Simply put the argument of Nature versus Nurture in regards to human development is an argument about who someone is versus where they are. The sources of development attributed to nature find their origins in the theory of evolution, natural selection and biology. This is so, because over time a species survival is dependent on the ability to provide solutions to serious threats. These solutions translate into adaptations that are inheritable and can be seen in instinctive actions. These adaptations place the limits on developmental capabilities (Burger, 2011). Whilst on the opposite side of the axis are the sources of development not to be considered biological, these sources are referred to as nurture. With development compassing every
…show more content…
While investigating items that could be found to have clearly delineative lines between nature and nurture Crews (1993) discusses findings that show enhanced performance in earlier life often occurs at the expense of organ durability in later life. This is further support that life is continues and connected, what happens in early life will transcend and leave traces of existence in later life. While focusing primarily on the post-reproductive stages of human life, Crews (1993) notes that osteoporosis is a common condition for both men and women. Crews believes that issues leading to bone loss are often attributed to, sedentary lifestyles, where people ride more and walk less. In addition to stagnation on average men and women above the age of 65 are getting less than two thirds of their recommended daily allowance of the vitamins and minerals essential for bone health. In addition to these examples Crews explains how both generally older organs do not differ from younger organs at rest, both retaining the ability to maintain homeostasis. However, when exposed to stresses such as weather changes or hypoxia, the older systems respond significantly slower, as well as not as much. This refers to the idea that in order to maintain performance stable environments are more critical …show more content…
While focusing on the situation where nature prospers over nurture Crews (1993) believes the situations are most observable during digression due to individual differences. These differences are seldom researchable in individuals and require groups with some similarity begin evaluation. One of the smaller studies Crew (1993) annotated was that of Amish families, Crews discovered that men who were missing the long arm of the Y chromosome lived, on average, until they were 82.3 years old. This lifespan is approximately 15% longer than their peers with the normal Y chromosome and 6% longer than the women within the community. This was only able to show significance because the nurture variable was similar enough between the families in the Amish community to allow for clear investigation of the chromosomal difference. Moving into larger group work, Crew found that women suffer less issues with low density lipoproteins (LDL) cholesterol levels, in part due to estrogen acting as a lowering agent, while the male hormone androgen, increases LDL levels. Because LDL cholesterol is influence by a number of factors, including weight (which has been found to be close to equal parts nature and nurture (Larson, & Buss, 2008)) the only way that Nature would be able to provide a majority influence if where the nurture conditions were identical. In concurrence with Lerner et al.
While investigating items that could be found to have clearly delineative lines between nature and nurture Crews (1993) discusses findings that show enhanced performance in earlier life often occurs at the expense of organ durability in later life. This is further support that life is continues and connected, what happens in early life will transcend and leave traces of existence in later life. While focusing primarily on the post-reproductive stages of human life, Crews (1993) notes that osteoporosis is a common condition for both men and women. Crews believes that issues leading to bone loss are often attributed to, sedentary lifestyles, where people ride more and walk less. In addition to stagnation on average men and women above the age of 65 are getting less than two thirds of their recommended daily allowance of the vitamins and minerals essential for bone health. In addition to these examples Crews explains how both generally older organs do not differ from younger organs at rest, both retaining the ability to maintain homeostasis. However, when exposed to stresses such as weather changes or hypoxia, the older systems respond significantly slower, as well as not as much. This refers to the idea that in order to maintain performance stable environments are more critical …show more content…
While focusing on the situation where nature prospers over nurture Crews (1993) believes the situations are most observable during digression due to individual differences. These differences are seldom researchable in individuals and require groups with some similarity begin evaluation. One of the smaller studies Crew (1993) annotated was that of Amish families, Crews discovered that men who were missing the long arm of the Y chromosome lived, on average, until they were 82.3 years old. This lifespan is approximately 15% longer than their peers with the normal Y chromosome and 6% longer than the women within the community. This was only able to show significance because the nurture variable was similar enough between the families in the Amish community to allow for clear investigation of the chromosomal difference. Moving into larger group work, Crew found that women suffer less issues with low density lipoproteins (LDL) cholesterol levels, in part due to estrogen acting as a lowering agent, while the male hormone androgen, increases LDL levels. Because LDL cholesterol is influence by a number of factors, including weight (which has been found to be close to equal parts nature and nurture (Larson, & Buss, 2008)) the only way that Nature would be able to provide a majority influence if where the nurture conditions were identical. In concurrence with Lerner et al.