The fallacy is on the reader?  What madness is this?  If by cats you meant all cats, then the premise is false; if you didn't, then the logic is faulty.  Either way, it's the syllogism that's the problem, not the reader.

[edit:  And no, a blind cat CAN't see in the dark, so the premise doesn't hold.]

 Yes, it does make allowances for randomness, but not in the way that I'm trying to say...
What I'd like is to acutally have a darwinian evolutionary scientist to have share how they factor in randomness, because I'm having trouble explaining exactly what kind of assumtions they're making.

Randomness isn't my biggest argument, it's just to compare it with conciousness which also isn't cause-and-effect. They(academic scientists) don't really factor in randomness beyond a certain point because matter has always been observed scientifically to follow the laws of physics, and it's only on the deeper level that there's some randomness, which doesn't seem to affect the matter that it's part of, which is slave to the laws of physics So we can leave randomness completely out of our arguments, since they do too. What they do factor in is chance, but that's just because we can't know everything; if we knew where everything was at what position and what force is being applied where on it, we could find out the chain of events that follow -  is how they think with about laws of physics.

Basically, when you're talking cause-and-effect with matter and energy, what do you have? You have the matter itself, the energy, their positions and their trajectory, that's about it. Then if you let it all do stuff by itself, what do you have? action reaction based on physics, right? Atoms bounce into each other, some stick because of the different properties and all you're observing is the shifting positions of atoms, protons, and electrons from the actions caused by other moving matter and energy. that seems rather plain, but that's how academic science sees it.
Now, what kind of explanation would they have when you bring 'experience' and 'feelings' into it and ask how their view could create it. Well (scientist says) it's just so complexily set up so that a part of the organism has a narrow perception of the rest of its processes.  Ok.. wait, perception? How can a part perceive? It makes sense that they'd say 'perceive', because 'detect' doesn't account for the feelings it experiences. Ok so what exactly is perceiving? Which combination of processes gives rise to this perception? Is it just an 'illusion' of perception? But wait, what experiences that illusion, if it really was one? You can't have an illusion without something experiencing that illusion, so we're back where we started. To experience you need something else than data, processes, functions and tools, yet that's pretty much all you can get with action-reaction. And I'd like you see you find a way to explain how experience and feelings can come about with what we know in science today, because not even scientists can. Most of them seem to ignore completely that they themselves can experience and feel, and think that it's just because it's so complex that they just need more time to explain it.

Now when it comes to free-will. Since scientists believe that everything in theory is simulatable, if one has the same complexity, it basically means that they think if they had the means of scanning your brain and making a giant network of functions that could calculate how you'd think and do everything your mind does. This means that in theory they can know everything you think and even predict what you'll think and do, since they think that every outcome is determined by it's cause, so they can trace where something is heading and find out the outcome beforehand. If that's true, then that means we don't have free will, because everything that happens in your mind was determined when the first atoms started predictally shifting and chaining events again and again. So technically using that logic, we don't really decide for ourselves because our brain just follows the reactions it's supposed to according to the many many actions that are happening.
And on that tengante, since everything is is just a chain of events following 1 initial path, then you could in theory go at the big bang and look at all the matter and energy, look at the amount of force projected on each according to its position and follow the chain of events leading aaaal the way to now. So, you know, it's not my fault if I go out and punch a baby in the face, it's just the outcome to that gigantic chain of events that has lead all the way to now. I'm not actually making decisions, it's just the outcome to the chain of events..  so hey we can all just blame the big bang for everything.. oh but wait, if I blame it then that's because it's just the outcome.. so it just doesn't matter, so who cares.. oh wait caring isn't up to my choice! ....- is how it would be if we'd adhere only to causal physics, which is what the theory of evolution follows.

The question you have to answer is..  are you a robot?

 "now you're saying you THINK it is, which is different"

Well maybe I shouldn't be stating my margin for error (like we should for any logic), and say there's definitely something lacking in the theory of evolution. At the very least it's lacking the proof that would convince me that it's not faulty:P

Well anyway I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot, so I am getting a bit bored of discussing the same thing, as fascinating as it is.

@ManusJustus

"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."

What's wrong with thinking about it? It's not like we're 100% positive that gravity is constant, but it's pretty likely, so it's not a big risk if you don't rope yourself to the ground.  I usually dont go for something unless it's above 60%... that is unless you have other reasons to. Everyone makes their own judgements and have their own reasons. I still won't say that it's impossible for gravity not to suddenly stop tomorow.

"Well maybe I shouldn't be stating my margin for error (like we should for any logic), and say there's definitely something lacking in the theory of evolution."

... But you only get to claim there may be something vital lacking because of applying that margin of error in the first place! So making your own counterclaim without that allowance of error is a double standard to say the least IMO.

At least we agree that it lacks proof that it will convince you.

To be honest I didn't have the heart to go through that wall of text so unless you insist I'd rather let this one go -- it sounds like your feelings are similar.

 it's an interesting read I'm sure :P  It's your choice to read it or not. I think I've said most of what I can for now and for a while, so if you read it and dont agree then simply say " I read it and I don't agree " or like, I read it and I think you're crazy"  And then we can let it rest as youve taken the time to discuss plenty :)

Im someone who can debate for hours on end. I am a bit tired for now though, I've been arguing about games with a friend of mine at the same time :P

I believe God made everything in existense.

but that's not what we're debating. God could've made everything, but the question is: Did he use evolution?

Oh, sorry. Well, I believe God made all living things to adapt and grow in certain enviroments, but I don't believe he grew humans out of apes, if that's what you're asking.

it's fine. I respect your beliefs, but you should look at some videos on youtube. go to this channel on youtube. they have some interesting stuff that explains evolution if you every wish to learn more on the subject.

OK, I've read it now, and here's the low down:
I disagree with your assertion about randomness (basically that it doesn't happen on the macro scale), although you may be able to show me wrong here. 
I disagree that your "scientist" would think he could perfectly predict everything if he knew all the positions/forces/etc. (due largely to the above disagreement). 
I disagree with your reasoning about free will, because IMO your argument boils down to saying that our physical brains are not subject to causality.  (If that's what the hypothetical scientist was looking at to try to predict your mind, then clearly that's where you say the consciousness resides, right?) 

Oh, and I normally have great stamina for debates -- just ask appolose.  (Oh wow, over three months!  Kind of depressing actually...)  But for some reason this one just ... eh. 

P.S.  You may find this interesting.

What about Lucy?