Can sense organs like the eye really evolve?

So because you yourself have limited knowledge on the subject of biodiversity you conclude you must be right.What a fucking stupid position to have.Here's a quick test. Without looking it up on wiki, what is the difference between a spider's and a wasp's eyes?If you don't know this random fact about eyes how can you possibly pontificate about limited diversity?

Hi Robert Byers, A great case, indeed, all of it badly considered with much misinformation. Yeah, silly evolutionists, when the obvious is staring them in the face: Investigator: Eye's Silly DesignEnjoy.

Where is the evidence to support this assertion? Evidence please. Then why are the cephalopod and vertebrate eye wired in completely different ways?http://www.bio.davidson.edu/...%20the%20cephalopod%20eye.htmBoth are "camera lens" style eyes, so why are they so different? Even more, why does the type of eye that one has depend on whether or not the creature has a backbone? Why do we always find one type of eye in creatures that have backbones, and another type of eye in creatures that do not have backbones? How does creationism explain this? Evolution does explain this relationship, but creationism does not.

quote:

---

In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection. In certain crustaceans, for instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each of which there is a lens shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance. With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number of living animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct, I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class.

​

--Origin of Species, Charles Darwin

---

Descartes.

And you guys gave me a bunch of negatives for my initial response to the OP.It was obvious from the beginning that the OP had certain qualities:(1) Almost a total lack of understanding of evolutionary biology... or general biology in that matter.(2) Mind already made up... GODDUNIT!(3) Will not listen to any evidence brought up.(4) At some point, will fall back to argument from incredulity.(5) Declares victory and run away.You guys should have trusted me more. This thread was a waste of cyberspace.

That's the johnny!

Well I gave you a things up.

Trilobite eyes were compound eyes with freakin' crystalline calcite lenses. That seems more than a little different from mammal eyes - single with protein-water lenses. You are Making Shit Up as usual, Robert.

And IIRC (but I'm old and so forgetful) there were three totally different major types of eyes in the trilobites with about a half dozen each variations within each type.

For future reference, those "not quite ready" types of anatomic features are generally referred to as "transitional" forms. You may be familiar with the term, as most creationists deny their existence.Capt.

Actually, no. All features are transitional features. Or one could argue that there is no such thing as transitional features because the term itself refers to an "in-between" feature, and there is no such thing.The very term was conjured up by creationists as a strawman trying to diverge attention away from real science. They want people to believe scientists believe there were once upon a time half an eye, half a leg, etc.I don't know you. I can't say I've read any of your previous posts. Just a friendly correction.

Actually, the OP has yet to make a second post to this thread. The tactics on display here belong to others.My guess is that the original post was just proselytizing and that the OP does not intend to debate.

I just realized that. This is also a very well known creationist tactic that the OP is doing. The OP probably is a teenager who just discovered some creationist website thinking he's stumbled upon the answer to everything. Excitedly, he posts a bunch of this crap on online forums. When people start responding with a little more technical stuff, he just runs away... or sign up another name and start over.That said, my initial reaction still stands.

Can you show the evidence that natural selection can create an eye.Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

That's an interesting strawman, considering no one actually suggests natural selection can create an eye... except the OP's ignorant claim.