It has long been known that certain physical characteristics are biologically determined by genetic inheritance. Colour of eyes, straight or curly hair, pigmentation of the skin and certain diseases are all a function of the genes we inherit. Other physical characteristics, if not determined, appear to be at least strongly influenced by the genetic make-up of our biological parents. Other than physical characteristics, many people believe than how we grow and develop is down to what we inherit from our parents, but this is disputed by other people who believe that the way children develop is in fact down to the environment in which they live. The two conflicting sides know this argument as the Nature VS Nurture debate. Nature versus nurture simply is the theory of how children’s growth, development and learning are influenced by either: Nature (The effect of inherited factors/genes)
Nurture (Environmental factors)
The nature versus nature debate is about how much and in what way either nature and/or nurture affect the process of development. The idea that nature affects the process of development was first brought up in 1869 by a man named Francis Galton. He believed that intelligence was inherited through you parents and that all you other skills are passed on down the generations and they believe that nurture cannot alter the level of intelligence you have gotten from your genes. However, a lot of theorists who support the nature over nurture debate would acknowledge that nurture could affect just how they may reach their full intelligence potential level. The idea that nurture affects the process of development was brought up in the 1690’s by a man named John Locke. This man believed that our environment and early childhood experiences shape our minds into how they are. There is a lot of evidence supporting both sides so it is not clear as to which side of the debate is the right one, but it is highly suggested by many...