“If evolution was really true, we would have dug up fossils of all sorts of ancient animals who would have started out with only 1 eye, and then they would have later mutated themselves a 2nd eye!”
And you think this because…? I mean, seriously. If a species evolves from a species with two eyes, do you think it has to ‘start over’ without any?
"We would find fossils of 1-eyed T-rexes, 1-eyed giant beavers, 1-eyed giant kangaroos, etc.”
No. Nothing in the theory suggests that.
“— but we don’t! Bilateral organs like eyes prove that evolution is a LIE — because if mutation and evolution were really true, then it only makes sense that any given life form would just mutate only 1 of any given organ like an eye at first,”
You have less of an idea of evolution than Ray Comfort has, and that’s saying something.
Evolution is not a process of reset and reinvent. It’s very, very minor improvements. So if two eyes work, the process would retain two eyes even as the neck grows longer or the legs grow stronger or whatever changes.
"and then later it would mutate the 2nd one!”
No. This would be like if a car design had two headlights and that worked best, when they design the new model, they start all over with one. Doesn’t make any sense, even as a mockery of the theory.
“ The Cy Kitty is just a reminder that mutating any organ in any way is going to be harmful to the life of the animal,”
But every organ we have is a mutation. If it doesn’t make things better, that individual probably won’t prosper well enough to dominate the gene pool with progeny.
"yet evolutionists rely upon literally millions of mutations to have formed all life — and it’s impossible!”
You’ve got no credibility to describe the odds of a process you couldn’t pick out of a line-up.
