On Jul 30, 12:09=A0am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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
m=
ag over
> > > the shoulder of a girl. In one of those columns where the sage
journa=
list
> > > discusses problems sent in by readers, I noticed a letter from a
youn=
g 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,
prote=
ctive
> > > discussions, we got to meet.
> > > Here was a man I had never met yet unquestionably the fruit of my
loi=
ns. Of
> > > course there were similarity in looks, but I'll let genetics have
tha=
t. What
> > > genetics cannot claim is all the mannerisms, the soft voice, the
laug=
h, 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
co=
me
> > > 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.
I don't see that I'd disagree with any of that.
--
JM http://whosenose.blogspot.com
http://jesu***egesis.blogspot.com
jpdm45@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
