The Butterfly: A Nightmare For Evolutionists

It is enlightening to consider the difficulties that committed Evolution believers face when trying to fabricate a scenario whereby caterpillars could be the youthful form of the insect we call the butterfly.  There are some horrendous difficulties that must be surmounted to allow a butterfly to be a life form with a course of development which sprang from random mutations.  In fact, as with all life forms, the more deeply you look into it, the more nightmarish it becomes for someone who tries to describe such a creature as a product of random mutation.

Changing from a slow fat ground-bound 'worm' sort of creature to a lean mean flying machine is quite a biological metamorphosis. Yet, radical as those body changes are, pretty much all of them are absolutely necessary, and these newly formed body parts have to meet some very demanding specifications.

Wings can only be so heavy, yet they must have a certain strength, a certain flexibility, a particular shape depending on the particular wing motion which will produce the lift. They must be capable of deft and exacting movement if they are to produce a pinpoint landing. The wings must be durable, and somewhat weatherproof. They must be able to deal with occasional high winds.

The scales on a butterfly's wings are so beautiful and so remarkably shaped when magnified that they give you a moment of true wonder when you first see them. They are each, as individual scales, perfectly engineered and fit together so wonderfully tight. Yet, when you step back and look from a foot away, their color schemes and patterning are not a shred less remarkable. A marvelous blending of beauty and function.

Take a Monarch butterfly, for instance: it has a very pretty caterpillar stage, I think. The caterpillar has bright and variegated colors, multi-colored bands if you will, and it is a sluggish thing. It relies on its bad taste to remain uneaten. Its body stores chemicals from its food which make it very unpalatable to birds and most other insects. These are all handy features (the variegation of its skin and the bitterness of its flesh) for avoiding predators, but to put each in place via random mutation - that would take some focused engineering indeed! Skin patterns don't just appear by accident. They have to be programmed into the creatures DNA, and the coding isn't simple. It's complex.

As for the taste of its flesh, when we consider a concentration of chemicals of such extreme bitterness that birds can't tolerate it as food in their bodies, we run into the question of how the little caterpillar can tolerate this same level of chemicals in its own body. Its body must have ways of facilitating this high concentration of bitter chemical, and that makes you wonder how did those facilitations develop through random mutation? And how did the fat, slow caterpillar avoid the birds before the facilitations were fully developed by mutation?

It seems improbable to the extreme that such protective changes could have occurred at all, but if they didn't occur quickly back whenever they did occur, then how did these caterpillars survive before that time?

We all know the miraculous story of how caterpillars decide, at a certain point, to wrap themselves in a cocoon or chrysalis, attach it to a plant, and then change their bodies into the body of a butterfly, or a moth, depending. Now that brings up some extremely serious questions!

How could this fat slow caterpillar life form have randomly mutated in such a way that it began knowing how to build a cocoon, began knowing how to transform its physiology inside of the cocoon, and emerge equipped to fly, with knowledge of how to fly, knowledge of where to fly, with the ability to eat a new kind of food, and with the new physical equipment needed to gather the new kind of food, identify which types of the new sort of food were edible and which might be poisonous, etc., etc., etc., And it had tailored sexual organs, made for coupling in a way that was appropriate for the butterfly body design. And they were infused with a desire to travel to a place where they could gather and winter-over in a warmer climate. You begin to see that this asks far, far too much of random chance.

These are all very profound changes, yet they had to happen to not one, but at least two creatures at once, so that there was an 'Eve' butterfly for the first 'Adam' butterfly. And 'Eve' needed to be enough like 'Adam' that they could produce viable offspring. So, whatever random changes from evolution occurred to make this string of remarkable biological overhauls occur within 'Adam the Monarch caterpillar/butterfly', that same string of remarkable biological overhauls needed to happen to an 'Eve the Monarch caterpillar/butterfly' in about the same place on Earth (so they could meet each other!) at about the same time period, since Monarch butterflies have lifespans of only a couple of years.

Even if an Adam popped out of the evolution machine fully formed, able to build cocoons, able to grow radically new organs like wings, able to get his wings to work properly, able to grow strong enough wing muscles to flap those suckers for thousands of miles, able to distribute his body weight in such a way to maintain a proper body orientation while flying, able to have new legs which worked well for landing, able to navigate the skies to distant locations successfully, able to recognize flight dangers and react to them, able to recognize and harvest new foods, able to digest the new foods, able to breed, able to produce sperm which carried all of these new found traits, ........even if Adam the Monarch butterfly could do all of that, he had to find Eve, and Eve had to be like him anatomically in all of those same respects, except that she needed to have all of the complementary sexual organs, complementary sexual genetic coding, and she needed to find her Adam on this great big planet within the finite years of a butterfly's life.

I don't believe that Evolution is real. I don't believe any honest scientific enquiry could conclude that it is real, and I believe it's more than just a hoax, but that it should be viewed as an actual crime that any children going to any school should be taught such bogus science. Kids believe that their parents send them to school to learn true knowledge. They don't really believe that their teachers are liars. So, how can they believe that God and Jesus are our makers when they are told at school that the process of evolution made us?

The 70-year lifespan that we have may seem long, but compared to eternity it is nothing. So, if we would be angry at our teachers for teaching our children that it is OK to race on foot across the interstate through 65 mph traffic (due to it's serious and irreparable impact on their present 70 yearlong life) then why would we Christian believers not be even angrier that schools and teachers would teach our children that God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and Their teachings are a fairy tale? That will cause irreparable harm to the child's eternal life if the children buy into what the school and the teachers are peddling. And almost all kids will. They believe they can trust their schools, and their teachers.  After all, their trusted parents sent them there.

When will it be time to demand that schools demonstrate proof of the theory of evolution, or else eradicate the whole garbage theory from the textbooks used in our schools? It's just too bad if science doesn't have a 'plan B' to replace its failed 'plan A' of evolution. But they, like all of mankind, need to go to plan 'J' anyway, the Jesus plan.  May Jesus feel mercy for us all.  But may we all fear and honor Jesus, as the Father appointed us to do, and as Jesus fully earned by the sacrifices He made for an otherwise lost and doomed mankind.

Visit www.monarch-butterfly.com