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.
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.
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.