Can sense organs like the eye really evolve?

You hit a bulls eye on the unlikelyness of mutations helping out such serious operations as seeing and yet still intermediate and so on.The eye is a great case for creationism on many levels.
A evolving complexity while being useful.
The few actual options for seeing. Most eyes of creatures are exactly the same despite claims of endless evolution going on . I read there are just a few types of eyes.If evolution was true then eye diversity and diversity of complexity would be the rule.
if there is a single blueprint from a single thinking mind then all eyes are the same equation with a few differences.If the eye has been evolving like crazy in all biology then fossils should be crawling with these intermediate stages.
if fossils can't show such detail then there is no fossil evidence for eye evolution.I want eye healing as i have historical serious issuess with my eyes.
I don't see evolution as useful for biological discovery of healing.
I do see creationism as useful if a presumption of a single equation is operating. tHen the little diversity could teach about the greater equation.By the way saying the brain processes the info is saying nothing about mechanism.
I suspect, not sure, that the brain is not processing the info as such. i suspect its the memory that is involved.
Anyways good thread.

yes i do mean fully formed eyes.
I don't know about these sense(not quite ready for real eyes) things.
They do not tell the tale on eyesight.
In fact there are just a few types of eyes as I read.
There is not diversity whatsoever relative to the number of creatures.
If so list the type of eyes in your local zoo.

Well again i read there are just a few types of eyes.If there was a single blueprint then the few types still would indicate a greater equation(not realized yet) of what sight is actually doing.
Just have lenses , despite differences, is case in point.The 'intermediate' eyes are in fact totally suitable mechanisms for seeing for these types of creatures Darwin talks about.
Still my point was that the fossil record, if possible to record eyes , should be swarming in intermediates and vestigial eyes.
In fact diversity in kinds of eyes should be the rule.
yet most creatures have eyes like me and insects have like eyes and so on.
Very controlled options for sight.

Nope. in fact modern evolutionists try to teach THERE is transitional features as opposed to transitional creatures.
they gave up on the latter and so concentrate on evolving features in the fossil record. They hope.Variety in eye operations is not evidence of evolution by the way.
Its just a interpretation.Yet the great fact of eyes is the lack of diversity.
Go to your zoo and look at all those eyes and you will conclude they are from the same model.
Evolution has not made such a complex organ in expected diversity of complexity.The eye is such a great case for creationism on many points.
It also is a chance for creationism to correct wrong ideas about sight and lead to healing sight.I say a single creator made a single equation for sight and only the basic restrictions of creatures bodies or locations is the origin for the minor cases of important diversity.
I think i'm right.This means there can be flexibility in eye adaptation.It seems so unlikely even to imagine that mutations could keep pushing to such common conclusions he things called eyes in all creatures.

You are saying mammals have different kinds of eyes?
I read everywhere there are just a few types.
these divisions of yours are trivial.
Fine about squids and me.
it shows there is a common design and any creature can have the same eyes if some basic requirements are met.
Just having a lens is evidence of a single idea .You guys are strangely, or not, running from the commonness of eye types.
In fact I believe Darwin mentioned this to teach all coming from a common origin!

The book was called "Scientists confront intelligent design and creationism" under the chapter "Transitional forms" versus Transitional features.Reptiles are very alike and so on.
The insects are only different in some ways.In fact a evolutionist would have to say that despite millions of years of massive evolution in 'mammals" we all kept the eyes of the first few mammals.
Unless you want to invoke massive convergent evolution.
They don't.

No. I think.
off thread here.
I simply point out that the lack of diversity in eye types is unlikely if evolution was true.
Now I mean in important ways. Not lens pointing this way or that.Then I add all eyes , deeply, are showing a single concept to sight.
As they would from a common blueprint that then accomadates inself for different needs.i read their are single or compound eyes largely and a few other types for small creatures.
This indicates to be limited options have developed for sight.
Unlikely if evolution was true.
Very likely is a single thinking mind was behind sight.

Its a evolutionary speculative idea that creatures in evolutionary lineages have the same eyes.
Rather creatures simply have like eyes for like needs. These needs are reflected in many aspects of their anatomy. So then evolution invents they are evolutionary connected.Rather there is simply limited options for eye types and creatures have like eyes where they are more alike.your intermediate eyes are not intermediate between anything.
it just shows their is a common blueprint for sight and creatures get the part of that blueprint for sight that they need.its a flaw in thinking to see different types of sight as indicating progression etc.
Rather they indicate need dictates results within a common blueprint.

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.

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,

No. And please no POE accusation threatening. it affects me not.Its as one would expect if their was a common design.
The lack of diversity is unwelcome to evolution as eyes should be profoundly different in everybody.It wouldn't be that every creatures eyes would be completely alike.
IOt would be that whole divisions would be alike because of like needs.
Sea creatures or insects would be different from large animals or people.
your just plain wrong to say eye sight is vastly diverse.
just read up on it anywhere.

Again you strive to say that there is great eye diversity.
Well then if there is not THEN you must be admitting this is a problem for evolutionary claims of eye origins.
So it comes down to IS or IS there not diversity in eye types relative to diversity of seeing creatures.Case in point is mammals (so called) .
Now i say these are a great example of a great sameness in eyeballs. yes minor details of night seeing or better seeing. Yet the great macjhine of the eye in all mammals is exactly off the same plan.You must say the eye is so completly different in all or most mammals if you want to say evolution has been at work on the eye.now actually evolution claimed we all had the same eye from the same furry mammal crawling around the dinosaurs feet back in the day.
yet still in all that time evolution must of changed mammals eyes greatly along with everything else.
You might say it reached perfection back in the day and have no need to change.
Nevertheless the point is that mammal eyes show a common design and this is what one would find from a thinking being.Then we look at other creatures to see if they are diverse enough to count as expected diversity from a evolutionary origin.In fact all eyes simply work with light in very like ways relative to extreme living styles.a single design or equation would mean all eyes have like principals and few options of results.
I think I make a good case here.

We are making progress. you are admitting its just minor variations that are separate mammal eyes.
AMEBN.
In fact so minor as to be irrelevant to the glory of the machine of our eyes.
This MORE expected from a common design then fantastic nutation/time evolution affecting eyes.Eyes are not diverse and where there is diversity in the other creatures I say it shows a greater law of what sight is .
Sight is very limited in options to how it works. In fact only one option. Unlikely if evolution was right.
As i SEE it.

No.
one comes from the land originally and is like those on the land.
its not the same results but the same equation or orbit for what sight is that is the point here.That there is so such likeness simply demonstrates a single like method for most save important lifestyle differences.
if evolution was creating the eye and all variations in between then all of nature would be crawling with strange eyes.Yet very segregate in reality.
There are special cases of the equation but the mass majority tell the true tell.