Metamorphosis 2 -- Science Disproves Evolution

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

What mutations could improve a larva? Certainly none that destroyed its nerves, muscles, eyes, brain, and most other organs, as occurs within a cocoon. So, even if a larva improved, it later ends up as �mush.� From an evolutionary standpoint, liquefying complex organs is a giant step backwards. As Michael Pitman wryly noted:

�Maggots will more or less dissolve themselves when developing into a fly. Was the process pre-programmed from the first �production run�? Or was the ancestral fly a dissolved maggot?� (b)

The millions of changes inside the thick liquid never produce something survivable or advantageous in the outside world until the adult completely forms. How did the genetic material for both larva and adult develop? Which came first, larva or adult? What mutations could transform a crawling larva into a flying monarch butterfly that can accurately navigate 3,000 miles using a brain the size of a pinhead (c)? Indeed, why should a larva evolve in the first place, because it cannot reproduce (d)?

�If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down (e).�
Based on metamorphosis alone, evolution �breaks down.�

Obviously, the vast amount of information that directs every stage of a larva�s and an adult�s development, including metamorphosis, must reside in its genetic material at the beginning. This fits only creation.

Figure 15: Metamorphosis. Many animals experience an amazing transformation that refutes evolution. One example is the monarch butterfly. As a two-week-old caterpillar (left), it builds a chrysalis around itself (center). Then its complex organs disintegrate. From an evolution perspective, this should cause the insect�s extinction�a thousand times over. Two weeks later, a beautiful butterfly emerges with different and even more remarkable capabilities (right). Some people might believe that a complex machine, such as an automobile, evolved by natural processes, but if they saw that machine disintegrate and quickly reemerge as an airplane, only the most naive and unscientific would still believe that natural processes could produce such marvelous designs.

c. Christine Merlin et al., �Antennal Circadian Clocks Coordinate Sun Compass Orientation in Migratory Monarch Butterflies,� Science, Vol. 325, 25 September 2009, pp. 1700�1704.

Jules H. Poirier, From Darkness to Light to Flight: Monarch�the Miracle Butterfly (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1995).

d. An evolutionist might claim that larvae once reproduced, but then lost that capability. If so, why is there no sign of any remnant reproductive equipment in any of the hundreds of thousands of larva types?

e. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1927), p. 179.