text:
Propitiation

Propitiation is the act of appeasing or making well-disposed a deity, thus incurring divine favor or avoiding divine retribution. It is related to the idea of atonement and sometime mistakenly conflated with expiation. The discussion here encompasses usage only in the Christian tradition.

Christian theology
In Romans 3:25 the King James Version, New King James Version, New American Standard Bible, and the English Standard Version translates "propitiation" from the Greek word hilasterion. Concretely it specifically means the lid of The Ark of The Covenant. The only other occurrence of hilasterion in the NT is in Hebrews 9:5, where it is translated as "mercy seat" in all of the Bible translations named above as well as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version.

For many Christians it has the meaning of "that which expiates or propitiates" or "the gift which procures propitiation". (KJV) reads: "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." There is frequent similar use of hilasterion in the Septuagint, ff. The mercy seat was sprinkled with blood on Yom Kippur, representing that the righteous sentence of the Law had been executed, changing a judgment seat into a mercy seat (compare with "throne of grace" in ; place of communion,.

Another Greek word, hilasmos, is used for Christ as our propitiation in 1 John 2:2; 4:10; and in the Septuagint. The thought in the OT sacrifices and in the NT fulfillment, is that Christ completely satisfied the just demands of the Holy Father for judgment on sin, by his death at Calvary. TDNT, however, takes a different view of Hebrews: "If the author uses the ritual as a means to portray Christ's work, he also finds that in the new covenant the literal offerings of the ritual are replaced by the obedience of Christ (10:5ff.; cf. Ps. 40) and the Christian ministry of praise and mutual service (13:15-16; cf. Ps. 50). In other words, total self-giving, first that of Christ, and then, on this basis, that of his people, is the true meaning of sacrifice.

God, in view of the cross, is declared righteous in having been able to justify sins in the OT period, as well as in being able to forgive sinners under the New Covenant (cf., note).

Writing in Harper's Bible Dictionary (1952), Methodist theologian Edwin Lewis summarizes Paul's teaching in Romans 3 that God's attitude toward sin is revealed "through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:23-26). "The nature of sin must be set forth through the very means through which reconciliation is to be brought about: this means the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, which is therefore 'a propitiation' (v. 25 KJV). ... God's righteousness, which makes sin a barrier to fellowship, and God's love, which would destroy the barrier, are revealed and satisfied in one and the same means, the gift of Christ to be the Mediator between Himself and men."

Book of Common Prayer
The Church of England's Book of Common Prayer (1662), following the prayer of confession before reception of Holy Communion, the priest is to offer "comfortable words" which consist of a series of four verses from the New Testament. The final text is from 1 John 2:1-2 (KJV): "If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins." The same text was used in the American editions of 1789 and 1928. However, in the Episcopal Church's 1979 Book of Common Prayer, in the Rite One form, "propitiation" was changed to read "perfect offering," and with the rest of verse 2 added: "and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world."

Reformation theology
The case for translating hilasterion as "expiation" instead of "propitiation" was put forward by British scholar C. H. Dodd in 1935 and at first gained wide support. Scottish scholars Francis Davidson and G.T. Thompson, writing in The New Bible Commentary, first published in 1953, state that "The idea is not that of conciliation of an angry God by sinful humanity, but of expiation of sin by a merciful God through the atoning death of His Son. It does not necessarily exclude, however, the reality of righteous wrath because of sin." The Anglican theologian and biblical scholar Austin Farrer, writing a quarter century after Dodd, argued that Paul's words in Romans 3 should be translated in terms of expiation rather than propitiation: "God himself, says St Paul, so far from being wrathful against us, or from needing to be propitiated, loved us enough to set forth Christ as an expiation of our sins through his blood."

Hilasterion is translated as "expiation" in the Revised Standard Version and the New American Bible (Revised Edition), and as "the means of expiating sin" in the New English Bible and the Revised English Bible. The New Revised Standard Version and the New International Version translate this as "sacrifice of atonement".

Dodd argued that in pagan Greek the translation of hilasterion was indeed to propitiate, but that in the Septuagint (the oldest Greek translation of the Hebrew OT) that kapporeth (Hebrew for "covering") is often translated with words that mean "to cleanse or remove". This view was initially challenged by Roger Nicole in twenty-one arguments. Later it was also challenged by Leon Morris who argued that because of the focus in the book of Romans on God's wrath, that the concept of hilasterion needed to include the appeasement of God's wrath. Writing in the New Bible Dictionary, Morris states that "Propitiation is a reminder that God is implacably opposed to everything that is evil, that his opposition may properly be described as 'wrath', and that this wrath is put away only by the atoning work of Christ."

Presbyterian scholar Henry S. Gehman of Princeton Theological Seminary in his New Westminster Bible Dictionary (1970) argued that for hilasterion in Romans 3:25 and hilasmos in 1 John 2:2 and 4:10, "In these cases RSV more properly has 'expiation,' which means the extinguishing of guilt by suffering a penalty or offering a sacrifice as an equivalent. ... It is God who sent forth his Son to be the expiation of sin. Through the death of Christ sins are expiated or annulled, and fellowship is restored."

Likewise, the Anglican theologian and biblical scholar Reginald H. Fuller, writing in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, has noted that while the precise meaning of hilasterion is disputed, and while some translate it as "propitiation", this, he says, "suggests appeasing or placating an angry deity-- a notion hardly compatible with biblical thought and rarely occurring in that sense in the Hebrew Bible. It requires God as its object, whereas in this hymn [Romans 3:24-25] God is the subject: 'whom God put forward.' ... Accordingly, the rendering 'expiation' is the most probable."

In his semantic study of hilasterion David Hill, of the University of Sheffield, claims that Dodd leaves out several Septuagint references to propitiation, and cites apocryphal sources.

Many Reformed theologians stress the idea of propitiation because it specifically addresses dealing with God's wrath, and consider it to be a necessary element for understanding how the atonement as penal substitution makes possible Christ's propitiation for sins by dying in the place of sinners. Critics of penal substitutionary atonement state that seeing the Atonement as appeasing God is a "pagan" idea that makes God seem tyrannical.

J. I. Packer in Knowing God, first published in 1973, designates a distinct difference between pagan and Christian propitiation: "In paganism, man propitiates his gods, and religion becomes a form of commercialism and, indeed, of bribery. In Christianity, however, God propitiates his wrath by his own action. He set forth Jesus Christ, says Paul, to be the propitiation of our sins."

John Stott writes that propitiation "does not make God gracious...God does not love us because Christ died for us, Christ died for us because God loves us". John Calvin, quoting Augustine from John's Gospel cx.6, writes, "Our being reconciled by the death of Christ must not be understood as if the Son reconciled us, in order that the Father, then hating, might begin to love us". Continuing the quote: "... but that we were reconciled to him already, loving, though at enmity with us because of sin. To the truth of both propositions we have the attestation of the Apostle, 'God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us,' (Rom. 5: 8.) Therefore, he had this love towards us even when, exercising enmity towards him, we were the workers of iniquity. Accordingly, in a manner wondrous and divine, he loved even when he hated us."

Packer also cites God's love as the impetus that provides Christ's sacrifice for the reconciliation of mankind and hence the removal of God's wrath. According to Packer, propitiation (and the wrath of God that propitiation implies) is necessary to properly define God's love; God could not be righteous and "His love would degenerate into sentimentality (without Christ's death containing aspects of propitiation).The wrath of God is as personal, and as potent, as his Love."

Thus the definition of Christian propitiation asserted by Calvin, Packer and Murray holds that within God there is a dichotomy of love and anger, but through propitiation love trumps anger, abolishing it. "'The doctrine of the propitiation is precisely this that God loved the objects of His wrath so much that He gave His own Son to the end that He by His blood should make provision for the removal of this wrath... (John Murray, The Atonement, p. 15)'"

Contemporary Catholic theology
The Latin Vulgate translates hilasterion in Romans 3:25, and hilasmos in 1 John 4:10, as propitiationem, and this is carried over to the Douay-Rheims Bible as "propitiation". This was also the case with the Confraternity Bible (New Testament 1941). However the promulgation of the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu in 1943, and the Second Vatican Council document Dei verbum in 1965, led to increased engagement with biblical manuscripts in the original languages, and ecumenical cooperation in Bible translation. A Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version New Testament was published in 1965. And an imprimatur was granted in 1966 to the Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha by Richard Cardinal Cushing of Boston. Another ecumenical edition of the RSV was published as the Common Bible in 1973. In 1970 the first edition of the New American Bible was published. In both the RSV and the NAB, hilasterion in Romans 3:25, and hilasmos in 1 John 2:2 and 4:10, are translated as "expiation."

The NAB includes a note on the use of "expiation" in Romans 3:25, explaining that "this rendering is preferable to 'propitiation,' which suggests hostility on the part of God toward sinners. As Paul will be at pains to point out (5:8-10), it is humanity that is hostile to God."

Raymond E. Brown in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary argues that in the NT sacrifice (hilasterion) does not appease God's wrath but is best expressed from its Jewish roots (76.89–95) as atonement or expiation (82.73). Recent Catholic studies have depended heavily on the Trinitarian perspective presented by Jesuit theologian Edward J. Kilmartin: "Sacrifice is not, in the first place, an activity of human beings directed to God and, in the second place, something that reaches its goal in the response of divine acceptance and bestowal of divine blessing on the cultic community. Rather, sacrifice in the New Testament understanding – and thus in its Christian understanding – is, in the first place, the self-offering of the Father in the gift of his Son, and in the second place the unique response of the Son in his humanity to the Father, and in the third place, the self-offering of believers in union with Christ by which they share in his covenant relationship with the Father."Jesuit theologian Robert Daly has explained the background for this renewed understanding. Daly points out that the initiative is entirely with the Father who "loved us and sent his Son as expiation for our sins" (1 John 4:10 NAB), and that "when we see the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Mass as a Trinitarian event, we see that, strictly speaking, there are no recipients." He compares the Eucharist to a marriage ceremony that receives its meaning by becoming the reality of one's life.

The French Jesuit theologian and biblical scholar Stanislas Lyonnet has explained the Johannine usage of the term, "When St. John in two different places alludes first to the heavenly intercession of Christ before the Father (1 John 2.2), and then to the work accomplished here below by His death and resurrection (1 Jn 4.10), he declares that He is or that the Father has made Him a 'hilasmos for our sins.' This term certainly carries the same meaning which it always has in O.T. Greek (Vulgate Ps 130.4) and which the Latin word propitiatio also always conveys in the liturgy: through Christ and in Christ, the Father achieves the plan of His eternal love (1 Jn 4.8) in 'showing Himself propitious,' that is in 'pardoning' men, by an efficacious pardon which really destroys sins, which 'purifies' man and communicates to him God's own life (1 Jn 4.9)."

Along similar lines, the entry on "sacrifice" in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, after reviewing the epistles of Paul and Hebrews, concludes that "total self-giving, first that of Christ, and then, on this basis, that of his people, is the true meaning of sacrifice." And Cardinal-theologian Walter Kasper, in his book The God of Jesus Christ, concludes that what Jesus effected was to give suffering "eternal import, the import of love." Kasper points out that Gregory of Nyssa and Augustine of Hippo, working out of the New Testament, speak of a God who can freely choose to feel compassion, which implies suffering. Kasper adds that: "It is Origen who gave us the clearest statement. In Origen's words: 'First God suffered, then he came down.  What was the suffering he accepted for us?  The suffering of love.'  Origen adds that it is not just the Son but also the Father who suffers so. This is made possible by God's freedom in love."

Currently, however, some scripture scholars contend that using the word "propitiation" was a mistranslation by Jerome from the Greek hilastērion into the Latin Vulgate, and is misleading for describing the sacrifice of Jesus and its Eucharistic remembrance. One expression of the conclusion of theologians is that sacrifice "is not something human beings do to God (that would be propitiation) but something which God does for human kind (which is expiation)."

title: Propitiation


text:
Omphalos

An omphalos is a religious stone artefact. In Ancient Greek, the word ὀμφᾰλός (omphalós) means "navel". Among the Ancient Greeks, it was a widespread belief that Delphi was the center of the world. According to the myths regarding the founding of the Delphic Oracle, Zeus, in his attempt to locate the center of the Earth, launched two eagles from the two ends of the world, and the eagles, starting simultaneously and flying at equal speed, crossed their paths above the area of Delphi, and so was the place where Zeus placed the stone.

Omphalos is also the name of the stone given to Cronus.

Similar ideas of a particular geographical point being the center of the world (or its most important place) also surface in the major religions of the modern era. The Latin term is umbilicus mundi, 'navel of the world'.

Delphi
Most accounts locate the Delphi omphalos in the adyton (sacred part of the temple) near the Pythia (oracle). The stone sculpture itself, which may be a copy, has a carving of a knotted net covering its surface and a hollow center, widening towards the base. The omphalos represents the stone which Rhea wrapped in swaddling clothes, pretending it was Zeus, in order to deceive Cronus. (Cronus was the father who swallowed his children so as to prevent them from usurping him as he had deposed his own father, Uranus.)

Omphalos stones were believed to allow direct communication with the gods. Holland (1933) suggested that the stone was hollow to allow intoxicating vapours breathed by the Oracle to channel through it. Erwin Rohde wrote that the Python at Delphi was an earth spirit, who was conquered by Apollo and buried under the Omphalos. However, understanding of the use of the omphalos is uncertain due to destruction of the site by Theodosius I and Arcadius in the 4th century CE.

Judaism

The Foundation Stone at the peak of the Temple Mount is considered in traditional Jewish sources to be the place from which the creation of the world began, with several further major biblical events connected to it. Jewish tradition holds that God revealed himself to His people through the Ark of the Covenant in the Temple in Jerusalem, which rested on the Foundation Stone marking the centre of the world.

Christianity

The omphalos is an important religious symbol in classical antiquity, with a similar level of significance as the Christian cross. The latter eventually gained more prominence.

In medieval Christian tradition, the omphalos at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem, represents the navel of the world (the spiritual and cosmological centre of the world).

Art
Omphalos is a public art sculpture by Dimitri Hadzi formerly located in the Harvard Square, Cambridge, Massachusetts under the Arts on the Line program. , the sculpture has been deinstalled; it will be relocated to Rockport, Massachusetts.

Omfalos is a concrete and rock sculpture by the conceptual artist Lars Vilks, previously standing in the Kullaberg natural reserve, Skåne County, Sweden. As of 2001, the sculpture belongs to the collections of Moderna Museet in Stockholm, Sweden.

Literature

In literature, the word omphalos has held various meanings but usually refers to the stone at Delphi. Authors who have used the term include: Homer, Pausanias, D.H. Lawrence, James Joyce, Philip K. Dick, Jacques Derrida, Ted Chiang, Sandy Hingston and Seamus Heaney. For example, Joyce uses the term in the novel, Ulysses:

""Billy Pitt had them built," Buck Mulligan said, "when the French were on the sea but our's is the omphalos." [Chapter 1]

One of her sisterhood lugged me squealing into life. Creation from nothing. What has she in the bag? A misbirth with a trailing navelcord, hushed in ruddy wool. The cords of all link back, strandentwining cable of all flesh. That is why mystic monks. Will you be as gods? Gaze in your omphalos. [Chapter 3]

[...] to set up there a national fertilising farm to be named Omphalos with an obelisk hewn and erected after the fashion of Egypt and to offer his dutiful yeoman services for the fecundation of any female of what grade of life soever who should there direct to him with the desire of fulfilling the functions of her natural. [Chapter 14]" In Ted Chiang's short story "Omphalos" (2019), the protagonist is forced to question her belief about where the center of the world is located.

In “The Toome Road”, a Seamus Heaney poem from the 1979 anthology Field Work, Heaney writes about an encounter with a convoy of armoured cars in Northern Ireland, “… O charioteers, above your dormant guns, It stands here still, stands vibrant as you pass, The invisible, untoppable omphalos.”

Omphalos syndrome
Omphalos syndrome refers to the belief that a place of geopolitical power and currency is the most important place in the world.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Omphalos


text:
Gigi (novella)

Gigi is a 1944 novella by French writer Colette. The plot focuses on a young Parisian girl being groomed for a career as a courtesan and her relationship with the wealthy cultured man named Gaston who falls in love with her and eventually marries her.

The novel was translated into English by Roger Senhouse and published (with "The Cat" translated by Antonia White) in 1953.

The life story of Yola Letellier, the wife of Henri Letellier (publisher of Le Journal and mayor of Deauville (1925–1928) ), was the inspiration for the novel.

Adaptations
The novella was the basis for a 1949 French film starring Danièle Delorme and Gaby Morlay.

In 1951, it was adapted for the stage by Anita Loos. Colette had personally picked the yet unknown Audrey Hepburn on first sight to play the title role. Her Aunt Alicia was played by stage legend Cathleen Nesbitt, who was to become Hepburn's acting mentor from that time on. Opening on Broadway at the Fulton Theatre on 24 November 1951, the play ran for 219 performances (finishing on 31 May 1952) and Hepburn's Broadway debut earned her a Theatre World Award.

A 1958 musical film version, starring Leslie Caron in the title role, with a screenplay by Alan Jay Lerner and a score by Lerner and Frederick Loewe, won the Academy Award for Best Picture. Lerner and Loewe adapted the film for an expurgated 1973 stage musical that proved to be unsuccessful but was revived on Broadway in 2015.

title: Gigi (novella)


text:
Talk:Pepper

Nonexistent plant?
I don't know if this is some sort of spoof or just a very poorly written entry, but this plant: "Ukrainian Red Midget, Puniceus minimum, pusillus, a.k.a. Ukrainian Mean Pepper or, disputably, Thai Hot" does not appear to exist. The apparent scientific name "Puniceus minimum, pusillus" is, first, ambiguously formatted (what does the comma mean?), and, second, not a real name of any plant under the possible interpretations; there is no genus "Puniceus". I suspect both the entry in the disambiguation page and the article on "Ukrainian red midget" should be deleted. Paalexan (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've restored "various" since not all plants of the genus Piper are pepper.

Is it OK to add a brief one-line reference to a character named "Pepper" from  Josie (and the Pussycats)? --b. Touch 05:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Certainly; the article in general should be broadened, as the word "pepper" refers to more than just plants. Something on table pepper would be nice, and maybe a paragraph on metaphorical uses of the word.  --LostLeviathan 09:30, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation page status
I don't think it was a good choice to change pepper to not be a disambiguation page. Black pepper and capsicums (chile peppers and bell peppers) are very different things; it's always an improvement to disambig those links. I'm currently disambiguating them anyway, but I thought I would solicit opinions on whether pepper should be restored as a disambiguation page. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There seemed to be so much good information on pepper as a plant (in its varying forms) at this page that I removed the disambig notice. Since I did so with no consensus you were free to restore it without discussion. A disambiguation page is not article and shouldn't contain any substantial - just enoguh to get the reader their desired location. If this was restored to a dab, the format would probably be something like:

″

 * Pepper may refer to:

 * Plants:
 * The Piperaceae family
 * Notably the genus Piper
 * Including the black pepper, that appears on virtually every dining room table in parts of the world
 * Capsicum genus
 * bell peppers
 * chile peppers
 * Pink pepper corns, also called "Peruvian pepper" or "Caribbean pepper"
 * Szechuan pepper corns are produced by a plant of the family Rutaceae, species Zanthoxylum piperitum
 * Tasmanian pepper, a plant with hot leaves and berries from the Winteraceae family

 * Or:
 * "Pepper (song)", from the album Electriclarryland by the Butthole Surfers
 * Pepper (band), a US pop band
 * Barry Pepper
 * Art Pepper
 * John Henry Pepper, John Pepper
 * William Pepper

 * ==See also==
 * Pepperwood
 * Peppertree

 * I don't like this becasue it loses some of current info. Another option would be to create a project page to work on articles (in contrast to dab pages) where "disambiguation" link repair is needed.--Commander Keane 06:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Commander Keane. (I know I was free to restore it; I like discussing things first personally.) I'll think about what you said regarding the loss of information for a little while before doing anything. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Whatever the outcome, I'll work on (and ensure completion of) link repairing (ie WP:DPL) Pepper.--Commander Keane 16:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Cool! I've got it down to under 50 not counting Talk and User pages; the hard ones mostly require research to figure out what kinds of plants grow where (Singapore in particular has been driving me nuts; I'm still not sure) or refer to the "peppery" flavor, a notion that I think might actually deserve its own page, since a peppery flavor might be black-peppery OR chile-peppery, or a bit of both. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

 * There's a problem though -- fixing the articles that point to "pepper" is a problem because the large majority of them mean "pepper (spice)" as in "the group of spices commonly reffered to as pepper" which included spices based on the plant black pepper, as well as spices based on chili-peppers. I don't know how to fix this currently. Linking to current "pepper" is false, because they're *clearly* not talking about the band "pepper" for example, on the other hand, linking to "black_pepper" is also false, because they emphatically are not talking about that one specific plant. So. What to do ? Can we make a "pepper (spice)" article which mentions the various peppers as examples ? Or is that silly ? --Eivind Kjørstad 08:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone change the link to Pepper tree as that currently leads to another disambiguation page? Perhaps by listing each of the three species/genuses listed on that page. I'm not so savvy with Wikipedia linking to do it myself. Thank you. Somerut (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why no generic article on the topic of pepper, as in the spice, in all its forms?
It seems rather odd that "pepper" only appears as a disambiguation page. When I came here, I was expecting to find an article structured rather like the one for Salt giving an overview of pepper the spice with links to further articles describing specific varieties. It seems to me that a disambiguation page listing the main varieties of pepper the spice alongside other uses of the word is not a substitute for a proper article. The article on Salt and Pepper does not help as it restricts the term to "edible salt and black pepper". In my experience the condiments salt and pepper can include many different types of pepper and is not restricted to black pepper.86.159.20.198 (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how one would structure it, since there are a lot of uses that have nothing to do with the spice (though salt has the same issues). I'd note that since white and green pepper are forms of black pepper, they're included there. Perhaps the disambiguation page should make mention of that?   Acroterion   (talk)   14:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Also:
"Pepper" is also a derogatory term for a Quebecois francophone.

title: Talk:Pepper


text:
National Center for Science Education

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is a not-for-profit membership organization in the United States whose stated mission is to educate the press and the public on the scientific and educational aspects of controversies surrounding the teaching of evolution and climate change, and to provide information and resources to schools, parents, and other citizens working to keep those topics in public school science education.

Based in Oakland, California, it claims 4,500 members that include scientists, teachers, clergy, and citizens of varied religious and political affiliations. The Center opposes the teaching of religious views in science classes in America's public schools; it does this through initiatives such as Project Steve. The Center has been called the "leading anti-creationist organization" in the United States. The Center is affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

NCSE is currently a member of the National Coalition Against Censorship.

History
In 1980 Stanley L. Weinberg, a veteran high-school teacher in Iowa, began to organize statewide Committees of Correspondence "committed to the defense of education in evolutionary theory," modelled upon the committees of correspondence in pre-Revolutionary America. Their purpose was to keep interested parties informed about creationist endeavours and to share ideas for responses, allowing a political response at a local level. This grew into volunteer networks in most states, with the Creation/Evolution Newsletter interconnecting them, which was incorporated as the NCSE in 1983. In 1987, author and lecturer Eugenie Scott became its executive director. The Board of Directors and official supporters, as explained by NCSE, "reflects our scientific roots."

In the 1990s, based upon its monitoring of creationist efforts, it issued warnings of high levels of official anti-evolutionism and a "sharp surge upwards" in creationist attacks on evolution, including attempts to downgrade evolution from "fact" to "theory" (see evolution as theory and fact) or present the "evidence against evolution" (see objections to evolution).

The organization's supporters include Bruce Alberts, former President of the National Academy of Sciences; Donald Johanson, discoverer of the "Lucy" fossil; and evolutionary biologist Francisco J. Ayala. Also the late paleontologist and writer Stephen Jay Gould was a long-time supporter. As of 2012, the group has 4500 members who are "scientists, teachers, clergy, and citizens with diverse religious and political affiliations."

Amanda L. Townley has been the organization's Executive Director since December 2023. She replaced Ann Reid, who had been appointed to the position in 2013. Previously, Eugenie C. Scott served as executive director for 27 years, 1986 to 2013.

Activities and programs
The NCSE maintains up-to-date listings of current events and information regarding creationist and antievolution advocacy, as well as about evolution education. Historian of science Michael Shermer describes its website as being one of "the two best resources on the Internet on the evolution/creation topic" (the other being TalkOrigins Archive). The NCSE also opposes intelligent design and other "alternatives" to evolution because it says they are misleading euphemisms for creationism.

NCSE "is religiously neutral, though it cooperates nationally and locally with religious organizations, as well as scientific and educational organizations like the National Academy of Sciences, the National Association of Biology Teachers, and the National Science Teachers Association." Its willingness to engage positively with, and avoid taking sides against, religiously minded supporters of evolution has been noted by historian of creationism Ronald L. Numbers and atheist author Richard Dawkins.

The NCSE offers a variety of lecturers, including biologists, anthropologists, philosophers, and theologians, for topics relating to evolution, science, and education. Also it hosts activities including trips and conferences. It publishes Reports of the National Center for Science Education bimonthly, containing peer-reviewed articles, book reviews, and news. From 1980 to 1997, it published the Creation/Evolution Journal, which has since been merged into Reports of the National Center for Science Education. Additionally, it publishes books, such as a compilation of scientific analyses of creationist books.

In 2003, the NCSE gained international attention with Project Steve.

In 2005, the NCSE assisted the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the most prominent case testing the constitutionality of intelligent design in public school science classes, and put their extensive library of creationist materials at the plaintiffs' disposal. Nick Matzke, the NCSE's Public Information Project Director at the time, served as liaison to the legal team, and was responsible for uncovering the substitution of "intelligent design" for "creationism" within drafts of Of Pandas and People, which became a devastating part of the testimony of Barbara Forrest (also an NCSE Director), and was cited extensively in Judge John E. Jones III's decision.

In April 2008, the NCSE launched Expelled Exposed, a website critical of the alleged documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed starring Ben Stein. The website received press attention and a large amount of traffic.

In 2012, the NCSE announced they would be engaged in efforts to keep climate change education, and global warming issues, safe from threats from special interests. They have developed a series of lessons addressing climate change misconceptions and offer teacher training through a Teacher Ambassador program.

Media
Eugenie Scott appeared on Uncommon Knowledge, as NCSE spokesperson, twice in 2001 debating intelligent design creationist William A. Dembski. Then in 2004, NCSE was represented by Scott on Penn and Teller's Showtime television show Bullshit! on the episode "Creationism". Scott offered scientific views about the creationist and intelligent design movements. She noted, "it would be unfair to tell students that there is a serious dispute going on among scientists whether evolution took place. There's not." She further noted that "'a lot of the time the creationists ... they'll search through scientific journals and try to pull out something they think demonstrates evolution doesn't work and there is a kind of interesting rationale behind it. Their theology is such that if one thing is wrong with the Bible you have to throw it all out so that's why Genesis has to be interpreted literally. They look at science the same way. If one little piece of the evolutionary puzzle doesn't fit the whole thing has to go.' Scott then explained 'that's not the way science is done.'"

In November 2007 Scott discussed the NCSE's exploration of intelligent design on the NOVA documentary Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, which documented Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

Staff

 * Executive Director: Ann Reid
 * Deputy Director: Glenn Branch
 * Director of Community Science Education: Kate Carter
 * Director of Teacher Support: Lin Andrews
 * Program Coordinator: Emma Doctors
 * IT Specialist: Stuart Fogg
 * Member Relations Manager: Nina Hollenberg
 * Director of Operations: Rae Holzman
 * Director of Development: Deb Janes
 * Editor, Reports of the NCSE: Paul Oh
 * Director of Communications: Paul Oh

Officers and Directors

 * Kenneth R. Miller, President
 * Lorne Trottier, Vice President
 * Michael Haas, Treasurer
 * Vicki Chandler
 * Sarah B. George
 * Michael B. Lubic
 * Michael E. Mann
 * Naomi Oreskes
 * Barry Polisky
 * Benjamin D. Santer

title: National Center for Science Education


text:
User:Grasso~enwiki

I´m a young man from Germany. I´m interested in technical things (electronics, computers), politics, sociology and environmental affairs. For example I began the article about political media. I quit Wikipedia because of sneaky censoring going on here. My site is http://grassomusic.de (me about Wikipedia: http://grassomusic.de/polieng/media.htm), my e-mail address is grasso789 somewhere in the electro-magneto-mechanical depths at versanet.de.

title: User:Grasso~enwiki


text:
Edwards v. Aguillard

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of teaching creationism. The Court considered a Louisiana law requiring that where evolutionary science was taught in public schools, creation science must also be taught. The constitutionality of the law was successfully challenged in District Court, Aguillard v. Treen, 634 F. Supp. 426 (ED La.1985), and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, Aguillard v. Edwards, 765 F.2d 1251 (CA5 1985). The United States Supreme Court ruled that this law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. In its decision, the court opined that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."

In support of Aguillard, 72 Nobel Prize-winning scientists, 17 state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations filed amicus briefs that described creation science as being composed of religious tenets.

Background
Modern American creationism arose from the theological split over modernist higher criticism and its rejection by the fundamentalist Christian movement, which promoted biblical literalism and, post 1920, took up the anti-evolution cause led by William Jennings Bryan. The teaching of evolution had become a common part of the public school curriculum, but his campaign was based on the idea that "Darwinism" had caused German militarism and threatened traditional religion and morality. Several states passed legislation to ban or restrict the teaching of evolution. The Tennessee Butler Act was tested in the Scopes trial of 1925, and continued in effect with the result that many schools did not teach evolution.

When the United States sought to catch up in science during the 1960s with new teaching standards, which reintroduced evolution, the creation science movement arose, presenting what was claimed to be scientific evidence supporting young Earth creationism. Attempts were made to reintroduce legal bans, but the Supreme Court ruled in 1968's Epperson v. Arkansas that bans on teaching evolutionary biology are unconstitutional as they violate the establishment clause of the United States Constitution, which forbids the government from advancing a particular religion.

In the early 1980s, several states attempted to introduce creationism alongside the teaching of evolution, and the Louisiana legislature passed a law, authored by State Senator Bill P. Keith of Caddo Parish, entitled the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act." The Act did not require teaching either creationism or evolution, but did require that, if evolutionary science was taught, then "creation science" must be taught as well. Creationists lobbied aggressively for the law. The stated purpose of the Act was to protect "academic freedom". Counsel for the state later admitted at the Supreme Court oral argument that the "legislature may not [have] used the term 'academic freedom' in the correct legal sense. They might have [had] in mind, instead, a basic concept of fairness; teaching all the evidence." Governor David C. Treen signed the bill into law in 1981.

The District Court in Aguillard v. Treen, 634 F. Supp. 426 (ED La.1985), and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 765 F.2d 1251 (CA5 1985), ruled against Louisiana, finding that its actual purpose in enacting the statute was to promote the religious doctrine of "creation science". An Arkansas District Court previously held in a 1982 decision in McLean v. Arkansas that a similar "balanced treatment" statute violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Arkansas did not appeal the loss. Creationists believed the statute at issue in Edwards v. Aguillard had a better chance of passing constitutional muster, and so Louisiana appealed its loss in the trial and appellate courts to the Supreme Court.

The case was styled Edwards v. Aguillard because by the time the case reached the Supreme Court, Edwin Edwards had succeeded David Treen as governor of Louisiana, which was being sued, and Don Aguillard, a science teacher and assistant principal at Acadiana High School in Lafayette Parish, Louisiana, was the lead original plaintiff in District Court among a group of Louisiana teachers, students, parents, scientists, and clergy.

Result
On June 19, 1987, the Supreme Court, in a seven-to-two majority opinion written by Justice William J. Brennan, ruled that the Act constituted an unconstitutional infringement on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, based on the three-pronged Lemon test, which is:
 * 1) The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
 * 2) The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
 * 3) The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.

The Supreme Court held that the Act is facially invalid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose (first part of the above Lemon test), since (a) the Act does not further its stated secular purpose of "protecting academic freedom", and (b) the Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind.

However, it did note that alternative scientific theories could be taught: "We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. ... Teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."

The Court found that, although the Louisiana legislature had stated that its purpose was to "protect academic freedom", that purpose was dubious because the Act gave Louisiana teachers no freedom they did not already possess and instead limited their ability to determine what scientific principles should be taught. Because it was unconvinced by the state's proffered secular purpose, the Court went on to find that the legislature had a "preeminent religious purpose in enacting this statute".

Dissent
Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, dissented, accepting the Act's stated purpose of "protecting academic freedom" as a sincere and legitimate secular purpose. They interpreted the term "academic freedom" to refer to "students' freedom from indoctrination", in this case their freedom "to decide for themselves how life began, based upon a fair and balanced presentation of the scientific evidence". However, they also criticized the first prong of the Lemon test, noting that "to look for the sole purpose of even a single legislator is probably to look for something that does not exist".

Consequences and aftermath
The ruling was one in a series of developments addressing issues related to the American creationist movement and the separation of church and state. The scope of the ruling affected public schools and did not include independent schools, home schools, Sunday schools and Christian schools, which remained free to teach creationism.

During the case, creationists worked on a creationist biology textbook, with the hope of a huge market if the appeal went their way. Drafts were given various titles, including Biology and Creation. After the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, the authors changed the terms "creation" and "creationists" in the text to "intelligent design" and "design proponents", and the book was published as Of Pandas and People. This supplementary textbook for school use attacked evolutionary biology without mentioning the identity of the "intelligent designer". Promotion of intelligent design creationism by the intelligent design movement eventually led to the textbook's use in a school district being challenged in another court case. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District went to trial on September 26, 2005, and was decided in U.S. District Court on December 20, 2005, in favor of the plaintiffs, who charged that a mandate that intelligent design be taught was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The 139-page opinion of Kitzmiller v. Dover was hailed as a landmark decision, firmly establishing that creationism and intelligent design were religious teachings and not areas of legitimate scientific research. Because the Dover school board chose not to appeal, the case never reached a circuit court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

Wendell Bird served as a special assistant attorney general for Louisiana in the case and later became a staff attorney for the Institute for Creation Research and Association of Christian Schools International. Bird later authored books promoting creationism and teaching it in public schools.

title: Edwards v. Aguillard


text:
Talk:Self-replication

Untitled
I added a line mentioning memes, and then a few minutes later someone else removes it with no explanation. In what way are memes not relevant to an article on self-replication? Bryan Derksen
 * I did not remove the sentence, but perhaps someone removed it because the article is about real things that self-replicate, and memes are not real things but rather either 1) a metaphor or 2) an analytic construct based on a particular theoretical model. Cells are material things that can be observed objectively.  Memes are not material objects, they are ideas.  SR
 * But then why are Computer viruses still included? Memes may not be "physical," but they have tangible characteristics that can be studied in an objective manner. See, for example, the paper linked to from the Chain letter article. Bryan Derksen
 * The title of the article "self replication" refers to the abstract concept, not about any manifestation thereof. It is wrong to remove reference to any given manifestation from the article but, it is not wrong to separate the concept from the example manifestation. Put "meme" and all other examples in an "Examples" section. William R. Buckley 20:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree--ideas may not be "material" things, but they're certainly "real" by any reasonable definition of that word: they have physical expressions and physical effects on the world. Things like musical tunes and scales, languages and idioms, methods of doing things from cooking to business, games, holidays, and many other things have distinct effects on people's lives. --Lee Daniel Crocker

 * Fair enough. But why then use the word "meme?"  Why not use the more common, but apparently equally appropriate, words "thoughts" or "ideas?"  SR

 * For the same reason I wouldn't use the word "chemicals" when I'm talking about genes; meme is a specific technical term that applies to the specific type of thought or idea that is relevant to the concept of self-replication. Bryan Derksen

 * Fair enough -- but honstly, I am still unclear: is a meme a class of ideas, or is it a complex and organized set of ideas, the whole being greater than the sum of its parts (you seem to be suggesting this)? I went to the "meme" article and frankly do not feel that it answers my question, and explains this, clearly.  Perhaps you will have time at some point to develop that article to make this clearer, SR

 * I wrote the bulk of that article, and I tried to be as clear as possible while sticking to the original meaning of the term and not the wild extrapolations people are prone to heaping on it. It's really quite a simple idea--a meme is simply an idea that gets passed on, possibly in mutated form, from one person to another.  They can be as simple as things like handshakes and bows, or as complex as Catholicism.

 * Taking a look at it now. I think the key concept of a meme is that it is a "unit" of thoughts/ideas that is passed on as a single entity, such that subdividing it results in something that isn't "functional." This is an analogue to how a gene is a unit of heredity; a single gene encodes some characteristic, and groups of genes can encode some characteristic, but "half a gene" doesn't do anything and isn't even particularly meaningful as a concept (half of a gene's DNA sequence may be meaningful and functional, but that's not what pure theoretical genetics is focused on). For example, the idea "green M&Ms are aphrodisiacs" is a meme; it gets passed around as an urban legend among people. But the idea "green M&Ms" isn't a meme, or at least isn't a particularly _functional_ meme, because it doesn't get passed along as a self-contained unit. You may get people standing around water coolers and saying "by the way, have you heard that green M&Ms are aphrodisiac?" to each other but you don't get them saying "by the way, have you heard of green M&Ms?"

 * Hope that little ramble was helpful, and accurate. :) Bryan Derksen

 * Well, this is very helpful -- but still unsatisfying. It sounds like you are talking about a "proposition."  At least, this is the term people have beenusing to refer to things that people think that are passed along as a single entity, which can be subdivided into different parts (e.g. facts) although those parts do not convey the meaning (or have the function) of the proposition.  If I understand you correctly, it seems kind of silly to invent a new word to replace a very good word that people have been using for thousands of years.  If youmeans omething different, I guess I still need clarification.  SR

I originally removed the line because I believe that meme theory is not currently a scientifically accepted theory. I may be wrong. Also while a meme (such as the chain letter) might be "replicated", there is certainly no way that it can be "self-replicating". It can take no action of itself. No matter how long that chain letter stays in my wastebasket it will only remain one letter, not become several. --rmhermen

 * You are mistaken; some aspects of memetics are very speculative, and not taken seriously by many scientists. But one could say the same of psychology or astrophysics.  The basic concept itself, that ideas can be self-replicating, is almost tautological, and not really subject to doubt.  It is the often wildly extrapolated consequences of that fact that gives memes a bad name in some circles, but good peer-reviewed journals of memetics exist, and certainly Dawkins himself is the very paragon of "serious" science.  --LDC

Even if I stretch the idea of self in self-replicating to include chain letters because they contain in appeal to replicate them in their text, somewhat similar to the code in a computer virus, I don't understand how an ordinary simple idea, like the "green M+M's are aphrodisiac" above, can be "self"-replicating. Certainly replicated and replicatable but how is it self-replicating? --rmhermen

 * The M&M thing resulted from a digression on the subject of what memes are, not what self-replicating things are. I never intended for it to be taken as an example of a self-replicating meme, it's just an idea which forms a "unit." Bryan Derksen

 * There are memes, which are individual ideas which can be replicated (with a chance of mutation) between retention systems (i.e., "It's wrong to use birth control."), and meme complexes, groups of interdependent memes which are passed on more or less as a group (i.e., Catholicism). Memes and meme complexes are best exemplified by the phrase "monkey see, monkey do": one retention system (a human, for instance) communicates an idea or a set of ideas to another retention system, either by language or demonstration; the other retention system decides whether or not it's a worthwhile meme, and either discards it, mutates it, or internalizes it, generally based on the perceived benefit of the idea (Green M&M's cause mating; mating is good). The meme or meme complex then is subjected to natural selection and, on the aggregate, either flourishes or dies off. Some (like Catholicism) flourish because they are prone to reproduction; others (like the Heaven's Gate cult) die off within a single generation, just as a genetic defect which causes the host to die before reproduction would die off in a single generation. THERE! :-D --pluggo 09:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Viruses and computer viruses also cannot replicate entirely on their own, but they do cause their own replication when placed in the right environment. This applies to things like animals, too; a mouse will not replicate without a constant supply of oxygen and food chemicals, yet there's no significant debate over whether a mouse should be called self-replicating. Basically, it's all a continuum, with no clear-cut dividing line.

Like rmherman, I too am confused. Ar you using "self-replicating" to refer to ANY form of reproduction that is not "sexual reproduction?" Is a Chevy Impala, rolling off an assembly line, self-replicating?

 * What I'm saying is that there is no way to draw an absolutely clear line between the set of all things that self-replicate and the set of all things that do not self-replicate. Yes, there are clearly some things that can be called self-replicating; cyanobacteria, etc. And there are some things which are clearly not self-replicating, such as a chunk of rock. But between those two extremes, things get fuzzy. A Chevy Impala is not self-replicating in the same sense that bacteria self-replicate, if you stick one in a field next to a pile of iron ore and come back a year later there's still only going to be one Chevy Impala. But it might be called self-replicating in the memetic sense; if you drive your Chevy Impala around town and lots of people see it and like it and order their own from Chevy, then that Chevy Impala has in a certain sense used humans as a tool to make more copies of itself. You can't separate something from its environment when considering whether it's self-replicating or not. By the same token, organisms that reproduce sexually can and usually are considered to be self-replicating, because one generally considers them as a population rather than as a collection of isolated individuals. A population of mice is self-replicating even though a single mouse on its own will die childless. A virus inside a host is self-replicating, even though in isolation it's chemically inert. Even a simple inorganic crystal can be considered self-replicating under the right circumstances; smash it to bits and drop the bits into a supersaturated solution, and soon you'll have a whole bunch of crystals similar in size and nature to the original crystal growing from the various bits. This last example is, of course, way out near the "non-self-replicating" edge of the continuum, but still in the grey. Bryan Derksen

 * Okay, this is interesting, but it seems to me that it is not the Chevy Impala that is replicating, but the desire for Chevy Impalas or the idea of driving a Chevy Impala. I am still not clear what is gained by calling this "self-replicating" rather than "replicating" -- espcialy since "replicating" alone allows one to consider the social proceses through which such replication occurs.  You mention that a population of mice is self-replicating, but populations are socially interactive, so here you allow for "self" to include a social domain.  This reaises questions about what happens to dieas within social processes, and it makes me think of Bateson's Steps to an Ecology of Mind.  Also, the observation that "it might be called self-replicating in the memetic sense; if you drive your Chevy Impala around town and lots of people see it and like it and order their own from Chevy" makes it sound like you are really talking about a mimetic process, not a memetic one.

 * It strikes me that for you to rely on "memetic" rather than "mimetic," you do have to go on to say that "that Chevy Impala has in a certain sense used humans as a tool to make more copies of itself." Is this the crux of the matter?  If it is, it seems to me that it is nice poetry but the worst kind of pseudo-science, perhaps an example of commodity fetishism

 * Of course, a host of people have argued that sociobiology and memetics involves a naturalization of bourgeoise ideology (Ashley Montagu, Marshal Sahlins, Richard Lewontin) -- I am not neutral and wouldn't try to contribute to an article on memes, but perhaps at some point someone can provide the defense against these charges. Certainly, the claim that the proposition (or if you prefer meme) that "cars use people to reproduce" is in some sense "scientifically," and not just poetically, meaningful requires a bit more explanation!

 * In addition, then, I have three suggestions, given your reflections, that I think will make this and other articles more useful to a general audience.

 * 1) for this article, a clearer discussion of what is at stake in "self," and to what extent it relies on or subsumes social processes -- or possibly obscures and distorts them.

 * 2) for the obviously closely related article on memes, you seem very well-suited to make some very needed revisions, including, I suggest, a discussion of how memetics is related to/different from mimetics and also Bateson's work on ideas.

 * 3) and if you don't mind I would still appreciate an explanation of how memes are different from propositions (see my response to your earlier "ramble")

 * I appreciate your thoughtful willingness to engage my queries -- I still am not clear, but I also think your responses should not be limited to the talk page or this article; I really do hope you can use this as a basis to make some necessary revions of/expansion to the article on memes, SR

 * Well, I'll see what I can do. But keep in mind, I'm really not an expert in memetics; this whole discussion grew out of me simply adding a line merely mentioning them, since I had just finished doing the chain letters article and it occurred to me that memes should me mentioned as something that can support self-replication. I've never read Dawkins' books on the subject, or any significant papers on memetics, I've just picked up a general understanding through idle interest. This is one of the main reasons I haven't moved any of the more detailed stuff I've written here over into the main article, I have no idea what an expert would think of it. Bryan Derksen

Anyway, in the case of the Chevy Impala, I would consider it memetic replication because each of the people who bought an Impala after seeing the first one would become examples for yet more people. The spread of fashions and styles throughout a culture is one of the most commonly given examples of memetic replication I've come across. And as for the difference between memes and propositions, you're asking for more detail than I'm comfortable providing at this point. Put the question in Talk:Meme and see if someone more deeply into memetics can provide a satisfactory answer. Bryan Derksen

 * Memes do recieve scientific study, I can dig up some more references if you like (though I still think the chain letter evolution article is quite a good example all on its own. :). But even if it isn't, Wikipedia doesn't require a subject to be a "scientifically accepted theory" in order to be the subject of an article. Bryan Derksen

Prepare for extremely longwinded clarification on the nature of replicating systems and memes: Whoever mentioned the environment of the replicator was dead on. Let's look at some systems theory. We can define a system as something that exists within a domain (or environment), consists of parts that interact in various ways and has inputs and outputs. Think of a system in this sense, as a whole, greater(in effect) than the parts that it's composed of. Something that self replicates would be a type of system that causes copies of itself to come into being. Self replicators are systems that interact with their environment to copy themselves. This is described as taking advantage of some form of reproductive machinery in the article, but all replicators do this to some extent, though it is harder to spot when it is less abstract. Bacteria as a system, takes in materials and utilizing those materials, it's internal structure and the properties of chemistry, creates copies of itself. Bacteria's replication is mostly internalized, but certainly a product of it's interactions with it's environment. Viruses utilize their environment in a more obvious manner, requiring specific systems(cells) to reproduce themselves. A little bit of abstraction takes us to computer viruses. The computer is the environment and it's a complex system (with easily identifiable points of input/output and internal structure.) A computer virus would be a structure of data that creates a replicating system when the computer processes it. It clearly exists within the domain of the computer, has to have the computer to reproduce, and it relies on the laws in which the computer processes data (structure of the processor) and other interesting environmental aspects like the operating system. There is usually a human element in computer virus's self propagation too, though unintentional: downloading and executing infected files. Most(all?) computer viruses have to have human interaction to spread, it's part of their environment and thus part of the structure of the (metaphorical? though still based on paterns of interacting matter, albeit abstractly) system of replication created by the interaction of data, processor and human. Memes, therefore, would be patterns of thought within an individual that have properties that cause their reproduction in other humans. The environment of memes is the human mind and body, social networks and growing more abstractly, the physical wolrd(as it is with all replicators). Let's take an imaginary meme: drinking coke causes cancer, as shown by some scientific study. Ignore whether or not it's true. You hear this from a friend, and (s)he goes into enough detail about the study, that you decide to believe him/her. This creates the notion within you that drinking coke may cause cancer. Possessing this belief can cause the system that is your body to behave differently because the system that controls it (the mind) has just integrated a new functioning element. You stop drinking coke so much. You see your friends drinking coke, and you say "that stuff causes cancer" because you care about their wellbeing, and you explain the scientific study. A notion is created in some of their heads and the process repeats. The meme is differentiated from the proposition in that the structure of it causes it to interact with our minds in a manner that is likely to produce action on our behalf that results in the replication of the meme. It's an abstraction of the same behavior as earlier: computer viruses are data structures that cause a machine to replicate themselves because of the design of the machine, viruses are structures of molecules that cause themselves to be replicated through cells because of the laws of chemistry. Indeed, if you believe that thoughts are created by chemical reactions in the brain (which governs our behavior), you can trace memes right down to particular extremely, extremely complex patterns of chemical and physical interactions within and among humans. Anyway, a car could create a system in which it causes itself to be replicated through aesthetic->cultural->economic->physical reactions, but it's so abstract and unreliable that it'd hardly fall under the domain of what we call self-replicating systems. That's what we in the business call a bad example. Hope that clarifies some things. -J.S. Nelson

 * I'm also a little confused. To me, it seems there are two forms of self-replication described here. From my understanding, memes are self-replicating in a sense that the theoretical concept of an idea has the effect on its environment that causes it to replicate. But comparing this to a self-replicating nanobot or a virus is a little different. A virus is an entity that itself takes the initiative to gather resources from its environment in order to replicate. A "nano bot", like a (biological) virus would use a toner to do the same. Memes, however, themselves don't take the initiative, but rather the initiative for replication is done by the environment of the meme. The environment would also decide if it will or will not replicate it. A virus looking for molecular resources looks to its environment, whereas the meme is looked at by its environment. Computer viruses, when looked at from a software level, act like biological viruses, looking for resources programatically, but on a hardware level, one could argue it is similar to a meme, in that it is a set of instructions which is given its initiative from its host, the computer. Are these two types important to the classification of some concepts under "self-replication," or is there another meme related concept I'm missing that attributes initiative to "ideas?" Personally I would prefer for the article to have, at the least, a description of how there can be physical self-replication, and theoretical, because right now there's not much of a distinction. I don't mean to sound petty, but I believe there are major differences between the two. NinjaSkitch (talk) 04:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

mention self-hosted compilers ?
Should this article mention self-hosted compilers ?

It is often the case that a compiler is a "self-hosted" compiler. (Other compilers, in particular "cross-compilers", are not).

Writing (the source code for) a quine can be seen as a small introduction to writing (the source code for) a self-hosted compiler.

A Assembler (nanotechnology) is much more similar to a self-hosted compiler than any of the other things listed, in the sense that
 * Assembler designs (usually) keep the "source code" external to the physical assembler. ("broadcast architecture http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/nano4/merklePaper.html is one of the safety features recommended by the "Foresight Guidelines on Molecular Nanotechnology" http://www.foresight.org/guidelines/current.html )
 * The whole point of making the Assembler or the Compiler is *not* to make more of them, it's to make it easier to feed in other "source code" to produce other useful things.

See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SelfReproducingProgram .

empty point is self-replicating?
Noticed this point in the article - the section that talks about an 'empty program being self-replicating'.

Seems to me to be a dubious statement. Nothing is 'done', so no replication can really be said to have taken place. Yes, it's a very clever idea, but I'm fairly certain that the idea of 'replication' requires some interaction between a thing and its environment; nothingness does not create nothingness - it simply continues being nothingness, and nothing happens.

 * Well, the "empty program" example is self-replicating IMO in that you need that initial empty file in order to get the compiler to create another empty file. The key requirement is that compiling it should result in another copy of itself, though, so I don't think scripting languages are an appropriate example. And the bit about a "region of empty space" being self-replicating is right out, since regions of empty space don't replicate at all. I'll rewrite the paragraph and see how it goes. Bryan 15:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Atrribution for empty program
The article formerly said:

 * This elegant solution was apparently only first noticed by Jonathan Finn in 2002.

This is certainly not true. For example, see, which is a post from year 2000 referring to someone else having earlier observed the same thing. But the observation that an empty program is syntactically correct in many languages, and that it can stand as a trivial example of a self-reproducing program, is quite obvious, and so was probably noticed decades ago.

I have removed the reference to Jonathan Finn. -- Dominus

By which a thing may act?
The very first sentence of this entry leaves me confused. "Self-replication is the process by which a thing may act, and thereby make a copy of itself." There are a whole bunch of ways in which this could be read, but I don't think any of them are accurate. Gruber76 04:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hypothetical Self Replication concept
Hi, a hypothetical self replicating machine.. it works like this… There are several, similar 2D blocks freely moving about in 2D space… when i mean a block, it’s shape is similar to the movement of knight(horse) in the game of chess.. that is the block has the shape of the letter ‘L’….

A block when it collides with another block, interlocks with it to form a composite block, …

A Block if it collides with a composite block.. it interlocks with it to form a bigger composite block…. So in this way a composite block grows in size by attracting simple blocks to collide with it..

But at a certain condition the composite block may not have any free jutting points to interlock with the incoming simple block.. at this state it splits into two parts, so that the incoming simple block can interlock with either of the split pieces….

So here the overriding conditions are:

1. if two blocks (both either simple or composite) collide then they must either interlock or the composite block must split into two..

2. when two simple blocks collide they always interlock…

So here we have a simple block which interlocks with other simple blocks to form a composite block, and further grows in size by interlocking with more simple blocks.. and when it cannot interlock with anymore simple blocks.. it spilts into two parts.. and each of these two parts start to grow in size by interlocking until they cannot interlock anymore.. then they too split…and so on..

what say? Can i add it in the page as a hypothetical self replication example?

References for von Neumann
The best reference to obtain respecting the list of components defined by von Neumann is his lecture to the Hixon Symposium. It is within his paper that von Neumann first explicates his model, and hence the nature of components; i.e. the tape (genome) and the constructor (cell). William R. Buckley (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Any drawings of the actual physical porported device? (answer on Self-replicating machine talk please (hardware that functions, not just software self-replication please).

 * Now, you are going to get yourself into trouble. The fact that expression is of abstract or concrete form is irrelevant to its existence.  If that is the turn of your argument, then you have no argument; von Neumann was first, and the only extension of his work beyond self-replication is my work, partial construction.  Can your purported physical self-replicator function with even one of its parts missing?  William R. Buckley (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I have only one answer my fine fingered friend: Where is this phantom von Neuman Self-replicator you worship? In secret government hangar 51s where they cobble UFOs with such? Ha! He and a thousand scientists and engineers have had since the 50s to construct one, yet alas... none. What conceivable reason would one have to believe that one could have, would have or even should have, ever existed? The gentleman patented and devised his nuclear lenses immediately upon possible... but still no self-replicator. He had no excuse and did not give one. Why should you? You're just trolling around. I do you see, because mine barely made it across the finish line, at great expense mind you but made it none the less. I even had to put it back on its tracks a few times. But any good engineer knows that is easily remedied with error-correction techniques. However, be that as it may, with proper funding in development of evolution control software upon it, it's infinity status would be immediately secured. Otherwise, what use is a self-replicator that takes six or more months to replicate a barely functional copy, but when it is animated and instructed to do a trillion years of evolution in a few minutes, in the discrete software system wherein it intrinsically best resides. A big money push would make it practical. Therein is your wonder, duly thwarted only by nefarious special privileged governmental funding systems devoid of meritus purpose, easily manipulated with politicians that can't turn on a can opener, much less a computer, as Freitas and Merkle do, right into the ground. And those like you who rather see the prettiness than what the words mean or pretend such inexplicably. The woods for the trees scenario, mind you. (note to the rest of you, I'm not editing just jawing with Buckley here, feeding his little troll, as it were). chow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.11.200 (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

 * In short order, all will be able to see my self-replicating cellular automaton (for the von Neumann 29-state model of cellular automata), operating on the simulation software offered by others; my design was placed in escrow, and then demonstrated by those holding the escrow. And, to boot, those who so choose will be able to obtain the aforementioned simulation software, and upon their own computer, observe the self-replication of my configurations.  The word is, ciao!  Also, no, your not editing, and you did not address the issue of partial construction.  William R. Buckley (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Problems with the American "chow" phonetically derived spelling? I've seen it as such many places as American translation. "Chow" is American, "ciao" is Italian, "chao" Spanish (last time I looked). I still think "independency" needs coining for self-replicator nomenclature, rolls off the lips better, otherwise some politically correct Wikipedia editor might think one was planing a new declaration of independence for F-Units and come and delete you. "Independence" has come to acquire a hot political connotation. If I said my F-Units had "independence" I might garner too many politically correct (or incorrect) friends.

 * English is a very capable language, having among its virtues such open arms as to simply absorb the words of other languages, making them respectable English words. I see no requirement of mutilation that foreign words become anglo-acceptable.  William R. Buckley (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Yea? And some people prefer "free" trade rather than "fair" trade with the U.S. and friends one might think it would seem.

 * Language is "compressed" if you would... the more symbols the more "compressed" and cryptic (like Japanese with an over-abundance of symbols (characters) being too cryptic). Some writing/speaking/numbering systems don't have enough (like cave men writing on walls) and do not convey the data in detail enough at all. English seems to have a reasonable balance thereto. It is my thought that if what you have communicated arrives at the intended recipient without error you have successfully accomplished what was intended and you remain at cause as intended, however compressed, abridged, hinted or even spoken incorrectly or in lingo. After all, with words like "phone" or "turtle" English is just as prone to its useless evolutionary dunnage as any, just like DNA communication may be. That's why what is said is far more important to me than how it's said as long as how it's said is sufficient to be clearly understood. How one communicates is an aesthetic rendition, something I do with another form of communicating which is with music, lead guitar to be exact and no one gives negative commentary on how I do that, of course you may be the first. Above all this in importance is brains and the ability to provide a viable product for mankind which usually is agreed fits the bottom line in demands.

 * By the way, I invented an "on the fly" compressing language wherein what you wrote was compressed as you wrote as a specific writing skill without the errors prone to conventional shorthand. It turned most pages into a couple of lines. Nobody cared because nobody understood, much like my F-Units in the eighties and nineties (one principle fell asleep when I showcased them at CIT in the 1980s). Did you know I have an algorithm that will present loss-less compression forever, provided enough varying symbols are left available. Put all known knowledge on a 10k file... infinite bandwidth etc. I said it first: "Data does not equal mass". Hint: What do you get when you apply this to F-Unit date storage? I call the F-Unit program "Singularity" another conventional version I call "Black hole". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.11.200 (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)  CMC

 * I'm sleepy and my spell-checker seems failing, but here goes: I don't think that you have presented enough specific data to draw much conclusions on "Partial Construction" for me yet to form a valid conclusion. I will say, when I first saw it that I was annoyed that it might dilute and obscure my term "limited self-replicator" as discussed in my patent. However my term application is upon F-Units that replicate only 92% of their parts before delivered to the home (minus the coils which constitute 8% by volume). The customer snaps on the coils that are also delivered incapsulated to the home through plumbing after autonomous fabrication by slow complete self-replicating F-Units at the well guarded self-replicating factory in mass. In other words, a fast "limited self-replicator" with snap on coils is much faster to go about self-replication, sturdier (solid as rock actually) and for all practical purposes (including obviating Adrian Bowyers "RepRap") the same thing and better in practical useage (and no grey goo worrys to boot).

 * Specific data comes to those who wait (a bit patiently I should expect), but for a little time, as the project does move forward; partial construction demonstrated. The configuration is already well defined, even constructed to the initial configuration.  What remains is suitable computational resources; the simulation software will be available (as they say) soon.  William R. Buckley (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Join the club, if my resources were met in the 80s we all may have already been metal men like in Terminator II. CMC

 * Now, after my closer examination of your article (that someone seemed to have deleted portions of I think) you seem to be discussing generally what animals who lay eggs or have incomplete siblings do which is to deliver up an unfinished offspring leaving it to finish the task as ordered within its DNA or the like, sometimes helping, sometimes not... sometimes eating the offspring, there being chance is the valued thing in evolution, a form of an even more valuable generally referred to thing called stress like the opposing team in football. If you have a novel path to independent self-replication(s) via that, that is a unique, patentable man made rendition, presenting a path to useful or even pure research experimentation usages that does not simply commandeer the biological mechanisms already extant, you might have something there. But again, not enough specifics on your work there to know. Lets not get our mind off the actual goal of the valuable final product of such "self-replicators" which is serial programmable matter with error correction, accessing this power directly for man, instead of indirectly. Nothing else would be left necessary (like Spock would point out, or was that Jen-Luke le hors d'oeuvre Picard).

 * I assure you, my model is formal, not physical, and certainly not biological. I have a self-replicating cellular automaton, constructed for von Neumann 29-state cellular automata, which is able as a proto-constructor to complete the construction of itself, even as it is unable in the condition of proto-constructor to engage in self-replication.  Only after completing its configuration, by constructing it according to data contained within its external store (tape) is this configuration then able to self-replicate.  Further, it may do so (self-replicate) according to either approach, by holistic self-replication, or by partial construction, selected at its option, if you wish.  William R. Buckley (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Without seeing it and what's taking place and of what, there is still insufficient detail to garner exactly what you are up to. What is the reason for the particular emphasis on "partial" construction? ...having the "tape" for the offspring to rely on to complete itself?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.11.200 (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I should think that the utility of the tape were obvious, if only by comparison to biological organisms. As to understanding the details, why, it may be that I shall patent this work, and build those physical seeds you recognised earlier.  William R. Buckley (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Also, and remember that you heard it first spelled out here (or in my patents): What mankind will be doing for the first time (at least for man) is accessing directly the power of independent operability (or self-replication, as silly Wikipedia calls it). Whether you succeed with your configuration or believe I have or not means little in the final outcome. When evolution processes are used to evolve the device(s) the final end product will be the same of one of two outcomes: The next Big Bang or eternal utopia, all that is necessary in technology functions ever. Just different paths there depending on what's programmed in. Either one will quickly improve to optimum performance, most likely to the same configuration, being all that is necessary. Now where's my Nobel Peace price? No? Oh dear.

 * I'm not giving von Neuman the tongue lashing but just because he mathematically predicted a path to self-replication or something like it does not mean he presented enabling language as required by the patent office to get credit for an innovation. I can give you math speak as well: Board + wheels + motor = horseless carriage. They had that formula around for three thousand years before someone actually made one.

 * Neither does it mean that von Neumann failed to present enabling language. If I understand things correctly, your patent application specifically failed to address the work of von Neumann.  So, I suspect that your patent application is incomplete in some way, and that your competitors (nemeses?) might have a good bone to pick were the topic broached in contexts far afield of Wikipedia.  William R. Buckley (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

 * The problem with that, even if it was so which it isn't (if my $600.00 hr patent lawyers are right, saying it transcends the Doctrine of Equivalents), is that even if he did present enabling language, a working model in the physical, so reduced to practice such as the F-Units as seen by the patent examiner overrides all text disclosures always, in patent law. That is what Freitas and Merkle chose to ignore in their rat's nest of lies. Also, the F-Units patents is a smorgasbord of unique widgets that when one might be overrode the others will still stand, such as the trolley car means, overall characteristic form and function, nothing like Neumann's, and hundreds of other forms and functions so claimed, disclosed and reduced to practice, satisfying all the points of law, such as being completely composed, assembled, adjusted and used, achieving successful performance of process in actual physical, tangible form, completely composed (and by the way extensively marketed to two licensees under several business names).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.11.200 (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Now you can comment on my site debunking Freitas, Merkle and Lipsom and the drawings I sent you, you know, quid pro quo, you know like Devito had to say in "Throw Momma from the Train?"
 * Hey dudes! check out my music at my MySpace sites:

 * http://www.myspace.com/mechagenics
 * or:
 * http://www.myspace.com/mechagenicsband

 * The MP3 non-lossey compression crunch trashed the quality. I was going to put it on my Geo-cities site where I could upload .wav files but ran out of megabyte room ragging on Freitas and Merkle there. (yes kiddies, that's why I used Geo-cities, I know you were wondering). For unequivocal political correct results, please select from the following set {chow, ciao & chao}

 * P.S.: What is the "trouble", upon which you speak? I'm pretty much in boiling oil anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.11.200 (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Boiling in oil, are you? The trouble was clearly demonstrated in the subsequent line of text, to wit, the quality of your argument vis-à-vis lack of prior art; i.e. von Neumann.  William R. Buckley (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Let me ask you a direct technical question here. What, exactly are von Neumanns "cells" proported to be made of if ever reduced to practice and how are they manipulated if that were to come about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.11.200 (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

 * This would be proprietary information, and require Non-Disclosure and Non-Competition Agreements. William R. Buckley (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Good one. So much for fair play after I showed you mine. F-Units function when parts turn up missing on account of error correction within a discrete system which would replace them, much like discrete software does missing lines. I would hope what you are doing would include countermeasures, yes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.11.200 (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

 * You showed very limited material, and have yourself expected non-competition and non-disclosure as a condition of complete disclosure. In contrast, all of my material is published in the openly, and public literature sources, like journals, proceedings volumes, etc.  Your approach to machine self-replication is decidedly predatory (my assessment), not at all the kind of behavior you expect of others.  What you didn't say above is whether a single F-Unit can operate if its parts are missing.  My partial constructor will.  William R. Buckley (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Buckley, your comment that I am some sort of "predator" has gone too far. Further, you appear to be up to something in bad faith communicating with me. The only "predators" around here are you and the other "open source" thieves that would steal hard earned intellectual property rights. Most other emotionally stable individuals in my life find me a person who care for my fellow man and a fine friend and agree with me and don't call me a "predator" for filing a patent at the patent office, which is simply stupid. My F-Units do not have any missing parts therefore do not have need of this strange angle of approach to self-replication you allude to. The materials I gave you provide the necessary materials, and more to devise this ancient self-replicator, if you have not the talent (nor Merkle) that's your problem not mine. That is my opinion. You are taking on the color of an enemy and therefor I will not be communicating with you any more as it will serve no purpose and I don't like you at all anymore because you are not making any sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.48.125 (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Genome only life.
I would argue that one can look to programs like the Apple Worm for a fanciful example of a genome only life form. In the first section of the Self-replication article, it is said:

 * "However, the simplest possible case is that only a genome exists. Without some specification of the self-reproducing steps, a genome-only system is probably better characterized as something like a crystal."

Examples like the Apple Worm negate this contention. William R. Buckley (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Standing Waves are not Self-Replicators
I take issue with the inclusion of reference to standing waves (like that in the top-most figure) as being self-replicators. It is my contention that construction is a critical act of self-replication, and standing waves construct nothing. William R. Buckley (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I think the definition of self-replication should be reconsidered. A standing wave replicates its structure by copying its information to the nearest neighbour, if it is given the same amount of the energy and the resource it consumes. A DNA replicates its structure using the energy from the sun and the resource from the earth, but nothing is left after the end of life, except its trace. CES1596 (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of *universal* from definition attributed to von Neumann.
I will be happy to discuss in detail the removal mentioned in the section name. In point of fact, von Neumann never made the claim in any of his papers that self-replicators required universal construction, a position that has been confirmed by later researchers. What von Neumann did claim is that some constructors can construct any passive configurations (hence, some constructors cannot construct ANY passive configuration), and these he called universal constructors. William R. Buckley (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Self-replication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040920220139/http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/pdf/883Toth-Fejel.pdf to http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/pdf/883Toth-Fejel.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Self-continuation of the coexistence of non-dense matter of vacuum and dense matter of substance
Astronomers have reliably recorded the fact of an increase in the volume of space in the vacuum of space from an infinitely large number of epicenters. This gain is translated into a mathematical expression called the Linear Hubble Constant: 2.197 * 10 ^ -18 per second. But the universe is not a linear object, but a volumetric object, so it would be correct to use the Hubble Volume Constant: 6.591 * 10 ^ -18 per second.

Physicists have reliably established the fact that protons, atomic nuclei and electrons are the epicenters of electrostatics and magnetic dipoles. Neutrons are electrostatically neutral, but still magnetic dipoles.

Electrostatics and magnetism are loose matter. It is obvious that the structure of electrostatics and magnetism is built from the flows of their elementary units, elementary vortices.

Presumably, elementary vortices of electrostatics, rotating clockwise, emanating from their source (proton, nucleus of an atom), and counter-complementary elementary vortices of electrostatics, rotating counterclockwise relative to the vector of their motion, flowing to their drain (proton, nucleus of an atom), characterize electrostatics of the action sign + -.

Presumably, elementary vortices of magnetism rotating clockwise, emanating from the south magnetic pole of their source, and counterclockwise complementary elementary vortices of magnetism rotating counterclockwise relative to their vector of motion, flowing to their drain (young magnetic pole), characterize the magnetism of the sign of the action South -North.

An electrostatically neutral neutron, probably in equal proportions, emits outward elemental vortices of electrostatics rotating clockwise and rotating counterclockwise. Accordingly, the same model of equal proportion for elementary vortices of magnetism flowing to the neutron.

Probably, the chaos of streams of elementary vortices of loose matter of electrostatics and magnetism, flowing from their sources and flowing to their drains, make up the loose matter of the vacuum of space.

Since the volume of space in the vacuum of space is constantly increasing, it must be recognized that protons, atomic nuclei, electrons and neutrons are the epicenters of the birth of new elementary vortices of electrostatics and magnetism. And a very small part of the space volume of chaos of flows of elementary vortices of electrostatics and vacuum magnetism self-focusing and compacting dense matter of new atomic mass units in the form of new neutrons close to the already existing neutrons, protons, nuclei of atoms (and electrons; or electrons are constantly moving too fast and therefore they do not can be the epicenters of the creation of new antineutrons?).

From this model of the universe, it follows that in equal proportions of the Hubble Volume Constant, the volume of space of non-dense matter of vacuum and the mass of dense matter matter increase. And therefore, on average in the universe, for 1 atomic mass unit of dense matter of matter, in all epochs there are about 4-6 cubic meters of loose matter of the vacuum of space.

Consequently, the universe has always been and will always exist, equally proportionally increasing in the volume of space of the vacuum of space and the mass of matter.

[| Self-Reproduction of Matter] [| Self-Reproduction of Matter] 95.27.231.251 (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)95.27.231.251 (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Self-replication


text:
Neo-Darwinism

Neo-Darwinism is generally used to describe any integration of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection with Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics. It mostly refers to evolutionary theory from either 1895 (for the combinations of Darwin's and August Weismann's theories of evolution) or 1942 ("modern synthesis"), but it can mean any new Darwinian- and Mendelian-based theory, such as the current evolutionary theory.

Original use
Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, as published in 1859, provided a selection mechanism for evolution, but not a trait transfer mechanism. Lamarckism was still a very popular candidate for this. August Weismann and Alfred Russel Wallace rejected the Lamarckian idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics that Darwin had accepted and later expanded upon in his writings on heredity. The basis for the complete rejection of Lamarckism was Weismann's germ plasm theory. Weismann realised that the cells that produce the germ plasm, or gametes (such as sperm and eggs in animals), separate from the somatic cells that go on to make other body tissues at an early stage in development. Since he could see no obvious means of communication between the two, he asserted that the inheritance of acquired characteristics was therefore impossible; a conclusion now known as the Weismann barrier.

It is, however, usually George Romanes who is credited with the first use of the word in a scientific context. Romanes used the term to describe the combination of natural selection and Weismann's germ plasm theory that evolution occurs solely through natural selection, and not by the inheritance of acquired characteristics resulting from use or disuse, thus using the word to mean "Darwinism without Lamarckism."

Following the development, from about 1918 to 1947, of the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology, the term neo-Darwinian started to be used to refer to that contemporary evolutionary theory.

Current meaning
Biologists, however, have not limited their application of the term neo-Darwinism to the historical synthesis. For example, Ernst Mayr wrote in 1984 that:
 * The term neo-Darwinism for the synthetic theory [of the early 20th century] is sometimes considered wrong, because the term neo-Darwinism was coined by Romanes in 1895 as a designation of Weismann's theory.

Publications such as Encyclopædia Britannica use neo-Darwinism to refer to current-consensus evolutionary theory, not the version prevalent during the early 20th century. Similarly, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould have used neo-Darwinism in their writings and lectures to denote the forms of evolutionary biology that were contemporary when they were writing.

title: Neo-Darwinism