"Nature vs. Nurture"

An idea surfaced that there is 'evidence' suggeting that mankind is born bad.

What can support this?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

from the snivel on the wrong thread

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It was very much on-topic, Bullshiti. Hell, it references all three questions in your OP.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If they had studied the gene only in nomads, scientists would have called it beneficial. if they had studied it only in the farmers, it would be called detrimental. By studying it in both populations, the research shows that whether a gene is good or bad depends on the rest of a person's genes and the lifestyle he lives.

“Some of the variety of personalities we see in people is evolutionarily helpful or detrimental, depending on the context,” said Dan Eisenberg, an anthropology graduate student at Northwestern University who led the study. “This insight might allow us to begin to view ADHD as not just a disease but something with adaptive components.”

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/labnotes/archive/2008/06/10/good-gene-bad-gene-it-depends.aspx

 

OK

(1) What material evidence supports the existence of God?

(2) What reason do people observe the existence of God?

(3) Did mankind create God or did God create mankind?

 

How can NO be an answer to

(1) What material evidence supports the existence of God?

How can a NO on (1) affect (3)?

can i have the number to your pharmacist?

 

Bi-Shady, that was on topic.

 

And then...

Looking at thread title above...

Bullshiti is a hypocrite.

The irony here is that my post WAS on-topic, while he posts his OP from ANOTHER thread into this new one!

BWWAAAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!! What a buffoon! What a bacon-eater!

 

everybody LOVE's ME...

look up Roger Bacon.......... that be family

i am a bacon bit,

thank you very much

 

oooops.......... what about the questions?

are any interested in getting into the thread titles

or is it all about ME... ?

beginning to feel special

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

"Special" is the word that I have been using privately to refer to you. I was worried it might offend you, but since you seem to embrace it...

Now. Which thread is this? You seem to be trying to have both conversations in both threads.

The answers again, since you seem to need things repeated:

(1) No.
(2) Interplay of two evolutionary-selected brain modules.
(3) No way of ever knowing, but only morons would assume (b) in light of (1)
Nature.

 

Bishadi,

I agree with swivel; his points were on-topic.
My suggestion to begin a "Nature vs. Nurture" thread derived from the fact that this particular angle was gaining enough momentum in and of itself in that thread to warrant a new thread. Thus, we're here.

However:

I wasn't aware that you were going to make it this contextual. Given what you've written here, you're specifically concerned with the ethical implications of the 'Nature vs. Nurture' argument....
(which is fine, I just thought we were going to cover the whole gamut, not just the ethical scope..)

p.s. Bishadi: let me know if you'd like me to edit the thread title.

 

trying to stay on topic is too much for this circle jerk

fact is, even the word Momma is learned, not to mention the first meal is offered.

People are not born bad, that is a fib of religious interpretations.

I asked for evidence, even barked at the spotty moderation. Heck i forget to capitalize a line and the threads get locked.

Now i see why.

sure... call it the thread of the 'stud muffin'

and everyone can chime in about my good looks

we can all see that this section of philosophy has nothing to do with philosophy.

 

I was fascinated by that as well. What is strange is that the idea of man being "bad" is simply assumed from the very start. You would think we would first need to debate that point before going on to suppose the genesis is in our DNA or our environment.

I think the Nurture v. Nature debate can no longer be soberly waged. I enjoy the Nature via Nurture (or Nurture via Nature) arguments, but the problem remains this: The environment can only shape humans in a way that their DNA allows. Pointing to "neuronal plasticity" is simply to call attention to another product of our DNA, the ability for neurons and brains to be built in a way that allows neighboring sections to take over in the event of damage or degradation. The idea that this ability is magically imparted on the brain by the environment is ludicrous. How is such a transfer even conceptually possible?

Strain all you want, you will never see X-Rays or use echolocation to play dodgeball. You will react to your environment within the confines dictated by your DNA.

 

snivel and bullshiti?
:roflmao:

you guys are hilarious.

 

I've tried, just as others have, to reason with you.
Alas, I cannot tolerate pedantic temper tantrums and abuse of members.
This is a Warning.
One more, and you're going to receive a Temp. Ban.

 

I don't know what it is worth, but you may ignore any insult from Bullshiti directed towards me.

I usually can't understand them well enough to know that I am being insulted, so they shouldn't count.

 

But in different ways, right?

RIGHT?

 

yeah.
nevermind me. carry on!