Not really; rather questioning what morbid imagination would program something like that specifically into a simulation.
Unless, if I understand correctly, your counterargument is that it wasn't programmed in specifically, but was generated by chance within the parameters of the simulation. But in that case, again, the parameters have to allow for such a thing to exist in the first place. Which could very well be the aim of the simulation; to study these kinds of interactions.
One problem I have with the simulation theory is that you can explain away every single observation regardless of how ridiculous it is by just claiming it's a glitch or limit of the simulation. That seems to me would stifle the incentive to continue looking for the underlying cause or reason.
In physics the multiverse concept is not new. Our universe has a number of constants, and the insects you mention are a detail on one planet during a brief moment in one solar system in one galaxy of our univerde. It has been hypothesised countless other universes exist, each with different constants. The effects would be dramatic: small changes would lead to universes where concepts like 'stars', 'planets' or even 'light' would not exist.
All I am saying is that a multiverse could be a giant experiment where beings run countless simulations to see what effects different constants would have over time. On such a scale, the Milky Way would be a miniscule detail. Forget about why a type of insect bruefly exists on one planet in one galaxy in one universe in one simulated set: words cannot begin to express how unimportant that would be to whomever runs the simulation. You could remove the entire Milky Way and it would hardly impact anything.
It doesn't mean you shouldn't ask questions: the multiverse theory didn't stop physicists from building large particle colliders. It does provide a counter-argument to the "why would [insert injustice] occur if this is a simulation or if there is a creator?"
Well, maybe because we don't matter and nobody cares. Injustice is no argument for or against simulation theory.