Cap'n Refsmmat Posted August 3, 2004 Posted August 3, 2004 My parents are always saying "Oh, you don't like mushrooms, you must have inherited that from your father's second cousin twice removed!" (maybe I'm exagerating... but still!) But I was led to believe that behavior like that was purely how you were brought up and your surroundings. So my parents told me that they did a test with twins, seperated at birth, to see what they liked/disliked as they grew older. SUPPOSEDLY (since I don't have any sources) the kids liked the same type of toothpaste, the same food, etc. etc. But they were seperated at birth. I don't really believe that, unless I find the research on Google. So here's the question: Is it genetic, or is it your environment? edit: Did a Google search, and I discovered that one site says that they will be different, while the other says they are remarkable alike. One says that they most often choose different careers, the other says that they choose the same with "amazing frequency". And so on.
LucidDreamer Posted August 3, 2004 Posted August 3, 2004 Here is a link on the food preference: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8300990 compulsive disorder: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15184240 sexual behavior: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15146145 behavior problems: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15123494 smoking: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15053857 intelligence: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14739695 pyschopathy: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14658743 I have to say I'm surprised. All of these studies indicate genetic influences. Most of them were studies comparing monozygotic to dizygotic though and not separations of identicals at birth. I saw a documentary once about twins who were separated at birth and they did have a lot of similarities.
LucidDreamer Posted August 3, 2004 Posted August 3, 2004 Btw I didn't handpick those articles, purely random.
Sayonara Posted August 3, 2004 Posted August 3, 2004 Why did your parents experiment on twins? Isn't that a bit unethical, separating them at birth just to make a point to you?
Ben_Phys618 Posted August 3, 2004 Posted August 3, 2004 This is a psychology debate. Nature vs Nurture, as its usually dubbed. What affects the way we behave? Is it our Genes, or is it the environment we are brought up in. The answer: Both. For a long time people believed it was one or the other, but studies show that both have an influence on our behaviour. The extent to which each has depends on the behaviour in question. Intelligence is a good example. The closeness of IQ scores of monozygotic twins separated at birth and raised in differing environments has a higher correlation than that of siblings raised in the same house, even when encouraged to read from an early age (Something which has been shown to increase IQ scores). However, other things, such as concept of pro-social behavioural concepts is more related to the environment in which we develop
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted August 3, 2004 Author Posted August 3, 2004 Why did your parents experiment on twins? Isn't that a bit unethical, separating them at birth just to make a point to you? Oops, wrong "they". The other "They". But actually, these were done easily because in the 50's, many twins were adopted off to different parents, so they grew up in entirely different places. I hate goofing up with "they".
YT2095 Posted August 3, 2004 Posted August 3, 2004 I`m a firm beleiver that traits of evolutionary significance are passed on through genes, however deciding which is which can prove to be almost Impossible! Learned traits DO have an impact on evolution, maybe you can be a better survivalist that your uncle from the SAS taught you, and then you teach your kids etc... then if during some unforseen upheavel your family survives, you`re the winner, and eventualy over millenia it`ll get adopted into your genetic makeup, SOME may just through a pure mutation fluke have this survival in then, they also would be winners that`s MY opinion on it anyway, and I`m sure it`s less than Scientific in places (I did try to keep it simple).
Sayonara Posted August 3, 2004 Posted August 3, 2004 Oops, wrong "they". The other "They". But actually, these were done easily because in the 50's, many twins were adopted off to different parents, so they grew up in entirely different places. Well, it kept me entertained for a few minutes
coquina Posted August 23, 2004 Posted August 23, 2004 I wonder if there could be more than the "nature vs nurture" controversy as regards genetics. Suppose identical twin embryos were promulgated in vitro as a result of artificial insemination, and were subsequently implanted into two different surrogate mothers. How much influence would the hormones of the two mothers affect the offspring? Another example - there has been talk of cloning a mammoth from frozen DNA and implanting it in an elephant - IF it could be carried to term without rejection, what influence would elephant hormones have on a mammath fetus?
psi20 Posted August 23, 2004 Posted August 23, 2004 I remember watching tv one time about these twins who felt the same pain at the same time. I don't mean that one twin got into a fight and got his lights punched out while the other was at home screaming in pain from the same bruises. These pains were genetic. If the result of your genes is that you have a bad feeling when you have a lot of adrenaline, then that affects your behavior. But if you were taught to kill people, that would also affect your behavior.
Glider Posted August 24, 2004 Posted August 24, 2004 The thing about the Nature, Nurture debate in behaviour is that in most cases, it's not one or the other. It's usually a mixture of both and is a question of the degree of relative influence of each.
AtomicMX Posted August 25, 2004 Posted August 25, 2004 So here's the question: Is it genetic, or is it your environment? Is both external (post birth since age of 0 to death) and genetics, for example.... I cant eat "higado" because i just spit it i cant taste it..... and so some of my mother's mom he can neither eat that.... so we dont like that food could you say, but is more a matter of chemical reactions... and genetics..... remmeber that pleasure is inflicted by senses and men search pleasure so if two people with same genetic characteristics can get to be comfortable with the same stuff because they are geneticaly similar to react pleasently to them. but i am sure that (mostly) the way of thinking is quite different....
Chem-Maniac Posted September 5, 2004 Posted September 5, 2004 Another example - there has been talk of cloning a mammoth from frozen DNA and implanting it in an elephant - IF it could be carried to term without rejection, what influence would elephant hormones have on a mammath fetus? Do you think that's possible? I mean, I could immagine the mamooth embryo being kind of bigger than the elephant embryo, the same for the further developed organism inside the placenta of the female elephant. As a result, would't the female elephant die? Also, I don't think, the embryo of the mamooth would be able to connect with the elephant since it's a diffrent species. It's like a human trying to get a monkey, would't work genetically, the whole thing is impossible!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now