Charles Darwin Case

Once Charles Darwin published 'The Origin of Species' and shook academia with the theory of natural selection, greedy explorers and invaders justified their exploiting with the theory by saying that the exploited deserves to be reigned over because they were 'born to be' vulnerable and never fit the society that they are not exploiting but rather taking care of them. Were the exploited actually 'born to', meaning that their genes are to, take the lowest place of the society that there would be no chances of changing their destiny? Researches and actual cases suggest that genes are the foundation of human behavior but not immutable, rather they are subjected to be changed by the environment surrounding. There was a case of an isolate, Anna, who was kept in room for 5 years, barely taken care of under the sturdy mother who does heavy works at the farm. If gene solely determines one's behavior, Anna would inherit physical traits of her mother. But on her discovery, she showed no intelligence and was in undernourished condition. Further aids for her such as education didn't work out after all and she died early from disease. What made her feeble-minded and physically weak were not her genes half from sturdy mother, but the environment that left her alone. On the other hand, another isolate, Isabelle was also kept in her room for 6 years under the deaf-mute mother. But after discovery and treatment that went on, she was able to speak and behave like normal children even with fast progresses on communication skills, which would be impossible if the deaf-mute gene of her mother inherited to her. In those two cases, we can conclude that the genes are not definite but affected by environment.

...