what makes us what we are the genes or the environment?
613414
Both. Your genetic makeup will determine a large number of factors in your makeup/development. Environment also plays a large role. If you look at the studies on identical twins, you'll see that they are extraordinarily similar for the first few years, but then start developing differences. These variations won't be physical, since those are genetic, but more behavioral.
901776
It is E\n\nThe reason: \na) Reproductive variations lead to the "better producer" making more offspring and thus leading to more chances for their offspring to reproduce.  For this one, think of gorillas...the dominant Male (silverback) will mate with the females so it is his offspring who carry the genetics into the next generation, and the other males in the group dont pass on their genes. \n\nb) There has to be some offspring that simply don't survive...this is the whole "don't interfere and let nature take its course" thing.  This means that after the "unhealthy" individuals die, the rest (on average) will be better suited to their environment.  Think of it like this... a  human family has three babies but one of them dies; the one that died may have had a defect that shouldn't have been passed on.  Since the parents had two other babies, they have replaced themselves in the population so there will not be a net loss of population when they eventually die. \n\nc) There has to be variations in the genetics of the offspring.  This is due to the fact that for us to become better suited to our environment, there has to be a change in our genetics to produce that change.  If we were exactly like our parents, no changes could occur.\n\nd) Inheritance is hugely important.  Think about it like this: If a beneficial change develops (such as opposable thumbs), what good would it be if it couldnt be passed on to the next generation?  There must be a mechanism to pass the benefit on.  \n\ne) Even though there have been many catastrophic events that have allowed for natural selection, it is not required.  A large eruption may cause the animals who can eat more diverse variety of plants to do better than ones that can't but they may be able to out-compete the other animals anyway.
993777
Those terms are for individual genes, not people. A gene is made up of a pair of alleles, one from each gamete. These alleles can be one of many variations. If the alleles are identical, the gene is homozygous.
321068
That our ethics and morals, the rules we live by in our societies, have developed specifically because they increase our survival and the survival of our children.  Those that act in a "moral" way-that do not kill others, that stay with the family to protect it, that aid others and make close freindships, are more likely to have the genes passed on, and that at least some of this attitude is genetic to begin with, so "moral" genes become predominant over time- Moral itself almost being defined as that which aids in survival of the society as a whole.
108919
Its a little of both. Genetics and envionment. Some studies have shown there is an actual homosexual gene that is passed on only through the mother (X chromosome). Even though you have the gene, doesn't make you homosexual. You need to be put in the correct enviroment. And there are epigenetic (if you don't know this word. look it up on www.wikipedia.com)factors also.
765081
It is a characteristic of the organism, made by nature.
36906
We are designed to make sure that we produce enough offspring to keep our species going. It takes a pretty big carrot on the end of the stick to willingly risk having to take on all that is required of parents.
124851
It isn't in the genes. We have a problem in the world with poor nutrtion. Obesity is on a major rise. This isn't a problem that they had 100 years ago. This is a problem that started with the rise of fast food chaines and convenience foods.
286266
Culture and society play a far more important role in shaping our personalities than genetics.\n\nLook at the change in women in the West over the last hundred years, from submissive, downtrodden chattel to emancipated, skilled leaders.  DNA wasn't responsible for that.
54641
No. Not solely both. The question is a false dichotomy with an intentionally limited number of theoretical causes, where anyone choosing only one or both of the choices given would have no induspitable idea why there was an earthquake that spawned a tsunami that killed 100s of thousands in south Asia. Or why vesuvius erupted and covered the people of Pompeii in deadly ash. Or why, if it existed, Atlantis sank. \n\nI hate to break this to some people, but the only difference between man and the rest of nature is our capacity to understand our potential impact, which does not by default prove that every other lifeform on Earth acts in the best interest of nature. We are nature. All that we have created stems from us, and from nature we were born. To separate us from nature and say that much of what we do is inherently against its design, is to create a distinction based solely on a projection of nature as infallible and perfect in its effort to create balance, even to correct itself, predicated on some concept, I suppose, of a Gaia of Eden, or somewhere, whom governs benevolently. For all anyone knows, no amount of prayer, no amount of better environmental stewardship can stop the occurence of some disasters. \n\nI do not oppose better environmental behavior. I generally agree with strict regulations to aid the environment. But I certainly think there are more theories of equal or greater rationality than the choices presented. Some of them might absolve human kind of blame for somethings. Should we not include the possibilities that we are human not only in the sense of being more responsible, but in the sense that there is a limit to what we can do and have done?
124840
Genes are nothing but biological codes which determine the characters and species of organisms, each species of organism have different genes in them so making a list of genes will give us the knowledge of species in earth, and the place this klnowled is stored is called Gene bank
355892
I am a social-cultural anthropologist and the debate between "nature vs. nurture" will always be a heated topic (well in the anthro circle lol)\n\nI believe, after studying both biology and anthropology, that there is no way to separate the development of a person's character from their environment nor can you separate the environment from a person's character.\n\nWhat we do will affect our environment, and what happens to our environment will affect us. Studies have shown, that indeed, our environment (which constitutes not just physical living quarters but our society also) has a physical affect on our bodies development.\n\n*I would like to add for the "environment only" people's responses that if indeed all that our character was based on environment alone, everyone within the same environment would have the same character. This is logically impossible. We are born with innate differences in character (innate being a very touchy word to use) that make us react differently to life. Such differences can be seen with children who have autism.*\n\nWe, of course, will continuously have an impact on our environment...so to answer your question in 1 sentence:\n\nWe can not develop the character we have without both innate physical traits or our environment present =)
523410
Ask the same question about humans: Depends on their genes, their up-bringing and their environment.
457126
it depends on your genes
762553
gene is the DNA or RNA in animals cell
793760
The genes are said to be "linked."
1010913
we all are composed of atoms molecules ,there are gases ,etc in our surroundings\nthe reactions are occuring naturally\nwe are adding pollutants that are destroying are env this all is chemistry\nthats y we know that we should include the things that stops these reactions\nwe are drinking water its nothig but a combination of elements\nits all chemistry