3 ms·

Genomic studies are very new, yes. Modern understanding of genetics is around 184 years old (Mendel's enumeration), but trait inheritance has been understood no

Genomic studies are very new, yes. Modern understanding of genetics is around 184 years old (Mendel's enumeration), but trait inheritance has been understood non-scientifically by farmers for as long as livestock. However, scientific and pseudo-scientific approaches to "race" and "race mixing" has been around in the Americas since the 1600s (the first "miscegenation" laws). I will also state outright that genomic studies will not solve the nature vs nurture debate, because of epigenetic factors (itself a newer concept). Children whose mothers are stressed in the first two years of their life get different genetic expressions during maturation because of the exposure to more stress hormones than others. Children who do not receive a "normal" amount of attention do not themselves learn to pay attention to others as much. (This last is a fairly plausible hypothesis for the development of ADHD proffered by Gabor Maté.)

Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
>Modern understanding of genetics is around 184 years old (Mendel's enumeration) I would say observation rather than understanding. In my opionion if you can't say what genes are then you can't say you understand it. That's a very recent development. >genomic studies will not solve the nature vs nurture debate, because of epigenetic factors That needs to be studied too. But much "epigenetic" factors still require understanding the genome anyway, such as non coding RNA and histone modification. The first case is just a different use of DNA (ei. not for creating protiens) and the second is itself defined by protiens indirectly. The only exception I know is DNA methylation which is "truly" epigenetic in that it is not (or is only weakly) directed by the genome. (There can be more such genome-independant factors, I'm not sure.) So yes, understanding the genome does (mostly) settle the nature vs nurture debate. >Children whose mothers are stressed in the first two years of their life get different genetic expressions during maturation because of the exposure to more stress hormones than others. Children who do not receive a "normal" amount of attention do not themselves learn to pay attention to others as much. (This last is a fairly plausible hypothesis for the development of ADHD proffered by Gabor Maté.) These are examples of nurture. I'm not really sure what point you are making here. Gene expression is dependant on enviromental factors? That's been known for a while. Seems irrelivant to the discussion. With regard to my "inherent ability" comment, that (obviously) doesn't take the enviroment into account. For a simple example, if one's inherent ability for strength building is high, but he becomes paralyzed, he will not do well in sports. (epigenetic factors are by definition heritable, in case that's what you meant?)

Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago

>Modern understanding of genetics is around 184 years old (Mendel's enumeration) I would say observation rather than understanding. In my opionion if you can't say what genes are then you can't say you understand it. That's a very recent development. >genomic studies will not solve the nature vs nurture debate, because of epigenetic factors That needs to be studied too. But much "epigenetic" factors still require understanding the genome anyway, such as non coding RNA and histone modification. The first case is just a different use of DNA (ei. not for creating protiens) and the second is itself defined by protiens indirectly. The only exception I know is DNA methylation which is "truly" epigenetic in that it is not (or is only weakly) directed by the genome. (There can be more such genome-independant factors, I'm not sure.) So yes, understanding the genome does (mostly) settle the nature vs nurture debate. >Children whose mothers are stressed in the first two years of their life get different genetic expressions during maturation because of the exposure to more stress hormones than others. Children who do not receive a "normal" amount of attention do not themselves learn to pay attention to others as much. (This last is a fairly plausible hypothesis for the development of ADHD proffered by Gabor Maté.) These are examples of nurture. I'm not really sure what point you are making here. Gene expression is dependant on enviromental factors? That's been known for a while. Seems irrelivant to the discussion. With regard to my "inherent ability" comment, that (obviously) doesn't take the enviroment into account. For a simple example, if one's inherent ability for strength building is high, but he becomes paralyzed, he will not do well in sports. (epigenetic factors are by definition heritable, in case that's what you meant?)