It is *extremely* rare for deformities in mammals to be this perfectly symmetrical. I wouldn't be so amazed by a cyclopic cat that had one eye kind of slightly off to one side, sloped a bit or otherwise misshapen, but this one is too *perfect*.

I thought cats were born with their eyes closed?

The snopes article addresses that.

But the part of my brain that assesses "normal" and "okay" is insisting that the picture looks 'Shopped.

Oh please, let it turn out to be 'Shopped, so that I can sleep.

What is really disturbing is that it occurs in 'mammals'. I have never heard of this in humans. Of course, I really don't want to.

It probably depends on how early the mutation kicks in. If it happens before the sides differentiate, left and right both receive the same incorrect instructions.

Too bad! See near the end of this article:

The eye looks way to big. kittens eyes are nowhere near that size. They are tiny, blue, relfective, closed and even if thats two eyes mutated together it couldn't be that big!!

surely he should have frozen the kitten corpse for proof and study.

I think it's more that the head is too small--I think the poor thing's just missing most of his skull and body, which happens to include one eye. It looks like he might be missing the other two legs as well.

I've seen a real cyclopic human baby, pickled in a jar. It was similar enough to this kitten picture to convince me that the kitten picture is real.

Considering how complicated the process is, between the sperm/egg and the finished product, it's a miracle any of them turn out "right". :3_eyes:

Please define "right"

True. creation is amazing and complicated.. its ineviatable that it should stuff up sometimes. I just read that snopes thing said that the big eye thing is a symptom of the cyclops deformity(or whatever it is).

<i>It is *extremely* rare for deformities in mammals to be this perfectly symmetrical.</i>

And ....

<I>creation is amazing and complicated.. its ineviatable that it should stuff up sometimes. </i>

Actually I think the word you wanted to use (i.e. the word I would have use if I were you) was "evolution". As in "evolution is amazing and complicated". I realize that our difference in expression may be due to differences in political thought.

Howere, if we can agree to disagree about the proper word use in this instance (i.e creation/evolution), then I am in complete agreement with your statement.

[o.k. but seriously,have you read <a href="http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf">this opinion?</a> [warning! pdf]. It is AMAZING LAW, imho.]

I wonder if Ripley's wound up with the corpse.

I'm no expert on birth defects, but my understanding is that there are genetic birth defects (which you could call evolution) and birth defects caused by other factors like exposure to certain toxins during pregnancy. One of the links in the Snopes article says that this particular condition in farm animals is cause by the mother eating a certain plant during pregnancy. Such a birth defect wouldn't change the DNA of the fetus, it would just interrupt its development. Without a DNA change, the defect wouldn't be passed along to the offspring of the fetus (assuming the fetus lived and could reproduce.) It's not genetic, so it's not evolution.