Your question only shows how little you understand science.
The evolutionary theory does not state that we would ever find a “cat-lizard “ It only explains the fact that a cat and a lizard share a common ancestor at some point in the distant past.
You really should try some independent research instead of regurgitating creationist talking points.
I didn't want to bring it up, but I am pretty sure my ex-wife is exactly that.
Before you gag on the other foot you should at least have a freshman understanding of Cladistics.
“The evolutionary theory does not state that we would ever find a “cat-lizard “ It only explains the fact that a cat and a lizard share a common ancestor at some point in the distant past.”
Then it’s not science. An “explanation” is at best a hypothesis, but more like a fairy tale. You know, there was a fairy at the bottom of the garden named Darwin, and he turned a lizard into a cat.” Nice story, but that’s all it is.
And it’s OK if you want to believe it, and probably no worse than the story of the Old Man in the sky who created everything. At least the second story doesn’t pretend to be science and demand gobs of taxpayers’ money for more storytelling, ... err, research.
See, both stories “explain” where things came from, even though nobody knows, but to be science, they would have to demonstrate how what they claim actually happens by means of a reproducible experiment. Cannot be done.
I do not believe in a God, by the way, nor in any of the so-called “sciences” that deal with things that no one can demonstrate, such environmentalism, evolution, and most of what goes by the name psychology, in the name of which the biggest frauds in history are being put over.
Hank