Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollysonActually I don't think you're being very rude at all. In fact I find that very interesting. However As the genome developes and evolves in a species, wouldn't the species undergo a transition? I mean, this obviously couldn't occur in one generation.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly this is a mind-boggelingly slow and random process that occurs over thousands of generations with out design, goal or intelligence. The time span makes it easier to see it going on in organisms like bacteria and yeast that don't live very long.(Cf MRSI earlier)

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollysonI'm not looking for a "missing link" but rather, "missing links." And if indeed your analogy is a parallel one, then it would mean evolution (in the case of calculators hahaha) needs to be acted on by an outside mind such as man.
[/QUOTE]
No because that was not what I was trying to get at. I was trying to use the parallel of the the evolution of a unit of cultural inheritance (an idea) as opposed to an organism.

This is quite far out so Ill give you an example: I have a good idea, I tell you, you think "Bloody hell what a great idea and go tell your friend" and the idea propagates as long as it is useful. It also mutates like a Chinese whisper, evolving !!

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollyson Because an outside mind is aware (as opposed to outside forces, which act without first reasoning), we could conclude that the evolution in your analogy is guided by an outside being.

No that is a propter hoc argument. Look up "post hoc ergo propter hoc" on google.

[QUOTE=Jolly McJollyson] However, it is merely an analogy and may not be fully applicable to living creatures.

correct as I was driving at the evolution of an idea not an organism

[QUOTE=Jolly McJollyson]
However, if it's not applicable in that manner, it may not be applicable to say there are no transitional forms in living creatures as well. I mean, as the genome slowly changes, wouldn't some of the genes manifest themselves physically, creating varied species in the fossil record? I'm obviously no expert in genetics, my questions aren't rhetorical.

Again you are correct and the answer is there if you look again the neanderthal argument. The point is that neanderthal may not have been a common ancestor to anything but rather a failure (hence the extinction). The problem is that a variation in genotype is very slight and you may be looking ant the result in the fossil record and not ever realize it !