unpacking from Budapest. Thanks for the idea.

http://hps.elte.hu/~zemplen/goethemorph.html

Relevant:

Along with many other researchers in the field, Gould's works were sometimes deliberately taken out of context by creationists as "proof" that scientists no longer understood how organisms evolved. [82] Gould himself corrected some of these misinterpretations and distortions of his writings in later works.[83]

yeah sure, but w/o proper context the nuance you are introducing here makes it sound like Gould went back on himself and changed into a darwinist which isn't what happened. Don't make the same mistake as the creationists... when having doubts about faith-based darwinism it is tempting to adopt a frame of the issue as a dichotomy that makes one side right just because the other side is wrong. Gould got misunderstood by people who's comprehension was limited due to the lure of this darwinian frame. Gould didn't change his stance on darwinism, he changed his presentation to address this false frame because so many people were missing the point and tripping on the doormat as a way to avoid responding to Gould's primary argument.

What if apes came from US...

We were genetically altered by aliens. And I'm not joking either It is the complete truth.

.....what? Lol

I wrote it in English.... We were genetically created by aliens. Just telling you what actually happened.

Yeah, ha, too bad there's no evidence for that! I wish there was.

Yes there is

there's evidence everywhere

I have investigating such claims for thirty years. It is all based on stupid assertions of conspiracies and unfounded or extremely infeasible interpretations of ideas recorded by profoundly ignorant ancient scribes, and woven into fantastical narratives that represent the death of rationality and critical thought. Law enforcement agencies and espionage agencies do not possess crucial information about humanity's origins. It's a fantasy world. I used to believe as you do, but my eyes have been opened. Reality is much more interesting, and far more exotic and strange than any tales involving ancient aliens and modern conspiracies.

wow. You sound like you were there thousands of years ago......

THOUSANDS!?!?!?!? * Ugh!

I would like for you to fathom your existence. Now give me a mathematical representation of probability of exactly you existing.

I fathom its outline with some understanding, enough to know that anybody who imagines that they truly fathom the depth of their existence is a deluded and ignorant fool. Although you base your question on an unknowable premise, indeed, you are correct: the statistical likelihood of my existence is precisely 100%. However, this has nothing to do with the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, or the multiverse theory, or any other cosmological speculation. It has to do with the simple, self-evident fact of my existence.

I would quibble also with your phrasing and fundamental assumption. "God" is a sophomoric idea that is the love of many a foolish ape. If we are to base our conclusions on what is knowable, on rational discourse and evidence, rather than mystical speculation, worthless anecdotes, and the guidance of generation after generation of self-deluded apes hacking their brains and bodies, rather than using the transpersonal cognitive and physical tools of Science, we are led to an inescapable conclusion, one that I've never understood why people can't see. The only thing there really is nature. Anything that exists is, a priori, natural , and nothing has ever been demonstrated to exist that is not of-nature, and thus natural. Even an infinite universe producing infinite sub-universes, time-space bubbles of unfathomable duration, cannot be said to be anything other than nature. We're all just cogs in something turning.

You are an infinite being. This physical universe is controlled mentally. This is why at the tiniest level, atoms and smaller, it's all energy. And that energy is controlled by your being. Study quantum physics.

I see that you have a deep, Deepak Chopra-level of minunderstanding of quantum physics. I've been studying this for well over two decades; nothing in actual quantum physics should lead a truly informed person to the conclusion that the physical universe is controlled by consciousness, or that individuals are infinite, or that there is such a thing as "pure energy." These are all the hallmarks of popular quantum mysticism, which has no connection whatsoever to the science of quantum physics.

The Universe would be precisely the same as it is now, everywhere, whether or not consciousness existed.

you're incredibly daft, aren't you?

I'm done talking to you. You create what you believe. And you've created a dead universe in your head. And that is what it will be for you.

If you would instead follow your intuition you would find truth. But you seem to want to run away from it like you're scared of it.

Atoms only choose a location when a consciousness focuses on them. This means that the universe is being built by you. Not the other way around.

You've fundamentally misunderstood all of modern physics if you think it takes consciousness to make atoms "choose a location." That's the New Age/mystical/Deepak Chopra version of things.

My beliefs have nothing to do with Objective Reality. No ones beliefs do. Reality is as it is whether or not anything is there to observe it. Were it otherwise, the Universe simply couldn't exist in any meaningful sense, as there was nothing to perceive it in any way at .0000000000000000000000000000000000000001 of a second after the Big Bang.

The best thing about science is that is doesn't rely on the intuition of an ape.

pigs are where we got less hair

And taste worse

Of course we are ape and come from apes. But the reason why we have physiognomical difference with our cousins might just be that we went through a semi aquatic stage in our development. I really like this Ted talk (link below). It certainly explain a lot. Also the things that most people don't consider is the sea level as it changes drastically over the millennia. A lot of our ancestors bones might just lay 450 feet below the current sea level if we did go through a semi aquatic phase. The Ted talk in question: https://www.ted.com/talks/elaine_morgan_says_we_evolved_from_aquatic_apes?utm_campaign=tedspread&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare

I think the semi aquatic stage makes sense. I'd have to find a source but I believe it has been theorized that our anscestors went through a bottle neck period where our population mostly existed on the bottom coast of Africa, leading to a seafood filled diet. It would make sense that the ones with less hair would have an easier time surviving to avoid drag resistance and avoiding staying wet and cold

Apparently there was more than one bottleneck. But the most severe was approx 80k years ago. Went from millions to less than 5k in population. That was deducted from DNA analysis from worldwide population. In the early 2000's. The thing that amazed me is that Neanderthal left Africa 480k years ago. More than 200k years separation before we meet them again.

I think we were created by a federation of alien species from DNA found on this planet and within their own genetic line. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

what about the idea that we actually, at one point, evolved to be better suited for living in the water? And then we migrated up onto land. Pretty much completely dismissed by now but interesting to think that there could be many different parts to the puzzle that we are ignorantly ignoring.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/a-new-aquatic-ape-theory-67868308/

It should be more accurate called the "aquatic ape hypothesis, and there's extremely little evidence in support of this hypothesis. Modern theories concerning humanity's origins in Africa are not based on an assumption for which people hoped to find evidence. Evidence instead led evolutionary biologists to conclude that humans must have come from Africa. The fossil record is pretty strong, but incomplete, but is greatly bolstered by the far stronger and more reliable DNA evidence.

pierre teilhard, the same jesuit we can 'thank' for the new age movement played a role in the piltdown man hoax, which made the theory of evolution acceptable to the masses

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man_hoax

https://www.ignatianspirituality.com/ignatian-voices/20th-century-ignatian-voices/pierre-teilhard-de-chardin-sj

Darwin should not be your point of departure. He simply formulated the earliest theory of evolution by natural selection, with documentary evidence. The theory of evolution is so far beyond Darwin now.

Simply put, if we call the animals on Earth today to which humans are most closely related "apes," then no, humans did not "come from apes." Humans and apes have common ancestors. However, if we are to speculate as to what our common ancestor was, i.e. the most recent common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans, then the creature that once existed is something that would almost assuredly be the sort of fellow you'd look at and think, "well that's pretty ape-like," so in another sense, yes, we came from apes.

The key point is that the "ape" from which we descended is no longer around, is cannot be confused with the apes that live in our contemporary world.

There is no "missing link".

There is no missing link. It was a slow process where we started looking less like apes and more like we do now.

Maybe you are the one who needs to try and think harder, hm?

I am a fish, I live in the water, but there are predators.

another poster pointed out that no predators were on the land, so that's possibly why they wanted to go to land, however, if they got on the land and stayed they eventually die.

So they go back in the water.

And taste worse

erratic capitalization and childish taunting

Dude, fucking calm down.

fox move from warm to cold snowy area. Some fox have lighter fur

What causes the lighter fur? How can a Fox have lighter fur out of nowhere?

And some create a FUCKING SONAR DETECTOR on your face! it's that simple! you just set it, and FORGET IT!!!

read what I wrote above again.

You didn't explain why they can't add up, you just cited the beginning and end of an iteration and expressed incredulity that the spots in between could be filled in. Nobody is saying a creature is born with a fully functioning sonar detect out of nowhere. Rather, I could imagine a small mutation making a nose capable of feeling slight changes in air pressure, which might help it predict weather. Over time it might be sensitive enough to function sort of like an ear and "hear" things, at first very faintly and eventually more precisely. At some point that organ might mutate to hear higher and higher frequency vibrations, eventually beyond the audible range. If that creature happens to live in caves, this could lead to sonar like bats have.

Nobody's saying a nose turns into a sonar detector overnight, nobody, so you're refuting a strawman.