A butterfly is just a strange kind of moth
birdtech at sympatico.ca
Sat Sep 4 01:57:07 EDT 1999
John Grehan wrote in message
<18.104.22.168.19990830201825.31c7ceda at email.psu.edu>...
>Mark Walker wrote
>If dog breeds prove anything with regards to transforming a fish into a
>>beaver, I guess I AM missing something.
>In one sense fish never transformed into a beaver or anything else.
>are just a strange kind of "fish" - a fish that lost "scales", evolved fir
>a modified "scale"), fins that support the body, etc. In the same way moths
>never transformed into butterflies since butterflies are just another form
>"moth". The mixing of taxonomic category with concept of ancestor sometimes
>makes it seem as if there is a fundamental threshold to be transgressed,
>there is not - hence the quotes around some of the above terms. At least
>that's how it is in my understanding of evolution (which is not orthodox so
>one need not lose sleep over it).
Hi, it's not my quote but it was said that 'if we're so great, why are there
still apes?' The quote keeps me humble and amused. Ah, evolution..
More information about the Leps-l