Read the statement again.  I didn't say "all cats can see in the dark", I said "cats can see in the dark".   Both premises were factual.   Midnight is biologically a cat and cats are scientifically proven to have the ability to see in the dark.  The logical conclusion is that Midnight should be able to see in the dark.   But Midnight is actually blind.   That's a logical curveball.

The devil is in the details.

Your statement is not valid, just as someone else familar with logic said the same thing.

Your statement implied that all cats can see in the dark, which is not true.  You could also have said that most cats see in the dark, which is a true statement but you couldnt draw your conclusion from that premise.

It's quite funny, or should I say hypocritical, to lecture about logic and premises when that person(Manus) stated the premise "things made up don't exist". It's entirely possible that something made-up happens to be true in reality, without the person knowing it. Actually, there's also a frequent area that this happens in. This is rather interesting and falls into psychology, but a lot of made-up stories with a lot of thought put into making it actually end up being true, because everyone unconsciously learns information and sometimes we later think about it without really remembering that we learned it and think it's our original idea. It's unlikely than an entire made-up story from beginning to end is actually true, but multiple parts could be, But anyway.

you're both basically saying the same thing. It's a logical curveball but you have to reformat your statement because of it ; "cats can see in the dark" to something like "cats typically have the ability to see in the dark" which is true, and so the premise is now ok and the logic can be determined.

Cause-and-effect-based evolutionary theory can and does make allowances for randomness. 

My biggest problem was that you were saying (or appeared to be saying) the theory of evolution was DEFINITELY lacking this and that, and now you're saying you THINK it is, which is different.  That's why I said "abandoning disproof" because unless you're saying definitely then it's not "disproved". 

Since you're backing down (or perhaps clarifying) to basically a position of doubt that you are simply leaning one way on (albeit strongly), I would prefer to drop the discussion if this sentence isn't grossly mischaracterizing your position and if that's OK with you. 

Either the premise was faulty ("all" was implied) or the logic was faulty ("all" was not implied, ergo Midnight, as a cat, does not necessarily have the ability to see in the dark).  You can't have it both ways. 

Whats more funny is your belief in the invisible dragon that serves omlets.

All fictional things made up by man do not exist.  Dragons do not exist, unicorns do not exist, leprachuans do not exist, gods on Mount Olympus do not exist.  What you have trouble understanding is the difference between fictional make believe and made up things that are possible.  I could say that Joe Smith lives in New York and likes to eat apples.  Even though I made that up it very well could be true.  However, if I say that a invisible unicorn lives on the Eifel Tower and shoots lighting bolts out of his a$$, that statement cannot be true.

Just to humor myself, do you think that unicorns and leprachuans exist?  What about leprachuans that ride unicorns?

No, I didn't imply that ALL cats see in the dark, I implied that cats CAN see in the dark. The emphasis is the difference and why the premise still holds.

The fallacy is on the reader to assume which is emphasized as most will assume ALL not CAN.

You implied that all cats see in the dark, you tried to make the connection that since Midnight was a cat then Midnight could see in the dark, hence all cats see in the dark.

That premise in invalid, just as several people here have explained.

Egh.. I don't know why I'm still arguing with you...

"All fictional things made up by man do not exist."

Look ok. There's no way using LOGIC to tell if something made up is fictional or not unless you have the proof.

Saying that the possibility for something exists is NOT the same thing as saying something exists absolutely.  If I say I live in Canada, I could have just made that up, but the possibility still exists because as long as a possibility has not been PROVEN wrong, it still exists... I'm NOT saying it exists because it hasn't been proven, I'm saying the POSSIBILITY exists. 
Now taking it a notch further, If I say I have purple eyes, I could have made that up, and you could maybe say that it's not true because you've never seen humans with purple eyes, but just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and you can't prove that humans can't develop purple eyes, and so it's still possible because you don't know. I don't have to prove anything to you, because as long as you can't prove it wrong, it's still a possibility, and that's all we're talking about here; possibilities.

Who are you to know what's 100% fictional and what's not? You don't know all the secrets of the universe, and you don't know shit.

You're saying, at some point there's a line, and that if something is too farfetched, then it's definitly not possible. I got news for you, everyone thought it was hella farfetched to be able fly in the past, but we sure hells proved them wrong with planes. Don't you think they thought of flying technology like you do of unicorns and leprecons? What if we find a unicorn fossil in the near future, what will you say? Because you just said that they DON'T exist, yet here they are with proof for unicorns in the near future which means there was the possibility when you stated that. See where I'm going? It's basic logic, and you can't put a line just because you think something is too farfetched, that doesn't mean you have to believe it just because the possibility is there. I think it's possible that a bird might crap on me when it's flying overhead, does that mean I'm gonna cower everytime that happens? No of course not, because it's just a possibility. If I choose to take cover every time one flies overhead, well that's just being precautious...nothing wrong with that. it's not like I waste that much effort.

Sure I'll humour you. Do I think unicorns exist? I have seen no proof indicating that it doesn't, thus it's possible, just like it's possible that it doesn't exist. Do I think it's likely? No. Same thing with leprecons. Do I think leprecons ride unicorns. I've never seen it, but I've never seen any proof indicating that it's not possible. This scenario is very unlikely however, to the point of having almost 0% probability.. however, logically it's still possible as long as that infinitely small fraction of possibility exists. And any scientist would tell you the same. You're being very unreasonable.

If I dont know shit, I think it could be assumed that I dont know the secrets of the universe.

As you stated, some fictional made up premises have the probability of near 0%.  What percent do you need in order for you to start to making judgements about our universe?  Everytime I wake up gravity is working, so I'm going to give it a 99.99999999999% chance of working since it has always worked for me and every other person, but I havent tested the future so, for your sake, I'll assume there is a possibility of it not working. 

It would be unreasonable for me to even think about gravity not working, when I go to bed I can say with certainity that gravity will be there in the morning.