On Jul 29, 8:23 pm, Just Me <mac_the_n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 4:09 pm, "Anopheles" <hi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I was eating lunch in the work cafeteria one day, reading a woman's
mag over
> > the shoulder of a girl. In one of those columns where the sage
journalist
> > discusses problems sent in by readers, I noticed a letter from a young
man
> > who was about to reach 21 and was looking for his natural parents. I
knew in
> > my heart from the brief details he gave that this was a son given up
for
> > adoption as a new born. I wrote to the mag and after a nervous,
protective
> > discussions, we got to meet.
> > Here was a man I had never met yet unquestionably the fruit of my
loins. Of
> > course there were similarity in looks, but I'll let genetics have
that. What
> > genetics cannot claim is all the mannerisms, the soft voice, the
laugh, and
> > other characteristics which mimicked the progenitor so closely. These
are
> > things I doubt are wrapped up in the double helix.
>
> > The only problem with this conclusion is, where did the influences
come
> > from?
>
> > Anopheles
>
> Genes. Genes for characteristics which are neither 'bad' nor 'good'. A
> gene determining the formation of a larynx, let alone the medullar
> equipment of gray matter for its regulation; color of eye, hair and
> complexion. However, if the cognitive neuro-science paradigm
> describing the human being as an ever so predictable, no less than
> programmable robot off the genetic assembly-line . . . if this
> deplorable theory of no dignity, no will, no soul of self-
> determination for man is to be proven right, then more than mere
> mannerisms must be shown to be hard-wired by the human genome.
>
Is it nature or nurture that makes us who we are? The question itself
is a false dichotomy;
[someone presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where
in fact other alternatives exist or can exist]
There are copious examples from human and animal behavior, which
present the notion that our environment affects the way our genes
express themselves.
The switches controlling our 30,000 or so genes not only form the
structures of our brains but do so in such a way as to cue off the
outside environment in a tidy feedback loop of body and behavior.
We have genetic "thermostats" that are turned up and down by
environmental factors.
The proof is in the pudding for such touchy subjects as monogamy,
aggression, and parenting, which we now understand have some genetic
controls.
Nevertheless, the more we understand both our genes and our instincts,
the less inevitable they seem.
Not only are nature and nurture not mutually exclusive, but genes are
designed to take their cue from nurture.
Genes are not unchanging little bits of DNA: their expression varies
throughout a person's life, often in response to environmental
stimuli.
Babies are born with genes hard-wired for sight, but if they are also
born with cataracts, the genes turn themselves off and the child will
never acquire the ability to see properly.
On the other hand, stuttering used to be ascribed solely to
environmental factors. Then stuttering was found to be clearly linked
to the Y chromosome, and evidence for genetic miswiring of areas in
the brain that manage language was uncovered. But environment still
plays a role: not everyone with the genetic disposition will grow up
to be a stutterer.
Nature Via Nurture: Genes, Experience,
and What Makes Us Human, by Matt Ridley
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060006781/
> If the boy you describe should turn out to be, upon full maturity, a
> chip off the old block even to the extent that the letters of "love
> children" from all over Australia, New Zealand and the Solomon Islands
> are appearing in magazines in search of your boy--no, not even that
> will be enough to scientifically satisfy their hackneyed "like father,
> like son" claims. They must show something of biblical pro****tion
> where "the sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons even unto the
> tenth generation" and that such profligate randiness runs genetically
> amok not only in your family but likewise with that of every other Don
> Juan and Casanova in the world, from New South Wales to Seville.
>
> And what of the alleged genetic propensity which caused John Dillinger
> to rob banks? What will they say when it is shown to be the same as
> that which produced the banking career of J. P. Morgan?
>
> They are full of ****, evil Orwellian **** of the Brave New World
> order of ****, and I'm glad to see that this **** is no news to
> you. ;-)
> --
> JMhttp://whosenose.blogspot.comhttp://jesu***egesis.blogspot.com
> jpd...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
