"electrolyte has a point . If the butterfly had changed into another creature then it would have been somethin worth noting . The butterfly stayed as a butterfly . It 's just like a Mexican and an American Indian having a child . It would have a different skin color and facial features and stuff like that , but it would still be a human ."
"But Mexicans and Native Americans are the same species , so it 's not just like that . This butterfly is a species different than either parent . One reason that that particular creationist objection has no merit is because the butterflies are significantly biologically different ( i.e . different species ) . The fact that we call each species a type of butterfly has only to do with our taxonomic system . If we were to somehow have fossils representing the complete record of the water-to-land transition , one would be forced to pick a point at which a fish became a land animal . Just because one finds this a difficult task to accomplish does n't mean that there was no transition . Likewise , this applies to any line of ancestry . As an example , look at creationists ' response to Archaeopteryx . Many insisted that it is a bird . Others insisted that it is a reptile . A few have originally called it a bird , then decided that it must be a reptile . The fact that people have trouble fitting an organism into our previously-learned concepts of classifications is a sign that species have changed significantly ."
"If the butterfly had changed into another creature then it would have been somethin worth noting"
"This butterfly is a species different than either parent"