If you had read the article I linked to, you would know that it demonstrated the accumulation of adaptive mutations -- by direct, detailed observation.
He found that T. rex might have had visual acuity as much as 13 times that of people. By comparison, an eagle's acuity is 3.6 times that of a person.T. rex might also have had a limiting far point of 6 kilometers, compared with the human far point of 1.6 km. These are best-case estimates, Stevens says, but even toward the cautious end of the scale, T. rex still displays better vision than what's needed for scavenging.
Heh-heh. Once again mixing up two different things that have to be independently evaluated, eh? Apples and oranges?
Kinds like evolution vs. ID?
'Best' is totally relative in your comparison.
Predators have eyes facing forward (TRex, birds of prey). The binocular aspect thus gained helps them identify movement and judge distances. Generally their vision is pretty good, for the same reasons.
Herbivores like Triceratops, for example, often have eyes on the sides. What they lose in depth perception they gain in having a much wider field of vision, reducing the chance that a predator can ambush them from behind (obviously identifying movement is also important for the same reason).
So, in terms of which vision is 'best', it all depends on what you are looking for - distance and depth, or breadth. both have their advantages, depending on whether you are the 'chomper' or the 'chompee'...