Insectman Home
Contact Us
My Testimony
Our Links
Get Saved
Exodus Mandate
The Lie: Evolution


Butterflies and Moths Compilation

In 2022, due to the fact of the large number of articles that bug evolutionism, I began putting multiple articles into loose categories. This one is BUTTERFLIES AND MOTHS.


1. For Evolution, Monarch Butterfly Migration Is a Mystery

2. Peppered Moth Color Changes Are Engineered

3. Metamorphosis: Life Lessons from a Butterfly?

4. Nature’s self-cleaning marvels: Who did the Research & Development?

5. Butterfly Wing Design Repudiates Evolution

6. Why Don't Raindrops Bomb Butterfly Wings?

7. Rogue Moths Didn't Start Out That Way

8. Secret Life of Moths Vital to Plant Life

9. All Revealed in See Through Butterflies

For Evolution, Monarch Butterfly Migration Is a Mystery

By Eric Cassell November 22, 2021

The following is an excerpt from the newly released book, Animal Algorithms: Evolution and the Mysterious Origin of Ingenious Instincts, from Discovery Institute Press.

Every year an estimated 100–200 million monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) migrate two thousand to three thousand miles between the United States/Canada and Mexico.1 While there are other populations of monarchs, including in western North America, South America, the Caribbean, and Australia, the population in eastern North America is the best known because of its amazing migration. During the migration, the butterflies lay their eggs on milkweed, where they then go through the larval and pupal stages. Milkweed is the only plant that provides food for the developing larvae. The butterflies are thus dependent on milkweed during their migratory route through the US.2

It typically takes up to three generations of butterflies to make the complete journey.3 This means that the navigation information is genetically programmed. One of the unique aspects of the migration of the monarchs in eastern North America is that during their summer stay in Canada they occupy close to 400,000 square miles, while during their overwintering hibernation in Mexico they occupy less than half a square mile. As noted previously, they often migrate back to the same tree that their ancestor butterflies departed from in a mountainous region in Mexico. That means they must have an extremely accurate method of navigation to locate such a small target.

Navigating by Sun Compass

Monarchs navigate using a sun compass, and as previously described, this includes time compensation to account for the movement of the sun.4 The circadian clock used in the process is embedded within the butterfly’s antennae.5 The sun’s azimuth position is detected through the butterfly’s compound eyes.6 Researchers are only just beginning to decode the biological information required for these amazing feats. The genome of monarch butterflies has been decoded, including the genes related to the neurobiology and physical systems used for migration.7 Comparisons of migratory monarch genomes with the genomes of non-migratory monarchs has revealed that more than five hundred genes are involved in migratory behavior.8

A neuronal model has been proposed to explain how the time-compensated sun compass functions by integrating the azimuth-position information with the butterfly’s internal circadian clock.9 The theoretical model also explains how monarchs are able to maintain the southwest course in the fall, as well as the northeast course on the return migration in the spring. Further research is required to determine whether the model is correct. However, the model does help to underscore the programming complexity required of such a system and behavior. The model is also a good example of how engineering can be applied to analyzing complex programmed animal behavior.

Origin of the Information

At the same time, while this mechanism may explain how the system works, it does not explain where the information came from that defines the course flown by the monarchs, or the overall control and decision making. There exists no evolutionary model that satisfactorily explains its origin. That by itself does not prove that gradual evolution didn’t produce such programming, but the lack of such a model should at least give the open-minded pause for reflection.

Monarchs are also able to continue migrating accurately when the sky is overcast and the sun compass is not available. This is possible since they use a magnetic compass as a backup source of navigation. They do this by sensing the inclination angle of the magnetic field to determine latitude.10 The origin of the programming that allows for this also has not been explained in evolutionary terms.

A Decision Tree

Logically, we can approach the question as a decision tree of two possibilities. One, the satisfactory explanation for how such complex algorithms may have blindly evolved simply hasn’t been found yet, despite considerable efforts to uncover such a process. Or two, no such process exists.

How to proceed? One is to take a never-give-up, never-doubt approach. But that isn’t how successful science is generally done. While there is a place for doggedness, science is ultimately about following the evidence, and the historical sciences, including origins science, are about seeking out the best explanation given the available evidence. If geologists proposed a series of purely natural, evolutionary explanations for the arrangement of rocks known as Stonehenge, and each succeeding explanation collapsed under scrutiny, over decades of investigation and conjecture one could insist that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Or one could take the many failed attempts as a possible indication that Stonehenge was not formed by any blind, evolutionary process, and open oneself up to other possible causal explanations.

The point isn’t that this must be the case with the migratory feats of monarch butterflies. The point is that it’s illogical to never be open to the possibility that something other than blind evolution engineered a complex programmed animal behavior that remains stubbornly inexplicable in such evolutionary terms. Whether we have already learned enough about monarch butterflies to abandon blind evolution as an explanation for their navigational prowess is a question we will take up later.


Richard A. Holland, Martin Wikelski, and David S. Wilcove, “How and Why Insects Migrate,” Science 313 (August 2006): 794.

“Random Sample,” Science 343, no. 6171 (February 7, 2014): 584, 10.1126/science.343.6171.583-c. As noted, the observed population of monarchs in Mexico has decreased significantly in recent years. It appears this is likely caused by a decrease in the availability of milkweed.

Michelle J. Solensky, “Overview of Monarch Migration,” in The Monarch Butterfly: Biology and Conservation, eds. Karen S. Oberhauser and Michelle J. Solensky (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004), 81.

Sandra M. Perez and Orley R. Taylor, “A Sun Compass in Monarch Butterflies,” Nature 387 (May 1997): 29.

Christine Merlin, Robert J. Gegear, and Steven M. Reppert, “Antennal Circadian Clocks Coordinate Sun Compass Orientation in Migratory Monarch Butterflies,” Science 325 (September 2009): 1700.

A good description of the mechanisms involved in monarch navigation is contained in the paper by Steven M. Reppert, Patrick A. Guerra, and Christine Merlin, “Neurobiology of Monarch Butterfly Migration,” Annual Review of Entomology 61 (2016): 25–42.

Shuai Zhan et al., “The Monarch Butterfly Genome Yields Insights into Long-Distance Migration,” Cell 147 (November 2011): 1171–1185; Shuai Zhan et al., “The Genetics of Monarch Butterfly Migration and Warning Colouration,” Nature 314 (October 2014): 317–321,

Reppert et al., “Neurobiology of Monarch Butterfly Migration,” 37.

Eli Shlizerman et al., “Neural Integration Underlying a Time-Compensated Sun Compass in the Migratory Monarch Butterfly,” Cell Reports 15, no. 4 (April 26, 2016): 683–691,

Reppert et al., “Neurobiology of Monarch Butterfly Migration,” 16.

Peppered Moth Color Changes Are Engineered

By Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D. February 25, 2020

Many students are told about how increasing coal soot during Britain’s 18th and 19th century industrial revolution drove the color change observed in black peppered moths. The famous peppered moth story is one of the most persuasive evidences cited in textbooks in support of evolution. But recent genetic findings are raising questions about the accuracy of the scenario told by evolutionists.

Students are taught that only the white form of the peppered moth, Biston betularia, was known in Great Britain before the widespread burning of coal that covered buildings and trees with black soot. But as trees turned black from pollution, white-colored moths sunning themselves on trunks were easy pickings for birds. Then, as luck would have it, a random mutation occurred that turned some moths black. Subsequently, nature selected against white moths and selected for the black moths. This led to black moths dominating the population until the heavy coal burning period ended.

Previous problems with this account relate to factual distortions about whether peppered moths spend significant amounts of time on tree trunks where they are in danger of being eaten by birds.1 There is also the problem of including into the scientific explanations a flagrant personification of nature as exercising agency to select for and against different colored moths. New research now indicates there may be genetic reasons to question whether the “mutation” causing black coloration was simply a lucky accident or something else.

Back in 2016, a genetic research team led by Ilik J. Saccheri of the University of Liverpool, England, discovered that the black coloration was due to the insertion of a “transposable element” of DNA.2 Transposable elements are mobile stretches of DNA that can be excised from one portion of a chromosome and inserted into a different location. These insertions can change the expression of genes. Saccheri found that a large stretch of DNA exceeding 21,000 base pairs in length was inserted into another section of DNA that regulated the coloration of peppered moths. In fact, of the 105 black moths the team examined 103 (98%) had this identical insertion of the transposable element, but the insertion was absent in all 283 white moths studied. The repetitive insertion of the transposable element in the same location, along with its strong bias toward black moths, raises the question if this might be a regulated event and not truly a fortuitous accident.

A recent paper by Saccheri’s team now extends their research.3 Peppered moths were not the only moth species that responded to pollution by an increase in the frequency of the black variety. In this study the team focused on two other species that had a similar coloration response. Per evolutionary dating methods, the moths diverged from each other about 40 million years (Myr) ago. Saccheri’s team focused on the gene-controlling coloration because, “Intriguingly, variation within the same gene (cortex) controls melanism for crypsis in the peppered moth, Biston betularia, and mimic wing patterns in Heliconius butterflies. This genetic convergence suggests that cortex, and possibly the region surrounding it, is a genetic hotspot for lepidopteran wing pattern evolution.”

They confirmed that in the two other species that altered regulation of the same cortex gene, the gene was responsible for the black coloration response. Noting such remarkably similar genetic parallels they said, “Our results imply the conservation of a developmental master switch for melanism in geometrid moths spanning 30–45 Myr, the estimated age of the subfamily Ennominae.” Just as important, this supposedly ancient “master switch” in all of the moths enabled what appears to be a regulated, rapid response to 19th and 20th century pollution. They add, “We have shown that parallel phenotypic clines across three co-occurring species, reflecting rapid adaptive responses to the same anthropogenic factor [coal soot], relied on genetic variation at the same locus [gene region].” What they do not yet know is if the change in the two moth species under consideration is due to a transposable element as it is in peppered moths.

Another observation leads one to question if the response to pollution was due to an accidental mutation, which is that these three species of moth were not the only responders. A press release by the University of Liverpool discussed with Sacchei the widespread extent of the dark coloration response to pollution and stated,

Principal Investigator Professor Ilik Saccheri explains: ‘Although many people have heard about industrial melanism in the British peppered moth, it is not widely appreciated that dark forms increased in over 100 other species of moths during the period of industrial pollution. This raises the question of whether they relied on the same or similar genetic mechanism to achieve this colour change.’4

To sum up the findings that might steer a scientist to not only question whether black coloration is caused by an accidental mutation but then to consider that the cause could be a regulated mechanism are: genetic hotspots for wing coloration, coloration master switches, transposable elements consistently located to the same gene regulatory region, and the rapid, widespread response across dozens of species.

ICR has been laying the groundwork to develop a theory of biological design as a more scientific alternative to explain biological functions than selectionism.5 The theory is a working hypothesis of how the biological phenomena of growth, metabolism, reproduction, and adaptation function. One major premise of this theory is that biological functions are suitably explained by engineering principles. This theory produced a design-based, organism-focused model to explain the type of adaptation seen in these studies is called Continuous Environmental Tracking (CET).6 CET posits that creatures use the same system elements as a human-engineered tracking system of sensors and logic mechanisms produce appropriate responses to changed environments. As the evidence stands today, the rapid and predictable responses by so many species of moths could be seen as support for a regulated CET response.


1. Mikkola, K. 1984. On the selective forces acting in the industrial melanism of Biston and Oligia moths (Lepidoptera: Geometridae and Noctuidae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 21(4): 409-421. Hooper, J. 2002. Of Moths and Men. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 377.

2. van’t Hof, A. E. et al. 2016 The industrial melanism mutation in British peppered moths is a transposable element. Nature. 534: 102-105. doi:10.1038/nature17951

3. van’t Hof, A. E. et al. 2019. Genetic convergence of industrial melanism in three geometrid moths. Biology Letters. 15: 20190582.

4. Anonymous. 2019. ‘Industrial melanism’ linked to same gene in three moth species. Published at on October 16, 2019, accessed January 23, 2020.

5. Guliuzza, R. J. 2018. Engineered Adaptability: Adaptive Changes Are Purposeful, Not Random. Acts & Facts. 47 (6): 17-19.

6. Guliuzza, R. J. and P. B. Gaskill. 2018. Continuous environmental tracking: An engineering framework to understand adaptation and diversification. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism, ed. J. H. Whitmore. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, 158-184.

Metamorphosis: Life Lessons from a Butterfly?

By  David Rives September 26, 2019

What can a butterfly tell you about your life? When you see a butterfly fluttering from flower to flower in your backyard, you probably don’t stop to marvel at how that butterfly got there, but you should! Butterflies don’t start out very elegantly. They begin as a tiny caterpillar hatching out of an egg on the leaf of a plant. But there’s a miracle that — pretty soon — will take place called “Metamorphosis”. The caterpillar is an eating machine. It is perfectly designed to grip onto leaves and munch them to bits with powerful jaws. Their exoskeleton is stretchy, like an accordion, and THAT allows them to grow up to 3,000 times their original size. So, they eat and grow, eat and grow… but after a while, it’s time for the caterpillar to transform into a new creature. The next stage finds the caterpillar hanging upside down on a tree in the form of a pupa. On the outside, it looks like nothing is happening. But inside a miracle is taking place. All of the parts and pieces have become mush inside, and beautiful long legs, new complex eyes, antennae, a new respiratory system (that can handle the rigors of flying), and a brand new “remodeled” heart is being formed. And of course, we can’t forget the incredibly complex wings, covered in tiny scales designed to perfectly reflect light into different colors. Now, think about the instruction book in that creature that has to be followed to the letter or else, you end up with a gooey mess of half-caterpillar half-butterfly that doesn’t work. That’s a lot of INFORMATION… and useful information doesn’t just happen! There is no way that the complex process of metamorphosis could evolve over millions of years of “trial and error.” This awe-inspiring process was designed by a Creator who, we’re told, formed “every winged thing according to its kind.” And think about the beauty present in so many butterflies today. Shapes of every size, and colors of every shade, unspeakable elegance… and it all came from this! There’s a life lesson there: God can turn your “mess” into something beautiful. He can take a mixed up life, that has no apparent shape or purpose, and give you wings to fly over your difficulties. Next time you’re wondering why you’re here… just think of the awkward caterpillar, and its amazing metamorphosis – into a beautiful butterfly! I’m David Rives, Truly, the Heavens Declare the Glory of God.

Nature’s self-cleaning marvels: Who did the Research & Development?

By David Catchpoole

Butterfly wings, it has now been discovered, employ two of nature’s tricks to help keep themselves clean: the ‘shark skin effect’ and the ‘lotus effect’.1

On shark scales, microscopic riblets reduce friction as a shark slices through the water, and make it difficult for barnacles and other unwanted hitchhikers to grab hold. This phenomenon is the envy of engineers trying to overcome ‘biofouling’, which plagues shipping and other marine industries. It turns out that the tiny shingle-like scales on a butterfly’s wing similarly have an orderly arrangement of microgrooves and bumps, invisible to the naked eye. This feature both reduces in-flight drag and stops rainwater from pooling anywhere on the surface, preventing the build-up of debris and contaminants.

And this is helped by the butterfly wing’s lotus-like properties of low adhesion and superhydrophobicity (i.e. repelling water). The lotus has tiny bumps that trap air under any water droplets, which repels water from penetrating further.2 This means that water droplets “roll off effortlessly”, as described by Ohio State University’s Dr Bharat Bhushan, one of the researchers making this discovery of the combination of shark skin and lotus leaf features in butterfly wings (and in rice leaves, too).1 He and colleagues hope to see the fantastic properties of nature’s best self-cleaners copied in industry—but it will take quite some further research and development (R&D) yet.3

“We are investigating methods to fabricate rice leaf and butterfly wing-inspired films for applications requiring low drag, self-cleaning and anti-fouling,” Bhushan said.1 Such applications could range from marine anti-fouling to reducing the accumulation of microbes in medical tubing, thus lessening patients’ risk of infection.

This is certainly not the first time that design in nature has inspired industrial solutions. As Bhushan noted, “Living nature is full of engineering marvels, from the micro to the macro scale, that have inspired mankind for centuries.”1 Indeed so. The shark skin effect, for example, inspired low-drag ‘shark skin swimsuits’ that in 2009 were banned from Olympic competition because records were being smashed.4,5 But in reporting this latest discovery, LiveScience wrongly credited nature’s engineering marvels to nature itself:

“With 3.5 billion years of research and development under her belt, Mother Nature could be considered the world’s most experienced biological engineer. Sure, her methods may appear haphazard at times, but her track record of developing organisms that are exquisitely adapted to the tasks required of them is nothing short of amazing.”1

But the 3.5 billion years of time and nature’s mooted R&D are storytelling. No-one has ever observed nature’s ‘haphazard methods’ (ostensibly mutations and natural selection, according to evolutionary textbooks) produce the exquisite engineering design so prevalent in nature. If ‘she’ could ever6 marshal such blunt information-less instruments to produce information-rich, exquisite design, it really would be “nothing short of amazing”! (Miraculous, actually—but that’s not allowed!) Rather, these engineering marvels require a Marvellous Engineer. The Bible tells us Who that is, and when He did it—about 6,000 years ago, not billions.

References and notes

Thompson, V., Engineers follow Mother Nature’s lead on keeping clean,, 18 January 2013.

Barthlott, W., Neinhuis, C., Purity of the sacred lotus, or escape from contamination in biological surfaces, Planta 202(1):1–8, 1997; Ruokamo, J., Caution—slippery surface,, 13 October 2016.

Bixler, G. and Bharat Bhushan, Bioinspired rice leaf and butterfly wing surface structures combining shark skin and lotus effects, Soft Matter, 11 September 2012 | doi:10.1039/c2sm26655e.

Adams, D., The best of biomimicry: Here’s 7 brilliant examples of nature-inspired design,, 28 January 2017.

Sixty-six Olympic swimming records were broken at the 2008 Olympics, and 70 world swimming records throughout that whole year. West, M., By the skin of their suits,, 4 April 2012.

See: Time—no friend of evolution, Creation 34(3):30–31, 2012;

Butterfly Wing Design Repudiates Evolution

By Jeffrey P. Tomkins February 18, 2021

The takeoff and flight of butterflies has long been derided by evolutionists as being an unstable and inefficient product of evolution. However, a new study has shown that the spectacular complexity and efficiency of butterfly wing design is an optimized system worthy of emulating in a new generation of flying robotic drones.1

Butterflies fluttering around a sunny garden grab our curiosity and fascinate us like no other creature. In fact, butterflies look like no other flying animal because they have such unusually broad and large wings relative to their small body size. Thus, secular scientists have been mystified as to how this specific type of flight could have come about. When evolutionary scientists first began to study butterfly wings, they claimed that they utilized unsteady aerodynamic mechanisms and that the upstroke of the wings, known as wing clap, was a particularly inefficient feature.

In this new study, which was considerably more high-tech than previous projects, scientists analyzed the wing action and aerodynamics of a type of butterfly called the silver-washed fritillary (Argynnis paphia). They used a technique called tomographic particle image velocimetry which measures the velocity of objects in three dimensions. They also applied a mechanical analysis called kinematics which defines the motion of an object without any reference to the forces which cause it. The data for these analyses was obtained by the high-speed filming of butterflies during take-off and flight in a specialized wind tunnel.

The results of the research were startling. Other free-flying creatures, including other types of insects, lack the unique type of mechanism observed, so the wing design of the butterfly was totally unexpected. During an upward stroke, the optimized design of the flexible wings produces a specialized cavity that creates an air-filled pocket. As the wings continue to compress, the air is forced out like a jet engine, propelling the butterfly forward. The downward wing stroke has yet another purpose: stabilizing the flight pattern and keeping the butterfly in the air. Not only does this mechanism allow for efficient flight, but it also allows for rapid takeoff when the butterfly needs to escape a predator.

When they compared their butterfly data to that of insects with more rigid wings, the researchers were able to demonstrate an increase in forceful impulse of more than 22% combined with an increase in overall efficiency of more than 28%. One must also consider that this boost in power and efficiency would also likely contribute to overall resilience. For example, the Monarch butterfly makes a lengthy migration across North America where it has been shown to fly 50 to 100 miles per day.

Needless to say, this fabulous wing engineering was immediately scrutinized for its potential to benefit mankind. The authors of the paper stated, “Furthermore, our findings could aid the design of man-made flapping drones, boosting propulsive performance.”1

However, as is the norm in secular research publications, no credit or glory was given to our mighty Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ, whose handiwork was clearly revealed. As the Bible says, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.”2


1. Johansson, L.C., and P. Henningsson. 2021. Butterflies fly using efficient propulsive clap mechanism owing to flexible wings. Journal of The Royal Society Interface. 18 (174): 20200854. DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2020.0854.

2. Romans 1:20.

Why Don't Raindrops Bomb Butterfly Wings?

By Brian Thomas, Ph.D. July 31, 2020

Okay, I admit most folks have probably not thought to ask this creation question. But a bigger question gets answered when we examine the fantastic butterfly features that counter the force of falling raindrops.

Butterfly wings are quite thin. How do these tiny creatures cope with raindrops that land at 22 miles per hour? Cornell scientist Sunghwan Jung led a project that tested water drop impacts at real raindrop speeds.1 It turns out that special surface structures on butterfly wings manage the drop impacts, which Professor Jung compared to the force of bowling balls falling from the sky on humans!2

How do these special surfaces manage killer raindrops?

At the level seen only with a microscope, we find the wings covered in rough bumps. If a drop hits flat on a sheet of glass, its force spreads in a widening wave. But when a raindrop hits a butterfly wing, the tiny bumps rupture that spreading force so that one big drop shatters into dozens of tiny droplets.

Zoom in even closer to nanoscopic levels and we find wax structures that make the wings water-resistant. The droplets bounce right off. Without them, water would stay on the wings longer, and that would wick too much heat from tiny insect bodies. The research team found that this ingenious, thin surface cuts the water contact time by 70%.1 The wings stay dry and whole, and the tiny flying animals stay warm and airborne.

So, these scientists found the answer to our question: Butterfly wings resist raindrop power using clever micro-bumps and nano-waxes. The researchers also discovered these structures on dragonfly and moth wings, plant leaves, and even bird feathers.

That leads us to the bigger question: If these amazing features help keep these creatures alive and in flight, how did such structures arise?

Many scientists attribute creature designs to random changes guided by natural factors over eons. But whoever crafted these super-surfaces must have done it with flight in mind right from the start. These surfaces combine with the lightweight but strong materials and structures, navigation systems, functional landing gear, and aerodynamic shapes that all work together to make a butterfly flutter. Nature knows nothing, let alone the precise placement of parts required for flight. Truly the Lord Jesus, not natural processes, deserves all the credit for rainproofing butterfly wings before the first rain fell.


Kim, S. et al. 2020. How a raindrop gets shattered on biological surfaces. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 117 (25): 13901-13907.

Ramanujan, K. Armor on butterfly wings protects against heavy rain. Cornell Chronicle. Posted on on June 8, 2020, accessed June 15, 2020.

Rogue Moths Didn't Start Out That Way

By Scott Arledge November 30, 2020

Butterflies and moths fluttering around a flower are a beautiful sight. They innocently lap up nectar and float on the wind. Countless plants depend on the pollination that occurs during their feeding.

One group of moths, however, deviates from this utopian state by feeding on blood. Meet the vampire moth.1,2 Like a tiny flying Dracula, this moth creeps up on its sleeping prey and drills into its skin with a ferocious tooth- and claw-covered proboscis. Inflatable hooks on the tip of the feeding tube firmly anchor it to the skin while it feasts on the prey’s blood.

Was the vampire moth designed to be a blood-feeder? The electron microscope image of the Calyptra moth’s mouthparts in Figure 1 shows that the tip is reinforced for piercing and the sides are laced with tearing hooks, rasping spines, and erectile barbs. The teeth rip away at blood vessels, causing a pool of blood to form under the skin for the moth to drink.

Vampire moths feed on humans, zebu, cattle, rhinoceros, and even elephants. These moths seem purposely built with all the tools they need to drink blood, right? Well, the truth may surprise you. What was the Calyptra moth actually built to do? Eat fruit.4

Nearly all 150 or so moth species in the Calpini tribe feed exclusively on fruit. Only about 10 species have been definitively identified as blood-feeders. Because the majority of Calpini moths never taste blood, we can conclude that the tearing hooks and spines are designed to make what is, essentially, a fruit smoothie. The inflatable hooks expand to make a larger pool of fruit juice to drink. The moths feed on oranges, grapefruit, strawberries, raspberries, cherries, and even tough-skinned longan and litchi.

The vampire moth’s mouthparts look threatening—but so do the blades of a store-bought blender. What if the moth had been named “the fruit smoothie moth” and all anyone knew about were its fruit-eating habits? Maybe then you could reason that the purpose of the menacing-looking hooks in Figure 1 is to juice the inside of a raspberry. If you later discover that the moth can also use them to “bite” and drink blood, you would recognize this wasn’t necessarily their original intention. Learning about the feeding habits in this order doesn’t naturally lead to the incorrect conclusion that God designed moths to suck blood.

Butterflies and moths may feed on carrion, dung, wounds, tears, and sweat in the absence of their primary food source. Evolution bombards us with the message that death is normal,5 and that can influence us to think that sharp teeth or claws were made to snack on blood or flesh.

But there are no differences in the equipment of fruit-feeding and blood-feeding moths.3 Moths use tools originally designed for a good purpose in a now-harmful way when fruit is unavailable. Like other predators living today, God originally designed them for the vegetarian diet all creatures had in the beginning.6


Plotkin, D. and J. Goddard. 2013. Blood, sweat, and tears: a review of the hematophagous, sudophagous, and lachryphagous Lepidoptera. Journal of Vector Ecology. 38 (2): 289-294.

Zaspel, J. M. et al. 2014. Geographic Distribution, Phylogeny, and Genetic Diversity of the Fruit- and Blood-Feeding Moth Calyptra thalictra Borkhausen (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Erebidae). Journal of Parasitology. 100 (5): 583-591.

Zaspel, J. M., S. J. Weller, and M. A. Branham. 2011. A comparative survey of proboscis morphology and associated structures in fruit-piercing, tear-feeding, and blood-feeding moths in Calpinae (Lepidoptera: Erebidae). Zoomorphology. 130 (3): 203-225.

Zaspel, J. M. et al. 2016. Host-Related Olfactory Behavior in a Fruit-Piercing Moth (Lepidoptera: Erebidae) in Far Eastern Russia. Journal of Insect Science. 16 (1): 51.

Guliuzza, R. J. 2020. Survival of the Fittest and Evolution’s Death Culture. Acts & Facts. 49 (1): 17-19.

Genesis 1:29-30. See Criswell, D. 2009. Predation Did Not Come from Evolution. Acts & Facts. 38 (3): 9.

Secret Life of Moths Vital to Plant Life


God’s handiwork is not just apparent in the amazing complexity of individual creatures, but also in how they interact to form vital parts of entire ecosystems and even to keep life on this planet functioning as a whole. In light of this ecological paradigm, scientist have just revealed the previously hidden and indispensable role that moths play in the nighttime pollination of flowers.1

Pollinators are an important part of the global ecosystem and also one of the key features of successful agriculture. In fact, it has been estimated that approximately 30 percent of the food and fiber crops grown around the globe depend upon pollinators like bees, butterflies, and other insects for reproduction.2 The fruits and seeds from these different pollinated crops provide 15 to 30 percent of the foods and beverages that humans consume.

New research just published in the journal Biology Letters shows that pollen transport networks for moths in the dark hours of the night are larger and even more complex than networks for daytime pollinators such as bees. The scientists discovered that the moths transport pollen between a large number of plants visited during the day by bees, hoverflies, and butterflies. And not only was this eye opening, but the moths also pollinated the flowers of plants not typically visited by typical daytime insects.

The research also revealed that the pollen transport occurred most frequently on the hairy thorax (chest) of the moths, rather than on the proboscis (tongue) which allowed it to be easily transferred between plants. One of the researchers noted,

Previous studies of pollen transport among settling moths have focused on their proboscis. However, settling moths sit on the flower while feeding, with their often distinctly hairy bodies touching the flower's reproductive organs. This happy accident helps pollen to be easily transported during subsequent flower visits.3

I would add that this is not a “happy accident” of evolution, but the creative ingenuity of our mighty God in designing these moth bodies and innate behaviors for such a specific purpose.

In stating the importance of the new data, the lead author of the report, Richard Walton, also said,

Nocturnal moths have an important but overlooked ecological role. They complement the work of daytime pollinators, helping to keep plant populations diverse and abundant. They also provide natural biodiversity back-up, and without them many more plant species and animals, such as birds and bats that rely on them for food, would be at risk.3

Once again, I would say this is the obvious providential design of God - who created the diversity of moths to sustain the ecosystem in multiple ways. Walton also went on to say,

In recent decades, there has been a lot of science focus on solitary and social bees driven by concerns about their dramatic decline and the strong negative effect this has had on insect-pollinated crop yields. In contrast, nocturnal settling moths—which have many more species than bees—have been neglected by pollination research. Our study highlights an urgent need for them to be included in future agricultural management and conservation strategies to help stem declines, and for more research to understand their unique and vital role as pollinators, including their currently unknown role in crop pollination.3

When most people think about moths, the first thing that comes to their minds is the pesky critters that hover around their porch light at night or perhaps fly through cracked doors as unwanted house guests. But in reality, moths have proven to be the unappreciated powerhouse pollinators that take the night shift while we are all sleeping. Once again, ecological research has shown that the Creator’s complexity not only exists within the amazing design of individual creature systems, but also in their complex and critical biological networks. These networks operate at systems of interdependence and levels of complexity that we are only just beginning to understand. Psalm 150:2 aptly says, “Praise Him for His mighty acts; Praise Him according to His excellent greatness!”


1. Walton, R.E., C.D. Sayer, H. Bennion, J.C. Axmacher. 2020. Nocturnal pollinators strongly contribute to pollen transport of wild flowers in an agricultural landscape. Biology Letters. 16 (5): 20190877.

2. Pollinators 101. Native Pollinators in Agriculture Project. Posted on, accessed May 19, 2020.

3. Staff Writer. Moths have a secret but vital role as pollinators in the night. University College London. Posted on May 12, 2020, accessed May 21, 2020.

ALL REVEALED IN SEE THROUGH BUTTERFLIES in SciTech Daily 17 June 2021, Science (AAAS) News 21 June 2021 and Journal of Experimental Biology 28 May 2021, doi:10.1242/jeb.237917. Clearwing, or glass wing butterflies have large transparent regions in their wings that are distinct from other transparent insect wings in that they are also very non-reflective, with no shine or glimmer when the butterfly moves its wings. A Group of scientists led by Aaron Pomerantz and Nipam Patel of University of California Berkeley have studied how the wings of the clearwing butterfly Greta oto develop, to see how the transparent regions differ from the coloured regions. Coloured butterfly wings have a surface layer of overlapping scales that produce different colours by absorbing some wavelengths of light and reflecting others. The researchers found the clear wing areas were covered in bristles rather than scales. Between the bristles, the wings were covered in tiny bumps, called nanopillars, and these were covered by a layer of wax. The combination of bristles, nanopillars and waxy layer directed light to pass through the wing or be softly diffused, resulting in transparency without glare. Nipam Patel commented: “It’s just fascinating to know how nature solves really interesting problems like this. You can pay extra for glasses that have an antireflective coating on them. But, of course, essentially, butterflies figured that out maybe tens of millions of years ago.”

ED. COM. More hypocritical thinking from evolutionary biologists – they recognise a piece of brilliant design, but give the credit to butterflies, who are supposed to have evolved by chance random processes, or some mythical god-like force called “nature”. They cannot bring themselves to admit they are seeing the handiwork of a personal Creator. They even show they understand the concept of worship (worth-ship) with the comment about paying extra for anti-reflective glasses. The extra cost is the giving of “worth-ship” to the inventor of the anti-reflective coating and the manufacturer who put it on the glasses. How much more worthy is the Creator who designed and made the whole butterfly, and all the other wonderful living things we study to see how they work and what we can learn from them.

Creation Research News 30 June 2021