Evolution or just good design?

It amazes me that the popular press seems to equate obvious design with "evolution." In the century following Darwin first published "Origin of Species" science made great strides in the fields of genetics. This was NOT in an attempt to prove the theory, but it provided a mechanism by assumed change toward complexity might take place. However, it seems a lot more logical to assume that the original gene pool was way more complex and thus produces variants that become less complex.

In a recent editorial at the New York Times the writer assumes that genetic mutation coincided with the need for lactose tolerance as mankind in different parts of the world began to domesticate cattle. Such an assumption is ludicrous. The choices people make cannot influence the course of "random" mutation! It is far more reasonable to interprelate that such tolerance for cow's milk was in the genes all along only to be "activated" when people began to consume the milk meant for bovine infants. Those that could not tolerate such milk undoubtably could not last as long in harsh conditions that required ingestion of easily stored cheeses, for instance, but that does not mean they could not a least live long enough to produce offspring.

Adaptation is NOT the same thing as evolution. Though changes are passed on in offspring, and those with beneficial traits tend to survive into child-bearing years, it does not follow that whole populations change this way. Lactose intolerant folk still exist, and it may be that MOST folk are actually intolerant but have competing enzymes that mask the inefficient use of these products. The only thing that happenned back in the days of Jabal (Gen. 4:20) was that animals were domesticated and thus people began to utilize them in inventive ways. Can you imagine the first time they tried to milk a cow! :-)