Articles

Insects Indicate Creation

By Robert R. Sanders and George Howe 1985

(Note: This is a scanned article. Please report any errors.)

BE SURE TO SEE THE EVOLUTIONIST CRITICISM AND AUTHOR RESPONSE BELOW.

A CRS Insect Collection

Baseline studies are needed of botanical, zoological, geological, and other scientific features at the CRS Grand Canyon Experimental Station (GCES), Paulden, Arizona. Collections of insects, plants, rocks, and other scientific specimens can be started for our labrotory facility when funds are available for its construction. Individual members can play important roles in these and other tasks. For an introduction to research possibilities at the GCES, consult Howe (1984). Insect research can also be performed at Grassland Experiment Station, Weatherford, Oklahoma from which a list of plants and animals has already been published-consult Hagberg and Smith (1983).

On July 10-13, 1985, insects at the GCES and nearby regions were collected and mounted. Several covered bait cups containing fruit or other foods were sunk to ground level along the southern edge of the GCES land and were periodically examined for insects (Figure 1). Insects were also netted out of milkweeds, thistles, and other plants flowering on the CRS land and at nearby Sullivan Lake, Paulden, Arizona.

Collections were made at night by using ultra-violet and fluorescent attractant lamps. Insects were mounted, labeled, and placed into families for future categorization and as a nucleus for the CRS insect collection. A list of the orders and families collected are given in the Appendix following an outline used by Borror et al. (l976).

CRS members specializing in various insect families are encouraged to write George Howe who will ship part or all of this collection for classification to genus and species. The help of qualified experts is needed in this effort.

Design in Insects

Shortly after sunset we collected an owlfly (Figure 2) and noted in Borror et aI. (p 334) that larvae of owlflies lie in wait to ambush their prey. Ant lion larvae dig a pit into which other insects slide and are captured. Unlike the ant lion larvae, the owlfly larvae lie concealed in surface debris and from such hiding places attack small insects. Diverse predatory activity such as this by ant lion and owlfly larvae involve exquisite genetic control which could be profitably studied by creation researchers as an indicator- of design in nature.

While discussing interesting insect hunting strategies, at the GCES there are spider wasps--large hymenopterans that capture and paralyze tarantulas. Concerning spider wasps as a group, Borror and DeLong (1964) had this to say:

The spider wasps generally capture and paralyze a spider and then prepare a cell for it--in the ground, in rotten wood, or in a suitable crevice in rocks; some spider wasps construct a cell first then hunt for a spider to store in the cell. A few species attack the spider in its own cell or burrow and do not move it after stinging and ovipositing on It; a few species deposit on spiders that have been stung by another wasp. p. 553

As E. N. Smith has pointed out {personal communication) the origin of such a delicate interaction would be hard to understand in terms of evolution. If the spider-wasp injected too little venom into the tarantula, the spider would walk away and the wasp larva would die!

Near SuIlivan Lake we observed the darting flight of dragonflies and were reminded that these large insects have on their legs basketlike apparati by which they catch other insects which they eat while flying or later while resting--Borror et at (p. 122). The origin of this food-catching basket is difficult to understand in evolutionary terms. It may be reasonably assumed that before they possessed this device, the dragonfly ancestors must have already had othe efficient means of securing food—or else they would not have survived. But if the evolutionists argue that some pressing “need” for such basket structures suddenly arose, the evolving Odonata would have likely starved before this slow process of mutation, natural selection, and such could have equipped them with the new leg apparati needed to arrest prey in flight.

Fossils and Insect Origins

Someone seeking to demonstrate the history of dragonflies from fossils will encounter facts that do not fit easily with the macroevolution model. For example, fossil dragonfly-like creatures, found in what are called Paleozoic strata, were already very complex, having large wingspreads, and giving no evidence of having descended from simpler predecessors. Borror et aI. relate that although the largest dragonflies in the United States today are only 3.25 inches long, Carboniferous fossil dragonflies had wingspreads of 2.5 feet (p. 170). Barker (1960, p. 148) reports that what is now the state of Kansas was the habitat for dragonflies that measured more than two feet.

If we come to the fossils in quest of an evolutionary ancestral tree for insects in general, we are again disappointed as the first (deepest) insects were already insects, according to the authority Wigglesworth (1964, p. l) who writes that these fossil types “…were recognizable then as now by having the body divided into three more or less well defined regions ... " Peter Farb (1962, p. 5) asserts that the origin of insects is uncertain, stating that: "There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like ... "

Like many other workers, Wigglesworth writes at great length about how the hypothetical ancestor of insects might have looked; but concerning his own evolutionary speculations he frankly concludes that: "These notions are not 'proved' in the popular sense of our knowing as a fact that the changes during evolution did happen in that way" (p. 3). Wigglesworth further asserts that evolutionism is " ... merely a provisional description of what we believe has happened and is happening" (p. 3). Even so, he adopts the evolution model anyway because: "There is at present no other theory which fits the facts so wel…." (p. 3). But upon turning to a fossil diagram on page 5 of Wigglesworth's book, one would think that the facts did not fit evolutionism very well because most insect groups are :0 show up rapidly at various geological layers Ie Devonian and the Cretaceous to the Permian t any hint of an ancestral tree.

For example, Wigglesworth (1964) and Cowen 1976, p. 27) indicate that the springtails made their in the Devonian Rhynie Chert strata of Scotland re thus thought by uniformitarians to be the deepest and oldest of the insects. Looking at springtails m eye for evolutionary evidence, one might t to find that they are "primitive" or at least “transitional” in body structure. Instead, they are complex little creatures each having a folded, forked I called the "furcula'" at the back of the abdomen. As Hutchins (1966) reports, the furcula is normally by a biological catch in the locked position. When it is released, however, the furcula strikes against the surface on which the springtail is standing and propels the insect for distances up to eight inches--Hutchins (p. 291) and Farb (p. 12).

Members of this supposedly ancient and primitive springtail group also have a ventral tube which serves sucker to hold them onto a leaf or some other object. Hutchins even describes the water springtail as using its ventral tube to penetrate the surface film of water, thus anchoring the insect near the surface.

Concerning springtails it should be noted in passing thatsome workers, like Carpenter, would file a minority report, arguing that these Devonian fossils either were not true springtail insects or that springtails themselves (Collembola) should not be classified as insects (1947, pp. 66-67). Carpenter thus concludes that the oldest unquestionable insect fossils come from Upper Cretaceous, not the Devonian.

Although Hutchins makes it clear that he holds an evolutionary view for the origin of insects, he makes s commendable exclamation at the onset of his book: "God must have loved the insects he made so mamy of them. . . (p. vii). He also recognizes a natural human aversion to insects by adding, “Not all human beings share God’s preference.”

Concerning insect fossils, Hutchins writes:

... there are vast gaps in the fossil record covering millions of years, and when we go beyond the Carboniferous period which began about 300 million years ago, the trail fades completely (p. 3).

Note Hutchins' words carefully as he hints at evidence against evolution but then checks himself:

Insect origins beyond that point [the Carboniferous are shrouded in mystery. It might almost seem that the insects had suddenly appeared on the scene, but this is not in agreement with accepted ideas of animal origins {Emphasis added] (p.4).

Did Insects Come from Arthropods?

Wigglesworth believes that hypothetical insect ancestors must have evolved as a branch of the arthropods but he then notes that "The origin of the Arthropoda is quite unknown ... (p. 4). Klots and Klots also suggest that:

The Trilobites, Paleozoic Arthropods known only from fossils could have been ancestors [of insects J, a belief based on their combination of general structures; but there is no actual proof or even good evidence that they were. [Emphasis added] (1961, p. 7).

Klots and Klots (p. 7) suggest that the we members of the phylum Onychophora are "'living fossils" having some features intermediate between arthropod and annelid groups. Perhaps some creationist zoologist will pursue this claim and see if the onychophorans actually look like valid candidates to bridge the broad gap between arthropods and annelids. To their own question -what are the direct ancestors of insects?" They give the frank reply: "We do not know.”

The Origin of Insect Wings

In addition to the somewhat questionable sprin~ from Devonian strata, two other groues of insects appear in the fossil record quite deep or early" (from a Uniformitarian point of view)-the dragonfly-Iikel Protodonatas and the cockroaches-both from mid-Carboniferous rocks, as Cowen {p 27} has indicated:

"Some forms of these early insects closely resemble species that are living today but they are noted for their large size”

Matthews (1962, p. 113) writes about these large dragonflies and giant cockroaches. The dragonflies are representative of that group of insects having wings that cannot be flexed or folded over the abdomen. Roaches, on the other hand, are in that great group of insects where wings can be flexed. Both of these strikingly different types of wing patterns make their debut together among the oldest of insect fossil specimens. This means that there is no indication from the fossils regarding which type of wing was most "primitive" nor can one tell how these different wing types arose.

Before leaving the topic of insect wings, we should note, as Borror et 01. (p. 139) pointed out: "'The insects are unique among flying animals in that their wings are in addition to their legs, and not modified legs {as in the case of flying vertebrates}”. It is obvious as well that flying would require supporting changes in behavior and physiology, the origin of which is not readily apparent.

A Puzzling Parallelism for Evolutionists

Carpenter relates that Paleozoic protohemiptera· inects had suctorial mouth parts which permitted lem to consume liquid foods. Yet it would appear I8t evolutionists are forced to defend the unlikely proposition that suctorial mouth parts must have arisen twice independently:

... as far back as the Upper Carboniferous, at least two hundred twenty-five million years ago, the suctorial mechanism had been developed in insects; and also that this device originated in relatives of the may-flies and dragonflies, quite independent of its subsequent development in the Hemiptera and Diptera. [Emphasis added] (p. 75)
The odds against suctorial mouth parts arising just once {let alone twice!} by naturalistic evolution are) high.

Insect Problems for Creationists Too?

A problem for creationists emerges as well-see Klots and Klots (p. 7). Of the six insect orders present Carboniferous rocks, only one still exists-the Blattidae or cockroach order-all others having become extinct. But many of the insect orders found in Permian rocks are still extant. If both Permian and Cretaceous rocks were formed in the same catastrophe le creationists hold} how can one explain the tat most insects in Carboniferous rocks are while those orders in Permian rocks still exist?

But creationists face an even greater problem in the study of insects. We obviously abhor the assertion “vestigial organs" exist, and yet many adult insects do not eat have mouth parts. Did this contradictory situation arise as a change in insect behavior after the Flood catastrophe? Is it a degenerative of the curse?

Insect Development Is Unique

Farb (p. 59) reported an interesting feature of insect embryology-both the larval cell mass and the adult luster coexist in isolation from each other at a ~arly age in the insect. This means that the plans oth the larva and the pupa-adult are already mined when the embryo is no more than a ball of cells. When the larva finally enters the pupal stage, larval cells promptly die while the adult cell cluster undergoes accelerated growth. Thus the larval cells die at the right time to serve as food for adult cells which grow rapidly and undergo differentiation at the specific time.

AlI these changes are under strict hormonal controls, as insect physiologists have noted. A pair of glands in the head--corpora allata--control the change from 11 to adult stage. They secrete a "juvenile hormone” which keeps the insect in the larval stage and n its production is halted, other hormones formed ln the thorax signal the larval cells to die. Farb (p. 59) ) reports that at the same time a head hormone induces another hormone secreted in the thorax--a hormone that ultimately stimulates the dominant pupal-adult 5 to growl

Farb hints that this wondrous embryologic dichotomy is merely a device to permit independent variation I evolution of both larval and adult stages-thereby IWing each to adapt to widely different environments. Creationists could more credibly assert that such independent simultaneous growth of the larva and the pupa is a scheme by which the Creator provided remarkably different specializations for larvae and adults so that insects can be supplied with the best possible larval and adult adaptations to meet the requirements of widely differing habitats.

Thus there can be such very different lifestyles as )se found in the larvae and adult stages of the dragonfly. Locomotion of the larvae (which live in water) is by jet propulsion--water being expelled from the anus. Adults however, move through the air with wings. Larvae feed by a "mask" whereby the lower lip is greatly enlarged and also armed with a pair of hooks-forming a device that can be shot out to
seize prey-Burton and Burton (1975, pp. 74-75). The adult dragonfly, on the contrary, hunts while flying (as already noted) with a basket-like trap on its legs. Thus the Creator provides for amazing diversity of lifestyles in two stages of the same insect's life.

While still pursuing the subject of insect development, CRSQ readers will remember that W. J. Ouweneel of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences clearly showed that the so-called "homoeotic mutants" of the fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster) by which a wing may be changed into a haltere or an antenna into a leg are very striking in their morphological aspects but are " ... only negative with regard to evolution”--Ouweneel (1975, p. 141). He summarized such homoeotic mutations as follows:

On the basis of present knowledge of homoeotic phenomena, I come to the conclusion that they are not evidence for any evolution whatsoever. On contrary, these phenomena are an example of how one simple gene mutation can disturb, not just one small morphological feature only, but the expression and regulation of dozens of other genes. (p.153).

The Beetles

Many families in the beetle order (Coleoptera) were at GCES--see Appendix. This is not surprising as Borror et al. give 23 families of beetles in a coleopteran key which itself requires about 25 pages of textl One beetle we collected was in family Elaterdae and possessed a fascinating device which apparently equips it to escape predators or stand upright when it falls on its back. Borror et al. (p. 391) indicated that the prothorax and mesothorax of other insects s are united in such a way that no movement between the two sections is possible. But in the case of this "click beetle" they reported that:

The clicking is made possible by the flexible union of the prothorax and mesothorax, and a prosternal pine that fits into a groove on the mesosternum ... f one of these beetles is placed on its back on a smooth surface, it is usually unable to right itself by means of its legs. It bends its head and prothorax backward, so that only the extremities of the body are touching the surface on which it rests; then, with a sudden jerk and clicking sound, the body is straightened out; this movement snaps the prostenal spine over end. If the insect does not land right side up, it continues snapping until it does.

The origin of such exciting morphological and behavioral adaptation would be difficult to explain in terms of mutation and natural selection.

Insects and Speciation

Much research into the origin of species has been ,ducted on the fruit fly. Yet the developmental geneticist,, W. J. Ouweneel feels that this whole field should not be called "evolutionary genetics" as it presently is but simply: "population genetics:' He asserts that what is called "micro-evolution" in the genus Drosophila “. . . does not require the chance occurrence of new variation by mutation" but simply involves “... an already existing repertoire of genetic variation latent in the population"--Ouweneel (1977, p. 33). Thus according to Ouweneel, the little fruit fly with its hundreds of species in the Hawaiian Islands alone would not be a tribute to evolution but is an example of ". . . adaptation based on the innate genetic variation in populations, a prediction fully confirmed by the molecular genetic results of the last ten years" (p. 33).

CBSQ Entomology

Over a period of 22 years many articles covering creationist implications of insect study have appeared 1 the CBS Quarterly. of which the following five are examples: Ouweneel (1975), Ouweneel (1977), Rea (1981), and Lammerts (1983 ). It is hoped that even more creationists will perform research on insects and that some will assist in preparing a substantial collection of insects from northern Arizona to be stored at the GCES research facility.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded from interest on the CRS Laboratory Project Fund. We thank the Research Committee members of CRS for granting such support and the many individuals who have donated to the Laboratory Project Fund. Although we take full responsibility for the content of this paper, the authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Drs. E. Norbert Sith and John Meyer in improving the manuscript.

References

Barker. W. 1960. Familiar insects of America. Harper and Brothers Publishers. New York.
Burton. M. and R. Burton. 1975. Encyclopedia of insects and arachnids. Octopus Books. Ltd .o London.
Borror. D. J .o and D. M. Delong. 19M. An introduction to the study of insects. revised edition. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. New York.
Borror. D. J .o and D. M. DeJong. and C. A. Triplehorn. 1976. An introduction to the study Of inseds. fourth edition. Holt, Rinehart, and WiDstoD, New York.
Carpenter. F. M. 1947. Early insect life. Payche 54(2):65-86. Cowen. R. 1976. History of life. McGraw HiD Bonk Co .o New York.
Farb. Peter. 1962. The insects. Time Inc .o New York.
Hagberg, S. C. and E. N. Smith. 1983. A report of activity on the Grasslands Experiment Station for 1983. Creation ResetJTch Society Quarterly 21:62-66.
Howe. G. F. 1984. A trip to the Grand Canyon Experiment Station.
Creation RUetJTCh Society Quarterly 21:9-17.
Hutchins. R. E. 196fl. .Insects. Prentice Hall, Inc.. Englewood Cliffs. NJ.
Cots, A. B. and E. B. Klots. 1961. 1001 CJuestions answered about insects. Dodd Mead and Co .o New York.
Lammerts. W. E. 1983. Concerning mimicry. Creation Research Society Quarterly 20:42-44.
Matthews. W. H. m. 1962. Fossils. Dames and Nobel Inc .o New York.
Ouweneel. W. J. 1975. Homoeotic mutants and evolution. Creation Research Society Quarterly 12:141-154.
Ouweneel, W. J. 1977. Genetics and creation studies. Creation ResetJTch Society Quarterly 14:26-34.
Rea, J. M. 1981. DesiJPl in nature: the fiery skipper butterfly Hykphilia phyleus. Drury as an efficient feeder on flowers of Lantana camara. L. Creation Research Society Quarterly 18:4-8.
Smith, E. N. 1981. Beauty of butterflies. Creation Research Society Quarterly 17:2Z1.
Wiwdesworth. V. B. 1964. The life of insects. The World Publishing Th .. Cleveland. OH

Creation Research Society Quarterly Vol. 22, March 1986

Creationist Insect Errors

I have read the recent paper “Insects Indicate Creation” (CRSQ 22:166-70). As an evolutionist who has paid close attention to the efforts of CRS I was not surprised by the collection of unsupported assertions: “The origin of such exciting morphological and behavioral adaptations would be difficult to explain in terms of mutation and natural selection” (p. 169); debater’s tricks such as using words “suddenly arose” in the same sentence with “slow processes” (p. 167) to caricature evolutionary thought; and an outdated bibliography. I enclose the reference list from a recent article to help bring you up to date (Weygoldt, 1986).

Such are the usual techniques of scientific creationists. Why, then, have I sent this letter? I have done so because I am an entomologist and I am disturbed to see the audience, for which you write, given grossly inaccurate statements about insect life. Which current worker believes that the collophore is an organ of adhesion? I count 112 families of beetles in Borror et aI., 1976. Do you still claim there are 23? Why did you use "the dragonfly," a hemimetabolous insect, to illustrate metamorphosis? Careful, Mr. Sanders! These are mistakes so glaring that they may be spotted by the untrained. Certainly no person making them can properly call himself an entomologist. In the interest of honest scholarship please correct these mistakes in future publications.

Reference

Weygoldt. P. 1986. Arthropod interrelationships--the phylogenetic approach. Zeitschrift fur Zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung. 24:19-35.

Jeffrey D. Wells
The University of Illinois at Chicago

Box 4348 , Chicago, IL 60680

A Couple of Insect Errors But Ample Evidence for Creation: A Reply to Wells

We appreciate the reading and critical attention that J. D. Wells has given to our paper-Sanders and Howe (1986). We often think that too many non-creationists simply ignore the papers in CRSQ-reading only those journals that reflect viewpoints which coincide with their own preconceived notions.

We are likewise grateful to Wells for pointing out our mistake regarding the published number of beetle 'families. His count of 112 is closer to the present number of 123 by various authors and we acknowledge our typographical error. He was also correct when he chided us for a bibliography that did not include enough current references.

We quoted Borror and DeLong, however, regarding the amazing ability of the spider wasp to construct a cell, capture a spider, paralyze it, drag the spider to the cell, and finally oviposit in the spider's paralyzed body, which in turn serves as a nursery for their young. Then we shared E. N. Smith's idea that" ... the origin of such a delicate interaction would be hard to understand in terms of evolution" -Sanders and Howe (1986, p. 167). Wells thought this was "an unsupported assertion." We disagree and hereby invite Mr. Wells to reply by giving CRSO readers a clear, step-by-step description of how tfiese amazing activities of the spider wasp might be expected to arise by natural selection acting on gene mutations, most of which are harmful. These dragonfly behavior patterns and thousands of others are truly ". .. hard to understand in terms of evolution" (p. 167).

We wrote about the dilemma which faces evolutionists when they try to explain the origin of the basket-like apparatus by which dragonflies are able to catch their insect prey while flying-Sanders and Howe (1986, p. 167). Here Wells accused us of using "debater's tricks" when in fact we were simply showing that some "pressing" or "sudden" requirement for such a structure would need to arise or else the ancestors of the dragonflies would have gone on feeding just as they had done previously .. But many evolutionists and one of us-Howe and DaVIS (1971)have established that the workings of natural selection upon gene mutations are woefully slow, so slow that the evolving dragonfly ancestors might well have starved before the result would have been achieved by evolution.

Wells also asked "Which current worker believes that the collophore is an organ of adhesion?" Here he was referring to our remarks (1986) about the springtails in which we wrote that:

Members of this supposedly ancient and primitive springtail group also have a ventral tube which serves as a sucker to hold them onto a leaf or some other object. Hutchins even describes the water springtail as using its ventral tube to penetrate the surface film on water, thus anchoring the insect near the surface (p. 168).

Before relating which current workers still hold to this idea that the collophore can and does serve as an organ of attachment, let us begin by discussing the little structure more fully. Maynard (1951) described it as follows:

This structure, which originates as a pair of embryonic appendages, is bilobed. From its apex a pair of sacs or filaments may be exserted. Blood pressure is said to be responsible for the extrusion of these vesicles; their retraction into the tube is by muscular action (p. 7).

See Figure 1 for a sketch of a typical springtail (Collembola) with the collophore (also called ventral tube) labeled. The word "collophore" derives from the root words coHn (meaning "glue") and embolon ("bar") so that the collophore is a "glue bar" in the root languages-so named because it was and still is believed to serve such adhesive function.

Perhaps Wells got his idea that all current workers except Sanders and Howe-had shifted their opinions about coDophore function from Borror, DeLong, and Triplehorn (1976) who wrote that:

It was originally believed that the coDophore in some way enabled the insect to cling to the surface on which it walked (hence the order name), but it is now believed that this structure may playa role in water uptake (p. 152).

These writers imply that all entomologists have changed their minds years ago about the function of the ventral tube-but have they?

As recently as 1984 Wooton wrote that:

On the underside of the springtail's abdomen is a ventral tube which is variously considered to be concerned with respiration. Water absorption or to act as an adhesive organ enabling ,locomotion over slippery surfaces (p. 182).

In 1978 K. Christensen called the collophore of springtails" ... a respiratory adhesive osmo-regulatory organ ... " p. 51. Also in 1978 Atkins described the ventral tube as "... an adhesive device on the first abdominal segment… " p. 455. Fomoser (1973) affirmed that its function “… is not clear .. :” p. 60. Scott (1968) wrote about the collophore that: "Although its purpose is not understood, this tube is presumably for adhesion or for some respiratory function" p. 74. Putting things more firmly in 1966, R. E. Hutchins wrote that:
A pair of adhesive sacs are present at the end of the collophore and these can be everted and used to anchor the insect to any smooth surface. In the case of the water springtail, the collophore is 'water-Ioving' or hydrophilic and penetrates the surface film, anchoring the insect in place (p. 107).

Fox (1964. p. 340), Lanham (1964, p. 136) and Little 163, p. 76) each list adhesion to surfaces as one of the functions of the springtail ventral tube.

One of us (Howe) traced the words "collophore" d "Collembola" from 1972 to 1987 in Biological Abstracts. There was only one little reference to the collophore and it did not relate to function. There ere many references to the springtails (Collembola) but none of these titles contained mention of the function of the ventral tube. Based on the survey of current and older literature given here, it appears we fere correct when we stated that springtails use their collophores also for adhesion to surfaces. Collophore physiology might be a choice area for creation researchers to study as it seems very little has been published in this regard.

Wells scored us for having used the dragonfly" ... to illustrate metamorphosis:' Actually we did use the word "larvae" in reference to the young of the dragonfly when we were pointing out that the young feeds with an armed lip whereas the adult dragonfly feeds by means of a basket-like trap it makes with its peculiarly bristled legs. But we did not talk about metamorphosis, as such, of dragonflies. But even if we had, the term metamorphosis was used by P. Aguesse (1986) and P. Corbet (1968) in reference to dragonflies to designate their conversion from aquatic larvae to aerial adults. Also E. C. G. Pinhey (1951 and 1981) refers to the development of dragonflies as " ... almost always hemimetabolous" which means he considered them to undergo metamorphosis. He also referred to the young as "Larvae (nymphs)" which he said were " campodeiform."

We would like to suggest that Wells consider the strong arguments for a rapid and special creation of many distinct insect types-unrelated to each other by organic evolution. Going back to the dragonfly, consider the way it <c ooo scoops its prey out of the air with the bristly front legs, which it holds under the thorax to form a basket ... " Lanham (1964, p 185)-see also Little (1972, p. 81). We maintain that unique morphological and behavioral features like these support the creation of insects.

The springtails previously mentioned have “…a pair of appendages forming a structure known as the catch or tenaculum, which holds the furcula when not in use" Little (1963, p. 75). See Figure 1 for sketch of the furcula and tenaculum. It is not "a piece of creationist misinformation" nor is it a "debater's trick" to suggest that the furcula and the tenaculum (organs which permit the tiny springtail to leap for several centimeters) are exactly the sort of evidence one would seek to support the belief that a Designer directly formed insect organs.

Evidently evidence for the evolutionary origin of the Collembola in particular and the insects in general is not complete. As Salmon put it (1964):

Within the present state of our knowledge of the Collembola it is still extremely difficult to be precise on evolutionary sequences. Indeed, in many cases it is also difficult to define accurately the evolutionary relationships that exist between apparently similar forms (p. 4).

Callahan (1972) has also pointed out that the fossil record is of little help in supporting the origin of the springtails or insects at large by macroevolution:

The earliest known fossil insect is considered to belong to the order Collembola, although this is not certain ... There are at least five major theories on the ancestry of insects, with one or more leading evolutionists arguing for each (p. 72).

The profound morphological peculiarities of the furcula and tenaculum strongly support rapid creation of distinct insect types. We challenge Wells to demonstrate otherwise.

Meanwhile, rather than having given our audience grossly inaccurate statements about insect life (as Wells asserted), we were trying to show general readers and scientists whose specialty is in other areas that macroevolution is just as bankrupt for solid evidence in entomology as it is elsewhere. In a very stirring section on" The Religion of Science," the noted insect physiologist V. B. Wigglesworth (1976) gave some advice it would be well for evolutionists and creationists to use in their origins dialogues:

The moral is a simple one: to practice the maximum degree of toleration towards different opiriions. We are adjured in the parable of the tares to 'let both grow together until the harvest'-but that, I am afraid, is a counsel of toleration that is rarely followed either in religion or in science (p. 208).

References

CRSQ-Creation Research Society Quarterly.
Aguesse, P. 1968. Les Odonates de l'Europe occidentale, du Nord de I' Afrique et des ill'S atlantiques. Masson et Cie. Paris. p. 262.
Atkins, M. D. 1978. Insects in perspective. Macmillan. New York. Borror, D. J., D. M. DeLong, and C. A. Triplehorn. 1976. An introduction to the study of insects, fourth edition. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. New York.
Christensen, K. 1978. Aquatic Collembola. In: An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. Kendall-Hunt, Dubuque, IA.
Corbet, P. 1968. Dragonflies. Collins, London. p. 260.
Fox, R. 1964. Introduction to comparative entomology. Reinhold.
New York.
Howe, G. F. and P. W. Davis. 1971. Natural selection reexamined.
CRSQ 7:30-43.
Hutchins, R. E. 1966. Insects. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Lanham, V. 1964. The insects. Columbia University Press. New York.
Little, V. A. 1963. General and applied entomology. Harper and Row. New York.
Little, V. A. 1972. General and applied entomology, third edition.
Harper and Row. New York.
Maynard, E. A. 1951. A monograph of the Collembola or springtail insects of New York State. Comstock. Ithaca, NY.
Pinhey, E. C. G. 1951. The dragonflies of South Africa. Pretoria, Transvaa Museum Memoir 5. p. 335.
Pinhey, E. C. G. 1981. Odonata. In: Synopsis and classification of living organisms. Volume II. edited by Sybil Parker. McGrawHill. Npw York.
Romeser, W. S. 1973. The science of entomology. Macmillan. New York.
Sanders, R. B. and G. F. Howe. 1986. Insects indicate creation.
CRSQ 22:166-70.
Scott, D. B. 1968. Aquatic Collembola. In: Aquatic insects of California. by R. L. Unsinger. University of California Press. Berkley, CA.
Wigglesworth, V. B. 1976. Insects and the life of man. Chapman and Hall. London.
Wooton, A. 1984. Insects of the world. Facts on File Publications.
New York.

Creation Research Society Quarterly Vol. 24, March 1988 PP. 209-212