Can sense organs like the eye really evolve?

We've seen natural selection in direct action, both in the lab and in the field, whilst we've never seen anything being poofed into existence. We've even discovered the mechanisms how natural selection works.Thus, no problem for natural selection. You've got a problem with magical poofing. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

You've already been shown the evidence of natural selection in action. You ignoring it won't let the evidence get "poofed" out of existence.What you've never shown us, though, is anything that has been poofed into existence.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

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. Unicellular organisms are fully formed organisms. Every organism was fully formed. Even when they were primitive, unicellular and have no eyes at all.Edited by Pressie, : Spelling mistake and added a sentence

Luckily, what you think doesn't count. You can think that the moon is made from cheeese. It doesn't change reality. You are still wrong. What counts is empirical evidence.

I don't know who Pinker and Bloom are, but I suspect that your quote-mine is telling untruths here: Just from this sentence I can see that your source is twisting and turning the truth to such an extent that it doesn't even vaguely resemble the truth. Every single piece of work put forward Gould, for example, actually supported evolutionary theory; he didn't contradict evolutionary theory at all. Your source certainly is not telling the truth.

Lots of evidence. It has been presented numerous times. The fact that you ignore all that evidence won't get the evidence to poof into non-existence.Do you have any empirical evidence that anything has ever been poofed into existence? You haven't presented anything so far.

Yes, I see that the creationists are trying to change the subject again. By outright dishonesty. That's why I am going to place the abstract of the article referred to by IamJoseph here. IamJoseph, your sources were not telling the truth at all. From the abstract presented in their own words, Pinker and Bloom actually found that the specialization of grammar evolved by "neo-Darwinian processes". Even IamJoseph's own sources contracdict what IamJoseph wrote. From Pinker and Bloom . I will just place the last sentence here. Note that it is not evolution of speech, but specialization of grammar. IamJoseph, your sources lied to you. Nothing to do with the evolution of speech. Now back to eyes.Edited by Pressie, : Confused Portillo and IamJoseph. Fixed it.Edited by Pressie, : Added wrong URL. Changed it.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

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.

It took me a long time to try and work out your "logic". I think I finally got it. Not your "logic", but why you don't think eyes are diversified: they all use light to operate. They all use light to work. That's a very common theme amongst eyes. They use light. Are you implying that because all eyes use light and that no eyes use soundwaves or radar or fairy dust or gold ions to work; then all eyes must be the same, show no diversity and therefore an Intelligent Designer? Thus, because eyes use light, no diversity?

I don't believe you.

Huh? I don't believe you.

You ignoring the fossils we have found won't let them magically disappear.

Yes he is. How does this work against the Theory of Evolution? Remember, Gould also said: You forgot about the first life found. Four billion old prokaryotes. Don't forget about them. However, we don't find any 4 billion old trilobites or clams. Or humans. We only came by later. Around 200 000 years ago. How does this tie in with creation? I don't think different species of the dinoaurs were "fundamentally stable species", as they died out, although they survived for hundreds of millions of years. Only birds are left. Their descendents. We still don't even know whether humans are a "fundamentally stable species". Only around 200 000 years since we appeared! You like your porkies, don't you? What about those where we do have visible step by step development from earlier forms? How does that tie in with creation? Just ignoring them? It is real creationism. Porkies. That’s it. You like telling porkies, don’t you? Are porkies really all you have? (rhetorical question)