This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.
Print Friendly and PDF
CREV- 7-28-11 Metamorphosis_of_a_Butterfly_Merrian_1705

Butterfly Swarm Buries Darwin

Posted on

Billions of butterflies, flashing their gossamer wings with brilliant colors, have swarmed over Darwin, leaving him unable to breathe.  Figuratively, that is.  Illustra Media’s new documentary Metamorphosis, just released on Blu-Ray last week, leaves little room for Darwin’s theory, while making a powerful case for intelligent design.  The film is already being hailed as a masterpiece.

Featuring some of the most beautiful footage of butterflies and their amazing life cycles from egg to caterpillar to chrysalis to flying insect, with information and music to match, Metamorphosis breaks new ground in butterfly research.  Animations based on MRI imaging of a chrysalis show for the first time how organs are broken down and rebuilt inside within ten days.  Electron micrographs zoom in on the antennae, compound eyes, legs and wings of butterflies.  Stunning close-ups of egg-laying, caterpillar molts, chrysalis formation and emergence show phenomena rarely witnessed by non-scientists.  The story of the Monarch butterfly migrations to Mexico is told with some of the most wondrous shots ever made of millions of butterflies flying through the air in remote mountain forest colonies only discovered in the 1970s.

Metamorphosis presents 46 minutes of fascinating science about butterflies before asking how such natural wonders could come about.  By then, the photos and information have laid such a strong foundation of intelligent design, the arguments against Darwinian evolution are almost academic.  But they are well stated: neo-Darwinism cannot account for the origin of two body plans (caterpillar and insect) in the same genome, in a process that destroys one and rebuilds it into another.  It would be like a car encasing itself in a garage, recycling its parts, and emerging as a helicopter.  That whimsical analogy is actually an understatement, explains philosopher of biology Dr. Paul Nelson, because the butterfly is even more complex.  A caterpillar entering a chrysalis is entering a casket unless it has a plan and a coordinated process to emerge out the other side.  Most of the caterpillar’s tissues are consumed and reconstituted into organs that have no analogue in the caterpillar.  Developmental biologist Dr. Ann Gauger adds that an unguided processes like evolution, with no ability to foresee a goal, cannot account for one body plan, let alone two….

Continue Reading on crev.info

Print Friendly and PDF

This entry was posted in Biology, Book Review, Creation Worldviews, Evolution, Family, Theology and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

  • Evan

    Google the keyword “fractals” and go back to the drawing board.

    I’m not against intelligent design, and I’m for intelligently defending it.

  • Jack Parker

    Obviously, developmental biologist Dr. Ann Gauger is as intellectually stunted as all the rest of the creationists. Metamorphosis is not limited to butterflies. It occurs in all insects and amphibians. And it occurs without the need for biblical or even divine intervention. Neo-Darwinism does not need to account for the origin of two body plans. Evolution simply explains that given enough time and the correct stimuli, organisms “evolve” to best cope with their environments. Obviously, a two body plan works for butterflies. Once again, creationists have added up 1 plus 1 and gotten 7.

    • Tim Shimeall

      I strongly disagree with your unfounded assertion that creationists are intellectually stunted. Historically, many of the most prominent scientists that ever lived were passionately creationist (Isaac Newton, as an example, but there are many others). To look honestly at the actual evidence and to draw consistant conclusions is not intellectual suicide — it is the essence of intellectual behavior. You have been asked many times to provide a factual basis for your statements, and you have ignored these requests — because you have none to offer.

      • Jack Parker

        You are intellectually stunted. Isaac Newton was insane due to his alchemy experiments. Also he lived about 100 years before Charles Darwin so how could he have been an evolutionist? These are facts. What “actual evidence”? There is absolutely nothing in the “two body plan” that contradicts evolution. That is another fact. You should be embarrassed to require “a factual basis for … statements” when all creationist dogma is based on faith in a book of myths, allegories, superstitions and falsehoods. Every statement I have ever made in these pages is backed up by facts.

    • Reva-lution

      Tell me brilliantly superior-brained Jack, what is the correct stimuli that would entice the perfectly functioning caterpillar to renounce his life and entomb himself into a self-built casket? And how many of his buddies thought that looked like a good idea until they died once they were inside and discovered the CORRECT STIMULI wasn’t there…no wait….LUCKILY one finally said EUREKA! it’s ME–& took himself apart WITHOUT dying, and managed to not only rebuild himself in a COMPLETELY different way so he could FLY, but while he was at it he communicated that whole process (he thought of flying how?) by storing crib sheets in his DNA, so that the offspring could do it as he did it….but…how did he get any offspring….when he was the only butterfly so far…hmmm, well you can explain the rest to me ok?

    • cyoder

      In other words, evolution can’t explain it, so Jack Parker chooses to take it on faith. What sounds good when expressed in broad terms (natural selection, etc.)falls apart when we delve into the details.

      • Jack Parker

        How do you reason with someone who is intellectually stunted? Evolution explains it perfectly well and nothing in my reasoning “falls apart” I base my reasoning on facts not faith. You base your “conclusions” on faith in a book of myths, allegories, superstitions and falsehoods.

        • cyoder

          When evolutionists can come up with a plausible detailed change-by-change description of metamorphosis developing by evolution with each transitional form being viable, what you say might be worth considering. Since you have in effect admitted that they can’t, what you say comes across as baloney.

    • Henri CJ

      you are evil jack parker, why are you here on this site? God will deal with you and your heathen comments, all your comments are filled with diabolical sarcasm, surely, you had no loving mother in your life, what placed this hatred in your heart? I feel sorry for you, God is knocking on the door of your heart and you keep closed.

      • Jack Parker

        Since God doesn’t exist, your threats don’t scare me. Instead of worrying about my mother you should worry about the ignorance and mindlessness of yours. Is that where you got your naive inscience?


    Typical Ad Hominem attack by J. Parker—Obviously evolution cannot account for metamorphosis or any other of God’s countless wonders we see around us every day.

  • Buck Crosby

    No one is going to convince the ignorant of the reality of creationism because it would disturb their little worldview that we are all here out of sheer luck .

    • Jack Parker

      Another creationist who should be embarrassed to use the word “ignorant”. My “little word view” is based on fact. Yours is based on a book of myths, allegories, superstitions and falsehoods. The fact that this entire universe is the result of processes guided by the laws of physics and chemistry is what destroys your pitiful “little world view”.

  • Bob

    When most people start with the word Obviously, that’s the start of a statement that they can’t prove with facts. It’s meant to intimidate the listener, inferring they must be stupid or ignorant. The play of a weak hand. It should properly be ignored.

    Butterfly metamorphism is truely an incredible complexity, that can not be explained by evolutionary natural process theory; the latest scientific research sounds fascinating.

    I look forward to watching the DVD.

    • Reva-lution

      Agreed Bob, have you noticed how the liberal mindset seems to go hand in hand with atheism? Must be a childhood rebellion thing that they never grow out of…but isn’t it interesting that those super smart people cannot figure out how to replicate the inner workings of even the most basic of human cells, much less explain how a living organism can reconfigure it’s entire being without dying. They demand SCIENCE but cannot admit or recognize the assumptive law of causality. It’s like arguing with a petulant child–useless because they dismiss all facts.

    • Jack Parker

      “Obviously” you are a closed minded believer in myths, allegories, superstitions and falsehoods. My “weak hand” is based in observable facts and rational conclusion.

      • Henri CJ

        All your so-called ‘fact’ are not only outdated jack parker, but proven to be plain lies,
        The theory of evolution is simply a big lie! “Self-called scientists who all teach that evolution is a fact, are nothing but big crooks and you jack parker are an ignorant fool to believe them like so many others who are enemies of God the Creator of everything and yourself, so the story this s0-called scientists tell is the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we have no proven clues about the facts.” “I believe that the evidence against evolution so overwhelming and conclusive that no real evolutionist can be based on scientific facts, but only on grounds of philosophical preference.” Malcolm Muggeridge, the famous journalist and also a philosopher even suggested: “I am personally convinced that the theory of evolution, and especially the extent to which it is applied, one of the great jokes will be in the textbooks of the future. Posterity will marvel that such a fragile and dubious hypothesis could be accepted in such a way incredibly gullible. you better read Donald Duck that is more constructive for your ideas”

        • Jack Parker

          Once again, a creationist who should be, but is not, ashamed to use the epithet “ignorant fool”. Evolution is entirely based on facts while creationism is based entirely on “faith” on a non-existent deity and a book of myths, allegories, superstitions and falsehoods. If Malcolm Muggeridge actually made the statement that you attribute to him, he is a big an “ignorant fool” as you are. “No proven clues”? Looks like your are the one who has been reading Donald Duck. I would suggest you try approaching the study of evolution with just a tad of open mindedness but an open minded creationist is an oxymoron.

  • William Evans

    Jack Parker implies his far exceeded intelligence is beyond our capable understanding. Unfortunately, he has replaced the word “adapted” with the word “evolved” in his example stated in trying to convience us that darwinism doesn’t need to be proved. And then he implies we don’t know how to add up one plus one. Which numbering system were you using? Binary, Decimal, Octal, Hexadecimal,Roman Numerals or were you just shuffling rocks out on the ground trying to come up with a number? Darwinism (Darwinian theory, according to you, is 1 plus 1 equals anything I say it does! Sorry, you just don’t add up!!!!

  • Jack Parker

    In no valid number system does 1 + 1 = 7 except in creationism (which isn’t a number system. In fact it isn’t even rational). Evolution is the result of the melding of factual evidence and meticulous reasoning. It does not try and “equal anything I say it does”. That is left to the creationists.

  • http://www.silverliningministry.com Ron D Henderson

    I never cease to be amazed by the statements coming from evolutionists. Mr. Jack Parker claims that metamorphosis is not confined to butterflies only!! Who does not know that? As students we called such statements waffling when one did not have the answer. Parker also stated that metamorphosis occurs without biblical or divine guidance. This is a typical display of ignorance concerning biblical data. No where does the Bible say that God intervenes in life processes which he himself made in the beginning. Again Parker says that Neo-Darwinism does not need to account for two body plans. Again, this is dodging the issue; of course Neo-Darwinism needs to account for such a course. You see Neo-Darwinism is evolution; and according to evolution everything comes by random chance given enough time as the individual seeks to cope with the environment! Well, that is the epitome of evolutionary ineptness and ignorance. One environment produces a myriad of insects species through the complex method of metamorphosis; first they are all eggs impacted by nature (wonder where nature came from??); then they are all worms or caterpillars impacted by the same nature; yet they all come out hugely different with a variety of differing characteristics unknown originally to nature. Or they are all of one type, say butterflies, but having different habits, etc. One nature being more or less the same environment (speaking of a local area), yet producing specimens that are completely different living in the same environment! Variety does not in any way support the evolutionary concept that given enough time in order to cope with the environment nature will produce a particular development. Such a concept is too simplistic. Variety is quite independent of natural selection as we see today in any given locale.

  • Vince

    Jack Parker is nothing more than a troll and nothing less than a Progressive Attack Dog using Saul Alinksy’s “Rules for Radicals”.

  • James F

    When Jack starts to lose ground he resorts to ad hominem attacks.
    There is no need to resort in kind as he has enough problems of his own. Jack,you should consider the following- ” We must commit ourselves, heart and mind, soul and will, personally and unreservedly, to Jesus Christ. We must humble ourselves before him. We must trust him as our Savior and submit to him as our Lord; and then go on to take our place as loyal members of the church and responsible citizens in the community”
    John Stott 2011d.

  • Jack Parker

    Again, you should be embarrassed to use the word “ignorance”. There is no “biblical data”. Your bible is merely a collection of myths, allegories, superstitions and falsehoods. If god doesn’t “intervene(s) in life processes”, what accounts for all the extinctions throughout geological history? Maybe because god doesn’t exist? Where in the bible are kangaroos mentioned? I guess they don’t exist either? There are no modern mammals native to Australia. But the same variety of species and hierarchy of predators and prey exist there as in other mammalian environments. The bible is clueless on this subject but it is fully explained by evolution. Nowhere in evolution is it ever stated or even implied that “the ‘individual’ seeks to cope with the environment”. It is the ‘species’ that adapts in order to better cope with and survive a changing environment. The study of moths that changed color to better camouflage themselves when pollution changed the color of tree bark in England is a perfect example of evolutionary adaption. Where is that mentioned in your bible? Evolution, simplistically stated is the modification of a species to better cope with and survive a changing environment. That’s why, in Australia, marsupials never needed to “change” into higher order mammals. They are perfectly adapted to their environment and “change” offers them no advantage in survivability. The rest of your tirade about “variety” doesn’t even make sense.

  • cyoder

    It’s almost fun to rattle Jack Parker’s cage. The more he writes, the more illogical and incoherent he becomes. He can’t come up with substantive answers with solid, proven facts to counter our arguments, so he resorts to infantile name-calling. He calls us “intellectually stunted” to distract from the shallowness of his own knowledge.He has swallowed a lie and feels compelled to defend it.