Murder on the development express: who killed nature/nurture?

The differential view of genotype–phenotype relationships

“…In summary, the classical genetic reductionist approach is inherently unable to elucidate all the factors responsible for observable characteristics in the living world ( Stotz, 2012 ) but is a powerful and relevant method for dissecting the genetic levers of heritable phenotypic variation. Focusing on phenotypic variation between individuals rather than on absolute characters present in single organisms is key to better comprehend the genetic causes of phenotypic diversity.…”

The Developmental Systems Approach and the Analysis of Behavior

“…So, as Lickliter (2009) has put it, "Whereas most accounts of development and evolution embraced by 20thcentury biologists and psychologists focused on partitioning the organism's phenotypic traits among those that are genetically determined and those that are produced by the environment, the remarkable findings now available from epigenetics demonstrate that no such partitioning is possible, even in principle" (p. 144). Instead, it now appears that nature and nurture can never be partitioned (Lickliter, 2009) or treated as independent contributors to development (Lewkowicz, 2011;Overton, 2006;Stotz, 2012). Furthermore, it now appears that DNA and non-genetic factors share causal parity (Griffiths & Tabery, 2013;Oyama, 1985), and therefore, that an organism's phenotypes cannot be predicted prior to development simply by looking at that organism's genome (Gottlieb, 1991a(Gottlieb, , 1992(Gottlieb, , 1998(Gottlieb, , 2007.…”

“…Emerging from work in developmental psychology (Thelen & Smith, 1994), philosophy of science (Griffiths & Gray, 1994), developmental biology (Gilbert, 1992;Nijhout, 1990), and interdisciplinary fields related to these subjects (Michel & Moore, 1995), this approach grew out of ideas that had been advanced in earlier decades (e.g., by Kuo, 1967;Lehrman, 1953;Schneirla, 1957) and was initially called "Developmental Systems Theory;" it has sometimes been known by its acronym, DST (Ford & Lerner, 1992;Griffiths & Gray, 1994;Griffiths & Tabery, 2013;Johnston, 2010;Johnston & Lickliter, 2009;Oyama, Griffiths, & Gray 2001). By the early 1990s, features they do in part because of those very organisms' behaviors (Lewontin, 2000), all forms of DST reject as inherently flawed the traditional view that nature and nurture can contribute in independent ways to development (Lewkowicz, 2011;Overton, 2006;Stotz, 2012). Developmental systems theorists in psychology, philosophy, and biology have focused on different kinds of phenomena or have advocated the use of different kinds of methods, but they all share these overarching perspectives on the developmental origins of behaviors and other biological phenotypes.…”