Can sense organs like the eye really evolve?

Arguing about a camera being superior to the eye is silly.imo
Apples and oranges. There are many many man made devices that perform tasks and operations in greater number and more efficient.
However I'll play along, can a camera do all the things a eye can do with no one there to build it or power it, program it and operate it?
The eye can, you see it is linked to this pretty cool automated intergrated system called the human body.Oh there are also some models custom made for raptors and large preditory cats. Edited by 1.61803, : raptors and cats

Well, let's find out shall we?
Put a cow's eye on your dining-room table and then describe what it can do.
Then we can see what an eye can do with no-one there to power it, program it or operate it.

Hi Panda, Separating the eye from the body as you know renders it inoperable. It is built to operate as a contiguous unit and therefore your argument is empty imo. I can just as easily turn your own statement around and say take a SLR lense from its body and see what it can do.

So, your argument is that a human is better than a camera?
Well, that is nice goal-post moving.But going back to the comparison we were making: a camera is better than an eye.
To answer your 'adjusted' comparison: a camera used by a human is better than an eye used by a human.You have decided that an eye connected to a living human brain is analogous to a camera, but that is not correct.
It is a False Analogy. An eye is not equivalent to the lens in a camera.
An eye is equivalent to the whole camera.An eye connected to a human is not equivalent to a camera.
An eye connected to a human is equivalent to a camera connected to a human.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

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.

Let's not toss cameras to the side so quickly. They offer another interesting analogy.The first digital CCD camera was built by Eastman Kodak in 1975.Digital camera - WikipediaIf this were evolution then ONLY Eastman Kodak cameras would have CCD's. This isn't the case. Human designers are free to mix and match design units. Therefore, with common design we should not expect to see a nested hierarchy.

Well yeah, a human is a intergral part of the eye. No goal post moving required.
Just as a power supply, lense and all other integral componants of a camera are essential to it's operation. yes it is. an eye is equalvalent to a camera? Nope this is the false analogy
because from the start your equating a fully funtioning camera to a eye that is incomplete. Lacking it's needed vasculature, nerves, sensory inputs, etc..

False.
I equate a fully functioning camera to a fully functioning eye.
I have not excluded its vasculature, nerves or sensory inputs, as you will see if you read my previous posts.What you are trying to do is argue that an eye (including the human that uses it) is better than a camera (excluding the human that uses it).
Why include the human element for the eye but exclude the human element for the camera?
By ignoring aspects which the camera clearly shares with the eye, you are creating a invalid comparison.A fully functioning camera (used by a human) is equivalent to a fully functioning eye (used by a human).
A fully functioning camera (used by a human) is better than a fully functioning eye (used by a human).

Hence you have reached the conclusions you have.A fully functioning eye is dependent on a fully functioning optic nerve, brain function, cardiovascular system and metabolic system aka: life support system and housing and sensory input output unit for the eye. Aka: the human, cat or bird or what ever.The analogy is inadequate. The camera can do many many things better than the eye. But it can not make itself, repair itself, program itself, it is a tool and nothing more.Yes a human operating a camera is superior in vision to a human without a camera.Thats why we made them.http://www.pixiq.com/article/eyes-vs-cameras
http://www.desy.de/...ects/Physics/Quantum/see_a_photon.html
Cameras vs. The Human Eye
Your Eyes are a Miracle, Your Camera is a Machine | Photos4u2cEdited by 1.61803, : add link.Edited by 1.61803, : few more links

True but every time I blink I don't see every human being having the exact same colour eyes ie red. Many cameras only come with digital zoom which is practically worthless. And if you have a camera like mine which has zoom but no optical image stabilisation be prepared for snaps which you daren't share with either friends or family. Funny but my five year old camera is already losing pixels in every frame. Five years is not a long time. Yeah but when you exercise your warranty you have to hand over your camera to a third party. He may return the item back to you in worse shape than when you gave it to him.

quote:

---

Please, Portillo, stop telling us things that are certainly not true. It's easy to check whether you tell the truth or not, you know. The fossil record indicates that simple unicellular organisms appeared first, while, billions of years later, the organisms we call animals devoloped. We've even got lots of fossils with intermediate characteristics.

---

Please, Pressie, stop saying that animals dont appear in the fossil record suddenly and fully formed. The cambrian explosion proves that animals appear suddenly and fully formed. The cambrian explosion has major animal phyla appearing suddenly and fully formed. No gradualism.

No it doesn't, this is just something creationists have made up. And if it did, this would hardly support the generalization that "the fossil record" shows this given that the fossil record is not limited to the Cambrian Period .

Portillo, why do you keep on trying to mislead us. It’s easy to check when you tell porkies, you know. Timeline of Evolution In the oldest rocks, no signs of life (>~ 4billion years old). In rocks a bit younger (3.8-4 billion years old),we find evidence for organic molecules. In rocks a bit younger (~3.8 billion years old, we only find prokaryotes). In rocks younger than that (around 3 billion years old), we also find fossils of eukaryotes. In rocks younger than that (~1.5 billion years old), we also find fossils of multicellular organisms; in rocks younger than that (around 1 billion years old) we find also land plants and animals. In rocks younger than that, we find dinosaurs. In rocks younger than that, we also find mammals. In rocks younger than that, we also find flowers. In rocks younger than that (~ 200 000 years old), we also find fossils of modern animals (such as humans and elephants).Which animals appeared suddenly? Exactly what the TOE predicts. All animals will be fully formed to be able to reproduce. What do you expect to find for a not-fully formed animal? A bird with only one wing and no legs? A period starting around 545 million years ago and lasting 5 to 10 million years. You call ten million years suddenly? Just as the ToE predicts. Of 30 or so phyla, 5-9 phyla already existed before the Cambrian explosion, e.g., things like worms, sponges and jellyfish. And at least 8 phyla only appear after the Cambrian. 5 to 10 million years is not suddenly.Immediately after the Cambrian Explosion, we still have almost nothing even remotely resembling anything in a zoo: no primates, no mammals, no reptiles, no amphibians, no jawed fish, no birds, no insects, no land life, no bunnies, no dogs and no humans. Modern organisms developing over 4 billion years seems pretty gradual to me.

Your eye pictures make my point. They are the same eye. Trivial differences about seeing in the dark.I don't mean a creator made types of eyes.
I mean there is just one equation for sight.
The creatore organizes biology originally to "pick" the right eye for each critter as needed. i also think this was a mechanism that kept or keeps working.So the evidence for a creator is the sameness of eyes with just a few important differences between like different creatures.
Let 'mammals' all have the same eyes.
Then I say if evolution was the creator of eyes it would be a fantastic segregation of types so one could hardly recognize oringinal origins.In fact if it was this way evolutionists would say, rightly, how its unlikely a creator would have a hand in so much diversity.
More likely a randoness of options is at work they would say.Creatures in like situations would have like eyes.
its the situation or niche that determines what eyes one needs.
not eyes are an indicator of heritage.The types of eyes of creatures are very aklike in their great mechanics.
Your lists miss this point.

Why persist in this question? I answered it as far as able.
I don't understand it any more.