There can be no conclusion drawn from the debate that whether hereditary and environment are involved in the building of the organism.
Some of the features of the organism are dependent on the environmental factors and some of the factors are related to the hereditary of the organism.
Example: The tail of the rat was cut and the next generation that was born with tail and in this case there is no role of the environmental factors on the mice.
A person has no health issues but gets affected by the nearby environment and is diseased. In this case there is no role of hereditary on the person.
So, there cannot be any conclusion of such topics. Both of the factors are equally important.
The conclusion I can come to is that human beings have not yet reached a sufficient degree of understanding to say with certainty whether heredity or the environment is primarily responsible for the human organism as a whole.
Explanation:
Psychology has always been divided into two major fields to explain man's personality: heredity and the environment.
We have our mother's green eyes, and our father's freckles, but where did we get the singing talent? Did we learn from our parents or was it predetermined by our genes? While it is clear that physical characteristics are hereditary, the genetic waters become a little muddier when it comes to individual behavior, intelligence and personality. Ultimately, the old argument of nature versus genetics was never really won. We still don't know how much of what we are is determined by our DNA and how much our life experience, but we know that both play a role.
