Can sense organs like the eye really evolve?

I find that difficult to believe considering that evolution does not work on individuals. In fact (as most people know) it work on populations. A population subset will have the same same type of eyes.Your second point contradicts your first.

Yes indeed. I'll ask you my question again. Can you even imagine two eyes more diverse than are actually found in nature? No. In order to say that evolution has been at work on the eye, I need to say that evolution has been at work on the eye; not to say something which is not true, which I do not believe, and which would falsify the theory of evolution.Have you forgotten what we're arguing about? The whole point the evolutionists were trying to make, the whole reason we raised the issue of the diversity of types of eye in nature, was to point out that although they are dissimilar across the whole natural order, they are suspiciously similar within clades. The whole point of us mentioning the obvious fact that there are many different kinds of eye is that we can then point out that (for example) all mammals have minor variations on the same kind. One more time. Can you even imagine two eyes more diverse than are actually found in nature? If you can, please describe them to us.Put up or shut up.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Here are three creatures that live "similar extreme living styles" yet their eyes are very different. If they were designed shouldn't they all have the same eye? Edited by Jefferinoopolis, : No reason given.Edited by Jefferinoopolis, : No reason given.

See, this is why we call POE.When someone posts something this profoundly stupid it feels like they are just lobbing softballs."completely alike"? We've already pointed out dozens of different kinds of eyes to you.
Dragonfly eyes are not human eyes are not goat eyes are not jellyfish eyes are not spider eyes are not eagle eyes are not cat eyes are not chamelion eyes. They ARE.This is the mantis shrimp, one of the most advanced set of eyes in the animal kingdom This is a whale's eye Here's one of the 24 eyes that a box jellyfish has Here's the barreleye fish. It sees through the top of it's head. And strangest of all, these eyes are made up of crystals! So, again, unless your complaint is that "all eyes process light", you're smoking crack.And if your complaint is "all eyes process light" then you're complaining about the DEFINITION of the word "eye".Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.

We have supported that argument with facts. There is great diversity in eyes across the animal kingdom. We are saying that there is a great diversity across the animal kingdom. Pointing to similarities within a small group of animals in no way refutes our point. Why must we say this? All mammals share a common ancestor. Therefore, all mammals share the same eye that was found in that ancestor. Why would evolution need to modify the mammalian eye to such a degree? And yet eyes are designed differently across different animal clades. This falsifies a common designer, does it not? There is no single design or equation. There are multiple eyes, each with their own solution for gathering light.

We are making progress. you are admitting its just minor variations that are separate mammal eyes.
AMEBN.
In fact so minor as to be irrelevant to the glory of the machine of our eyes.
This MORE expected from a common design then fantastic nutation/time evolution affecting eyes.Eyes are not diverse and where there is diversity in the other creatures I say it shows a greater law of what sight is .
Sight is very limited in options to how it works. In fact only one option. Unlikely if evolution was right.
As i SEE it.

No.
one comes from the land originally and is like those on the land.
its not the same results but the same equation or orbit for what sight is that is the point here.That there is so such likeness simply demonstrates a single like method for most save important lifestyle differences.
if evolution was creating the eye and all variations in between then all of nature would be crawling with strange eyes.Yet very segregate in reality.
There are special cases of the equation but the mass majority tell the true tell.

No . Your wrong.
Mammal eyes, for example, are exactly the same .
The glory and complexity are the same and the details of difference are not a case for evolutionary evidence of eye design evolution over millions of years.

My wrong what? Oh, did you perhaps mean "you're wrong"? I see that the level of education among the Creationists hasn't changed much.Can you see in the dark?Here are some mammal eyes. Can you tell me the difference between "l" "-" and "o"? Are those all exactly the same symbol?You need to look up "exactly" in the dictionary.Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.

Well, the problem is that how you see it has nothing to do with reality.Your opinion is based on both a profound lack of education in evolution AND almost not experience with the actual natural world.According to your claim, a "designer" has developed a number of kinds of eyes each suited for different things. He has then distributed those eyes among the various animals which need them.Then, why is it, that reptiles and fish that need to see in the dark have very different eyes than a lemur or bat which needs to see in the dark?Why is it that squid which need to see underwater have very different eyes than whales which need to see underwater.Why is it that chamelions which need to catch bugs with their tongues have different eyes than frogs which needs to catch bugs with their tongues?Why is it that hummingbirds which needs to hover and catch insects have extremely different eyes than dragonflies which do the same thing?The only thing that the eyes you say have a lot in common is that they detect light. That's what makes them "eyes".If they detected sound, they wouldn't be eyes.

What do you mean, "admitting"? We're trumpeting it. And what do you mean "progress"? We've been trumpeting it ever since we raised the issue of eye diversity. That was the whole point of bringing it up. There is vast diversity across the whole of life, but relative uniformity within smaller clades --- just as we would expect from the theory of evolution. Let me ask you again. Can you even imagine two eyes more diverse than those actually found in nature? If so, please describe them to us. If you cannot, then please stop telling fatuous falsehoods about how they are "not diverse" and "very imited in options", as you are not fooling anyone.

Well, let me ask you a question. Can you even imagine two eyes more diverse than are actually found in nature?If so, please describe them to us.Sorry to shout, but you seem to be going deaf.

Exactly. Whales evolved from land based mammals so we would expect them to have very similar eyes to their land based cousins.

You are ignoring the major variations across different animal groups. Why? Please explain. Why shouldn't a fish eye more closely resemble a squid eye than it does a human eye? Please explain. So are eyes diverse or not? Please pick one and stick with it. Then why do we see so many different kind of eyes across multiple animal groups? Why doesn't this diversity falsify common design?

Robert seems to be under the creationist misunderstanding that evolution demands that things change constantly, all the time, just for changes sake. He doesn't appear to understand that evolution will conserve features that work "well enough". Why do mammals have nearly the same eye? Because there was no selection pressure to change it dramatically. Simple answer, but one that he will no doubt ignore.