Natural selection, intelligent selection.Two types of selection, two types of very real evolution.
I never said this wasn't true. In fact, I never even mentioned cultural (or, as you put, intelligent) selection. And of course ideas (or memes, as Dawkins put it) can evolve in a very similar manner to genes. However, they are not identical. Memes, because they can be shaped and changed within one mind are more Lamarckian than Darwinian in their evolution. But this is neither here nor there. My point was that I disagree with the following statement you made in your opening post.
The single process has moved through three punctuated phases. Although the three phases can be viewed and studied independently of each other they do blend together.
I don't agree that the evolution of the universe and the evolution of life are caused by the same process because the inorganic entities such as stars are not replicating themselves. They are dying and new ones are forming, but they are not related to each other.
the branching structure of evolution is evident in both examples
While, again, I agree that natural and "intelligent" selection are very similar, I don't think this is true for what you call "primal" selection. All you've pointed out is a similar end result, which in no way proves a similar process or mechanism. Not to mention, you have yet to show how the "primal evolution" of the universe shows a branching structure similar to the evolution of organisms or ideas.
We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely