I can't really beat hughv's link, but here's one discussing fruit-flies' evolutionary immunity to DDT.
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/DD...ce_Spread.html
It's a perfect example of natural selection. If you're immune to DDT, you live and pass on the gene. If you're not, you die and you don't pass on the genes which are vulnerable to DDT. Same thing with the penicillin-resistant super-bacteria.
No reason to think human beings don't exhibit the same behavior, except on a lesser scale. I'm sure the 1918 flu epidemic caused us to be a much more resilient species, as did the Bubonic Plague earlier. People with weaker immune systems died and didn't pass their genes on. Those with stronger immune systems survived and had children.
I have no doubt that a species can become immune to a specific virus. But this is not proof of Evolution. According to evolutionists, it takes several thousands of years for a species to make drastic physical changes. For example, a fish to grow legs. Of course legs would not grow perfect initially because that is the nature of deformities, so they would have to be refined through generation to generation. But we are not talking about generation to generation, we are talking about 100s of generations to 100s of generations. And this process happens for every change a species goes through. I'm pretty sure that if this process happened for every single development in every species on the planet that it would be very evident through fossils and there would be no question. You would see steps in the Evolution chain because every single one of these changes requires thousands of years of development and the spawn of millions of species with that same deformity.
Since this the way Evolution works, species would be much more closely related then they are because of the statistical amount of spawn and time required between changes in the physical makeup of a species. You would not see fish and lizards, you would see fish, fish with legs, fish with tails, fish with legs and claws, lizards with fins, lizards with gills, fish with the ability to eat flies by flipping their tongue into the air like a frog, etc... Species and families of species would be much more closely related then they are now and it would be obvious to the standard intelligent human which path in the Evolution chain a species came from and Evolution would in fact be measurable like other scientific theories.
Because it is not so obvious, just saying that because flies and cockroaches can develop immunities is not saying that Evolution is a fact. It's not even coming close.
For this reason, the only difference that I see between Creationism and Evolution is the supernatural aspect, otherwise they are on the same level of improbability.
Unsolved 
Offline 
