Can sense organs like the eye really evolve?

No they cant. Even a light sensitive cell requires a vast array of biochemicals in the right place and time to function.Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Welcome to EvC!

​

You ask, "Can sense organs like the eye really evolve?"

​

Well, they DID - we see them all around us in the animal kingdom, in a couple of dozen configurations. So the answer must be, "yes, they can."

---

So because we have eyes today that means that they must have evolved? What evidence is there that natural selection can create an eye? Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

Can you show the evidence that natural selection can create an eye.Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

Many scientists believe that natural selection is the main mechanism. Whats the problem?Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

You mean Darwins finches? Beaks changing sizes does not prove how an eye was created.

quote:

---

Well, for starters, there are many more examples than that. For instance, Pressie mention lab-based studies, and those have observed natural selection in action, creating new features. Such studies do not prove how an eye was formed, no, but they do demonstrate that it is, both in principle and in practise, possible for natural selection and random mutation to create new features. Having established this, the evolution of a complex organ like the eye has to be viewed as rather less unlikely than the OP would have it.

---

Natural selection proves adaptation and variation within a fundamentally stable species, but it does not prove evolution."The evolution in action of J. Huxley and other biologists is simply the observation of demographic facts, local fluctuations of genotypes, geographical distributions. Often the species concerned have remained practically unchanged for hundreds of centuries! Fluctuation as a result of circumstances, with prior modification of the genome, does not imply evolution, and we have tangible proof of this in many panchronic species." - Pierre Grasse.

I will try to answer your question as soon as I can. Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

quote:

---

What evidence would you expect to see if the eye did evolve?

​

Just consider the hypothetical for a moment. Imagine, for argument's sake, that the eye did evolve. What material evidence of this would expect to see?

---

The evidence we would find would probably be some sort of developmental process. But as the fossil record has proven, animals appear suddenly and fully formed. My question is, what is the process that created the eye? Have we seen this process observed in the present? Does the evidence of natural selection (Darwins finches, peppered moths, fruitflys) have anything to do with the process? I dont believe the eye can evolve just as much as I dont think a camera can create itself without intelligence. However the eye is vastly superior to a camera. An eye has to repair itself and is connected to an information processing system.Sources:
Darwins Blackbox
By Design

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.

quote:

---

No it doesn't, this is just something creationists have made up.

---

I didnt know that Stephen Jay Gould was a creationist. Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

Silly fantasy indeed. Maybe the ancestors were not fossilized, even though there are billions of fossils. The tree of life that is common to textbooks is actually drawn by the evolutionist. All you have are the leaves, the tree doesnt exist in nature. Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

I will try to answer your question as soon as I can.

Gould is right when he talks about sudden appearance and stasis. 100 million year old clam looks just like todays clams. 200 million year old crocodile looks like todays crocodiles. 300 million year old paddlefish looks like todays paddlefish. 50 million year old stingray looks like todays stingrays. 160 million year old squid looks like todays squids. 200 million year old lobster looks like todays lobsters. 300 million year old dragonfly looks like todays dragonflys. 250 million year old cockroach looks like todays cockroaches. 50 million year old beetle looks like todays beetles. 65 million year old bat looks like todays bats. Crickets, scorpians, flies, lizards, centipedes, spiders, termites all look like todays animals. Why didnt trilobites evolve into anything in 200 million years?Many species were bigger in size in the past and there is variation within fundamentally stable species. But no visible step by step development of earlier forms. This isnt crazy creationism, but is scientifically and positively documented. "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition, and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid." - Steven M Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process

There is no such thing as a simple eye. Trilobite eyes for example. Despite evolution claiming that trilobites are primitive creatures, research shows that they had compound eyes. 100 eyes on each side of its head. Some have four lenses on each eye so that they could see with undistorted vision. Incredible complexity and yet one of the first things found in the fossil record. If different types of eyes evolved independently, how can they be traced to a common ancestor? It also doesnt make sense to observe different types of eyes in nature and claim that they present an evolutionary sequence.

quote:

---

The stupid, it burns.

---

The condescending attitude and insults is pathetic.