The development of human being depends greatly on the enviroment and the situation the child is raised in. Though there are elements directly linked to the biological constructs, such as the existence of DNA which builds the child's body into the human form, it is not the physical aspects of the people that make them human. It is rather the psychological, linguistic, social, and emotional development that makes human human and not animal.
Point 1= You said it it depends greatly on the enviroment and situation ,elements exhistance of DNA . But the child is not what builds it into humun it is the genetic code of DNA and its hereditary developement that is already depecting this life as human and not cat ,dog, etc. comptons enclycopedia interactive thearsus
Genetically we are nothing but apes. It's only between 1 - 5.4 margin that seperates human DNA from that of a chimanzee. Chimpanzees and ourselves had shared a common ancestor six millions years ago, according to your claim our lives should be resembling our sister species's life. DNA is not what makes us human - biologically and according to DNA we are inherently animals but as I have previously explained the psychological, linguistic, social and emotional develepment that differentiates us in the way that is characteristic of humans. There is no genetic code for shedding tears and laugh, compassion and so on via genetical code, yet complex emotions are what makes us different to animals and they are not inherited via DNA.
The earliest development of a child begins with the recognition of the outer world. Usually, the mother becomes the object of observation. From there, the recognition of the self develops by understanding that the "other" is separated and different from what you are. At this level, the child would also observe themselves (such as their hand), understanding that the extended part of their body is a part of him/herself. As their body develops, their fingers become more comptent to move and hold things and the hominization process are enhanced through the child playing with objects around themselves with their hands.
Point=2development starts at conception and DNA genetic code same as refference in point 1.
Physical development is not the same as psychological, social and linguistic, please read my other posts.
The physical development as indicated above is a mere starting point of the development of a child into a human being. At this stage, the child's development is only in the level of animals. The process that follows these physical development are what makes a child develop into human and one prominent development is the ability to understand and use language as a mean of communication. Though the human brain has the capacity for languages, it is only through the interaction with those around the child that makes him/her acquire language. In this sense, though Language acquisition is made available by nature, the development of it is only possible through nurture.
POINT 3 ARGUMENT = the stage of the child's development is depected in the DNA thus making the life human not the animal stage you indicate therefore disprooving your statement.
you have actually posted a source that disapproves your own claims
Despite the fact that he could hear, Victor was taken to the National Institute of the Deaf for the purpose of study. Jean-Marc Gaspard Itard, a young medical student, took on the remarkable case as his own. He wanted to be the first person to fully civilize a wild child and attempted, primarily, to teach Victor to speak. Though initially successful ・Victor showed significant progress, at least, in understanding language and reading simple words ・he eventually slowed down to the point that Itard abandoned the experiment. The only words that Victor ever actually learned to speak were lait (milk) and Oh Dieu (oh God). Modern scholars now believe, partly by studying such feral children, that language acquisition must take place in a critical period of early childhood if it is to be successful.
genetic code was impact, yet he could not learn ・not because of defective DNA but because of the lack of human contact and the void in his development. Left in nature without social contact with humans, the feral children behave as animals when left to nothing but their DNA heritage. What makes us humans, is nurture by humans.
The emotional and psycholoical developments are also enhanced through the interaction between the child and the people around them. Just as Lacan elucidates, the psychological development of the child has greatly to do with their development in the language because people's unconscious is structured like language. In other words, it is not possible for a child to develop their unconsciousness properly without the existence of language.
Hitler sure knew how to snatch an infant child and make a detructive soilder out of him or he tried ,.....ferel children communicate with there animal peers in means of survival . this does not mean they are not human and the development and shape that exhibits these children of such can adapt to a human life style well with time but they also connect with their past as who they are.
Hitler didn't snatch children for creating of an army, but of their Aryan predisposition to create a "Perfect" race. If he were to create the army, yet again you're pointing the fact that they'd have to be nurtured to become destructive, we do not possess "Destructive" tendencies via genetical code.
Feral children communicate with animal peers but are unable to communicate with humans・et again you support my claim and not your own・ If feral children are only able to communicate with animals that obviously indicates that what makes a human a human is the nurture of other humans, not DNA. Victor and other feral children had never acquired language properly, neither had he adapted to life with humanity, rather they were on margins of it. The full adaptation is not supported by the history of feral children.
In the 13th century, King Frederick (Germany) did an experiement to see how a child would develop without being exposed to language. He would have a foster mother take care of an infant without speaking a word to them. He theorized that the child would either develop the ability to speak Hebrew (the language which he thought was the original language of the people) or to speak the parents' language. The result was disastrous because all the children that he used in the experiment died. In the 16th century, the Mogul emperor Akbar also did an experiment with infants to see if they would develop a "natural" religious faith without being in contact with people. The results were equally disastrous with children growing up to be quasi-deaf and mute for life. (McClearn 3-4)
POINT 4 ARGUMENT= a human experimenting with another human prooves the point of what realy makes one a human from the real animal so nature seems to keep in tact the human need to survive not to be experimented on by its own kind- that would be in humaneAs for the rest of the introduction Koriel- it seem that DNA prooves my points stated and reprooved as fact that development starts there and makes us human from the point of conception= Websters ebclopedia of dictionaries and copmtons interactive encyclopedia refferenes of factual information gathered
This doesn稚 make any logical sense whatsoever. Protection against human experimentation is not proven to be inherent in DNA. Many humans take part in medical trials everyday, many of these trials means that human lives can be saved. Not all medical trials are beneficial for the individual but it痴 not his/hers genetic codes that determine him/her to differentiate and be able to comply or refuse, those come down to acquired social skills.
The existence of children who were brought up in the wild without absolutely any exposure to human life or languages presents another example of how a human being needs to be nurtured properly to acquire human qualities. The child of Aveyron (later named Victor), found in the French forest in 1797 had no ability to speak or understand human language and his habits and reactions to things proved that he grew up in the wild, being nurtured by wild animals. After some intense training by Dr. Itard, he was able to learn a few words and recognize objects. However, it was impossible for him to do higher thinking, expressing himself and having emotion.
No one said nutured properly in this debate if I recall Koriel.
whether nurtured correctly or incorrectly, our psychological, social and linguistic and behavioural characteristic are not determined by DNA from 100% as you claim but to the social conditions that surrounds us - nurture of our human society.
If human beings do actually grow to be a human being naturally, the cases of feral children should have been something that would show that people DO develop naturally into human beings. However, their existence and the various examples of children who are impared by not being raised and nurtured properly shows explicitly that human beings develop through proper care and nurture.
POINT 5 ARGUMENT= AGAIN AN ANIMAL CAN AND HAS NUTURED A HUMAN AS HUMAN NUTURES ANIMAL =RARE BUT TRUE NATURE SEEM TO BE THE METHOD OF DEVELOPMENT AND SHAPE OF THE HUMAN BEING STARTING AGAIN WITH THE CONCEPTION, TIME OF AND DNA.
All the sources on feral children, including the one you posted had disproved your claims. Animal cannot raise a human as human because the animal simply does not have social and psychological structures of humans. The behaviour of the feral children stands against this, and I would recomend you find a different way to support your argument.
Edited by Koriel, 07 March 2006 - 08:08 AM.