On what factual basis can you claim that adverse events are primarily driven by genetics?
On the face of it this seems ludicrous. A baby born to a mother living in a high-risk environment but then adopted by a low-risk family would likely do far better in their life than the inverse.
As someone who was on the adoption lists in California, we had to learn that statements like 'On the face of it this seems ludicrous. A baby born to a mother living in a high-risk environment but then adopted by a low-risk family would likely do far better in their life than the inverse.' were false. I don't know if it was right or wrong, but California in its mandated adoption (fostering) training courses thought that we should be disabused of the idea that taking in a child (even a newborn) would mean that the child wouldn't end up significantly like the genetic parent. There were several studies we had to read (don't have them) that supported this claim.
We didn't end up fostering, for unrelated reasons.
For us, because of our apartment we were looking at very young (less than a year old since we didn't have a separate bed room).
They showed us studies that even infant adoptees tended towards the educational achievement of their genetic parents, not their adopted ones, for example.
Again, I don't even know if it's right or wrong, but the agency we were working with thought we should know that.
See for example the classic association between childhood maltreatment and future antisocial behavior [1]. As intuitive as it may seem that a child that is maltreated may develop negative externalizing behavior because of that, it looks like the true route of transmission is genetics, not environmental.
On the face of it this seems ludicrous. A baby born to a mother living in a high-risk environment but then adopted by a low-risk family would likely do far better in their life than the inverse.