Can sense organs like the eye really evolve?

I see you have been banned from replying, but on the off chance you might still be reading this thread and that you might actually try learning something about evolution. (I know....I'm delusional) Good grief, Bob! Says who? The RBToE (Robert Byers Theory of Evolution) that only ONE person on the whole fucking planet believes or can understand?People have been explaining over and over to you that NONE of what you are saying is close to what the ToE actually says. It is just fantasy gibberish that you are making up. Says who? Oh yeah, the RBToE. More delusions. Eyes are all organs that detect light, but they do it in thousands of ways.The patterns of differences and similarities of eyes within and between groups of animals show EXACTLY THE SAME patterns of differences and similarities that we see when we group them based on other anatomical features.We see the same nested hierarchies when we group them based on many different features.Within a group the eyes are usually more alike than than they are with eyes from creatures outside the group.Mammals are more alike with each other than they are with birds, reptiles or fishes. Mammals, birds and reptiles are more alike than they are with mollusks or jelly fish.Interestingly, this pattern of hierarchies is exactly the same as when we group these animals based on evolutionary lines of descent.So while we can see that mammal eyes are similar we can also see that cat eyes are more similar to each other than they are to horses or dogs or humans.This is exactly what the ToE predicts....that we will see patterns of similarities and differences the follow the evolutionary lines of descent.The Theory of Evolution DOES NOT predict that we will see wild MASSIVE diversity, of eyes. within every group. Only the RBToE says that.

I will not address the others directly, but I can comment on dragonflies. I have spent my life studying the Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies). None of the fossil dragonflies from 300 million years ago belong to the same species as any modern dragonfly, or to the same genus, or even to the same family.None of the modern families of Odonates are represented in the fossils discovered from 300 million years ago. All of those fossils are collectively called Proto-odonata. They share more characteristics with modern Odonates than with any other order of insects, but they have striking differences from the modern Odonates.You mention larger size. Meganeura monyi, the largest fossil species of Proto-odonata discovered so far had a wing span of 27 inches and is ~325 million years old. The oldest fossil suspected to be related to the Odonates is ~404 million years old.We do not know if any of the fossils discovered before the emergence of modern Odonate families are ancestral, but we can infer from the evidence that a Proto-odonate from that period was ancestral. They did. They evolved into a hugely diverse group of Trilobites.You see, that is one of the things you do not seem to get. When new species evolve they still belong to the ancestral group, so Mammals are still vertebrates, dogs are still Mammals and so on.This is what we mean when we refer to a "nested hierarchy".Fossil species may superficially resemble modern species but they seldom, if ever, look exactly alike, and they very often cannot even be placed in modern families, let alone modern genera or species.