Do you think either environment or genetics has more weight in the equation or are they equal? How does evolution account for both environment and genetics? What about Mendelian genetics is inaccurate?
Gabriella Veytsel (geminizire@hotmail.com)Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Evidence
In footnote 26 (page 190), Shenk describes the new development as scientists begin to shift away from the genetic-only model and into the gxe model. The example is that the effect of the bar-eyed genotype on eye facet number of Drosophilia is very dependent on the temperature the flies were in. Something like phenotype which is usually associated with genetics, turns out to have environmental influences as well. Thus the new formula of genes multiplied by environment. Shenk presents that “nature or nature” is not valid, instead it is believed to be a combination of genes and environment. Mendelian genetics is far too basic to be accurate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I personally agree with what Shenk has stated about the model of nature vs. nurture should be replaced with the "dynamic development" (33). Just as Shenk stated, the model of nature v. nurture is unclear because the two terms are intertwined and are not two separate concepts. Due to the unclear defining of words, I think together they have a very equal amount of weight in "forming" a person. Also, Shenk states that Mozart(Shenk 61) and Yo Yo Ma(95) are two geniuses cultivated by the result of being "nurtured" while Michael Jordan (96-97)is being affected by the demands and competition the "nature" provides. Both factors seem like they have a hefty weight in forming a person and I think these two factors are almost equal.
ReplyDeleteAs of the relation to the biological theme of evolution and environment, Charles Darwin has done a study focusing on adaptation and natural selection which proves that evolution has occurred from different environments. The Campbell gives a specific examples of the Galapagos finches and how the finches have "various beaks and behaviors are adapted to the specific foods available on their home islands" (Campbell 456). Just as these finches adapt to their environment, their shape of the beaks have gone through evolution and changed its shapes. Same thing with humans, humans have been considered the particular genus, Homo, the emergence of Homo sapiens,in the past. However, we were able to go through evolution and adapt to our environment due to something called natural selection, "a process in which individuals with certain inherited traits leave more offspring than individuals with other traits" (456). As of the evolution having account for genetics, according to an encyclopedia from Stanford University, "Evolutionary genetics is the broad field of studies that resulted from the integration of genetics and Darwinian evolution called the 'modern synthesis'" (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolutionary-genetics/). It is defined as "accounting for evolution in terms of changes in gene and genotype frequencies within population and the processes that convert the variation with populations into more or less permanent variation between species" (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolutionary-genetics/). Similar to evolution having account for environment, it also has account for genetics except instead of the term, natural selection, it is called modern synthesis.
According to an article from Discover Magazine, it states "the original Mendelian Inheritance in Man recorded no actual genes, although it described hundreds of genetic disorders" (Wheelwright). Although Mendelian genetics is not inaccurate, it is talking more about the possible genetic disorder rather than the issue of environment and genetics.
-Sally Park (sypark1029@gmail.com)