Can sense organs like the eye really evolve?

More to the point, what the hell does it have to do with the topic?

Statistically, this is pretty much unaffected by how large the population is or whether it is growing or shinking so long as it is not small. If it's small, other factors come in to play. Since there are about six billion of us humans and no sign of a downturn, then for the first rough go at doing the math we may as well assume that we are infinite in number and will stay that way.

I just want to go on record as opposing your voluntary program of nonsense. Do you have anything to say that's relevant to the topic?--Percy

Yeah, I just realized ... how the heck did we get from the evolution of the eye to me explaining why eugenics is a bad idea? I mean, seriously, how? I'm going to have to read the thread over and find out.Dr Adequate's Law: As the length of any internet discussion increases, so the probability that any post in that thread will relate to the OP tends to 0.

A wonderful story.I am inclined to think it a fairy tale.

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 am willing to accept you wouldn't oppose a voluntary program of eugenics but would you encourage a voluntary program of eugenics?
You have already indicated that bad eyesight is a trait that you would personally like to see decline in future generations. You have already said that you like being able to see and you like having testicles. You have therefore opted out of this voluntary program if it ever existed. But his point is a valid one don't you think?

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.

Do you have anything to say about the topic? If not, perhaps you could stop using up thread bandwidth?--Percy

Ahhh...here is someone who is willing to "encourage a voluntary eugenics program". I am not saying that this is right or wrong. Eugenics however, has been touted and rejected in previous generations but I can see that its appeal lives on. If allowed to catch hold of the public imagination it would be a force for intelligent design don't you think?

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.

Evolutionary tautology noted. You wish to eradicate belief in intelligent design through the implementation of an intelligent design concept.

I'm a participant in this thread, not a moderator, but eugenics is so far off-topic and so many people from both sides are chiming in that I'm going to step in.Everyone: the topic is whether sense organs could evolve. Please get on topic.

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.