Insects: One of the Gravest Dilemmas Facing Evolutionists (Part 3/3)

Harun YahyaPart 1, Part 2

Insects argue against evolution

A major problem for the theory of evolution is that insects emerged suddenly in the Devonian and Upper Carboniferous periods, in their present-day forms. The primitive ancestor of all insects is nowhere to be seen. In other words, insects did not emerge by evolving from a more primitive entity, but emerged around 350 million years ago in their present-day forms and possessing the same complex organs, and never underwent evolution. Fossils have been found belonging to 69% of the 1,087 families of insects known today. All these fossilized insects have the same features today—one of the problems that evolutionists are unable to resolve.

Their second major problem is the sheer variety among insects. According to the evolutionary scenario, there should be a limited number of insect species, all descended from the same forerunner. However, the actual number of insect species is estimated to exceed 30 million. Such an enormous number of species represents another question that evolutionists are unable to answer. There is not enough time for an imaginary process such as mutation to give rise to such variety.

In their book An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America, Prof. R.W. Merrit and K.W. Cummins from California Berkeley University comment:

Interpretations of the fossil record must be made with great caution. For example fossils used in evaluating the terrestrial aquatic origin of insects were recently found to be not primitive insects at all, but merely fossilized segments of crustaceans!

Despite the large number of evolutionist scenarios about the origin of insects, scientists who closely research the subject arrive at these same conclusions. But proponents of the theory of evolution do not base their arguments on concrete evidence. The comments by H.V. Daly and J.T. Doyen of Berkeley and Oxford universities make this clear:

Unfortunately, evidence of the crucial steps leading to the origin of insects have not yet been found in the fossil record. Wings have contributed more to the success of insects than any other anatomical structures, yet the historical origin of wings remains largely a mystery. The earliest insect fossils that have been discovered, from the Pennsylvanian Period, were already winged .

. . Thus the body structures that developed into wings, the steps in the evolution, and the ecological circumstances that favored wings are debatable.

In a paper published in Nature magazine following long years of research, Ward Wheeler of the American Museum of Natural History also emphasizes the lack of evidence and states that the work failed to deliver Darwinists’ desired results: “You can never be sure that you have the right answer, because each group’s origins are lost in the mists of time.”

Another major problem is that insects’ exceedingly developed structures—their wings, and abilities of chemical communication, social organization and architecture—cannot be accounted for in terms of gradual evolution. Such fictitious mechanisms as useful mutations do not exist in nature.

As these examples show, insects have been specially created and equipped with superior abilities to perform their duties on Earth.

The “Common Evolution” Scenario

The proponents of evolution have always experienced grave difficulty in explaining the close relationship between insects and plants, the vital links between their shared lives and the great range of plant-insect interactions.

As you know, insects suddenly appear in the fossil record, with no primitive forerunner behind them, and this applies to plants as well. In particular, fossils from 43 different families of flowering plants, which make the greatest use of insects, appear suddenly in the fossil record. There is no question of any intermediate form or primitive ancestor. Yet according to the mechanisms of evolution, such a wide variety of plants should have left behind millions of intermediate-form fossils of relatively primitive ancestors. However, even though fossils of most living species have been found, no such primitive or transitional fossils have ever been found.

Lack of evidence is a familiar dilemma for evolutionists. Since they are prepared for such situations, proponents of the theory have made a habit of speculations and scenarios. In employing this unscientific method, the existence of proof is irrelevant. Advocates take the mechanisms of evolution as a starting point, and describe events as they imagine they should have been, rather than as they were.. Then, even though all the evidence argues against them they seek to make a reality of that fairy tale. However, it is easy to ask just the right questions in order to understand the fraudulent nature of those defenseless scenarios.

The insect species involved in the claim of joint evolution are the Coleoptera, or beetles—a very numerous group, constituting approximately one-third of the insect classes. They derive their name from their two pairs of wings. The front wings are hard and contain chitin, which makes them like protective shields. They also help maintain balance during diving and flight. The rear wings provide flight. After completing its flight, a Coleoptera insect closes its wings, with the hind wings beneath the front ones. The way the protective front wings cover the rear ones is a separate marvel of engineering. Thanks to their ability to fold their wings in this manner, they can enter even the smallest holes, without harming their flight wings in any way. And these insects emerged at least 350 years ago, suddenly and in full possession of this perfect creation!

Insects like bees and butterflies, which pollinate flowers, also appear suddenly in the fossil record and have come down to the present day with no changes since they were first created. Bees that lived 150 million years ago also constructed the same perfect combs and produced honey.

The theory of evolution claims that the first flowering plants emerged and multiplied some 150 million years ago, and certain insect species entered into a relationship with these plants and also emerged and multiplied.

At first glance, this scenario may seem to account for the origins of plants and insects. But the facts are not as simple as the evolutionist scenario would have you believe. The essential questions remain unanswered:

Flowering plans and their pollinating insects appear suddenly in the fossil record. According to the theory of evolution, there should be not only a common ancestor, but countless intermediate forms between that ancestor and the species’ final form. In such a rich fossil record, why has not a single one ever been encountered?

The proponents of evolution tend to generalize when referring to plant and insect variety, as if they all had the same features. Yet every insect and every plant possesses unique structures that distinguish it from every other. For instance, bees, butterflies, ants, leaf mites, locusts, cockroaches, fireflies, mole crickets, and fleas are all insects, yet display totally different features that represent more unanswered questions for evolution. The proponents of the theory set about preparing a general scenario for each of these, even though they were still unable to account for the origin of any living things, their complex structures or their social behavior. Yet evolutionists really must be able to account for the origin of every separate species of insect, and of the every feature they possess. In doing so, they must act in the light of the scientific facts, rather than of outdated ideologies or conjecture.

Adherents of the theory of evolution often interpret variations within a given species as an entirely new species. That is one of the greatest distortions made in the name of evolution: the claim that mutations or environmental factors cause brand-new species to come into being. Another is that with the appearance of flowered plants, the suitable conditions they offered led to the emergence of new species of pollinators. This claim too is also full of internal discrepancies and distortions.

In order to better understand this problem, we first need to nail down the meaning of the concept species. The word tends to bring to mind unique types of plants and animals such as horses, camels, frogs, spiders, dolphins, palm trees and roses. The theory of evolution posits a common origin of these various organisms. Yet modern biologists describe the concept of species rather differently. They define a species as a group of plants or animals capable of mating and reproducing among themselves. For example, some 40,000 species of bees have been described.128 In other words, in essence these 40,000 different bees are all different sub-species within the species of Apis. Genetic information belonging to the species permits various changes to take place within this species, but a bee can never turn into a butterfly because there are insuperable genetic differences between the two species. In biology, this rule is generally referred to as genetic homeostasis, the principle that all attempts to improve a living species remain within defined boundaries, defined by the are insuperable barriers between species. Changes within a single species are known as variations or sub-species. The same rule applies to plants. Efforts over hundreds of years have never given rise to a new species of plant. All that has occurred is that by manipulating that plant’s existing genetic information, a range of observable variations have been allowed to develop.

The Danish scientist W.L. Johansson summarizes the situation:

The variations upon which Darwin and Wallace placed their emphasis cannot be selectively pushed beyond a certain point, that such variability does not contain the secret of “indefinite departure.”

Looked at from that perspective, evolutionists’ distortion can be seen more clearly. Plants and insects have not given rise to any new species by interacting with one another. Furthermore, the diversity in the present day is not the result of this variation. There is no question of there being any such evolutionary mechanism. The real question that evolutionists must answer is how a species such as the honeybee or the rose came into being in the first place. How did mammals, birds, and mollusks and their various classes, orders, and families first come into existence? It is by no means easy for Darwinists to answer these questions.

The known families of plants and insects were clearly created as works of art by a superior intelligence, suddenly, each in its own particular form. Each species has its own genetic pool. In the framework of this existing pre-programmed information, great many variations within the same species with very different attributes have often emerged. However, no cockroach has ever turned into a bee, nor an apple tree into a pumpkin vine. No mechanism in nature can design new types or form new organs and bodily systems for a new species. Each plant and animal form has been created with its own unique structures, and since Allah has created many of them with a rich potential for variation, each type has emerged with a rich but bounded variation.

Accounting for the close interrelationships that appear between given plant and insect species has also become a problem for the theory of evolution. Very often, two entirely different species can survive only so long as they live together intimately, meshing their life cycles. As you saw in previous chapters, plants and insects emerged suddenly with their separate different structures. However, between some of them there exist relationships based on very sensitive interdependence. For example, the yucca moth pollinates the yucca’s flowers and its larvae live only on the developing yucca seeds. These bees have been equipped with special structures that they may perform the pollination process. They have long mouth structures to sip nectar and hairs to which pollens adhere. Ants protect certain flowers, such as the acacia’s, from harm and receive nectar in return. The butterfly species Xanthopan morgani praedicta assists in the pollination of the Madagascar orchid by extending its 28-centimeter (11.02-inch) long proboscis into the 28 to 30 centimeter (11.02- to 11.81-inch) spur of the flower.

Some plants possess special traps for insects, and many insects eat plants; flowers and leaves. The relationship between plant and insect that evolutionists place no further back than 150 to 200 million years ago has been totally altered by one recent discovery. The latest fossils of structures known as galls, and one of the most basic relationships, show that this relationship between plant and insect has been continuing for more than 300 million years.130 During their developmental stages some insects are protected and fed in these structures, which form on the leaves and stems of certain plants. Gall formation is a miraculous system all of its own. The plant produces a tissue that enfolds the insect’s larva and in effect, imprisons the insect. In this way, plants are protected from further harm caused by insects, and the insects’ young find a roomy shelter where they can feed in peace. The insect in this phase prevents another parasite that uses certain secretions (beta indolic acid) from occupying the site. Even if the plant dries up, the cells that form the gall remains alive for a short while longer.

These relationships established between plants and insects have emerged as the result of creation. No plant possesses any information about a pollinator like a bee, butterfly, or hawk moth. In addition, it cannot know when it releases a scent that insects can perceive. Furthermore, the plant, being unaware which of scents will attract flies, cannot know that bees will kill the parasites that are feeding on it. There is no possibility of these mutual systems of behavior developing with minute changes over time, via unconscious evolutionary processes. Parasites will not permit the plant to analyze the bee’s sensory apparatus and construct a means to produce the relevant attractive chemicals, and the plant will soon die before going to seed.

This also applies to any systems affording mutual benefits. Unless a given system has been created as already complete and functioning, based on mutual behavioral and chemical balance, it will serve no purpose and have to evolutionary reason to survive. For example, in order for the eggs 28 centimeters (11.02 inches) down in the plant to be pollinated, the flower requires an insect with a proboscis 28 centimeters (11.02 inches) long, ever since that plant was first created. It has no time to wait for the long-tongued hawk moth, [Genus] predicta to evolve. The orchid would have died out unless both it and the hawk moth were created at the same moment. As with all the mechanisms and balances cited here, our omniscient Lord consciously and deliberately created these two species with a superior harmony and perfect features to enable each other.

There is no creature crawling on the Earth or flying creature, flying on its wings, who are not communities just like yourselves–We have not omitted anything from the Book—then they will be gathered to their Lord. (Surat al-An`am : 38)



Source: The Microworld Miracle.




1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)

One thought on “Insects: One of the Gravest Dilemmas Facing Evolutionists (Part 3/3)


Thank you so much for your kind words. Hope to have you as a regular visitor to our website.

Leave a Reply