Is it really possible for sense organs such as the eye to evolve?

This is not a question of can't find the sun man, this is a question about the sensory information gathered by the eye. We don't see with the eyes. The eyes are devices that gather light information and turn it into nerve impulses and send it to the brain for processing only then can the information be used as in seeing. Plants find the light alright but they don't do anything more, they don't see the light. Do you see the light now?

In a double blind experiment the research doctor and the patients never meet. There is an intermediary between them who is uninvolved in the research who acts to give the patients the pills that they are to take. This person doesn't know what is in the bottles so he or she cannot give any signs away. Relational distance takes away ESP that is at a premium inside of relationship. What scientists are doing and which is invalid is that they apply double blinding to all experiments on ESP claiming it is necessary to make the experiments scientific. This is not true. The only condition that makes an experiment scientific is that it needs to be accompanied by a control experiment. In actual fact scientists create a triple jeopardy which takes away ESP. One is the double blinding or relational distancing, the next is that they have the people guessing. Guessing means the brain gives more energy to thinking and less to perception and even sensory perception has been seen to be decreased when people are preoccupied with thinking. And thirdly they get the subjects to guess what is on some cards that are of no relevance to them in their lives. To see ESP and see it demonstrated dramatically and undeniably, as in close to 100% of the sample size you need relationship, perceptivity and relevance. In a single blinded drug trial there is relationship because the research doctors interact directly with the patients, there is perceptivity because the patients are not asked to guess anything and there is relevance because they are sick and what is given to them matters.

Hey man get together with some of your friends and do the simple experiment. Choose an image of an object and mentally tell the other person without any grimaces etc and you will find the other person, if they are quiet and perceptive without thinking will discern what you have mentally told them. As for the doctors are we to say they need to all be kept in check so as not to bodgy their results. I know many academics and while I have known of a few who would fudge results, the vast majority of them don't fudge results. Anyway what is the point of a double blind if they are bent on fudging their results. They won't get to know the efficacy of a drug by being dishonest with themselves. In fact thought he double blind only makes things worse but for a different reason. In a single blinded drug trial it is only those with the drugs that show a placebo effect. Those with the blanks didn't get well. In a double blinded trial every patient knows the odds of them getting a drug or a blank are even. 50-50 so why not just believe that they have got a drug. If the truth be know there is a placebo effect in at least 30% of the patients right across the board and not just those that get the blank, which these days they want to call a placebo. It is not a placebo. A placebo is sugar or flour pills but it is given together with an added ingredient.. an idea that the pills are strong medicine that will make them well. This is not done in a drug trial.

Yes the brain adapts sure but that is not the point here. The point is that if the eye evolved as the biologists are claiming then there has to be a brain that can use the information before the eye could evolve. Either that or the eye develops first without it being able to be used because it needs a brain to be used.

Hey man, the stomach doesn't eat the food, the heart doesn't make the blood.

the stomach digests the food and the heart pumps the blood, which is made in the bone marrow. But the eye doesn't see. The eye, as all the sense organs are information gathering devices and nothing more.

Wouldn't you say...the brain and the eye are not separate distinct things... they are one i.e. an extension of the 'vertebrate central nervous system'. So no separate evolution of the eye or brain they are one... aren't they?

So the brain evolved to include the sense of sight.

That is a completely ridiculous argument. Responding to light is responding to light. Whether it is movement or a brain process doesn't really matter. Both are responses. Both involve chemical and electrical impulses. Arguing that only one response is possible with photo sensitivity is to argue that only you are correct and all other possibilities MUST be wrong.

And your scientific evidence to support this is what?

So all mutations require a brain to use it before they can occur? So.. a person that has 6 fingers couldn't have six fingers if they didn't have a brain? Is that your argument? Really?

. . .and, apparently, something of a phony at that.

The sense of sight has to do with the brain of course but how does it develop without the sensory information that is needed? So there has to be an eye to provide that sensory information for the brain and its sense of sight to develop or evolve as Darwinian Theory says. It happens in small successive steps Darwin postulates, each of which gives the individual an advantage over others. On the other hand if the eye evolves first then it has to evolve without it being useful because even if there is a brain that brain has to have a sense of sight already developed for the sensory information to become useful. The brain can't just evolve to include a sense of sight without the sensory information from the eye and the eye can't evolve without it being of use and thus advantageous to one individual over another. That is the problem.

Where exactly do you think the Darwinian Theory says that?

Making up what you think the theory is so you can poke holes in what you made up isn't a very good example of science. It is however a good example of creationist BS.

First of all I am saying that there is a problem with Darwininan Theory I am not postulating something. So the idea that I am right and every other arguement is wrong is not the case. Secondly even if we suppose that a neuron became photosensitive by some mutation of its genetic code. For the individual to obtain an advantage over others utilizing this photosensitive neuron cell there ALSO has to be another mutation simulaneously as to give the information usefulness. And possibly one neuron is not enough to generate sight but lets suppose that it is. So two mutations have to happen together at the same point in time in order for the photosensitiveness of the one cell to be used by the other. And remember mutations are not supposed to be some ordered event or intelligent process of change in the DNA. It is an accident or chance event.

The scientific evidence is stark but at present being explained away. In single blinded drug trials the research doctor is related to the patient. They administer the drugs. In a single blinded drug trial we see a placebo effect ONLY in those taking the drugs not in those with the blanks or dummy drugs. In a double blinded drug trial they see those with the blanks exhibit a placebo effect. They reality is that there is a placebo effect right across the board because people are insightfully blinded and they know they have a 50-50 chance of getting a drug so they CHOOSE to believe that whatever they were given is a drug that will make them well. And remember these are patients, sick people that are often reliant on the drug trial because all else has failed. So they desperately need to believe they got a drug. The first group, the single blinds are related to the research doctor and thus insightfully perceptive, i.e., they have the advantage of ESP while those in the second group, the double blind are relationally distanced from the doctor and hence insightfully blinded -NO ESP. And they are trying to say that they are doing double blinds to keep themselves honest. If that was the case then there would be no differences in what patients exhibit, ie a placebo effect or not. That is the scientific evidence.

I have doubts about evolutionary theory? Yeah serious doubts and I see a case for creationism but not any as advocated by Christians or any other religious group. The science points that way. SCIENCE man science!

Darwinian theory at no time says a mutation HAS to be advantageous to exist or persist in a population.

Complete and total hogwash. Mutations don't have to be simultaneous.

Let's assume a population of a species.
Mutation A is introduced into that population Mutation A is not advantageous nor is it harmful to the population. Over time some of the population will have Mutation A and some won't. Now a Mutation B occurs in the population. B by itself is not advantageous nor detrimental. After a while some the population will look like this.
Some will have neither A or B
Some will have A
Some will have B
Some will have A and B.
If it happens that A and B together give an advantage then over time the population will have A and B but they did NOT arrive at the same time. There is no requirement that they arrive at the same time under Darwin's theory. That is your BS.

If that is the case, and you have presented no evidence in support of it, it doesn't support any conclusion of ESP.

So you're telling me that my brain developed the inability to process things seen in the distance and caused my vision to become near-sighted?

What happens when I get Lasik eye surgery to correct my vision? The surgery is physically done to my eye, not my brain.

You might want to do a little reading on the subject of jellyfish.
Your entire argument rests on a preconceived notion of what a brain can and cannot do.
You've simply picked out something that we do not, yet, fully understand. Then you claim the lack of understanding as evidence against evolution.
Lame, dude, simply lame.