Nature vs Nuture question

[Number Six]

I'm thinking about geneitc vs environmental and I'm wondering how we can tell the two apart. After all, as soon as a genetic entity exists it is exposed to an environment that can influence/change the genes via mutations.

Also, I've read that even stuff like certain conditions in the womb make certain characteristics more likely, although whether that is done via genetic mutations or something else is unclear to me.

Consider this...a child is born and you can sample its genetic code...how can we tell that that genetic code is identical to when it was first conceived? Maybe environmental conditions in the womb changed it.

[cajela]

Mutations aren't really the issue. The code whould remain pretty much the same. What is much more relevant is the chemical environment, as that will trigger certain genes to be turned on or off.

[Art Vandelay]

My position is that one can't truly separate them, but for a different reason. If a baby gets hit by a stray bullet the day after being born, genes aren't going to have much effect, now are they? And if you take a baby mouse, chances are that it's not going to graduate from Harvard, no matter what environment it is raised in. No gene is capable of creating a healthy individual; all a gene is is instruction on how to interact with the environment; without the right environment, the organism will die. And virtually no environment is capable of creating a healthy individual by itself, either; that would be abiogenesis, and that hardly happens on a daily basis. When someone says that something is nature, what they mean is that the proper nurture is so common that we only need look at the nature; conversely, when someone says that something is nurture, what they really mean is that the proper nature is so common that we need only look at the nurture.

[Soapy Sam]

Number Six.
Did you see Matt Ridley's latest book., "Nature via Nurture"?

Interesting read on this subject. Pinker's "The Blank Slate" is good too, but harder to follow.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

As I recall this movie had a definite opinion on the subject:
The Bad Seed (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048977/)

[CBL4]

Also, I've read that even stuff like certain conditions in the womb make certain characteristics more likely, although whether that is done via genetic mutations or something else is unclear to me. This is the thing that will make nurture vs. nature arguments incredibly difficult. The environment of the womb is probably more important than all other environmental factors combined.

If certain genes have a strong non-genetic correspondence with certain womb characteristics, it is virtually impossible to distinguish the genetic aspect from the environmental aspects.

For example, blacks in the US are poorer. Let's assume that this causes the mother tend to eat less well. Poor nourishment in the womb might cause a higher propensity for disease X.

The genes for blackness would have a high correspondence with disease X. At first glance, it would appear that they cause a propensity for disease X but in reality, poverty and poor nourishment are the cause which is due to societal issues.

CBL

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
When someone says that something is nature, what they mean is that the proper nurture is so common that we only need look at the nature; conversely, when someone says that something is nurture, what they really mean is that the proper nature is so common that we need only look at the nurture.

More often, when someone says something is "nature," they usually don't mean that the proper nurture is universal. Instead, they usually mean that the something -- which is almost always a problem for someone -- is inherent and unfixable. For example, blacks have lower average IQs than whites (in the United States). Strong proponents of "nature" (e.g. Murray and Herrnstein, _The Bell Curve_) argue that it's a genetic propensity, and that there's not only nothing we should do about it, but that there's nothing we can do about it. In other words, by declaring it "nature," they've absolved society, collectively, of responsibiility for giving minorities a proper chance for educational advancement, because it's just "natural" for them to be dumb.

On the other side of the political fence, a lot of gay-rights activists are claiming that homosexuality is "nature," a genetic propensity, and that there's not only nothing we should do about it, but that theres's nothing we can do about it. (See the similarities?) If sexual preference is indeed "nature," then it's as unfair to judge homosexuals negatively (or to deprive them of opportunities) as it is to judge redheads, or short people, or the congenitally blue-eyed.

The main spot where the nature/nurture debate comes out the most strongly is exactly in areas where "universality" cannot be assumed; the people claiming that IQ is "nature" are not saying that everyone gets sufficient prenatal nutrition, but that it doesn't matter if they don't.

The real irony, of course, is that both positions are utterly and completely wrong. Genes ("nature") are expressed only through transcription and the creation of proteins. If conditions are wrong for the creation of a particular protein, then it won't be created, despite what your genes might want. There's a specific species of lizard, for example, where the temperature at which the eggs develop has a strong effect on the sex of the baby lizard. At one temperature range, all the eggs become female. At another, all become male. In between, there is a range where sex is genetically determined (as in humans). In this case "nurture" provides an environment in which "nature" may or may not have an opportunity to express itself.

Similar effects can be observed in humans; a person born with the appropriate genetic disorder may be sensitive to certain foods. If s/he eats enough of them, it causes severe cognitive damage. But if s/he doesn't eat those foods, there's no apparent effect. In this case, "nature" and "nurture" have demonstrably equal effect. How can a case for primacy be made?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by CBL4
This is the thing that will make nurture vs. nature arguments incredibly difficult. The environment of the womb is probably more important than all other environmental factors combined.


Care to state that environment in the womb is not "nature" (i.e. bad, or good, heredity)?

[CBL4]

Originally posted by hammegk
Care to state that environment in the womb is not "nature" (i.e. bad, or good, heredity)? Clearly the womb environment is affected by the genes of the mother, the genes of the embryo and the environment/behavior of the mother. In my post, I was only talking about environment/bahavior of the mother.

I do not think I implied that genes had no effect on the womb environment. If I inadvertently did so, I thank you for the opportunity to correct myself.

Actually, thinking about both the mother's and child's genes just complicates the whole issue. A child may be affected by genes (his mothers) that he may not posses. The womb issue also shows another instance in which a gene may be beneficial if received from a father but not from a mother (or visa versa).

If I had to change my career choics, I think I would have gone into genetic study. The trickiness of genes and heredity is fascinating. I would love to be involved in the mathematical oriented research that is now going on.

CBL