Can sense organs like the eye really evolve?

I used to see a lot of strength in this sort of argument of "irreducible complexity". I didn't take any biology courses in college, but I did read _Darwin's Black Box_ by Behe and found it very convincing.So convincing, in fact, that arguments like what you have outlined above served to really make me seek "design" in nature and think of a prime mover as being likely. I don't now discount the possibility of a designer outright, but the arguments like yours have fallen by the wayside as I've learned more through personal study.If I could recommend a couple books that address this exact argument (among others), I might point to _Why Evolution Is True_ by Jerry Coyne and _The Greatest Show on Earth_ by Richard Dawkins.I would actually recommend _Why Evolution is True_ over Dawkins, because in many ways his writing is sort of caustic (in my opinion) and his overt sarcastic tone regarding creationists or folks of belief would be a turn off to many, though the technical content is great. Coyne's book, by contrast, isn't quite as "harsh" on the intelligent design crowd and is technically a bit easier to digest.I found both to be informative and good springboards to more sources.But in regards to your specific point about the eye, this is exactly the sort of argument that has been addressed quite ably by evolutionary biologists. There are simply too many examples in nature ranging from camera-like eyeballs such as we have that are wired into powerful processing centers of the brain, down the spectrum to light sensitive cells hooked onto nerves. If you follow the spectrum, it becomes apparent how such basic light sensing systems could progress through selective pressures into what we have now.And the eye isn't perfect by any stretch. Blind spots, different for photopic and scotopic vision, weird wiring... It is just too cobbled together, in my mind, to make sense as a deliberate design.Edited by Wollysaurus, : Spelling, minor edit.

Reading through this, it seems that the camera analogy is a rabbit hole that just distracts from the real question about whether or not eyes have evolved.It also seems to fit into a creationist argument. They can say "look, it took intelligence to build a camera" and then further the claim by saying that a camera isn't as good as a natural eye. In the context of their argument, that means that the eye must also be designed.All this ignores what has been brought up multiple times in this thread already, namely that there is significant diversity in visual systems in the animal kingdom, that there are many examples of eyes and light sensing systems ranging from the simple to the complex (supporting evolution of those systems) and that, frankly, eyes just don't show evidence of deliberate design, but rather cobbled together parts refined in their function over geologic time due to selective pressures.A few questions I have... If the eye (or really the entire system) is designed:Why is the human eye "wired" to create a blind spot where the optic nerve connects when this is not necessary?Why do we have a "night blind spot" due to the lack of rods around the fovea? For that matter, why (from a design perspective) the odd mechanism of sharp, color central vision contrasted with poor scotopic vision?Why is there not better production and quality control in the formative stages, so that such a significant portion of the population doesn't suffer from poor vision or other problems with their eyes?Why does this designed system suffer from a processor prone to errors which can result in visual hallucinations or other interpretive "malfunctions"?I'm sure there is more, but these are what springs to mind. Any legitimate errors within the above questions are due to my own marginal understanding of the subject.It seems that members of this board have repeatedly presented evidence for natural evolution of the eyes, but no creationist has as of yet presented anything to prove that these natural marvels are in fact designed.To me, if the eyes are in fact designed, they must not have been put together by a very competent engineer. Edited by Wollysaurus, : No reason given.