The subject of butterfly evolution and the fossil record is covered in depth by Durden & Rose, Vane-Wright, and Scott, and summarised in the following paragraphs :

Most estimates of the age of the earliest insect fossils date back to at least 300 million years ago ( MYA ). The earliest Lepidoptera ( butterflies, moths and skippers ) are generally supposed to have evolved from the Trichoptera ( caddis flies ) somewhere in the region of 140-200 MYA, at roughly the same time as the appearance of the first flowering plants.

The Theory of Evolution, although taken for granted by virtually everyone, is not proven scientifically. It is a supposition, based entirely on circumstantial evidence, unsupported by scientific experiment, and it is quite probable that at some time in the future it will be overthrown, in much the same way that Darwinism overthrew pre-existing theories of Creation. The biological mechanisms which Evolution supposedly uses are seriously questioned by a large number of scientists who believe that alternative theories such as Intelligent Design and Spontaneous Origination deserve equal attention.

Many taxonomists, geneticists and bio-chemists, including the eminent entomologist Bernard d'Abrera, strongly argue that Evolution is scientifically impossible. The subject is covered in some depth in d'Abrera's controversial book "Concise Atlas of Butterflies of the World" published by Hill House, 2001, in which the author maintains via lengthy reference to works by various taxonomists, geneticists and bio-chemists that all species are fixed, and cannot mutate or evolve into new species. The following is a brief guide to what lies behind this belief :

Evolutionary theory expands upon this notion to such an extent that birds are allegedly descended from dinosaurs, humans from apes, etc; and strongly implies that ALL species, from ants to elephants, and from algae to oak trees, evolved from a single individual of a single-celled sea-dwelling pre-viral entity.

Is this really to be believed ?  Or is it more likely the case that the "religion" of Darwinism and Evolution relies, like all other religions, on "faith" rather than fact, to support it ?

"Evolution in action"

It is fundamental to all evolutionary theories that life continually "advances", with so-called "primitive" creatures ( i.e. those with limited genetic material ) gradually being replaced by more sophisticated and "improved" forms ( those with more complex DNA polymers ).

Most evolutionists postulate that "sub-species" are examples of "evolution in action", speculating that they are geographically isolated transitional taxa, evolving from one species into another, as new forms mutate which are more capable of surviving in different environments.

If this were the case, "sub-species" would be expected to be genetically more complex than the ancestral species from which they evolved. In fact the opposite is the case - DNA analysis of "sub-species" shows that in isolation from the ancestral populations they have become genetically impoverished.

"Sub-species" are therefore, as proposed by d'Abrera, species undergoing entropy - in isolation they are losing genetic material through "in-breeding", and as a result are less capable of coping with environmental change.

This is demonstrable by the fact that isolated "sub-species" e.g. the British race of the Swallowtail Papilio machaon brittanicus, have become dependent and restricted to a very limited range of habitats and foodplants, whereas the ancestral populations in mainland Eurasia and North America are far more adaptable and capable of utilising a much wider range of foodplants. In the last 100 years the average wingspan of British machaon, and the average width of the thorax, have reduced in size, a probable indicator of further genetic impoverishment, which is likely to result in further contraction in it's range, and eventual extinction.

The Unanswered Questions

Clearly modern butterfly species could not have existed billions of years ago when the Earth was a very different place, and the flowering plants on which most species depend had not yet come into existence, so the questions remain :

These questions have enormous scientific, religious, and metaphysical implications.

If no satisfactory explanation of the biological mechanisms of evolution can be found, the whole theory falters. If Darwin was wrong, and species somehow came into existence spontaneously, the incredibly complex symbiotic relationships, survival mechanisms, and ecological systems which we see around us cannot have come into existence by chance, and therefore must have come about by design, which by definition would require a level of super-intelligence way beyond the comprehension of the human mind.

If you should ever find yourself, as I have done, amidst a tropical rainforest, standing awestruck amidst a cacophony of birdsong, and surrounded by butterflies of every shape, colour and pattern imaginable, it becomes impossible not to ask yourself "did this all happen by chance, or was it created by God ?"

References :