Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh
Again, prove it. The development of the brain has many factors, starting with the mom's diet during the pregnancy and going on with what kind of toys the baby had. Genes are only part of it. Just because some characteristics have - like, say, a gift for numbers - have no clear source doesn't mean they're determined entirely by genes. Many people know who Pierre and Mary Curie were. Who can name their kids off the top of their heads?
I didn't say genes play no part. I said Dully staked too much on them, and that what kind of person someone is, rather than what genetic code he or she has, is what should be looked at. And that the Destiny Plan should first have been tested in a way that didn't cost so much, and wouldn't have had such terrible consequences if it turned out to be rubbish.
You're making the extraordinary claim here , that genes determine us to such an extent one can choose jobs based solely on the one's genotype.
Ever heard of that female ski champion who, decades after the fact, got disqualified because she turned out to have XY chromosomes, but due to some kind of accident during foetal development grew up as a girl? Genes can't even safely determine our genders and we're supposed to trust them to say who should do what? Who will be the leaders?
The fact we have criminals at all show the limits of society's control over individuals. Doubly so for repeat offenders.
|
Eating right won't stop your baby from developing down syndrom. Eating write ensure your body has the resources it needs to survive, how your body manages those resources are genetic. Let's say you're a born diabetic, no matter how much sugar you eat, your body won't be able to produce the insulin to absorb the sugar. But let's say you're perfectly healthy, you're body will be able to given that your intake meets the recommended amounts.
How about you prove to me how it's not genetic. The ability to learn, retardation, learning handicaps. And how genuis is any different from the genetics of that just in the opposite manner.
Prove to me that a person with no genetic ability to do something can still do it if they have the "poper" nuturing.
I'm not saying that nuture takes no part either. I'm saying is that given equal environments, genetics will determine who's the superior.
The idea stems from natural selection and evolution. Those that are best genetically suited for the environment which they live in will thive, while those least suited will parish. Therefore, if you are genetically suited for a job (environment of a specific work nature) you will thrive, while people less genetically suited will not.
Gene's can determine you gender, they can also determine the mutations in phenotype. Like you said, she was genetically male. The problem is that her genes were also defective and so the expression of the gene to make into a male were suppressed and thus she stayed phenotypically female. It has to do the end part of the Y chromosome. All babies are female to begin with, they only start expressing male traits when the DNA is traslated into an enzyme which causes a chemical change resulting in the expression fo male traits. So all you're telling me is that that person was genetically defective.
Your example has no bearing over nature vs nuture since the definition which you define as "boy" or "girl" are social behavioral cues. We already allow genes to determine our leaders. The best and the brighests. Strong, good looking, intellegent. If you're going to put George Bush as a counter argument to this it's neither nature or nuture. It's money and control. Bush has the support of those with the most power to manipulate the vote. Systems. Power to manipulate the environment in which we live.
The fact that we have criminals show us that we do not exert enough control in order to deal with such behavior before it starts. I was once told of a society in tranlviania where you could put an dollar bill on the side of the town well and come back a month later and it would still be there. Why? Order in that city was so absolulte that no one dared to steal it. That a child is disobediant and out of countrol does not mean you're disciplining him too much, it's that you're not doing it properly and/or you don't discipline him enough. Control is not absolute that is why we have crime, because you have feedoms that is why you have war, hate and crime.