Are Genetics To Blame For Sin?

“Trying to separate out nature and nurture as explanations for behavior, as in classic genetic studies of twins and families, is now said to be both impossible and unproductive” (Levitt, 1). Social scientists have declared the nature-nurture debate to be unnecessary. Similarly, scientists feel that such debate is not only unhelpful, but also outdated. From geneticists’ perspective, nurture and nature interact to influence

The Nature versus Nurture debate has been ongoing for centuries. People have tried to gain power through knowledge in determining what causes the human “mind to tick.” For centuries leaders and scientists have performed unethical and immoral studies to determine why two people with similar genetic composition can come from similar backgrounds and turn out so differently. I have witnessed a person raised in a poor home by parents with drug addictions become a thriving contributable member of society. Unfortunately, I have also witnessed a person raised in a Christian home with a Father as a minister who ended up in prison. As we learn about the psychological and biological composition of human beings and the affecting environment, I am

When examining human development, the universal idea of conflict between nature and nurture often arises. The argument presented by the “Nature vs Nurture” debate is extremely controversial and has been discussed and critiqued for decades. “Nurture” is cited as being a combination of elements from one’s environment and experiences that shapes a person and their life, whereas “Nature” is cited as being a combination of genetic and hereditary aspects that dictates who a person is and will become. The controversy surrounding the argument most directly stems from the differences of views on whether or not nature or nurture affects a person’s life more. Historians, scientists, psychologists, and everyday philosophers have all studied this uncertainty, and many of whom have developed countless theories. Among these is the

The Origins of Morality: How Nature, Nurture, and Especially Free Will Influence One’s Moral Framework

nurture and which influences the individual more on the topics of development, intelligence, and behavior. With the genetics from parents being a great deal on how most of us believe where we came from and how our family looks alike, and acts nearly the same in some environments; to the route of how we came to be who we are due to the past experiences we’ve had and how those have benefited the individual who we are today. Both with great pro’s and con’s, it’s a tough debate that has caught lots of attention between researchers, scientists, and advocates. When it comes down to it, the genes and experiences we’ve had through our time on earth shows the individual that they may believe in nature because their genes enables their development, intelligence, and behavior to be where it’s supposed to be or it’s nurture that puts it there. It’s an individual’s choice on how and what affects the

In psychology, it has long been debated whether nature or nurture influence human behaviours more extensively. This has captured the interest of many psychologists as determining an answer can improve society. For instance, if it is proven that nurture significantly impacts human development greater than nature, we can nurture children to abstain from violence and drugs, resulting in a decrease of crime in society. Nurture refers to the environmental factors and thus the experiences and upbringing of people were studied to see how it affected their development. For example, the Zimbardo Prison Study, Harlow’s Monkey Experiments, and Genie are all exceptional examples of how nurture affects cognitive development and behaviors. Conversely, nature refers to the genetic factors that affect human development. To support this argument that genetics play a more significant role in human behaviours and development, psychologists focused on studying siblings and children. More specifically, The Boy With No Penis, the Jim siblings, and Sandra Scarr’s observations were studied to further understand the heritability of certain behavioral traits and the undeterring quality of nature. By examining these experiments and studies, a possible answer can be reached.

The ongoing debate of the topic “Nurture” is more important than “nature”, has been considered true many times throughout the world from books to real life scenarios and events, but what is our meaning of “nurture” and “nature”? The common aspect of “nurture” is where outside influences determine what we will be like society being an example, while “nature” is basically that genetics determine the outcome of how people turn out. There is an easy argument for the case of “nurture”, but just because of the argument being an easy case, is it really true? People acquire their personalities, opinions and beliefs through “nurture”, while they also inherit a much deeper meaning of quality through “nature”, being that, quality is the trait which it takes to commit murder, seek risk, or become an accountant. That is why the statement “nurture” is more important than “nature”is false.

One very important question that can be asked is if genes control behavior then is that person or being really responsible for their own actions? Nature vs Nurture can be seen all over the world, especially in the novel, Frankenstein by Mary Shelly, people and beings are definitely accountable for what they do and what they chose not to do. It is true that our genes may control some traits of our personalities but there is no denying that the experiences we live through have some major effects on our personalities as well.

The debate has been going on for years. Do we behave the way we behave because of our genes? Are our actions predetermined by our DNA? Or is our environment responsible for shaping us as human beings and is the perception of our surroundings the reason for the way we act? How much does nature influence us, and how much is nurture the primary reason for our development?

It has been argued that if genes influence behaviour and character, and we cannot choose our genes, then our behaviour is outside our control and we are not responsible. However, we take the view that genes are not deterministic, and that there is scope for an

The nature-nurture debate has been around for decades. It is one of the oldest and most popular topics in the history of psychology asking what makes people who they become and how they behave and develop the way they do. What makes the debate more interesting is that now scientists are asking if personality traits and even sexual orientation can be determined by what is in already there from conception. Bodies are built up of chromosomes which contain genetic information. Many of these are inherited from parents and relatives. The nature side of the debate states the way people are is predominantly from inherited genetics and other biological factors not so much the environmental factors. The genes humans have in their bodies play a huge role to many aspects of who they are and who they become. For example, hair colour, eye colour and height are all predetermined by genes. Unchangeable. This is natures way. The argument stands to decide whether most attributes do stem from nature, genes, or if they can be affected by the environment and the way people are nurtured as they have grown. The nurture side of the argument believes although humans do have the genes and traits with which they are born, most personality traits are being made up of environmental factors. For example, being loved and cared for as children, if parents or carers were positive role models and if those people were taught in ways which provided them with discipline and respect for others. Where nature

Our genes and genetics are what causes external traits. These genes and genetics make us who we are on the outside. We weren’t born with these traits by chance though, God took his time creating us and made us to have certain genes for a reason and a purpose. Some people blame their sins on these genes that God gave us; however, God would not have given us these genes if they would cause us to sin. The Theory Of Inheritance Of Acquired Characteristics states that whenever an organism has a certain characteristic, that characteristic will also be passed down to the offspring of that organism. However Creationists and Christians know that this theory is not true, because God has made each individual unique.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth ex nihilo (out of nothing). After God created the earth he made “the adam” out of the dust of the earth and by breathing into his nostrils made the man living. Everything God created was Good, the man was also good but only with woman was man complete. God created woman from the rib of Adam. Both Adam and his partner Eve were both placed in the Garden of Eden where they were to live and eat from, everything in the Garden except from the Tree of Knowledge, Good, and Evil. However one day a serpent came to Eve and asked made her question the command of not eating from the tree. The serpent told her that she could have knowledge and become like God if she ate from the tree. Both Adam and Eve ate from the tree and disobeyed God’s divine command. God in turn cursed the serpent as well as Adam and Eve. He told Adam that he would struggle and toil with the land and also that he will return to the dust just as he was created from it. God had to punish Adam and Eve for the disobedient act from where human corruption became apparent.

Nature versus nurture is a commonly debated topic in the scientific world. For example were all child molesters abused as children themselves or are their genes or other factors to blame for their bad decisions? Genes seem to determine much about children, such as eye color and height, but do they also determine behavior and overall health, or is the environment the children were raised in to blame? For example, when a child is misbehaving, is it the parents responsibility to take the blame for their offspring's behavior due to how they have chosen to raise their son or daughter, or is the child's genetic makeup to blame for their faults? Can a child's environment override the genes a child is born with?

Controversy arises when nature (inheritance) is combated against nurture (environment). This controversy began with the development of the behavioristic point of view. “Behaviorism arose as a protest against all form of “introspective psychology,” which was concerned with mental states such as consciousness and will”(Plomin 3). It led to an environmentalism that rejected the possibility of genetics influences on behavior. The burden of explaining individual differences fell completely to environmental factors. Genetics involve genes, which are chemical structures that control the production of proteins, thereby indirectly affecting