Biology Lessons – Evolutionist Style
by Michael Fishwick
And I can give you several examples of new species that have emerged within human observation. The best example that I can give you is the butterfly, the genus of butterfly known as Hedylepta. Hedylepta is a genus of butterfly that feeds on various plants, it’s endemic to the Hawaiian Islands, which means it’s only found there. And there turn out to be two species of Hedylepta with mouthparts that only allow them — only allow them to feed on bananas. Now why is that significant? It is significant because bananas are not native to the Hawaiian Islands. They were introduced about 1000 years ago by the Polynesians; we know this from the written records of the Hawaiian kingdom. And what that means is, that by mutation and natural selection, these two species have emerged on the Hawaiian Islands within the last 1000 years. And I think that’s a very good case in point.
So went the argument by Kenneth Miller, Professor of Biology at Brown University, in a televised debate back in 1997. During the debate it was also claimed that “What that means is that the characteristic that best describes the intelligent designer who would have designed this fossil record is incompetence. Because everything the intelligent designer designed, with about one percent exception, has immediately become extinct”. www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p45.htm
Professor Miller’s statement was brought to light again recently during a debate in an apologetics discussion forum between supporters of the Kolbe Center and Catholics indoctrinated with evolutionism. The use of such a statement by evolutionists would appear to be just another feeble attempt to misrepresent the views of faithful Catholic scientists by insinuating that they do not recognize variation within kind. Such chicanery is often used by evolutionists to confuse those who are not familiar with the conflict between evolutionist philosophy and the overwhelming scientific data that points to the literal, historic reality of the book of Genesis.
Professor Miller is a well known opponent of science that supports Genesis, and of Intelligent Design theory. He has appeared in several high-profile court cases in recent years, in an attempt to deny students the benefit of necessary critical scientific teaching, in favor of the pseudo-scientific religion of Darwinism. He has even co-authored a popular high school textbook entitled ‘Biology: The Living Science’. Naturally, the textbook is based strictly upon evolutionary speculation and dishonesty. Ernst Haeckel’s notoriously fraudulent illustrations of embryonic homology are one example contained within at least some editions of the book. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller
One would expect such a prominent public figure as Dr. Miller to know his subject backwards and forwards. But something about banana brunching butterflies brought to mind certain shenanigans concerning pinned Peppered Moths. And so a little research was done to test the accuracy of Dr. Miller’s claims. www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_pepmoth.htm
The first thing noticed was that, although the genus name “Hedylepta” is given correctly by researchers who transcribed the television debate, Professor Miller appears to be under the impression that it is known as “Hedylypta.” The spelling “Hedylypta” is used in his response of April 27th, 2000, to a group, named Parents for Objectivity in Science and History, who had critiqued his high school biology textbook. This error has been slavishly copied by various evolutionist websites and propagandists.
Furthermore, the species that feed on banana crops are not butterflies but moths. They are subject to pest control using parasitic wasps and flies because of the damage they inflict upon commercial banana plantations. Neither does it appear to be the moth that inflicts the damage, but the caterpillar. www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/type/hedylept.htm
These moths are closely related to other moth species whose larvae not only feed on the foliage of banana plants, but on coconut palms, pineapple trees and sugar cane. They belong to the Blackburni group of Omiodes of which there are seven species in the Hawaiian Islands. Professor Miller claims that there are two species that feed on banana-he actually says “bananas,” which would indicate the fruit-but there are six in Hawaii according to the literature. Of these six, one is known to occasionally attack banana but has a preference for palm. That these other five species only attack banana crops may or may not be correct. The scientific literature only suggests that it is a possibility, and other food sources are not ruled out.1, 2
The article also claims that because these species of moth are found only in Hawaii and feed on banana it proves that speciation has occurred there within the past millennium. But if that should be true it only shows the fact of variation within kind-something we plainly see all around us with our own eyes. Moreover, Dr. Miller’s example does not demonstrate any increase in genetic information such as would be required for the emergence of a new organ or bodily system in an organism. It does nothing at all to support the theory of atoms-to-Adam evolutionary change. In any event, Dr. Miller’s claim is quite illogical-because moths that attack banana plants are not limited to Hawaii. They are not unusual and exist on most continents. It is perfectly feasible that these species of moth arrived in the Hawaiian Islands along with the bananas but have since gone extinct elsewhere. Present rates of species extinction are estimated to be around 50,000 a year.
When a prominent doctorate-holding biologist can be so wrong about simple biological facts such as those related in this article, how can it be possible for people to believe his extravagant evolutionary claims? That is a good question that should be continually asked about all evolutionary propagandists.
1 Elwood C. Zimmerman, Possible Evidence of Rapid Evolution in Hawaiian Moths, Evolution, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Mar., 1960) , pp. 137-138
2 Gillespie RG, Roderick GK, (2002) Arthropods on islands: colonization, speciation, and conservation. Annual Review of Entomology 47, 595-632.