Decreased variation leads to a reduced ability to respond to a changing environment. Darwin developed three kinds of theory of natural selection. Those are struggle for existence, variation and role of the environment. Survive of the fittest is the result of differences in rates of survival and reproduction. Darwin reasoned that natural selection could eventually cause isolated populations of the same species to becme separate species as they adopted to their different enviroments.
Is it intelligence that determines the animal’s self-worth and right to live, or is it that animals may possess the same if not identical Neuroanatomy of humans? Suzuki’s primary question examines if the rational behind animal testing is that these animals are dissimilar to human beings; therefore, pain can be inflicted upon these animals without guilt. Suzuki purposes, whether or not the animals need be so close to the human species for the results to be meaningful; Suzuki furthers this inquiry, through his demonstration of logos and ethos. When Suzuki explains the research he has conducted on fruit flies as an alternative to the more commonly used mammals;
Lewin’s theory suggests infection, trauma, and genetic diseases should be left untreated in order to help the human body fight and respond naturally; doctors should only intervene if necessary. Lewin also states that these symptoms may not be what they seem. Instead of viewing symptoms such as coughs, fevers, and illnesses as a weakness to the human body, Darwinian medicine sees them as a method of evolving. The Darwinian medicine process would allow the body to become stronger and more adaptive to toxins and harmful infections without the help of modern medicine. It is possible that the human body has a natural defense and can heal naturally from infection, trauma, and genetic diseases.
People will now judge you based on your genes. However, ethical issues arise as to how this kind of breakthrough would help genetic discrimination. Examples of
Studies believe that sex refers to the genitals, musculature, body shapes and hormones. Furthermore, we could also imply that sex is culturally constructed; essentially any form of phenomenon constructed can vary from culture to culture. Sex is believed to be the natural bodies, which can be divided into sexes without culture. Therefore, sex doesn’t genuinely dictate gender, but gender itself is the main cause why it is possible for biologist/scientist to identify a person’s sex. Gender is socially constructed, which doesn’t necessarily signify that females and males are the same nor does their culture makes them different.
Adaptations, which are driven by natural selection, are features especially important for an animal’s survival. It is believed by evolutionary psychologists that many psychological functions are adaptations. As altruism per definition decreases the fitness of individuals, genes influencing altruistic behavior should be less likely to be passed on to the next generation Altruism has posed a challenge to evolutionary theory. There have nevertheless been efforts to explain this behaviour from a biological point of view. In 1964, Hamilton introduced the concept inclusive fitness.
Running head: NATURE VS NURTURE: TWO STUDIES Nature vs Nurture: Two Studies Lesli A. Hill Western Governors University Nature vs Nurture: Two Studies Almost since the beginning of time, humans have tried to figure out why we are the way we are. Are our traits the result of our genetics, or our living situation? This question is the crux of the raging debate called “nature versus nurture.” The nature vs. nurture debate is all about determining whether we are shaped more by heredity or environment, and it has been applied to everything from intelligence to disease processes to sexual orientation. Proponents of the nature theory believe that we are destined have certain qualities because they are pre-programmed into our DNA, while supporters of the nurture theory believe that we learn our
Socio- biologists argue that biology, meaning our genetic make up; shapes the behavior of the individual and in turn also determines social in-equalities such as gender inequalities present in society. Socio- biologists believe that the sex a person is born, categorizes them into the way society will perceive and treat them, this theory is known as biological determinism(O’ Shaughnessy and Stadler, 2006). Socio- constructionists believe however that ‘gender is a social distinction between men and women (Germov & Poole, 2007) and you are not born a woman or a man but rather female or male and develop into either a woman or a man due to society and its structures .Social ideologies such as gender hierarchy, culture, order and institutions are said to contribute to gender inequality, not the sex of the person as thought by socio-biologists. Prior to the feminist movement in Australia in the 1970’s, the word ‘gender’ did not exist; there was very much a socio-biologists view present in society at this time. This meant there was great masses of gender inequality present in Australia, males and females role’s in society were given to them based on a whole range of other differences: ‘bodily strength and speed, physical skills (men have mechanical skills and women are good at homemaking work i.e.
Nature vs. Nurture Nature vs. nurture is a debate that has been going on for a long time. One argument that falls under this debate is the cause of aggressive behavior. It may be safe to say that there is not one cause of aggressiveness but many that are put together that encourage this behavior. A person may be predisposition to aggressive behavior but studies lead us to believe that there must be an environmental factor that brings out the behavior. Nature refers to the biological factors that influence ones behavior.
It is hard to find the behavior which comes from nature since environment has a strong effect on human behavior. However, I think some of sexual orientation such as gay can be consider as nature. Nature theory of human behavior can only apply to this case if this person was born that way. This is one of the most debated issues pertaining to the nature theory pointing to a genetic component to sexual orientation. References James , H. ( 2013).