Can sense organs like the eye really evolve?

What do you mean "lack of diversity"? There has been an astonishing degree of diversity in eye form, functionality and features both in existing species as well as in the fossil record.Dragonflies have extremely different eyes than squids which have different eyes than the box jellyfish which have different eyes than flatworms which have different eyes than goats which have different eyes than humans.And that's to say nothing about eye capacity -
An eagle's eye has very different capacity than a human eye.
A cat can see in the dark.Then of course there's the issue of number of eyes. Spiders have 8. Tuatara have 3. Humans 2. Box jellyfish have 24. "concept of sight"?Eyes detect light. That's what an eye does. That's not "a concept of sight" it's a definition of "eye".If you want an "eye" that detects chemicals instead of light, let me direct you to the "eye" which is sticking out of the middle of your face right above your mustache.If you want an "eye" that detects tastes instead of light, let me direct you to the "eye" which is inside your mouth.If you want an "eye" that detects sounds instead of light, let me direct you to your headphone holders on either side of your head.By the way, bats "SEE" using their ears. They can literally fly through the forest using nothing but sound.So, even in my snarky response to you I still manage to come up with an answer that makes your question seem profoundly foolish.

Don't know if this helps you at all, but recently heard a scientific study of compound eyes that reveal that they don't process information as separate eyes.In other words, the overdone "fly point of view" where we see hundreds of tiny images all doing the same thing is wrong.Instead, fly eyes process information like pixels. With each eye providing only a tiny piece of the picture.Unfortunately, there's no way to know if that is an adaptation of the brain to better process the input as the number of eyes increased or if that was the original function of the original eye, so that more and more eyes made for better and better resolution.

So, your argument AGAINST evolution is citing an example of a feature which demonstrates common descent.LOL. REALLY?If your claim of a grand Jewish Wizard putting things together out of boxes of parts were true, here's what we'd expect to see:A) All creatures have the exact same eyes.
or
B) All creatures smaller than a breadbox have one kind of eye be they insect, mammal or reptile. All creatures bigger than a car have a different kind of eye regardless of their classification.
or
C) All eyes function with the exact same ability for all creatures.NONE of that is true.In fact, the ONLY way to explain what we see is through common descent.Why else would a cave crayfish have useless eyes which match the eyes of stream crayfish?Why would ALL mammals have similarly structured eyes be they nocturnal, subterrainian, aquatic, etc?You really need to think through your points before you post them.I'm just about ready to call POE on you.

While this is undoubtedly true for people with genetically induced severe optical problems, it is worth noting a couple of other factors which come into play.#1) Nutrition, while Europeans at the time of Darwin had ready access to sufficient calories, they weren't get the same variety of foods and therefore vitamins that native hunter/gatherers got.
#2) Ship nutrition, even worse that just normal agricultural diet problem, professional sailors were often much worse off.
#3) Artificial lighting, recent studies have shown that children exposed to lights at night developed sight problems. The study was focusing on night lights, but obviously candles would do the trick as well. I think the point was the straining to see in the dark was a problem for developing eyes.
#4) Late onset eye problems. Most eye problems are progressive. There is significantly less selective pressure on a 40+ year old male with nearsightedness than there is on a 20 year old male with the same problem. Odds are the 40 year old has already passed on his genes.Just some stuff to think about.

I'm reminded of a story I saw on TV in which a couple that both had the same genetic disorder had gotten married.There was a dominant gene mutation which caused both of them to be born without eyeballs. Not just blind, literally no eye balls.They were each 1 dom/1 rec, and they proceeded to have a number of children. The first two or three were also born without eyeballs. Finally they ended up having a kid with double rec and he could see.It was "a miracle".Setting aside the fact that it wasn't "a miracle", these people really had no business cranking out a bunch of kids trying to win the genetic lottery.We, as a society, need to stop pushing the "having your own child is the absolutely best thing that can happen message" and start pushing the "you can raise a child without passing on your terrible genes" message.Overpopulation is a problem. Why add to the problem with people who are carrying terrible genes?I'm not advocating killing or even sterilizing people. I am saying that just like "don't smoke" and "don't litter" campaigns have changed the national trends, we can have a "don't have kids if you have a bad genetic disease" campaign.

I think we are straying off topic, since the thread is about whether or not eyes could evolve.If you'd like to start a thread on eugenic and intelligent design, I'd be happy to join you there.I certainly believe that eugenics would be a creative way to rid us of the people who believe in Intelligent Design.

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.

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.

If film recorded like memory, no one would have ever used a camera twice.Memory doesn't record what you see. Memory is the ever changing story you continue to tell yourself about what you brain decided was or was not important enough to notice.It's not locked down, it's not a recording."Eye witness" accounts are among the worst form of evidence available.

You are kidding, right?Human - one lens, one pupil
Dragonfly - hundreds of lenses lenses, no pupil
Mantis Shrimp - multiple cornea, crystaline conesIn what way are these the "same eye"? Meaning "an organ which captures light"?
So, your argument for a creator is that there all "eyes" are "organs which capture light".
That's the DEFINITION of the word "eye".Just like the definition of the word "nose" is an organ which takes in air and samples chemicals to detect "odor".Just like the definition of the word "ear" is an organ which senses vibrations and translates them into "sounds".HUMANS have decided that all these things are "eyes".Would could have just as easily declared that all mammals have "eyes" and that all insects have "spectrae".Your argument is circularly. And I say, you are demonstrating that you have absolutely no education as to what evolution is or how it occurs.WHY would mammals, which are all extremely closely related, have vastly different organs? Particularly when those organs are extremely important to survival?Evolution keeps what works and modifies it.Goats have different pupils than humans do. That's modification. They don't have dragonfly eyes. If they did, THAT would be a problem for evolution. Someone has already pointed out to you that that is NOT the case. Hummingbirds and dragonflies inhabit the same area, are the same size, and do similar things. Their eyes are radically different.Whale sharks and Right Whales inhabit the same area, feed on the same things in the same way. Different eyes.Naked Moles rats and termites have the same social structure, live the same way and feed on the same thing - radically different eyes. Let's compare it to your list....Oh wait, that's right. You don't have a list. You don't present any evidence.Someone ban this guy

You've continued to make this claim.
You've had evidence handed to you countless times.
You've then repeated the claim without addressing the evidence.So, either you are being dishonest, you don't understand the big words, or you just can't handle the reality.I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you are just terrifically uneducated.What SPECIFICALLY are you asking to see?What, in your mind, would be sufficient evidence?