The theory of evolution by natural selection does not posit anything about the early universe or subatomic particles.

"The evolution of modern man falls short on the Darwin hypothesis" Why?

"Evolution is not falsifiable." Of course it's falsifiable. Find me a fossil of a homo sapiens in the Jurassic and this discussion is ended. There'll be a lot of noise, a lot of anguished squealing and kvetching and denial, but if you can satisfactorily prove your find is not a fraud, you will have killed the theory of evolution stone dead.

Blindness is not inheritable, it's a pathological condition like Downs syndrome - congenital but not inheritable. Most of the detrimental mutations in the genome are on recessive alleles or (as in the case of niggers) were beneficial until the environment changed. And if you'd watched that 15-minute Dawkins video (in the 5 minutes it took you write a dismissive reply about it), you'd have understood why half an eye is perfectly serviceable in a world of the blind, ensuring that half-eyed creatures would quickly come to dominate a population.

They're only functional additions because all the 99.9% fatal mutations are weeded out by natural selection, leaving only (or mostly) the beneficial mutation in the gene pool. And looking back 500 million years, with all the harmful mutations long gone, one might therefore be tempted to say "hey, what a fucking coincidence that all these beneficial traits just happen to pop up in the gene pool in the right order and with the right timing to produce the human eye." The assumption of intent is left out because the theory of evolution by natural selection works fine without that assumption, same way as Newtonian mechanics does away with the necessity of having angels pushing the planets around.

"I don't believe in beneficial, random development that clearly isn't random" What makes you say that mutations aren't random? "A superior state inherent in reality, or above it." Now, who's spewing jargon?

It's only meaningless jargon if you don't believe in the premises, namely that inheritable, beneficial mutations sometimes happen. "It's not the best looking nor most talented guy that gets the girl." Statistically aggregated over millions of individuals and thousands of generations, yes, the best looking or most talented (or most violent) guy gets the girl. And vice versa, of course. The hottest girl gets the chad; sexual selection is the main contender for an explanation for why blue eyes spread so rapidly.

"Evolutionary pressure" is shorthand for "the individuals better suited for survival in their given environment have better chances of passing on their genes." It is perfectly logical, so there's nothing to "get around," and it explains why evolutionary development is anything but random.

He gives you a clear and logical explanation of how evolutionary pressure could effect such a change. You can call it "hypothetical" and "speculative" since we have no fossilized eyes, but give that lack of material evidence, we have little choice but to pick the most likely explanation. And that explanation is natural selection, which has proven its merit over and over and over again, both in the field and in the laboratory. You apparently do not accept that such a thing as a light-sensitive cell could be created by mutation, so that precludes you from believing in evolution, but IF you were to assume that such a thing might happen, his explanation is perfectly rational and in accordance with what we observe in nature today: eyes of different designs and in different stages of development.

Before Dawkins jumped on the anti-Jesus gravy train, he had a career as one of the world's foremost science communicators. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X1iwLqM2t0

Still playing with the soap? Didn't your mother teach you not to feed trolls?

He's dead. Be very careful with weirs, they produce a dangerous turbulence that'll suck you down to the foot of the weir and keep you forever, so don't drive your canoe over one.