Metamorphosis of a Caterpillar to a Butterfly

 

Owl Butterfly Caterpillar

Evolution takes millions of years to change one species into
another. But the Creator does it in just two weeks.

Owl Butterfly Just Born

The insect pictured above began life as a caterpillar walking upon numerous legs. It was later transformed into an entirely different insect with the wings of a butterfly. This transformation is called metamorphosis.

How does evolution explain the metamorphosis from a caterpillar to a butterfly?

The advocates of evolution explain this insect and its metamorphosis generally as follows:

"... [the development of] a nymph stage aided their survival [as a caterpillar] and it was added to their life cycle. Eventually at some point a nymph formed a cocoon around itself before maturing to the adult stage. This enabled it to survive a winter and emerge full grown. So, by a long step by step process, the Complete Metamorphosis cycle did arise. This is not absolutely proven." Donning, Daryl P. "Metamorphosis and Evolution." NCSE Reports 14(2) 11. Quoted by Association for Rational Thought.

There is no evidence to support this statement -- none whatever. It pure conjecture, not rational thought. Where is the evidence? Where is a credible, thorough explanation that provides something other than the fertile imagination of a Darwinist?

There is simply no amount of complexity that will ever convince a true Darwinist because in the mind of the Darwinist, evolution is proven by the simple fact that living things exist. Why? Because Darwinism is the only explanation that will be considered.

But looking beyond the vague generalizations of larve becoming caterpillars and learning to weave cocoons and become butterflies, let us look deeper. What has to happen to the caterpiller pictured above in order for it to metamorphosize into butterfly? It has create a way to grow wings (the right wings); it has to create a method to grow the joints that are appropriate for the wings; it has to form a skeletal structure that previously did not exist; its digestive structure and mouth has to be entirely altered in order to change its diet from leaves to nectar; it has to grow legs and derive the process that grows them in every successive generation and those legs entirely different from the previous legs; there has to be an entirely different muscular system installed each of the muscles that operate the legs and the wings and the rest of the butterfly moving parts. Nerve fibers must be installed to connect the muscles with the brain of the new butterfly. It needs new feet, a new antenna and all of the sensory perception that that entails. It needs a snout that it can roll up and insert into flowers and draw out nectar. In short an actual caterpillar that can do nothing but crawl and eat leaves has to be transformed into something wholly and completely different in a matter of days.

Now take another step deeper.

Evolutionists have written very little about how the brain in insects evolved. The concept of insects' brains has been relegated to words like "primitive" and "simple." This is not rational thought; it is unenlightened and uneducated thought.

The truth is that the brains of these insects are complex beyond comprehension. Other than pure conjecture the theory of random beneficial mutations and survival of the fittest cannot hope to explain how the brain of the butterfly and the brain of the moth could have possibly evolved. So, the strategy is to effectively reduce them to irrelevance.

The brains of "simple" insects such as butterflies, bees and flies are smaller that the head of a pin yet they are hardwired electrical computers that rival the speed and accuracy of a supercomputer. They compute at the rate of a billion computations in 1/1000 of a second, or a trillion logically organized computations per second. What they can do is effectively beyond comprehension.

"Using the criterion of joules per operation, the brain [of the honeybee] is about 7 or 8 orders of magnitude more power efficient than the best of the silicon chips. A direct consequence of their efficiency is that brains can perform many more operations per second than even the newest supercomputers. The fastest digital computers are capable of around 109 computations per second; the brain of the common housefly, for example, performs about 1011 operations per second when merely resting."

Sejnowski, T.J. and Churchland, P.S. The Computational Brain (MIT Press, 1992), p. 9 (emphasis in the original). Sejnowski and Churchland are well recognized in the field of neurobiology and computational neuroscience and are professors at the University of California. See also Sejnowski, T.J. and Churchland, P.S., 1992, Byte Magazine, October, 1992, p. 137 relating to the computing power of the brain of the honeybee. Author's note: a simple internet search provides information relating to Terrence J. Sejnowski and P.S. Churchland.

How does evolution explain this? Accidental incremental changes moved the insect up and up, and random genetic changes altered the wiring and the programming in the tiny brain and added speed and accuracy. With each new computational cycle somehow the product of each successive generation was better able to survive. This went on until there was a living fully functional supercomputer smaller than a pinhead that would compute at a trillion fully integrated cycles per second pursuant to detailed hard-wired computer programs that are encoded with a non-physical code (language) all of which is directed to a mutually beneficial and congruent end that is beneficial to the butterfly.

All of these minute electrical computations - and their hard-wired programs consisting of pure logic - were allegedly designed by random genetic mutations. It is fortunate indeed that these simple brains can process a thousand calculations in a nanosecond from trillions of organized and inconceivably minute bits of electrical digital code to create an instantaneous representation of external reality (vision) or the awareness of smell, touch or spacial orientation and direction, memory and threat recognition, food recognition and everything else a butterfly needs to live out its short life and create another butterfly. And all of this exists because all those that did not have brains that could do that died.

It is not rational thought to conclude that unobserved mutations and survival of the fittest caused caterpillars turn into butterflies in two weeks -- and endowed them with brains smaller than pinheads that are as powerful as supercomputers.

The reality is that unless one presumes ab initio that there is no Creator, then it is clearly more rational to conclude that both the caterpillar and the butterfly were designed. They were created. Crawling caterpillars don’t change themselves into flying butterflies by accident unless one has already determined in advance that accidents are going to be the only explanation no matter what ... because, well, the other explanation is, you know, religious, and therefore cannot be considered.