`   I cut the following paragraph, which misleads people about biology: :A few points are worth clarifying about ``nature`` and ``nurture``. First, ``nature`` does not reduce to anything as simple as ``present at birth``. Height is thought to depend very extensively on genetics, for example, but one is not born adult-sized; one must slowly grow up.  The problem is clear in the example: height certainly does manifest itself over time as one ages.  But insofar as height has a ``natural`` component, it is' present at birth in the genome.  It is just that whatever genes code for height do not manifest themselves immediately.  But they are there at birth.  The real problem with using height as an example of something that is ``nature`` but not immediately manifest at birth is that height is of course determined by ``nature`` and'' ``nurture,`` or, if you prefer, genes and environment.  this is the whole point of Boas's important studies on height; height is clearly highly heritable, but children of immigrants to the US had much higher average adult heights than their parents, presumably because of better nutrition in the US.  I believe nature is best understood as things that are indeed innate (present at birth) as long as we recognize that things that are present at birth genetically may manifest themselves over time.  How else are we to distinguish a physical feature like height (that heritable part of it) from physical features like scars  which appear later in life and do mark the body noticably, but which are clearly not ``natural?`` `