Can sense organs like the eye really evolve?

You guys are still running from the lack of diversity in eyesight.There are just a few types . compound , single etc,.
most large creatures, or all, have the same eyes as me.
The differences relative to the glory of the eye are silly trivialities.There is just one eye for anything you could pet.
One theory from one thinker.Yiny critters have funny eyes but even then they are similiar to each other.

Really? Why do humans and elephants alike "need" a blindspot while squid don't?Why do humans, apes, and Old World monkeys need one sort of three-color vision while New World monkeys need another? Are colors different in South America?

And yet you have not answered my question, which I repeat: You keep saying how similar they are, and yet you cannot imagine anything more dissimilar. And your silence on this point speaks louder than your words.

These are very trivial points. The eyes in these creatures are 98% the same thing. The monkeys have primate eyes surely.
Adaptation is fine but the glory of sight is in the mechanism.
Evolution would teach a original eye type for primates and later evolution.
Yet its the same eye surely.

UH?
My point is that in the literature eyesight is organized into just a few varieties.
All'mammals" have the same eyes and they would say from a common origin that had the original eyes. not every mammal evolved its own eye type.
We are off the same rack on eyeballs.
The same great complexity of sight is held by all mammals.
Small details are irrelevant to its essence as a machine.Insects etc have other types but still just a few models.It hints at a single equation and further hints at a single creator and further the impossibility of random evolution with mutation creating siuch a complex machine in such fantastic convergant results,

Then perhaps you could answer them instead of evading them.

Shall I take that as a "no" then?So stop pretending that they're all very similar, when you can't even imagine a greater degree of diversity than they actually exhibit.

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.

On the same note we have tones of wehicles from carts to trains, to cars, to planes, ....... And all use the same round wheel why is that because all these things had the same designer??? or because its the best solution?

Hi Robert,Thank you for once again gracing us with your unsupported opinions and mental meanderings. Should there come a time when you have evidence for anything you say, that would be a good time for your next post. Until then please trust that we have a clear understanding of your unsupported beliefs and do not need constant reminding.--Percy

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.

"Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position." - Pierre Grasse

Hi Portillo,I can't help but notice that you ignored my question in favour of a brief creationist soundbite. That's a shame, since I thought you might want to actually discuss the topic. Well for starters, adaptation and variation within a species is evolution. perhaps you meant to say "Macro-evolution". If so, then you are still wrong, since macro-evolution has been observed taking place in the lab. Further, the fossil record leaves little doubt that evolution has sculpted one species into another many, many times over. Despite the impression given by this quote, Grasse was a believer in evolution. He was a Lamarckian rather than a Darwinist, but still an evolutionist. And since he died in 1985, I'm guessing that his maverick views were voiced quite a long time ago.; the Forties perhaps. Even then he was in a minority. Believe it or not, quite a lot of work has gone on since that time and it makes mock of Grasse's silly nonsense.But enough of this. You ignored the most important part of my post. We are meant to be talking about the evolution of the eye after all. So please, answer the question; 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?This is the most important part of this post. It is an important question. If you are unable to answer this question, how can we take you seriously on this topic? After all, if you can't define what evidence we ought to expect if eye evolution occurred, then you can't expect to be taken seriously when you claim that such evidence doesn't exist.So please, answer the question; what evidence would you expect to see if the eye did evolve?Mutate and Survive

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

I've not seen anyone mention, The Evolved Radio and its Implications for Modelling the Evolution of Novel Sensors, but maybe I missed it.

quote:

---

We have described an unconstrained, intrinsic HE {hardware evolution} experiment that resulted in the construction of a novel radio
wave sensor. The EM is the second ever experimental system
to construct novel sensors, unconstrained by prespecified
sensor/environment channels. Like Pask’s ear, the evolved radio determined the nature of its relation to, and knowledge
of, the world. Both of these devices are epistemically
autonomous: they are not restricted to experimenter specified
information channels...

​

We argue that devices such as this are useful for
highlighting the practical impossibility of simulating the
evolution of novel sensors: programming a simulation
necessarily involves prespecifying the possible
sensor/environment interactions. Novel sensors are
constructed when a device, rather than an experimenter,
determines which of the infinite number of environmental
perturbations act as useful stimuli. Unconstrained, intrinsic
HE has provided a concrete example of such a device and is
potentially a powerful approach to designing robot sensors as
it enables circuits to exploit the rich dynamics of
semiconductor physics and thereby explore regions of design
space that are inaccessible to the conventional engineering
approach.

---

Given sufficient freedom, and appropriate selection criteria: sensors may be an inevitable outcome with regards to evolved systems. For what its worth the evolved radio was too complex to be understood by humans and it was irreducibly complex. Yet it was not designed by any human.

quote:

---

It has proved difficult to clarify exactly how these circuits
work. Probing a typical one with an oscilloscope has shown
that it does not use beat frequencies to achieve the target
frequency. If the transistors are swapped for nominally
identical ones, then the output frequency changes by as much
as 30%

---

It should be pointed out, in case it wasn't clear, the experimenters were not trying to create a radio. It just sort of happened.

quote:

---

The evolutionary process
had taken advantage of the fact that the fitness function
rewarded amplifiers, even if the output signal was noise. It
seems that some circuits had amplified radio signals present
in the air that were stable enough over the 2 ms sampling
period to give good fitness scores. These signals were
generated by nearby PCs in the laboratory where the
experiments took place.

​

In order to pick up radio signals the circuits need an aerial
and an extremely high input impedance. This was achieved
by {evolvable motherboard} using as an input the printed circuit board tracks on the
EM connected to an open programmable switch whose
impedance is at least 100 MΩ. The high impedance was
confirmed by an electrometer behaviour observed in many of
the non-oscillating circuits...The evolutionary process
had utilised not only the EM’s transistors, but also the
analogue switches and the printed circuit to which they were
connected.

---

The evolvable motherboards evolved to be able to sense nearby computers. No brain required.Edited by Modulous, : corrected Ω from W