The supposed “missing links” that would connect a photosensitive spot, to a photosensitive spot in a cavity, to a covered with a lens photosensitive spot in a cavity (an eye); are hardly “missing” - but living among us.
In fact the evidence suggests that the eye evolved at least twice in two independent lines, and in two distinct and different ways.
You’re trying to say this is a transitional between fish and amphibian.
But it doesn’t help your case.
The supposed linear progression of species, if true, would have to be immensely complicated. It’s not just a matter of gills changing to lungs, or fins to feet.
The total number of transitional forms, if evolution were true, would be vastly greater than the total number of species. Because for any two species, there are countless necessary genotypic and phenotypic changes necessary to make the change from one to the other. It seems the number of discrete species between a fish and a salamander would be in the hundreds, or maybe thousands or even more.
The number of transitional forms, if evolution were true, would be far greater than the total number of species. Even if there were only a hundred transitional forms between two known species, we would expect produce at least a few if not a couple dozen fossils evenly distributed along the linear progression.
There are none. We have only discrete species separated by vast morphological, and thus genotypic, differences.
Again—the number of transitional forms, if evolution were true, would be far greater than the total number of species.