Can sense organs like the eye really evolve?

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.

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.

Okay.
Only across GROUPS is there diversity.
Within 'groups" I say it would be unlikely that like eyes prevailed if evolution had been charging forward as it shaped each creature inside and out.The groups.
I say there are only a few groups with diversity.
Yet even there the theme of eyesight is the same thing.
One can see the equation or logic behind sight in everthing.Not any other options to see things.These groups truly have different bodies or live in very different areas and it follows that their eyes are slightly adjusted for these needs.
Yet still only i=one idea or creator is evident.Evolution has not had much imigination with eyes and since there is differences then no excuse.
Ran out of time?Unless one invokes convergent evolution then eyes in all groups mean the eyes of each group stayed the same after the original model had been perfected.
Very unlikely.

Why put me down?
I understand all this.
If you say all eyes reached perfection very early and no more evolution took place while all the rest of biology inside and out was changing greatly then say so clearly!You have to say that because eyes demonstrate a shocking likeness within biological life.
Unlikely if evolution was true.Its very easy to say nirvana was reached 100's of millions of years ago.
Its easier to say a single creator with a single idea that can adjust itself.one could also say our eyes are living fossils! We are looking at the eyes of our furry mammal ancestors jumping around the feet of dinosaurs. (actually they had our eyes too)
NAW

If evolution was the creator eyesight concepts and eye types
then just as there is a little diversity between big groups of types of creatures there would be after all that time fantastic diversity in EYES.
Including remnant bits of former typres of eyes in each creature because it came from all sorts of former stages on earth.The eyes of mammals alone should be almost unrecognizable compared to each other.In fact posters I've been talking with here understand this and desperately try to say THERE IS massive diversity.Other posters admit there is not by their questions or criticisms.

There is not diversity relevant to the diversity in all other organs or body shapes of nature.
Especially since eyes are seen as very complex things even famously used in historical creationism.To imagine other kinds of eyes would require a imagination greater then mine.
I can't imagine how to start of forming concepts and actual eye types to be diverse from the ones I know.
Even if stoned I couldn't. Of coarse i don't use illegal medicines.If light is the only objective for seeing then why shouldn't nature in its brilliance have come up with thousands of options to manipulate light.!If you guys think there is great diversity and have so many examples then you FIRST.
Introduce a few more options not not used by nature.No retinas or lens either.

A single equation for sight.
This not yet discovered.
The different types of eyes hint at this equation.
In the meanwhile they do make clear there are few options for types of eyes.
Unlikely if evolution was true and very unlikely if your claiming thee is important diversity already.Very little diversity relative to seeing beings.
The little makes the case against eyes being created and changed as needed by evolution.
A good point folks.

Evolution is based on ideas of turning bugs into buffalos. Of having created all the biology here from very primitive origins and incredible stages in between.
Fantastic complexity and diversity.
Then we have eyes not much different then the dinosaurs or anything with feet today.Evolution doesn't think there are many options for sight.
Evolution did not think up many options or important differences between the creatures of the world.
Great chunks of life have got the same kind of eyes.
All have the same principals behind eyes.While evolution has fantastic ideas on making biology it stuck with a common idea for eyes.Unlikely.
More likely there is a creator with a blueprint, just like in physics, and all eyes are from there.
We have like eyes if we have like circumstances.
Slightly different in other situations.if evolution was and had been at work since it first created the eye then a prediction should be that diversity defines the eyes.
It doesn't.
In fact evolutionists have to argue we pretty much have living fossil eyes.
We have our rodent=about=the-feet of dinos eyes.
Or dino eyes even.
NAW.