in the audio i thought i head someoen state that the self wasnt an element of christianity?? is that correct?? would teh verse so as a man thinketh.....counter that??

I think Ken and John hit the nail on the head pretty early on...this "meme" stuff is just contrived way of talking about ideas, intended to force and evolutionary model on it. There is no such thing as a self-replicating idea. To work with Dr. Blackmore's own analogy...if someone makes a picture, and it just lies there and no one ever copies it, what happens? Answer: it just lies there. It is not self-replicating in any way.
This "memetics" stuff is ironic--the atheists who invented it (Richard Dawkins) and promote it (Daniel Dennet, Susan Blackmore) often mock us Christians for seeing God in everything. Memetics is an example of desperately wanting to see evolution in everything. It is no accident that it is promoted by people who are rabidly (even pathetically) anti-religious. And they can't even decide what it is they really believe - on the one hand, we are just helpless blobs of matter being controlled by memes that tell us what to do...on the other, Dr. Blackmore leaps at the idea of us creating memes to change society...we use memes as weapons in some kind of mass thought-control scheme. I don't think one can logically have it both ways.
People have ideas, they share them with each other, sometimes they change them, sometimes they choose not to share them. Slapping a bunch of pseudo-scientific jargon on top of that simple reality does not somehow make it a science - and it certainly does not make it evolution.

斯科特，我认为他的观点是基督教和犹太教都没有提出灵魂只是像布莱克莫尔博士错误地认为的那样寄居在身体里，就像某种独立的东西。她结结巴巴地说了几句，然后又跳到佛教里，试图证明自己的观点。
模因论本身是纯粹的无稽之谈——完全是那些希望通过假装进化无处不在来促进进化的人捏造出来的伪科学。不存在自我复制的“模因”(看看海报就知道它复制自己的频率)，事实上也不存在模因——它是一个编造出来的词，用来假装思想就像基因一样，而我们只是一个无助的宿主。“除了进化论，没有上帝，而达尔文是进化论的先知。”
For that matter, there really is no such thing as a self-replicating gene...in nature, they never exist outside of living things - once outside of them they are dead matter and don't do anything. This should tell us something.

我被Ken在将表情包(和想法)与基因等同上所遇到的困难所震惊。他一直纠结于一个“事实”:基因是自我复制的实体，而模因不是。当然，基因本身(具有特定组织的DNA片段)不会自我复制——它们需要大量的酶和细胞机制来复制——而且它们不会“努力”变得更常见。相反，如果这些生物比拥有其他基因版本的生物更能生存和繁殖，那么在它们栖息的生物中运作良好的基因(实际上是等位基因)就会变得更常见。基因的增殖不是他们的“努力”…它只会在合适的情况下发生。
I'd call this difficulty a mistaken effort to place agency with a single entity in the process. Ken shouldn't feel too bad, since Dawkins titled his book "The Selfish Gene," but it is mistaken nonetheless. The real lesson of evolution is that complexity and adaptation to environment happens with no specific agency (perhaps you could argue for agency dispersed between genes, organisms, and environment, including other organisms). Dawkins's great contribution was to point out that we should not ascribe agency solely to organisms, although his reaction is often read as putting all the agency in the genes.
The same argument applies for memes; we should not look for sole agency either in our minds or in the memes. Memes proliferate when the circumstances are right - a meme that our minds want to repeat and copy. Are there tantalizing memes that go viral? Absolutely. Can we decide to close the YouTube window? Well, some of us, some of the time, at least...

其中一个问题是模因能否做出可检验的预测。其一(类似于进化)是模因(或观念)有一段从父母到后代的持续历史。对进化的一个真正有力的预测是，我们应该看到物种多样性的等级排列(这通常在进化树中被称为系统发育)，特征分布就好像它们是从过去的共同祖先那里继承来的。这与非进化的观点相反，例如，非进化的观点可能涉及没有共同祖先痕迹的生物同时创造。当然，来自生物和化石的证据更适合用进化论来解释。
If memetics is real, memes (or ideas) should also have a history understandable as they are passed from one person or culture to another. This is so obviously true that it's hard to imagine the alternative - that memes/ideas are independent and spring up randomly, are not picked up from others, and don't spread per se. The fact that we can trace the history of ideas is itself a powerful argument for memetics.
Both of these cases are so intuitive that we forget how tied to an evolutionary mechanism they are. I often ask my students why they don't see squirrels with crab claws. They look confused (not having entertained the possibility) until I explain that evolution from common ancestors would prevent that possibility (i.e. crab claws evolved after crustaceans and vertebrates were separate groups). Perhaps I should also ask why the Incas did not know about Aristotle's elements and qualities while I'm at it!

道金斯还写了一篇关于所谓的延伸表型的论文，即似乎不受遗传因素影响而代代相传的事物或特征。其他的大师断言，我们的基因知道我们不知道的东西。也许是这样;也许不…但是，我要告诉你:我似乎知道如何做一些我在学校没有学到的事情(即使当我集中注意力的时候)。我把这些宇宙知识大部分归功于我的父母和祖父母。或者，也许我只是知道怎么做?那么，我怎么知道呢?
As the great TV talk vocalist used to say: ain't that interestin'? Sure.
The Doctor.