Can sense organs like the eye really evolve?

So, the actual diversity is greater than anything you can imagine ... but you still like to imagine that evolution should have produced more diversity, even though you can't actually imagine this diversity itself. Suggest some of these thousands of ways. Oh, right, you can't. Because while you can imagine that thousands exist, you can't imagine what even one of them might be like.This is pathetic.However, at least we have got some truth out of you. The diversity of eyes in nature is greater than anything you could possibly imagine.Yes, us first. By a considerable distance. See post #58, which I made two-and-a-half weeks ago, for a brief introduction to the diversity of eyes in nature.Now we, of course, are limited to drawing our examples from reality. You, on the other hand, were limited only by what you could make up, something that creationists are usually good at. But you've got nothing.

What, Robert's gone? But where else will I find an opponent with his matchless qualities as a debater?I suppose in principle I could pull words at random out of a hat, but I don't have a hat.

He's not. In fact, here's what he had to say about creationists and their shameless lies about and cherry-picking of his words: What does it say about creationism that, when you guys want a reputable scientist to prop up your silly fantasies, the best you can do is someone who's said almost in as many words that anyone who does so is either a liar or a fool?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Or maybe the paleontologist Stephen Gould knew more about paleontology than you do when he wrote: "Transitions are often found in the fossil record."

Is Gould right when he says this?

Yes there is. A simple eye is an eye which is not compound. Where is this claimed? Apart from the eyeless varieties, such as Agnostina. Who said they could? According to biologists, the eye evolved several times independently. That sentence needs the word "because" in it, followed by a further clause.