By: Valdemir Mota de Menezes
When I read something about scientists believe ... are convinced that ... is likely to ... there is evidence that ... There is a general consensus that ... This kind of language leads us to only one conclusion. Do not know and can prove that scientists use these terms mean who still browse the field of speculation. In the field of genetics has made great strides, but we're still only in its infancy. The large icon of the Theory of Evolution, Charles Darwin either had any notion of cells. What personality characteristics and psychological are transmitted to offspring is still a big unknown. Opinions are divided, but we usually hear about natural leader and leader by levy without any talent to lead. Would have thousands of examples of leaders who followed his father's path, because in all the realms, the direct heir has the right to succession to the throne. However I see that all countries with democratic regimes, some families perpetuate themselves in power for long generations. Recently in the United States had father and son succeeding the presidency of the country, Bush. Honestly enjoyed it more child than the father, despite hearing a lot of criticism against the son. Here in Brazil made the cover of a major magazine photo of George Bush and the phrase: Warlord. But the world owes some American presidents peace and freedom through their international interference. Here in Brazil, there are hundreds of families that govern certain regions and States for several generations. The ACM family in Bahia, the Sarney family in the state of Maranhão, and so on. I know these arguments are not scientific evidence that genetically these heirs were born with the 'genes' of leadership. Education, economic power, cultural traditions and other factors could cause the leadership to perpetuate in a family without necessarily want it to be a cream leadership.