A butterfly is just a strange kind of moth

[graak]

John Grehan wrote in message
<3.0.1.16.19990830201825.31c7ceda 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.
Beaver's
>are just a strange kind of "fish" - a fish that lost "scales", evolved fir
>(fir being
>a modified "scale"), fins that support the body, etc. In the same way moths
>never transformed into butterflies since butterflies are just another form
>of a
>"moth". The mixing of taxonomic category with concept of ancestor sometimes
>makes it seem as if there is a fundamental threshold to be transgressed,
when
>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).
>
>John Grehan
>
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..
Cheers, Tana