Not really.
Nothing is objective yet my distinction is invalid…
You can still be wrong regardless of objectivity and subjectivity.
Criticism of Dawkins’ meme theory:
Sources:
-
Benitez Bribiesca, Luis (January 2001), “Memetics: A dangerous idea” (PDF), Interciencia: Revista de Ciencia y Technologia de América (Venezuela: Asociación Interciencia) 26 (1): 29–31, ISSN 0378-1844, retrieved 2010-02-11, “If the mutation rate is high and takes place over short periods, as memetics predict, instead of selection, adaptation and survival a chaotic disintegration occurs due to the accumulation of errors.”
-
Gray, John (2008-03-15), “John Gray on secular fundamentalists”. The Guardian (London).
-
Deacon, Terrence, “The trouble with memes (and what to do about it)”.". The Semiotic Review of Books 10: 3.
-
Kull, Kalevi (2000), “Copy versus translate, meme versus sign: development of biological textuality”. European Journal for Semiotic Studies 12 (1): 101–120.
-
Fracchia, Joseph, R. C. Lewontin (February 2005), “The price of metaphor”, History and theory (Weleyan University) 44 (44): 14–29, doi:10.1111/j.1468-2303.2005.00305.x, ISSN 0018-2656, JSTOR 3590779, “The selectionist paradigm requires the reduction of society and culture to inheritance systems that consist of randomly varying, individual units, some of which are selected, and some not; and with society and culture thus reduced to inheritance systems, history can be reduced to “evolution.” […] [W]e conclude that while historical phenomena can always be modeled selectionistically, selectionist explanations do no work, nor do they contribute anything new except a misleading vocabulary that anesthetizes history.”
-
Mayr, Ernst (1997), “The objects of selection”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (Stanford University’s HighWire Press®) 94 (6): 2091–2094. doi:10.1073/pnas.94.6.2091. PMC 33654. PMID 9122151. Archived from the original on November 15, 2013.
What’s your point?
The critique as well as the meme theory itself both assume natural selection as true. So you are only clouding your argument with lack of understanding.
The great thing about NS is that it is a priori true, almost definitively true, and beyond refutation. It is tautologically truth.
Nothing anyone has said here changes that. In fact the only criticisms that have been offered all assume NS to be true.
Ignorance upon ignorance.
Some people are not capable of seeing a tree, if one shows them a forest.
The point is that you don’t have a point. You’ve copy/Paste dumped your crap onto the thread without relevance or understanding.
Try to read this thread, and then you will see that you are absolutely wrong.
And if you are not interested in this thread, then search for another thread.
I’ve read it through. I am correct in what I have said. You are not thinking through. the “Darwinistic Selection” is assumed by all the posts to be true. The problem is that you do not properly understand the principle, how it works ,and cannot make the simple distinction between it and the one human example that you think refutes it.
It’s like you are not very bright. But I think if you read my posts properly, then you will understand where you have gone wrong.
Natural Selection works whether or not you like it.
Try to learn to read, boy! You have not read the whole thread correctly. I never said the natural slection did not work. Try to read my posts, boy!
Natural selection stops working when it stops being natural.
Exactly.
=D>
[size=200]
No. Natural Selection is NOT Natural Selection when it is not Natural.[/size]
Darwin makes this crystal clear in Origin of Species where he lays out very carefully the DIFFERENT types of selection that exist.
For example he devotes a special chapter to Domestic Selection, where conscious human choices are made in the selection of traits and behaviours in domesticated animals and plants.
He also points out the excessive evolution is sexual traits due to what he calls sexual selection.
Natural Selection, a process not teleological in any sense has no aim, so to say “it” stops working for x,y,or z, is false. The “principle” though remains intact, regardless of the results. Individuals unfit to reproduce fail to pass in their genes.
I’ve read Origin of Species and the Descent of Man from cover to cover, and have studies much of his other works. You are only speaking from ignorance. Darwin, though writing 150 years ago was well ahead you you nay sayers. Every thing you’ve brought to the table he’d already thought through.
You are obviously not capable of understanding more than two words in one sentence!
2 years old children are capable of understanding whole sentences although they can merely produce 2 or 3 words in one sentence by themselves.
Some adults are not capable of understanding whole sentences although they can produce them by themselves.
That is only true if you define “unfit” as “did not reproduce”, which makes the whole thing tautological and pointless.
Bull
Shit
A tautology is a perfect argument because it describes something two ways.
Darwin described Natural Selection as a “principle” of nature. This is not pointless because it accurately describes exactly how the next generation is “selected” in nature.
So if you will kindly refer to the THREAD TITLE. You will understand why the question can only be answered “no”.
As for your uninformed “no”. Please indicate any point made in this thread that Darwin did not cover in hsi vast series of writings that related the the thread, and I will try to quote him for you.
If you have time to educated yourself, please consult Darwin Online. Which is a complete collection of all publications, notes and correspondence.
At which time it is NOT natural selection. You prick!
When it stops being natural.
And stop trolling. You obviously do not remember what Only Humean said to you:
I just gave you one. Wake-up:
“That is only true if you define “unfit” as “did not reproduce”, which makes the whole thing tautological and pointless.”
the word “unfit” is used. But does that word really mean what is presumed?
If I do not like you because you are British and thus infect your children with a slowly fatal disease, does that make them “unfit”? Indirectly you are not reproducing either. So does that make you unfit?
Two men were fighting over a woman at the base of a mountain. It was clear that one was stronger and faster, clearly to be the victor. Unexpectedly, a large rock fell upon the stronger one and killed him. The other man had 7 children, two of which came to be known as Romulus and Remus.
Does that story (or the prior) tell of one man being more unfit than the other? How does that kind of scenario, very common even today in sports contests and real-world domination games, play into “Darwin’s Principle”?
On any one day, any species might survive the day. The very next day, that same species might not survive that day. Even if they were exactly equally talented, every species is NOT given equal chances in life because the situation each day is unique to that day. Survival depends largely upon which day the species or individual happened to be on that particular island.
Darwin left out the most significant “force” of all - the immediate situation (also known as “God”).
The Darwin principle plays into what is happening. It does NOT dictate nor perfectly describe what is happening.
So go educate yourself.
Yeah, the dead guy wasn’t able to make a genetic contribution to the next generation’s gene pool.