Mad Monkey Case Study

Evolution is a change in the characteristic of living organism through time. Modern synthesis, one of the greatest intellectual achievements of biology, could explain how mutations and natural selection could produced large-scale evolutionary change. There are 4 mechanisms for evolution to occur; mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection.
Although, there are a number of misconceptions about evolution; it does not explain the origins of life, it is not progressive, natural selection is not about the survival of the fittest individuals in a population, humans are not currently evolving, it does not make organism better designed nor does it gives organism what they need to survive. This essay will describe further, 3 common misconceptions

Advances in technology within the fields of medicine and biology have allowed researchers to investigate deepen into why humans behave the way they do. The issue that is of interest these days is the study of the “Warrior Gene.” There is debate on whether or not the Warrior Gene has an influence on an individual’s behavior and if it can be used to determine if someone will commit criminal acts. On one side you have those that claim the warrior gene can be related to aggressive and violent behavior. “In fact, humans with a low-activity form of the MAOA (Monoamine Oxidase A, or the warrior gene) gene are much more prevalent in groups with a history of warfare” (Hickey 49). The opposition claims “nature and nurture are inexplicably linked and that there is always an environmental component to human behavior” (Hickey 49). The question is, does a warrior gene make people more prone to violence? I will summarize the yes and no sides of the argument while also providing my own opinion on the

Another example Karoliszyn uses in his article on predictive policing is the idea that genetic makeup could potentially be a cause of violent behavior. He states, “In years to come, many legal experts speculate, brain scans and DNA analysis could help to identify potential criminals at the young age of three.” The warrior gene is one of the things that scientist are looking for in these DNA tests and brain scans. This gene codes for the monoamine oxidase enzyme (MAOA). In “The Warrior Gene: Epigenetic Considerations,” it talks about the actions of those with the warrior gene. “Antisocial and violent behavior may or may not be associated with psychological measures that indicate an underlying personality disorder,” states the author of “The Warrior Gene: Epigenetic

Genetics and behavior relations has been a controversial topic for several years, however, as time has passed so has the demand for proof or disproof of the relationship. One of the most important reasons for the need to define this relationship is to uncover the truths behind violent or delinquent behavior. Also, it is important that we can weed out people who make false claims that their genes are responsible for their actions in order for us to appropriately distribute penalties or treatment. Another reason is that if we do find truths to these claims we can find ways to treat these behaviors for better outcomes. Though many studies have been conducted to reveal associations, more research is yet to be done that explores all connections and detailed backgrounds of those involved in the studies. To begin validating our theories, we must use genotyping, which is the comparison of an individual’s genetic make-up through exploration of their DNA sequence then comparing it to the DNA sequence of another individual or a reference sample. Utilizing genotyping, we are able to view the alleles an individual inherited from their parents (slide 4).

According to psychopathologist Kevin Dutton, the gene is more or less like a trigger for psychopathy. If a person suffered a depressive or dark childhood, they may grow up in spite for their childhood (Szalavitz). This trigger is where environment and genetics coincide with each other. If the environment probes a situation, then the gene triggers. This intellectual claim is what ties this all together. Genetics are a faster way of causing

A much discussed gene in the field of genetic psychology is the MAOA gene which encodes the MAO-A enzyme. Monoamine oxidase A is an enzyme that can degrade amine neurotransmitters, such as dopamine, norepinephrine and serotonin. Several variants of the gene are seen in humans due to different combinations of the alleles that make it up. MAOA-L, a variant of the gene linked with aggressive and violent behaviour - predominantly amongst men - has earned itself the nickname ‘the warrior gene’ and is cited as a cause for antisocial behavioural tendencies. Following the large extent of research around the gene and its translation onto peoples’ behaviour, the presence of the gene has been argued in court as a grounding for defence in situations where

In 1925, the Scopes "Monkey" Trial captured national interest and the infamous moniker "Trial of the Century" due to William Jennings Bryan serving as part of the prosecution and Clarence Darrow serving as defense counsel to John Scopes with the social divide between science and religion serving as the backdrop, a controversy that has persisted to the modern day. William Jennings Bryan(henceforth Bryan) was well-known to the American people for his political involvement with the Democrat party and his passionate speeches as a Presbyterian. In contrast, Clarence Darrow(henceforth Darrow) was well known for his work as an attorney regarding labor law issues and his work as a defense attorney during the Franks murder trial, a trial that was also called the "Trial of the Century", where he defended Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb. Between the involvement of these two titanic public figures, the social divide between science and religion only served to stoke the flames of public interest even further. In order to understand why the Scopes “Monkey” Trial was given the infamous moniker “Trial of the Century” and why it captured national interest, I have to discuss the historical context of society's belief

In what he called the ‘survival of the fittest’, Darwin suggested that through the process of natural selection animals with particular characteristics, as a result of possessing advantageous alleles, will survive. However, those with maladaptive genes cannot adapt to changes in environmental conditions, so will die or become extinct. Dowling (1994) stated that this process depends on three principles: species diversity, interaction and the spread of a species as a result of differential amplification. Sexual selection is another component of Darwin’s research, which explains the best strategies adopted for passing on genes to offspring. Moreover, there are problems with Darwin’s theory such as his attempts to generalise animal behaviour to the way in which humans interact in their environment. However, he has presented compelling evidence which is very scientific in its approach and methodology. Furthermore, contrary to Darwin’s evolutionary idea of survival of an individual, Dawkins (1976) suggested that the survival of the genes is more important.

After Charles Darwin published his book “On the origins of species” in 1859, evolution became a hot topic of discussion; the notion of the human race improving itself by selective breeding started to spread (Winfield, 2012). For years

A study in the Psychology of Violence. Psychologists can agree that there are three main ingredients, discovered by Jim Fallon, that can lead to a psychopathic killer. The first is genetics, any combination of the ten high-risk genes associated with violence. One of these genes known especially to be linked to serial killers is the MAO-A gene, the major violence gene that leads to too much brain serotonin during development. This has a negative effect because when

While there seems to be much evidence supporting the negative impact these genes can have, it is notable to include that these genes are not “genes for violence,” but, as once combined with other factors, for example, one's environment, does make it harder to control violent urges. Learned restraint is discussed by Levitt as he finds that, except in the case of extreme insanity, one cannot claim to be forced to act in such as way. As someone matures, they develop some sense of restraint and the difference between right and

Psychologists that create theories, usually through this objective viewpoint, seek to explain these aggressive behaviors displayed within Zimbardo’s prison environment often through biological explanations. Biological and social topics such as “gene by environment interactions”, as explained by Stoff and Susman (2005), aim to target particular genes within species of rat and monkey, and once having been able to target the suspected genes, place these animals within differing social environments to see how these animals develop socially. They found that the animals raised within poor social environments showed the predicted signs of aggression, even showing signs of psychopathy, while the animals in healthy social environments developed with

An estimated heritability rate of 40-50% was found in retrospective reports. Plus, a considerable amount of evidence of prospective reports showed 40-70% of heritability rate in genetic influence in boys and girls with symptoms of conduct disorder (Dick et al. 2011). Genes contribute to half of the variance in antisocial behavior, and the other half is distributed to the non-shared environment (J. C. Barnes and Bruce A. Jacobs,2013) Molecular genetics has already produced a plethora of insights into these links. For example, certain genetic polymorphisms have been associated with various antisocial behaviors such as ADHD, childhood conduct disorder, and adulthood violent

Similarly, Blair (2006) has acknowledged the possibility that there is a genetic factor that predisposes individuals with psychopathy to develop antisocial behavior. While he argues that it is unlikely that a genetic factor causes antisocial behavior, genetics are recognized as a possible moderating factor in the expression of antisocial behavior. More specifically, it is argued that when individuals with certain genetic predispositions are placed in stressful environments, genetics may play a role in determining the probability that those individuals will learn an antisocial, rather than socially acceptable, method of achieving their goals (Blair 2006).

Is how aggressive an individual is determined only by his or her genes? Whether psychological and behavioral traits are purely determined by genetics, solely influenced by socialization, or a combination of both has been a highly debated topic within the field of psychology known as the “nature-nurture issue.” Today, although still disputed, a good number of psychologists and other scientists concur that genetics and the environment mutually influence and intermingle with one another (Myers, 2015). We can partially credit this fizzling-out of the nature-nurture debate to the discoveries made in twin studies. Twin studies are used to help delineate the genetic components of behavior and the socially and culturally influenced components (Myers, 2015). This type of study enables researchers to examine the extent to which genetics and environment have an effect on the development of traits and behavior. For example, in lecture, we learned that a common and natural experiment used in twin studies is to examine a set of twins who grew up in the same household and a set twins who grew up in separate households (K.W. Brown, personal communication, August 29, 2017).