Close, but no. More of, from what I understand from the pamphlet "That was pretty complex for back then, seeing as organisms still have such a structure."
But this objection makes no sense. The complexity of the trilobite eyes was a great advance for its time, but the fact that similar structures still exist is irrelevant. As has been noted above, cyanobacteria are extremely ancient, yet cyanobacteria still exist today, much as they did millions of years ago.
Trilobites happen to be pretty much the first animals with complex eyes
of which we have a good fossil record. Precambrian fossils do exist, and although the record is fairly poor, it is constantly improving.
The point I am trying to get across here is that whilst our understanding of the transitions between late-Precambrian to early-Cambrian is imperfect, this doesn't really pose a problem for the theory of evolution. It only poses a problem if you want to have a full natural history of the changes between one species and another. It would be nice to have a full record of every intermediate stage of trilobite eye development, but we don't have that. In truth, we don't need it, because we have so many other examples of fossils that show clear evidence of evolution.
To clarify, natural history describes what changes in took place in the history of life (to the best of our ability), whilst evolution describes the process of change itself. Just because we have there are imperfections in our knowledge of natural history, this in no way invalidates the ToE. To do that you would have to point to something that
contradicted the ToE.
Mutate and Survive
™ Version 4.2
