It's been said that the fact that someone cannot imagine how nature can accomplish some amazing feat or other is not a reason to think that nature cannot do it. Those who doubt the theory of Darwinian evolution, for example, on the grounds that the anatomy, physiology and behaviors of living things are so intricate and complex that its unimaginable that they evolved by unguided chance processes are often derided for employing what's called an argument from incredulity (See a brief discussion of the argument here).
Of course, it's not just Darwin skeptics who employ this line of thinking. Materialists do the same thing when they argue that because we can't imagine how minds and brains can interact with each other that therefore belief that we have an immaterial mind is unwarranted. Or when their inability to imagine why a good God would allow suffering is given as a justification for their belief that a good God doesn't exist. Or when they doubt that we have free will because they can't imagine how free choices could exist in a world governed down to the tiniest particle by the inexorable laws of physics. Or when they scoff at the possibility of miracles for the same reason.
In fact, materialistic naturalists (atheists) are probably the most frequent invokers of incredulity as a legitimate epistemic criterion among those who think about topics like those just mentioned, and indeed there's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with doubting some claim because its implausibility intuitively renders it deeply suspect. We do it all the time.
For that reason, it seems to me completely appropriate when watching the following short video to be deeply skeptical that the Darwinian explanation of how these creatures came to possess the food gathering mechanisms they do is correct. One attempt at a Darwinian explanation, in which this video was featured, is analyzed here.
Despite attempts to wave the magic wand of natural selection and throw the pixie dust of Darwin in our eyes it seems completely appropriate and rational, unless presented with compelling evidence to the contrary, to believe that it's much less probable that a mindless, unguided process would have created and synchronized all the adaptations these animals exhibit, from the molecular level on up, than that they're the result of intelligent engineering and foresight.
But watch the video and come to your own conclusion:
