What the poster fails to mention is that Darwin failed to discover an evolutionary pathway used to make the eye.
But Darwin did find viable intermediate stages which is all that was needed to counter the argument that the complexity of the lensed eye required it to appear fully formed, like a watch found on the heath.
To say that it "could", is a rather weak hypothesis. Saying something "could" have developed in a particular manner isnt the same as providing viable, scientific evidence that it has.
A "could have" is all that is needed to counter the argument that "it's impossible".
This is the problem with societies main stream view of evolutionary science. Possibilities and educated guesses get presented as irrefutable fact.
Since scientists present their conclusions in tentative language (as exemplified above) it would seem to be the fault of mainstream society for reading too much into scientific papers.