I've had this conversation with my cousin a few times. According to him (he doesn't believe in evolution), scenarios like with this bear are evidence of adaptation, and adaptation is different from evolution. Adaptation involves a bear (or other animal) having minor feature about them change, like color or say diet. However, he believes that a bear will always be a bear, and that extreme mutations like the bear learning how to breathe underwater are impossible. His argument for this involves things like marsupials and eyeballs. In the marsupials case, most have upside down pouches but kangaroos have right side up pouches. According to evolution, kangaroos evolved a right side up pouch because they don't dig through the dirt and thus don't need it, but in the interim between upside down and right side up, their babies would have kept falling out of their pouch and dying, so how could they have passed on the mutation? As for eyeballs, they are such almost infinitely intricate devices, requiring such exact mutations in an exact order, having occurred alongside other very precise mutations, that it shouldn't exist. We can see that most life forms have eyes, thus eyes must have evolved fairly early on, but was there enough time between when we believe the first multi celled organism evolved, and when we believe the first life form with a functioning eye evolved, to have evolved such a complex structure?I'm not saying evolution is an impossibility, and I don't believe he is saying that either, but as with all theories, we have to analyze and ask questions for ourselves.