I'm unable to accept this defintion of evolution/natural selection, Mark. I think it artificially constrains the issues. I don't believe natural selection is insignificant, no matter how culturally or scientifically advanced a species like homo sapiens becomes. Again, what will change for human going forward is the result of ongoing natural selection. We can't abitrarily decide that those forces fade to insignificance because they have been so successful in shaping what we are and what we are capable of. Our science and our culture are adaptations, just like our bodies.

A narrowly defined definition of evolution/natural selection, while commonly accepted, is not supported by facts but rather by belief and supposition.

Can you see my point?


It's not beyond genetics. Genetics is the engine that gets us to wherever we go. I think genetics optimizes all - biology, behavior, psychology, culture, even consciousness itself.

I was good until the last sentence, natural selection results in adaptability as an emergent property.  Are you just saying culture is able to change when influences change? 
I found your ''short cut' to be just confusing. I wasn't trying to nitpick, just got confused when you repeated in several places the method of talking as if culture had it's own conscious desires.  I suspect your method of verbal processing is very differenet than mine.  
Ok so I think I see your point is that you are thinking culture is similar to natural selection in that it is a process that you believe might be subject to logical methods of manipulation.? 
I am not sure why many of my statements are getting interpreted as all or nothing, that's not the way my mind typically workds.  Not saying t can't ever act with self interest, just that often there is most of the time at least some self interest involved.  And that IMO,  you would be hard pressed to find a source of those who don't have ANY self interest at all for any length of time.  IMO, those who are said to be altuistic are mostly those who have less self interest than average or only have small amounts of self interest. 
Most people are not aware of all the things that drive them. 
Another example of the anthropomorphising, it got confusing. 
Was that first sentence above really considered to be 'too pedantic?
My point was if you say that something is due to causality and Buddhist belief is that everthing visible is due to causality, you are basically not saying anything special about anything.  It's like if I said, "yeah but that stuff is made of stuff." As if it were an argument or evidence of some kind. I don't see what point you are tyring ot make about culture by saying culture is due to causality if everything is due to causality anyway.  
So your view is a fact so you are not clinging to a view cuz it's not a view (because it is a fact)?  If it's a fact then where is the proof?  No proof, IMO it's a view, even if a useful one.  And no I don't buy that cuz you personally expeirence it as true, means it is a fact.  Experiences and perceptoin are also conditioned.  Your experiences are still just epxeriences that had to get funneled through your filters before you coudl become aware of them .  Maybe you saw it because you expected to see it.  ;-P  Or it could be bascially true, certainly.  But its still a view. 
That is not my personal definition of free will.  You know, Buddha said that nibbana is unconditioned (not subject to causality) and that some other dhammas also were  unconditioned, "of all dhammas, conditioned or unconditioned, the most excellent dhamma, the supreme dhamma is, Nibbana"  DOes free will exist in or as part of  any of the unconditioned realities?  Heck if I know. 
But he was not clear at all, interpretation is not nearly so simple, in fact he refused to answer either way saying clinging to either view was detrimental to enlightenment.  His words:
know-and-see what ideas are fit and unfit for attention. This being so,
one does not attend to ideas fit for attention and instead attends to
ideas unfit for attention... One reflects in an unbeneficial
way by asking such questions as: "Was I in the past (in a former life)?
Was I not in the past (arising out of chance and meaningless
circumstance)? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having
been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not
be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the
future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?" Or one is inwardly perplexed about the present: "Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where have I come from? Where am I going?"Pondering in this way, one of six kinds of VIEW arises:

• "The view I have a self arises as true and established,
• or the view I have no self...
• or the view, 'It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self...'
• or the view, 'It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self...'
• or the view, 'It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises as true and established,'
• or else one has a view like this: 'This very self of mine -- the knower [witness, experiencer,
  who like Descartes concludes, "I think therefore I am"] that is
  sensitive here and there to the ripening of skillful and unskillful
  actions (karma) -- is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting,
  eternal, not subject to change, and will endure past death as long as
  eternity."

This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound
by a fetter of views, the uninstructed ordinary person is not freed
from birth, aging, or death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress,
or despair. One is not freed, I declare, from suffering (dukkha).The
well-instructed disciple of the noble ones... knows-and-sees what ideas
are fit and unfit for attention. This being so, one does not attend to
You came to that conclusion using your route but it's not what Buddha said.  He said belief that there is no self ( or any of hte other options) are wrong view.  But you are saying self is delusion is fact.  Quite a difference from what Buddha said!  Personally I suspect, if you believe something strongly (or that it is fact), then you tend to only experience things that support that view.  Hence IMO the dangers of clinging to views is that you limit your experiences and understsandings to only those things that fit that view.  ;-P  From waht I've read, Buddha just said clinging to views is not the route to nibbana.  
Well actual words of Buddha do not support your assumption. (of course neither do they quite not support it either.)  Only thing clear IMO is Buddha said clinging to belief in self and clinging to belief in no self are both wrong view in his opinion.  My personal suspicion is that such questions are too simple and too loaded with assumptions and pitfalls and that none of those are very accurate of the real truth, for which you may need nibbana to understand better and for which there may not be the right words in language to express it well.  So better to just try to avoid that trap until later when your mind is more capable.   
Ok, I thnk I get the gist.  Certainly culture has a strong influence on devleopment of self and also it flows the other way, it's a feedback loop, but something had to start the ball rolling.  They did not both create eachother. 
If you had just said that off the bat, might have saved some time.  I was trying to guess your point but it was not obvious to me.  I do agree culture strongly influences development of self, not convinced it's the only influence though.  I can see yoru viewpoint on why you would think culture is like natural selection, I am kind of a fence sitter on that one though.  I often ponder culture and what influences it, but have not come to any storng conclusions I don't think.   It kind of fascinates me the way certain ideas that were long there suddenly get more trendy, like mustaches, zombies, etc.  
May be much harder, components of culture are not as mathematically clear cut, and we still are only just beginning to understand how genes work in natural selection too.  For instance, what makes eye color is not even understood, genes are only a  part of it, scientists cannot be sure of eye color just by looking at genes.  For instance, I have hazel eyes but they change color over time with less or more brown areas and less or more intensity of green (such change is not due to lighting and is fairly common with hazel eye'd people although nonhazel eyed scientists don't like to admit it)  Anyway, point is, even 'scientific' processes are not very accurately understood at this point. 
Ah but if culture constructs self, then how to deconstruct self without use of culture?  The chicken and the egg are intertwined.  Science has learne dto change egg to be diff than the chicken would have naturally layed but do you have a plan for doing the same with selves? (if the plan relies on a group of people working without self interest, it might b ea tough one since culture has not produced many of those) 
Ok but if you want to use culture to change indviduals and individuals to change culture, how do you start hte process?  One of them will first need to be changed without the use of the other in order to get it started. (seems to me at least according to your paradigm)
Well it is written in the pali canon.  Beyond that, if not believing in word sof pali cannon, who coudl evne say for sure if Buddha existed and if Buddhism is based on bs or whatever.  But one might assume you are basing your authority that causality and dependent origination are 'fact' on authority of Buddhist tenant. If you throw out other pali cannon statements, then on what do you base your you IMo also lose the authority of dependent origination as being obviously true.  ANother quote of Buddha: "By & large, Kaccāyana, this world is supported by [takes as its object] a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world doesn't occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world doesn't occur to one."

According to Buddha, this is right view, neither attachment to idea of self nor attachment ot idea of not self. IMo, this quote insinuates that an assumptoin of polarity betwen the two is already inaccurate.  Of course, no one says you have to believe words in an old text. but IMO, looks fishy if you use buddhist doctrine as authority for idea of no self withtout being able to quote a direct source but then refuse to accept Buddhist doctrine for statements that are directly and clearly quoted from pali canon. 
Perhaps my assumption of your clinging is becuase it is written that Buddha specifically said not to hold the view or ponder that there is not self and that such is wrong view.  The quotes are quite clear.  Yet you continue to just sort of deny that for some reason.  It's the actions of one that does not want to know. You could  have bene curious, asked me for quotes, looked up quotes yourself, etc.  Instead you just kind of denied Buddha said it. FYI there are lots of things I do that Buddha suggested not to do,it's not like I am some Buddha worhsipper, but I do at least admit it to myself and others that I am doing those things and that Buddha said not to and that maybe he could have been right. I am not in denial is the thing (at least I am not in denial of some of the things, there may be other things that I am denial on and becasue I am in denial, do not realize I am in denial, ie it's hard to see the areas where one is currently blind..) .  
Buddha said not to ponder, believe or cling to idea of no self (or self).  He did not say beliefs are OK if you don't THINK there is any suffering apaprently.   I think it's clear you are at least pondering and believing in it even if you are going to try to argue you are not clinging.  It's also clear he said to believe it DOES lead to suffering at least in comparison to nibbana.   By suffering I suspect he mean not being in nibbana.   Unless you claim nibbana, I think by default, that means you have suffering.  Anyway, if you do not want ot see it that way, I certainly do not have th e power to convince you.  We will just have to agree to disagree at some point.  But I think Buddha's word sare very very clear and straightforward on this point that even pondering no self is wrong view.   
What beliefs have I said I held in regards to self and no self?  I have only said Buddha said not to cling to (or ponder or view) either.   
I am not sure if hter eis value, I am only saying according to words of Buddha, belief in no self is wrong view.  And i have now backed up my assertion with direct quotes.
Nope, not clear, what is diff between that and the case you wish to make?
You asserted that Buddha said it, then when challenged, you said that reflection on dependent origination causes it.  Well maybe for YOU where you are right now, but not for everyone IMO.  and Buddha did not say any such as far as i can find, and inplied the opposite, one of the above quotes seems to indicate a simple view like that is incorrect.  IMO, bad policy to say Buddha said something if he in fact did not say any such at all.  Beliefs you have accumulated through your own system are not evidence of what Buddha said, only what Buddha said is evidence of what buddha said.  Kinda cheeky to assume and assert they are identical without even bothering to check! 
Where did he say that? And did he say the whole thing was wrong or just parts?   I got the impression he only said there was suffering and certain ways of thinking lead to cessation of suffering and was not making any claims about the rest of it. 
Where did he say that?  Quotes I found said that he pushed neither belief in self nor belief in not self.  Both are wrong view.
I did not .
I have been, it woudl be easier for me to research your assertions if you had evidence and sources for them. 
Your are welcome ot such beliefs but without any evidence, they will not be very convincing.  For your consideration, the wiki on Buddhist take on attachment to views: Sutta Nipata,
the Buddha states that he himself has no viewpoint. According to Steven
Collins, these poems distill the style of teaching that was concerned
less with the content of views and theories than with the psychological
state of those who hold them.[8] 

Those who wish to experience nirvana must free themselves from everything binding them to the world, including philosophical and religious doctrines.[9]Right view
as the first part of the Noble Eightfold Path leads ultimately not to
the holding of correct views, but to a detached form of cognition
(source= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_%28Buddhism%29 . )

On attachment to views:
pleasures, attachment to views, attachment to rites and rituals,
attachment to the belief in the existence of self.{24} With the arising of craving{25}
there is the arising of attachment. With the cessation of craving,
there is the cessation of attachment. The way leading to the cessation
of attachment is just this eightfold noble path, that is right view,
right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right
effort, right awareness, right concentration.
(source = http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/majjhima/mn009.html)

And a whole bunch of views Buddha said not to attach to, pro advaita views, antiadvaita views, do not attach to any of them: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.093.than.html
Sources please?  I think my quotes say clearly the opposite, he said not to attach to such a view.
-Eva