How did Mammal Sonar Evolve? by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati

[Entropy56]

Look, we all know Dawkins is chronic masturbator, pedophile, and closet homosexual, but please don't make fun of this honorable man.

[kissmygrittsyall]

@Entropy56

Uhh... Indeed.

[xXTheRatXx]

If his arguments were invalid then they could be easily exposed as such, in the form of debate perhaps. Interestingly enough, no evolutionist will debate Dr. Sarfati. Organizations like CMI are hardpressed to find any evolutionists willing to debate. Hmmm...

[BereanBeacon1]

@xXTheRatXx EUGENIE C. SCOTT: Debate and Lose Critique - h t t p://wwwdotyoutubedotcom/watch?­v=L84cV1A6M-E

A Creation Challenge to the Chickens of Evolution - h t t p://w w wDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=bhkq­Jry3iBM

[CreationistCrap]

What's sad is people actually think Sarfati makes valid arguments.

[WhiteVV01F]

In other words, creation is plain obvious from the research scientists have already done.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@WhiteVV01F No, in other words creation can only be assumed and asserted while never actually being evidenced or having any testable mechanism at all offered for it.

[WhiteVV01F]

@TheScienceFoundation Of course you won't find a testable mechanism. Know any man or thing that is equivalent to God? As far as evidence for a creation event, it's obvious; the video shows it. I can see the design implications fairly well. Right now, I would have to amount an abundance of blind faith to not see it. One reason why I am a creationist is attributed to the fact I don't have to deny these that these are intelligently designed life forms with amazing abilities.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@WhiteVV01F You can't have it both ways, if you say 'god is too complex, it's a matter of faith' that's fine, but you can't say that while also claiming that he's evidenced through scientific discovery. There are no design implications in this video for the very reasons you just admitted, there can be nothing testable for your assertion and presupposition of creationism. You don't see it, you impose it because you already wanted to believe it.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@WhiteVV01F It's not a matter of denial, creation has only ever been asserted, never evidenced. One reason you're a creationist is it allows you to maintain your mythological presupposition while not having to explain anything at all.

[WhiteVV01F]

@TheScienceFoundation Advanced dolphin sonar. Enough said.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@WhiteVV01F Not nearly enough said. If you're claiming that dolphin sonar is somehow evidence of design or creation, then it's up to you to actually show how with testable mechanisms of creation. Otherwise all you have is bare assertion, a fallacy.

[WhiteVV01F]

@TheScienceFoundation So if I can't repeat what God did then my claim is false? My claim is just going to have to remain false according to your standards. I suppose not all of us have the same natural sense to detect designed things. The ATP synthase enzyme, however, is obvious design for just about everyone. It's the most cool little thing.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@WhiteVV01F No, it's that not all of us are working from the presupposition that there is design in the first place, some of us are objective. ATP is claimed to be designed by those who already wanted to believe in design in the first place, but they can't evidence these claims in any way as you've demonstrated with the sonar.

Really really believing that it was designed isn't the same as knowing or proving it was designed, never will be.

[WhiteVV01F]

@TheScienceFoundation Well, you could tell me a story on how you believe these things came to be, but that story would be equally untestable. No doubt, you also appeal to arguments that promote your beliefs because of a presupposition you first had composed of those beliefs.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@WhiteVV01F No, now you're just projecting. Evolutionary theory actually employs testable mechanisms, dozens of them. For instance, most any organism capable of emitting and perceiving sound is capable of sonar on some level. From there, if sonar would be beneficial, it's a matter of selection acting upon the organisms more and more capable of sonar.

[WhiteVV01F]

@TheScienceFoundation You just asserted that the ability to hear/emit sound evolved, and from there advanced sonar. There's no way to test that. You're being silly with me.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@WhiteVV01F Of course there is, you're confusing you not understanding it with it not being testable. Search for and read up on human sonar, yes even we're capable of it.

[WhiteVV01F]

@TheScienceFoundation "Sonar evolved" is not a testable claim.

The fact that human sonar exists proves that human sonar exists. Why did you mention it?

[TheScienceFoundation]

@WhiteVV01F The fact that human sonar exists proves that an organism with an extant auditory system is capable of sonar.

[WhiteVV01F]

@TheScienceFoundation Is this suppose to be a problem for me, or other creationists for that matter? The fact seems perfectly valid to me. We don't deny facts, you know.

The assertion that sonar once evolved in organisms without sonar (ability to perceive/emit sound), however, is an untestable assertion.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@WhiteVV01F Your argument against historical science now seems to be 'we don't have a time machine' This is not a valid argument, the point is we have actual testable mechanisms by which sonar can arise through natural processes and exactly zero by which it could arise through creationism.

If only you'd apply this skepticism of real science to the beliefs you already hold, you'd find they don't hold up nearly as well.

[WhiteVV01F]

@TheScienceFoundation Exactly, we don't have a time machine. That is exactly why the assertion that sonar evolved in organisms is untestable. It is okay to admit that there is something about the past you hold on to with faith. You are certainly not skeptic about your assertion in any way.

You are stretching the mechanism you are talking about way to far. There is no natural mechanism by which sonar evolves in organisms without the ability. You can't cheat.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@WhiteVV01F You're still confusing your unreasonable skepticism for there being no way to test evolution. The evolution of sonar is indeed testable, plausible and what we observe fits the data we already had.

'It is okay to admit that there is something about the past you hold on to with faith.'

see; psychological projection

I don't have to stretch the mechanism at all. Sonar already exists in organisms with auditory capabilities, in environments where its beneficial it would be selected

[WhiteVV01F]

@TheScienceFoundation Natural selection? That doesn't explain how sonar comes to be (where there is no sonar). That only explains how good sonar is selected for. However, sonar has to be there in the first place for any mechanism to work on it. And that is that; it is a faith you hold that sonar somehow evolved from non-sonar organisms. It is an untestable assertion. For some reason you can not admit that, and I won't pry further.

It was fun! Maybe later. :D

[TheScienceFoundation]

@WhiteVV01F I've already explained that any organism capable of auditory emission and perception has sonar on some level.

'For some reason you can not admit that'

A very good reason, that's a complete strawman.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@WhiteVV01F

"sonar has to be there in the first place for any mechanism to work on it"

A lot of animals with auditory systems can determine the direction of objects by the sound-waves they produce (including us). It's not a stretch to imagine animals CAUSING certain sounds that they then filter out once they reflect back from a surface. That's all what echolocation boils down to, really, and it's easy to see how natural selection would favor such systems under certain circumstances.

[TheScienceFoundation]

Sonar doesn't have to evolve independently, any organism that can emit and perceive sound can use a basic sonar.

[Aheadstix85]

Who said that first quote??, scott todd was it?, is he a scientist?, if he is that would prove that evolutionists ignore blatant fact!.

[Markus77x7]

Most of the early scientists were Christians (Copernicus, Galileo, Pascal, Isaac Newton, Carl Linnaeus, Johannes Keppler, Robert Boyle, Louis Pasteur, Jean Henri Fabre, Michael Faraday, John Ambrose Fleming, etc.). The faith of these great scientists was not a separate part of their thinking; indeed, it was integral to their thinking as they operated within a Christian framework..

[Markus77x7]

Historically, the atheistic societies were always scientifically illiterate.

[frankielee77]

No evolution proponents dare to refute his points,

He is the most profound scientists of our day,surpassing everyone we have known today.

He understood more about Evolution than all evolution proponents.

[majav15mg]

lololol

[majav15mg]

omg so complex that IT COULNDT HAVE EVOVLED BY RANDOCM CHCNACE LOLooloLOOLloOLLOll JEUsZUSs IZZ looorDRDRD

Fucking christians.

[keinzeit01]

@majav15mg

idiot

[majav15mg]

@keinzeit01 *cough* Sarcasm *cough*

[Aheadstix85]

@majav15mg Haha, you just upset cos hes proving how stupid and absurd all life just happening is.

[majav15mg]

@Aheadstix85 All life "JUST" happening? hahaha why should anyone even bother arguing with you.

[Aheadstix85]

@majav15mg Mate, did you know that evolution violates the laws of nature and of the naturally observed world?!?!, exactly how can that be???, evolution an a theory raises more questions than it answers, and recently after studying biology i have found out that most of evolution is Biologically impossible, there was no "primeordial soup" , infact studying the simple cell proves that it is far to complex to have just happened, but i don't need to tell you that as its one of the laws of science!.

[majav15mg]

@Aheadstix85 *yawn* to have just happened... be a bit more original.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@Aheadstix85 'Mate, did you know that evolution violates the laws of nature and of the naturally observed world?'

Really? Such as?

'evolution an a theory raises more questions than it answers'

It answers the entirety of biodiversity, so I doubt that's possible.

'infact studying the simple cell proves that it is far to complex to have just happened'

Who is claiming anything 'just happened' ? I would like a name in particular and a source please.

[RPFS2008]

This guy should stick to chess.

[kyebean]

Yeah it just shows that smart people are not all the same. Although I'm sure it's unusual for a doctor of chemistry to apparently never have read a biology textbook.

[heyheyhey0220]

Why don't we have lobster eyes if they're so great?

And echolocation?

And the fact that we've observed evolution doesn't bother you?

You go one for 20 minutes saying animals have better tools than us then say our design is good?

The fact that humans are so inclined to be fat doesn't bother you?

The Spine had to become re-enforced to stand us up, and yet it breaks down so much. And now you have a no true Scotsman w/ the fall.

AND YOU ARE RECOGNIZING EVOLUTION, BUT ONLY THAT WHICH YOU JUDGE BAD

[Aheadstix85]

@heyheyhey0220 Yes we have oberved a certain type of evolution, its called micro- or change within a species, such as a dog, we get small ones, big ones furry ones and not fury ones, its still a dog though, but Macro evolution has never been proven, when the last to you saw any kind of life form gradually change from what it was to something completely different?, no one has, if you knew anything about biology, you would know its quite impossible aswell.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@Aheadstix85 'when the last to you saw any kind of life form gradually change from what it was to something completely different'

When was the last time you saw someone driving 60 miles per hour drive 600 miles in three hours?

[heyheyhey0220]

OUCH the idiocy.

OUCH the strawman.

[AliceinChaynz]

like he said: don't confuse me with the facts. most people posting here against this vid don't bother to seriously answer the questions Jonathan raises (because they can't). they just rave on about religion, using tired opinions of pop pseudo-scientists like Dawkins. sometimes a person's world view bias is so ingrained that they simply are too narrow minded to consider another's argument. this religious fervour demonstrated by evolutionists is difficult to overcome.

[JohnHasSeriousQ]

testing

[onyana]

Rofl I love how creationists ignore evidence. Wow I wish I could think up "profound" arguments like organised parts must mean an organiser built it. Oh wait, reason dictates that these are just words which share similarities. Thousands of transition fossils showing gradual change of structures, such as scales into feather, exist. I wonder if any "Un-Intelligent (SIC) Design" advocate has ever bothered to read any book published by an evolutionary biologist. Religion is about controlling masses.

[BereanBeacon]

Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms, that is, viable, functioning organisms, between ancestors and descendents? Of what possible use are the incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? *Stephen J. Gould, Natural History, Vol. 86, pp. 2-30.

[onyana]

"When you understand why you dismiss all other gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts

"Religion is regarded by common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca

"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." - Napoleon Bonaparte

Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions". - Blaise Pascal

[BereanBeacon]

...illustrations of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils...I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. Personal letter from * Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to L. Sunderland

[onyana]

Transitions are everywhere. Just look at a mudskipper, a fish which has evolved from its common ancesters to the point where the descendant populations can spend short amounts of time out of water resting on their fins. It is disappointing that people ignore the overwhelming evidence which exists for evolution. I thought your comment on other religions was disgusting (and highly misinformed e.g. buddism) I won't bother to comment any further though, and you may return to blind faith at any cost.

[AliceinChaynz]

evolution can't happen because the mutations which occur result in a loss of genetic information. although this may be beneficial in a certain environment which may cause adaptation and change in physical characteristics within species, this always results in a decrease in information. this is observable, repeatable, tested scientific fact which disproves evolution at it's very core. no blind faith necessary.

[onyana]

This is one of the most powerful arguments I have ever read against evolution. Unfortunately, you are discussing only one particular category of mutations, there are many examples of mutations creating new information. Additionally, environmental pressures tend to result in a range of variants for any given trait (ie resulting in a trend towards a greater range of information, not less - unless of course chance of survival is reduced). I suggest you read more widely on evolution and genetics.

[johncelles04]

I disagree with you on one point. Mutations DO NOT ADD, new information, if i'm not mistaken, they actually just combine to modify EXISTING information, no additions. And a mutant, with half developed half functioning organs will have a decreased chance of survival due to the situation that is is transitional and unfit for both environments. And if ever it did benefit, the mutation as said only modified the existing information. The "new species" now be a SUBSPECIES, (oops limit, sorry! ^^)

[Aheadstix85]

@onyana BUULLshIITT!!!!!!!, common ancester is a speculated assumtion!, all life foms have a certain amount of the same DNA, doe not mean we all evolved from them though, we share 75% of the same DNA with a banana!, did we evolve from them though??!!, pfft!, please!, don't be ridiculous!, that just backs up common designer!, that means DNA similaritys are irrelevant!, what did the mudskipper evolve from??, where is the evidence??, no evolutionist has ever been able to answer me!, none!.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@Aheadstix85 'we share 75% of the same DNA with a banana!, did we evolve from them though?'

newscientist(.)com/article/mg1­7523584.000-people-arent-banan­as.html

[Aheadstix85]

@BereanBeacon Hahaha!, an evolutionist tried to tell me that a creationist qoute mined that, but i knew it was true!, Colin patterson did actually say that, he said he knew of no transitional fossils!, transitional fossil is a fancy way of saying assumption by similarity, thats what dawrin assumed, he saw to similar looking Lizards(galapagos) and assumed one evolved from the other, thats what scientists do now, they hold up to similar looking skulls and think the same, but thats not science!.

[BereanBeacon]

Because there are no transitional fossils , evolutionist now say the proper phrase is transitional features.

"Smooth intermediates between Bauplane [distinct design types] are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count). "*S. J. Gould and *Niles Eldredge, Paleobiology 3:147 (1977)

[BereanBeacon]

More quotes - (dot)warneveryone(dot)com/foss­ils(dot)htm

[onyana]

Intermediates have been repeatedly shown to have both purpose and selective advantage. For example, a light sensitive cell (the necessary precursor to a complex eye) is far superior to no light sensitive cell. This is the only visual structure some organisms have. The same is true for intermediate wing forms. I find it hilarious that evidence such as Archaeopteryx is just ignored/does not count by u. Scientists NEVER ignore evidence. Evolution explains every single extinct and extant organism.

[onyana]

I highly recommend you read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. This book systematically provides evidence as to why it is basically impossible for a God to exist period, let alone an intelligent designer.

"Religion does three things effectively: divides people, controls people, deludes people." - Carlespie McKinney

Most of the smartest humans are/were athiests: Einstein, Edison, Hemingway, Nietzsche, Roddenbury, Marx, Pascal, Franklin, Freud, Twain etc etc etc

[BereanBeacon]

The computers and the internet came about through the appling of information which is not material and therefore not subject to a evolving process.

Freedom always follows the Bible and God blesses a nation that adheres to it. The Bible brings light while "religions" offer only darkness and ignorance and bondage.

[5tonyvvvv]

@BereanBeacon Evolution is a lie.science cant even make one single protein!!.or get all LEFT handed amino acids.its a Paradox..now they are sayin crystals brought life.here, thats not a testable science.,it would be a faith based assumption

[Aheadstix85]

@5tonyvvvv Pfft!, try telling an atheist!, or evolutionist that!, they accuse us of being ignorant, they forget they invented it!.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@5tonyvvvv 'Evolution is a lie.science cant even make one single protein!!.or get all LEFT handed amino acids.'

Your arguments might be slightly more convincing if you had read any peer reviewed chemical literature in the past, oh, 15 years; talkorigins(.)org/indexcc/CB/C­B040(.)html

[dingorex]

Pascal was a devout Christian,read Pensees?? Einstein believed in the god of Spinoza,a monist.Not religious, didn't believe in it, but he was no moral relativistic atheist. Nietzsche was a syphilitic egomaniac that got pissed off when Wagner returned to the Lutheran faith of his childhood(are you filled with such rage?)Franklin was an irreligious deist,but he still believed in the power of prayer.His prayers led to deadlocks broken at our Independence.Freud was a cokehead.Twain is all yours

[Markus77x7]

@onyana

Einstein and Pascal were theists who believed in a divine Creator.

[Aheadstix85]

@Markus77x7 "I wanted to know how God created the world" Albert einsetin, The scientist.

[keinzeit01]

@ onyana

Did you even watch the above video? But of course you are too dogmatic to even listen to science demolishing evolutionary theory.

[Aheadstix85]

@onyana Hahah, i think you need to watch his interview with ben stein in which he admits to a desighner for things that science cannot explain, Dawkins does cleverly and awkwardly squirm, i had to laugh at the fact that your poster bot could not answer simple questions and admits the very things he so proudly denies, HES A FRAUD!!!!!!.

[BereanBeacon]

The Quotes are from your scientists and there are a 1000 more.

[onyana]

Almost everything which forms part of the modern world for humans, including the computer and internet you use to have this debate with me are because of "my scientists". Perhaps we should respect their intellect and opinions a little more. Science has done more to set us apart from other animals than anything else in our history.

[BereanBeacon]

Please understand Bible believers are enemies of religions and religions want to eradicate us (example the Inquisition). I like science, but evolution is not science because it is based on faith as is creationism.

[BKYDK]

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!!!!>:(

evolution is about scientific FACTS, evolution is a theory, in the scientific world, that means that it has yet to be proven wrong. Creationism is a religous story made-up with no facts about anything! also of course things are designed to live. thats what natural selection is. This guy doesnt know what he's talking about his field is not in bio-. hes in chemistry. its like going up to someone in a taco stand and asking them how to make hogdogs

[johncelles04]

Evolution is not science. Evolution is an unproven theory, that the materialists and atheists use as a propaganda, a weapon, an argument against all the claims on the existence of a Living God. Evolution plus materialism/atheism is equal to Darwinism, which gave birth to Neo-Darwinism. Believe me, there are a lot of past frauds within the past evolutionary theories that were never told into the public. Evolution itself opposes the PROVEN LAW OF ENTROPY, that everything degrades into nothing.

[heyheyhey0220]

OUCH the idiocy.

By definition, a scientific theory is proven.

So you're going to totally ignore it.

Entropy says "In a closed system, which does not gain energy, will tend towards disorganization"

Ignoring, of course, the existence of the SUN.

[rationalbloke]

@johncelles04

Can you define science?

Also, there is no law of entropy; you may be confusing this with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

[PumpingSmashkins]

@johncelles04 It's a fact, and it has nothing to do with your belief in ancient fairy tales, except that it contradicts the patently inane history contained in those fairy tales, just as throughout real history, religion has constantly kept up the good fight to keep ignorance alive in the face of growing scientific awareness. The earth revolving around the sun, and not being the center of the universe are but two examples.

[crossedmymind2]

@PumpingSmashkins Actually - your wrong - those ideas did not come from religion or religious scientists, rather the opposite - look it up on wikipedia - centre of universe myth - you are quoting a myth.

[stefanielorimer]

@crossedmymind2 "look it up on wikipedia" - says it all

[Aheadstix85]

@stefanielorimer You believe everything wikipedia says?.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@Aheadstix85 I'm still waiting on you to answer the questions I posted here for you 2 months ago. If you can't answer them just say so but don't dodge, it's cowardly.

[Aheadstix85]

@johncelles04 Heir, heir!!.

[stefanielorimer]

@Aheadstix85 Heir to what? (it's "hear hear" btw)

[johncelles04]

I disagree, the father of modern genetics was a MONK, named Gregor Mendel, a believer in the Bible. And also the greatest dictators of the world were SO NOT ATHIESTS! Like the likes of Stalin, Pol Pots (sorry if the spelling is wrong) and believe it or not, Adolf Hitler. Though he claimed a belief in God, he used the existing evolutionary models of Earnest Haekel about the similarity of the embryonic stages for his goal indoctrinating the idea of the "Aryan Supremacy". (oops limit already)

[Trastlol]

OMG! I can't belive this guy actually holds cemenars!

[dingorex]

And Cally Cells Ceachells by the Ceachore:)

[dingorex]

This guy is awesome!

Well, God is most Awesome.