Any scientist worth their salt would never claim 'proof'. That's very much the domain of the media who takes this stuff and reports it to the public. Evolution is a theory, and that shouldn't devalue it. 'Religion as fact' is objectively far more tenuous as a theory than evolution is. They are both theories, of a sort. I'm inclined to go for the hundreds of years of study and accompanying mistakes and re-adjustments than the assurance of a book or three written before they understood the earth was round.

The theory of gravity isn't exactly linear as well, when you start getting into the nature of space-time xD

I guess the thing with that first comment (which made me snerk water on my desk) is that these animals wouldn't have bumped into trees: they would be living in habitats that suited their limited visual ability. If you're asking 'where do these species originally come from, to start evolving?', there's no simple answer. Basic lifeforms adjust and adapt to increase in complexity, and adapt specific traits to deal with their environment. A grex, for example, is an interesting look at what algae can evolve into when the need arises.

As to the dinosaur question, the current theory holds that dinosaurs, in their many species, were the berach between birds and reptiles. The older ones were more reptile-like, the later ones more bird-like. Vestigal feathers, complete feathers and extensive bird-like traits are found in late-Cretaceous period dinosaurs.

Complicated stuff, and I'm still really foggy-headed. Hopefully it makes some kind of sense xD