According to a program on the Animal Planet, bears 'adapted' the ability to hibernate in 'response' to food shortages. Additionally, certain crickets 'adapted' the capacity to withstand being frozen solid. In other words, evolution occurring over millions of years produced in these bears and crickets an ability they did not possess before.
Yet scientists don't know how either of these animals accomplishes its cold-weather feats. If they don't know how it's done, how can scientists be certain that those abilities 'evolved'? The idea of evolution such as this is that the accumulation of many minute changes are passed down through generations, eventually resulting in the characteristics we observe now. So, at one time, bears could not hibernate. On this theory, the first bear 'hibernated' a little bit, his bear son hibernated a little more, and so on until the great-great bear grandson made it all the way through winter.
Can anyone see the problem? The case of the cricket makes the difficulty more obvious. The first cricket in the evolutionary chain could not withstand being frozen solid. Little Jiminy, therefore, died. After attempting to survive being frozen Jiminy left no cricket offspring to whom to pass his contribution to the evolutionary process -- jumping into the freezer.
Another problem is that there are plenty of cold-weather animals that do not have this ability to hibernate. Most notable among them: men. What makes one animal 'adapt' favorably and others not? The evolutionists thus propose a position that these hibernating creatures are 'smarter' than humans. Sure, men can fashion warm clothing and build heaters, but so what?
Isn't it more reasonable, doesn't it make more sense, that these animals were designed this way?