Nature and Nurture

[HydrogenBond]

There is often debate whether genetics or environment are more important with respect to what constitutes a person. I have come up with an experiment that can help isolate the affects of genetics.

 

Say we start with mice or rats. We take members of the same family and split them into two groups so genetics are sort of equally distributed. For one group, the bluebloods, we will create the ideal eco-system of plentiful food, human assistance, comfort, activities, etc. The other group, the redbloods, will be put in an eco-system that is very hostile, with limited food, maybe some preditors, rugged, sterile, etc. Under these two conditions, each group will be allowed to evolve over a few generations. The blueblood group will look healthier, less stressed, smarter, maybe even more friendlier. The redblood group will look ratty and malnurished. It may even be more aggressive, wilder, stressed, etc.

 

Next, we take half from each group and swap them. Does anyone have any opinions on what would happen?

[Ganoderma]

i personally would think that tehy would both adapt to the next groups as time goes on. i have bred many thousands of mice as have friends but i have honestly never noted behaviour...just if mom or dad eats babies.

 

with this experiment it only seems to test environment. i dont think the genetics would change much at all over a few generations. it is also said that certain strains of rodents have different behaviours. like hairless rats apperantly are not as good mothers as haired ones. this is of course from pet keepers experience and i know of no scientific proof of it.

[LJP07]

I think the result might be that that the Red Bloods might take advantage of the good environment while ruining the natural day-to-day workings of the Blue- Bloods, this might create more friction as the Red-Bloods were brought up more hostile than the Blue-Bloods, as regards the Blue-Bloods coming over to the Red-Bloods, I'm actually not sure as to what would happen there, maybe the Red-Bloods might eat the Blue-Bloods or will also be hostile.

[Eclogite]

The redblood group will look ratty and malnurished.

I suspect that many mice would be delighted to look ratty. :shrug:

[cwes99_03]

I suspect this has already been proven through domestication of animals.

[Raskolnikov]

In my opinion the nature/nurture problem is grossly overestimated. It doesn't make sense to ask whether genetics or environment are more important in making up a person because almost all interesting traits result from an interplay of genetics and environment. Moreover, the two are depend on each other to some degree (e.g., sometimes an organism's environment is a function of its genetics).

[Turtle]

In my opinion the nature/nurture problem is grossly overestimated. It doesn't make sense to ask whether genetics or environment are more important in making up a person because almost all interesting traits result from an interplay of genetics and environment. Moreover, the two are depend on each other to some degree (e.g., sometimes an organism's environment is a function of its genetics).

 

I agree; moreover, emergent properties of the two have an underestimated senseless bearing on interesting traits.

May you have an interesting life. - Old Backhanded Proverb

;)

[HydrogenBond]

In my opinion, the redbloods, would go into the new environment, with all their old baggage that stemmed from the hostile environment. They may be more aggressive, hoard food even in the land of plenty, stay stressed for fear of possible preditors, etc. Because it is a land of comfort and plenty and low stress they would gradually lower their guard until they become more like the bluebloods.

 

In the other cage, the bluebloods would immediately become fat targets for the preditors. Not being use to searching for scarce food in a hostile environment, this will skinny them down. Eventually, the body stress will kick in their instincts, allowing the remainer to become more competive in the hostile environment. Eventually, many would become fullly adjusted.

 

What would be intersting is when steady state is reached, to swap them back. The idea would be see how much faster the two groups are able to adapt to their old environment, compared to the previous group.

[InfiniteNow]

On a biological level, I presume the "redbloods" would also be more efficient at extracting the nutrition from the better food and environment, thus becoming quite strong. Contrarily, the "bluebloods" would likely become very ill and emaciated, as they were reared in an environment of abundance, and their immune systems have never had to struggle like the less privileged, nor their digestive tracts been so pressed to gain maximal benefit from each meal. :) :cup: :)

[HydrogenBond]

This imaginary experiment sort of demonstrates that although genetics started out very similar, the environment induces changes that might be mistaken for genetic specialization.

 

There may be a truth to this in that the environment may play a role in inducing the type of genes that need to be expressed to deal with the stresses within the environment. For example, a more effecient digestive system could be traced back to the DNA within the digestive system being induced to behave a little differently compared to a less efficient digestive system.

 

Another example, staying in a state of stress will eventually cause the DNA in certain cells of the brain to focus its protein output to the needs of producing higher levels of stress related chemicals.

 

What would be an interesting end to the experiment is to open up a door between the two very dissimilar environments. Would everyone head to the land of plenty, including the preditors? Would they call their original world home, but explore the other world? Would those in the land of plenty explore the land of hostility?

[Ganoderma]

it would seem logical for the starved group to go into the other side, at least eat. are you planning on trying this experiment?

[LJP07]

In my opinion the nature/nurture problem is grossly overestimated. It doesn't make sense to ask whether genetics or environment are more important in making up a person because almost all interesting traits result from an interplay of genetics and environment. Moreover, the two are depend on each other to some degree (e.g., sometimes an organism's environment is a function of its genetics).

 

True, those factors complement but the underlying fact remains under all the rubble that it's not 50:50 rather I think it's 75:25.

 

75% being Environment

25% being Genetics.

 

I think that's one of the major points in developing these experiments so people can find out what this percentage is most likely to be.

[Raskolnikov]

I think you missed my point. I'm not saying that in some rare cases genetics and the environment complement each other to create some trait; I'm saying that almost everything about an organism inextricably relies on both. In many cases it's as senseless to ask to what degree a trait depends on genetics/environment as it is to ask whether a car's engine or wheels are more important for getting down the road.

[HydrogenBond]

I don't plan to run such an experiment but if anyone would like to do it as a research project be my guest. It is a good multi-stage project that a teacher or professor could use for many different groups of students.

 

Genetics sets what possible within an organism. While environment sets was is necessary for adaptation or survival. A good analogy is, the DNA is like all the ingredients in a salad bar, with the environment helping to decide which ingredients are most benefiscial. Some ingredients are always used, such as those that rough out all the cell differentiations. But the environment will have an impact on the finished products, with the ingedients for the finished product still coming from ingredients in the salad bar. The idea of the environment altering genes is also possible, such as environmental genetic defects due to radiation. The idea of progressive alterations leading to improvements in the DNA are beyond science at this time.