RussTolution is undoubtedly absurd. Presented as it is, I would never believe such a thing and I have trouble understanding how anyone does -- except for the fact that, as far as I know, there isn't any such individual.

On a semi-unrelated note but one connected with the whole evolution of the eye debate, I'd be interested in hearing what the RussTolution school of thought says regarding such animals as Proteus anguinus, known also as the olm, proteus and literally the "human fish" when translated from other languages. This is a species which grows eyes during its larval stage which then later regress and even atrophy by full maturity. Why do they possess eyes at all if they do not use them? And why do they start to work and then eventually stop? I realize that according to RussTolution the notion that maybe, just maybe, they had operable eyes somewhere in their ancestry prior to becoming subterranean inhabitants which then became inoperable as the need was no longer present is an absurd idea. I just don't know what makes it absurd. I don't claim to be an expert in the field however.