The thing about your eye example, is that it leave many parts out...
Firstly, it only makes sense that a supposed "order" of eyes is seen in the natural world, and so for several reasons. Mainly, you will find similar parts to all eyes, because all eyes must be able to use light from the sun, as this is the only light we get. The variations and thus the presupposed order to eyes is arrived at when people see similarities in eyes because of what they have to be able to do, and then dissimilarities in how they are composed, and deduce a connection between all eyes along an evolutionary time line.
The thing is that, you cannot make this deduction unless you can prove that each of these dissimilarities are in effect going along from primitive to modern, which is, first of all, impossible scientifically speaking, unless one were able to observe it and then replicate it (inference is not scientific proof, remember), and secondly, hardly fair, in that species have various purposes for eyes, and we do not understand all of their functions. Thus, to say that one eye is primitive in a species, one would need to know exactly its purpose, functionality and effectiveness for the creature in question, and also be able to show how it could have evolved into something more complex...
The other problem is that this eye evolution scenario would imply that new DNA would have to have been created, through mutation, to be able to, say, create a lens for the eye, or any other part of the eye. The trouble is that mutations, albeit small, must ALWAYS be beneficial for them to be passed on, or at least completely benign until they reach a certain stage, so that the animal survives, and survives better. Now, you can infer that it MUST have been beneficial, based on your theory, if it is there. But you can show that it necessarily always was, or you cannot prove that scientifically, as we have not observed nor recreated this chain of events. It is assumed after the fact. This doesn't make it wrong, simply unscientific in the main sense of the word.
Your article that you quoted, or that you wrote, makes the assumption that well, since evolution, then changes for the eyes beneficial, because we have the eye the way it is, hence evolution. Fact is, we have no proof that any of these changes really did happen, or were possible. They are derived from the original theory. Which isn't to say it's wrong, merely that you could not have arrived at any other conclusion...
What you article doesn't mention is all of the muscles that control the human eye, being able to expand and contract the lens in such precision at such speed that we can focus light and make an image sharper basically instantly in our view. These muscles must have evolved parallel to the lens, because without them they are useless to us humans on land. Thus, the complexity of the problem is not anything like simply showing that seeing apparatuses could have been evolved in terms of their structure. Their control, design, placement and utility must always have been evolving at the same speed. Since your theory is based on chance mutation to create this new information and then natural selection to choose these helpful traits, it's simply astonishing that random chance was able to coordinate all of these chance mutations so that they happen at the same time, or rather that natural selection was able to keep everything necessary in line at the same time, without a SINGLE fault along the way, without any intermediate to any of these that would have rendered eyesight absolutely useless, which you cannot show in any scientific way because we have not observed, only inferred after the fact, to produce the eyes we have today...
It's a leap. It may be correct, but it's a leap.
