In a rare find, it was possible to distinguish cellular structures in the eye:
Schoenemann and her co-author Euan Clarkson of the University of Edinburgh in Scotland published their analysis of the ancient eye on Thursday in Scientific Reports. Despite being 429 million years old, the trilobite has a modern-looking eye that resembles those of today’s bees and dragonflies. This type is called an apposition compound eye, meaning each lens acts independently to create a mosaic image of what a creature sees.
The detailed look at the trilobite’s eye helps track the evolution of eyes and vision in arthropods over time, says University of New England paleontologist John Paterson, who was not involved in the new study. “The take-home message appears to be that trilobites had developed apposition compound eyes during the earliest evolutionary stages of the group and stuck with this design throughout their history.” Riley Black, “Rare, cracked fossil shows the world through ancient eyes” at Scientific American
Paper. (open access)
Note that we are told that the find “helps track the evolution of eyes and vision in arthropods over time” but in this case, it appears that their wasn’t much evolution: They “developed apposition compound eyes during the earliest evolutionary stages of the group and stuck with this design throughout their history.” No matter the history, Darwin must be placated.
See also: Stasis: Life goes on but evolution does not happen
of note:
Even Dawkins admits that the sudden appearance of complex structures such as eyes would be tantamount ‘to a miracle’,,,
All this information about trilobites and their eyes is brought to you courtesy of research conducted by materialistic sciences such as paleontology working within the framework of the materialistic theory of evolution.
If this is incorrect then perhaps Paleyists can explain where materialistic science has gone so badly wrong. Are the dating estimates wildly off and the trilobite fossils really only tens of thousands of years old? Can Paleyists narrow down the date of the trilobite creation event and explain how their dating methodology is more accurate than that used by the materialistic sciences? There are Nobel prizes waiting for those who could bring about such a paradigm shift and I’m sure Susan Mazur will be on standby.
There isn’t any materialistic theory of evolution. There isn’t any scientific theory of evolution.
Blind and mindless processes are incapable of producing living organisms. Given starting populations of prokaryotes, blind and mindless processes can only produce more prokaryotes, at best. They are incapable of producing eukaryotes from prokaryotes.
Given populations of single-celled eukaryotes, blind and mindless processes can only produce more single-celled eukaryotes. They are incapable of producing metazoans starting with single-celled eukaryotes.
Obviously seversky is either deluded, demented or dishonest.
Materialistic science fails because materialistic processes cannot produce coded information processing systems. And living organisms are ruled by information processing systems.
As for the dates- that still all depends on how the earth was formed. The 4.5x billion years is dependent on the untestable assumption that the proto-earth was completely molten such that no crystals from the accretion debris survived.
@Seversky
Now your problem is to explain how sense knowledge (which is used to do science) can be a purely material phenomenon.
https://strangenotions.com/materialisms-failures-hylemorphisms-vindication