Yet after over one hundred years of intense searching only a small number of transitional candidates are touted as proof of evolution. Most of the examples touted by evolutionists concentrate on just one feature of the anatomy, like a particular bone or the skull. A true transitional fossil should be intermediate in many if not all aspects. Yet simple statistics will show that given you have found a number of fossil instances of a creature, the chances that you have missed every one of its imagined predecessors is very small. Consider the trilobites for example.
Evolution requires the transition from one kind to another to be gradual.
And even if it did develop, to believe that mutations of such a spot eventually brought about the tremendous complexities of the human eye strains all common sense and experience. To assume existing, reproducing life for the principles of evolution to work on is a HUGE assumption which is seldom focused on in popular discussions. The process of photosynthesis in plants is very complex. It's no good unless it's complete. We know from everyday experience that an item is not generally useful until it is complete, whether it be a car, a cake, or a computer program.