Is it all because of our genes?
"We used to think our fate was in our stars. Now, we know, in large part, that our fate is in our genes." ---James Watson
Considering the central dogma of DNA-to-RNA-to-polypeptide, the above statement by the co-discoverer of the double helix certainly seems undeniable. From crippling diseases like Duchene's Muscular Dystrophy (a progressive muscle wasting disease) and neurofibromatosis (a dominant gene located on chromosome 17 which results in tumors growing on the nerves under the skin, causing severe disfiguration and paralysis) to the essential genes like that on chromosome 3 which codes for the light sensitive pigment, rodopsin, enabling one to see, it seems we are explicably tied to that linear sequence of nucleotides in the nucleus, that string of molecular beads of which genes are made and in whose sequential ordering resides all the genetic information an organism receives from its parents.
Even without such scientific knowledge, many do recognize that not "all men are created equal". Hopeful parents know full well despite their best of efforts that girls turn every toy into a doll and boys turn everything into a weapon; they rarely persist in believing that these differences is the result of early encouragement and training. Researchers who conduct studies on identical twins separated shortly after birth report that these people share too many similar traits, despite their contrasting backgrounds, for these to be due to coincidence alone. More recently, reports of genetic components for culturally-defined traits such as intelligence, homosexuality and even job satisfaction serve to strengthen the cause of genetic determinism. So there just is no escaping our genes, is there? I...
... middle of paper ...
...e process of development also includes many elements of chance. For example, many more motor neurons are formed than are ultimately employed, and those that fail to make the right connections subsequently die.
So, both the "nature" and "nurture" camps are right--to a certain extend. It might one day be possible to equip each member of the species with a disc telling him whether he is likely to have a weight problem, or be any good at music, whether he might have a chance at genius, or be devoutly religious. Beside every gene would be a note that reads: " This prediction is only valid if you were brought up by two middle-class, white parents in Arizona..".
Bibliography:
Campbell, Neil A. "Biology". 4th Edition. The Benjamin/ Cummings Publishing Company, Inc. 1996
Goldsmith, Timothy H. " The biological Roots of Human Nature".Oxford University Press. 1994
...s may never agree on a conclusive degree to which both nature and nurture play roles in human development, but over the years, more improved studies have shown that both are crucial aspects. With all the knowledge we are gaining from these studies, it would be quite limiting to believe that a criminal and his actions are the sole result of heredity. Even in people who do not commit crimes, genes themselves are affected by the prenatal environment. Undoubtedly, the fetus experiences changes in environment, forcing possible changes in heredity and reactionary response. We are likely to never find the answer to how much or how little either, nature or nurture, impacts our lives, but at least we can agree that they both do, in fact, have major roles. Our development is not the culmination of heredity alone, but of a tangled web of experiences and genetics entwined.
Nature does not simply determine our physical traits. In Alina Tugend’s article, “For the Best of the Best, Determination Outweighs Nature and Nurture,” Tugend explores the interaction of nature and nurture when it comes to talent. Tugend states that “’genetics influence how quickly and how well a person can master the expertise necessary to perform at world-class levels’” (Tugend 7). Nature influences our abilities or our capacity to do something. If nature can determine how quickly someone can develop a talent, then it does not play such a minimal role in our actions. Zoologist Matt Ridley argues that is nature via nurture in his article “What Makes You Who You Are.” Ridley states that “[genes] are both the cause and the consequence of our actions” (Ridley 5). Our genes and our actions are more connected than we thought. Genes can produce actions and our actions affect which genes are active in our lives. Nature greatly influences our behavior, but it is not all nature.
...hich inherited traits, such as those for genetic disease, can be tracked over generations. Throughout out the course of human development, scientists will continue to find new new ways to help the human race through the discovery of the human gene inside of each of us, its uses, as well as complications, that can help the survival of our species.
Thesis : Children’s genes should be left untouched unless there is something terribly wrong, such as a sickness or disease.
In “Reporting the News” by George C. Edwards III, Martin P. Wattenberg, and Robert L. Lineberry, the main idea is how the media determines what to air, where to get said stories that will air, how the media presents the news, and the medias effect on the general public. “Reporting The News” is a very strong and detailed article. The authors’ purpose is to inform the readers of what goes on in the news media. This can be inferred by the authors’ tone. The authors’ overall tone is critical of the topics that are covered. The tone can be determined by the authors’ strong use of transitions, specific examples, and phrases or words that indicate analysis. To summarize, first, the authors’ indicate that the media chooses its stories that will air
There are many different facets to the nature versus nurture argument that has been going on for decades. One of these, the influence of nature and nurture on gender roles and behaviors, is argued well by both Deborah Blum and Aaron Devor, both of whom believe that society plays a large role in determining gender. I, however, have a tendency to agree with Blum that biology and society both share responsibility for these behaviors. The real question is not whether gender expression is a result of nature or nurture, but how much of a role each of these plays.
Parents have the tendency to overlook how lucky they are to have had the ability to create their own children. Many do not recognize what a true blessing it is to have kids, and that others are not fortunate enough to experience that miracle. Ten percent of couples endure infertility (Advantages) so they must consider other options. A very popular choice is adoption. It is not only a good alternative for the couple, but also for the child who needs a loving home.
The world today revolves around a patriarchal society where it is a man’s world. Men are stereotyped to take jobs such as manual labor, construction, and armed forces while women are stereotyped to become nurses, caregivers, and cooks; but what makes it say that a woman can’t do manual labor or be a construction worker? Marc Breedlove, a behavioral endocrinologist at the University of California at Berkley, explains that gender roles “are too massive to be explained simply by society” (679). These gender behavior differences go far beyond our culture and into our genetics through Darwin’s theories of natural selection, survival of the fittest, and evolution.
From the moment people born, there are certain basic functions that will be with them throughout their lives. The abilities to eat, breathe, sleep, or to have the capacity to learn are a natural occurrence for most people. There are, however, traits that are specific to each individual. They are traits that set them apart from everyone else. The traits such as eye color, ones dominate hand, or susceptibility to a specific disease are a few traits that aren’t easily changed. However, there are some that are controversially questioned as to whether or not one is born with the trait or if it is a learned behavior. One of the biggest of these controversies is the question of whether sexual orientation is a choice or something that is beyond the individual’s influence. Although the evidence is commonly disregarded because of personal beliefs or opinions, sexual orientation is not a choice.
Firstly, in order to compresence the complexity of our debate, we have to take in mind the definition of nature and nurture. Yes, is true that some of our characteristics are inherited by our ancestors, most of our physical characteristics, such as hair color and type; the pigmentation of our skin, those are a product of our genes thus our DNA (Jewel, 2007).
When we say that “DNA is not destiny,” it means that what is in our DNA isn’t the end product because we can use Epigenetics to affect what genes may be turned off and on. Epigenetics “is the study of changes in gene activity that do not involve alterations to the genetic code but still get passed down to at least one successive generation” (Cloud, 2013). We can change our environment to reflect the changes in our genes. Some examples of these could include diet and exercise. This idea of Epigenetics changed the idea of genetics because it was once believed that once you had your genes you were trapped by which ones were turned off and on. The “Epigenome is sensitive to the cues from the environment” (Watters). It is the Epigenetics which
The ‘Nature versus Nurture’ argument can be traced back several millenniums ago. In 350 B.C., philosophers were asking the same question on human behaviour. Plato and Aristotle were two philosophers who each had diverse views on the matter. On the one hand, Plato believed that knowledge and behaviour were due to inherent factors, but environmental factors still played a role in the equation. Conversely, Aristotle had different views. He believed in the idea of “Tabula Rasa”- the Blank Slate theory supported the nurture side of the argument and put forward the view that everyone was born with a ‘Tabula Rasa’, Latin for ‘Blank Slate’. He proposed that “people learn and acquire ideas from external forces or the environment”. Was he right when he proposed that the mind is a blank slate and it is our experiences that write on these slates? This theory concluded that as humans, we are born with minds empty of ideas and at birth we have no knowledge or awareness of how we should behav...
Nature vs nurture debate is one of the oldest arguments in the history of psychology. It is the scientific cultural, and philosophical debate about whether human culture, behavior, and personality are caused primarily by nature or nurture. Nature and nurture are both equally important. They are the two are major influences that affect the person you grow to be and will determine what your children will be tomorrow. Nature refers to heredity, which are traits and features that are inherited from your parents and ancestors. At birth you, as a person, inherits 50% of each parent 's genetic material that are passed along through the chromosomes found in the DNA. Hair color, height, body type, and eye color are some examples of characteristics
Throughout the history of human existence, there have always been questions that have plagued man for centuries. Some of these questions are “what is the meaning of life” and “which came first, the chicken or the egg”. Within the past 400 years a new question has surfaced which takes our minds to much further levels. The question asked is whether nature or nurture has more of an impact on the growing development of people. It is a fact that a combination of nature and nurture play important roles in how humans behave socially. However, I believe that nature has a more domineering role in the development of how people behave in society with regards to sexual orientation, crimes and violence and mental disorders.