Consider how a complex organ such as the eye evolves over millions of years. Let’s assume some mutations have sensitized an area of the skin to light, so that certain areas are more sensitive to light. What good is this? By the theory, this has no benefit to the species so would be selected out. But let’s suppose it survives, and goes on to develop into an eye, complete with lens, retina, and the muscles needed to focus automatically. How this happens over millions of years is unknown, for unless the entire eye is complete, it is useless. But let’s assume it happened; the eye is complete. Without the nerve connecting it to the brain, and the brain being able to process the information, the partially formed eye is useless, and would be selected out since it gives no advantage to the species. Millions of years of mutations and natural selection wasted.

But let’s suppose all this happened over millions of years. The eye is complete, and the connection to the brain works, and the brain is capable of processing the information. How did two eyes develop? What told the species you needed two? Since you wouldn’t know the benefits of two eyes working together to provide depth perception unless you already had two, how did this develop? If it was random, why don’t we find animals with eyes in the back of their head? Wouldn’t that be useful to see what is behind? The more thinking you do on this, the more absurd it sounds. Darwin himself knew this was a problem, and the passage of time since he proposed his theory has not made it any less of a problem.

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd to the highest degree. (Charles Darwin The Origin of Species Bantam Books June 1999, page 155)

Darwin explained his problem by making two points he felt would solve this problem:

Numerous examples of species with transitional forms. Unfortunately, this is not the case. As we shall see in another section, the fossil record is silent on transitional forms. Has anything been found with partial eyes?
Each transitional form is useful to the species. This is difficult to imagine. What good is a partially formed eye? A partially formed eye is useless, according to the theory it would be selected out.
The mystery of complex organs poses a huge problem for evolution; partially formed organs are useless. Consider also reproductive organs. If these developed over millions of years the same problem presents itself. What good are partially developed reproductive systems? They serve no purpose so would be selected out. And how did a species reproduce during the millions of years they were developing? If a species could reproduce without them, why would they evolve in the first place?

This is an embarrassing problem

THE FOSSIL RECORD
This is again embarrassing. As evolution has been occurring for billions of years, and we went from goo to single-celled animals to fish to crawling up on land, etc, where are the transitional forms? Where is the half fish half lizard? The fossil record should have hundreds, thousands, even millions of examples. Where are they? Evolutionists mention 3 or 4 highly debatable ones, but why have they only found a few? For billions of years of evolution? Strange. It’s not for a lack of looking — how many people are digging, and for how many decades have they been searching? There is a deafening silence from the evolutionists on this issue, and understandably so. If their theory is correct, the evidence should be there, and it isn’t. Once again, Darwin knew the problem the fossil record posed for evolution, and probably expected later scientists to find abundant transitional forms.

The cambrian period also is a severe problem for darwin

"Darwin said in his Origin of Species, 'If it could be demonstrated that an complex ogan existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' what about irreducible complex machines, take cilium, or even better and more fascinating bacterial flagellum, take away just one of there parts and the whole machine fails as a whole. Darwin is scratching his butt at these sort of problems, and theres alot more. What about fine tunings of the universe which is a totally differnt subject, what about the mind, the conscious

TO ADD

random chance in the beggining : theres a minimal complexity threshold, theres a certian level of folding that a protein has to have called tertiary structure that is necessary for it to perform a function. you dont get tertiary structure in a protein unless you have at least 75 amino acids or so. That may be conservative. Now consider what youd need for a protein molecule to form by chance. First you need the right bonds between the amino acids 2nd amino acids come in right handed and left handed versions, and youve got to get only left handed ones. 3rd the amino acids must link up in a specified sequence like letters in sentence, run the odds of all this falling into place on their own n the probabilities of forming a RATHER SHORT FUNCTIONAL PROTEIN at random would be 1 chance out of 10 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion, thats a 10 followed with 125 zeros thats just one protein molecule

and a MINIMALLY COMPLEX CELL would need between 300 and 500 PROTEIN molicules, plus all of this would have to be accomplished in a mere 100 million years, which is the approximate window of time between the earth cooling and the first microfossils weve found

To embrace Darwinism and its underlying premise of naturalism, I would have to beieve that: 1. nothin producs everything
2. Non-life produces life
3. Randomness produces fine-tuning
4. Chaos produces information
5. Unconsciouness produces consciousness
6. Non-reason produces reason

Based on this, i am forced to conclude that Darwinism would require a blind leapof faith that i am not willing to make. Simply put,the central pillars of evolutionary theory quickly rot away when exposed to scrutiny. For example naturalistc processes have utterly failed to explain how non living chemicals could somehowself assemble into the first living cell. Not only are there no viable theories, but none are on the horizon. Biochemist Klaus Dose, one of the leading origin of life experts, conceded: "At present all discussions on principle thories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."

READ! THIS IT HAS ALOT OF GOOD INFORMATION ABOUT HOW MUCH FAITH YOU REALLY NEED TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION!! THERE IS A CREATOR, JEHOVAH, WHO SENT HIS SON IN THE FLESH AS A HINT AND IS THE ONLY WAY TO ETERNAL LIFE, READ ABOUT HIM AND IT WILL ALL MAKE SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have a valid argument here. The only problem is that you are thinking in millions of years. Eyes were obviously one of the first evolutionary developments of multi-celled creatures seeing as insects, reptiles, mammals and the like all have them. This being realized they must have all evolved from the same animal. This would have allowed eyes to develop over BILLIONS of years not merely millions. This amount of time is unimaginable to humans so it is understandable to have questions such as these that seem almost unfathomable. Fossils are much less likely to form as you may think as well. Not every dead animal creates one. Very rare. Continue to question beliefs though, it's the only way we move forward in knowledge.