Child’s play. Didn’t you read the article? Complex eyes burst onto the fossil record, fully formed and fully functional. There is not evidence that they evolved. Showing pictures of different kinds of eyes or eye spots in the mollusk family, or any other family does not change this glaring fact, nor does it explain the complexity of these eyes. Surely you can do better?
PS Even from an evolutionary point of view, how do you know the eyes in your series didn’t degenerate (loss of information) from fully functioning eyes over time? Why do you assume everything is alway getting more complex?
See 7, this is a graphical representation of something that is not only observational in transition, but also the genes that made these changes were mapped to show the progression of change.
From a science point of view, there is no built in goal to either get more complex or less complex. If a change happens, it as simple as is that change passed along to a later generation. If, in the eye example, it started as a complex, then became less complex, it could result in a handicap of the organism in its environment and thus, there may be less of a chance of passing that change along to the next generation. (ie, if an organism looses eye sight it had through a genetic change, it may be less able to survive long enough to pass along the genes. If, however, the change improves sight or light sensitivity, it may improve its survival ability and increase the chance of passing the change along.)
It is very rare that you have mineralization of soft tissue (only a few cases have been found). The cases where eyes are in the fossil record are as they became more pronounced and were able to either mineralization or were pronounced enough to leave an imprint. Not finding early forms is like saying dandruff didn't exist because we don't find fossil evidence of it. The fact that we have genetically mapped the changes and have organisms that display these transitions is far more proof than for most other items.