The N vs. N debate is the iconic "Scientists-are-Stubborn-Gits" debate in biology. The whole thing hinges on how organisms develop different behaviors- do they learn it from the environment, or is it pre-programmed genetically? As in almost every "Is it X or Y?" debate in the competitive world of modern science, scientists insist on taking sides without bothering to ever consider some sort of compromise in the middle. That would be too easy and besides, scientists love pissing on each other's reputations.
As it is, this particular argument has been incredibly long-lived. Ever since genetics was first introduced to the mainstream when Mendel's papers finally reached the scientific community, pompous gentlemen in big wigs have used it as something to talk about while sipping port. For a long time after that though, nothing was ever really made of it- it was just a fun hobby for biologists. That was before the birth of psychology.
Psychology first evolved as an offshoot of the study of anatomy. Early psychologists rarely, if ever, had a living patient. Rather, they were concerned with the brain post-mortem, dissecting and labeling all the bits as they saw fit. With the coming of Freud though, psychology set out into the world on it's own, transforming into what we know it as today- observations of human behavior with a running commentary. Freud's postulation of the id, the ego, and superego changed the face of the argument.
The idea that humans had internal identities which were shaped by society seemed to put a major hole in the argument of "behavior-from-genetics" for a while. But the staunch defenders of nature had an old standby- ape studies. Apes, particularly after the writings of Jane Goodall, had a new respect in the eyes of scientists. No longer were they merely sub-standard imitations of humans, but creatures with their own societies and social bonds. They showed compassion, altruism, and empathy without ever having to be taught by a moral authority.
The suggestion that apes had innate moral tendencies upset a lot of scientists. Why would any organism evolve to be altruistic and sacrifice itself for others only to remove itself from the gene pool? This didn't make sense to them. Why couldn't they come up with a way to explain it? I'll tell you. Because the answer cannot be explained merely by nature or nuture- it requires both.
Say that, many thousands of years ago, apes lived independently. They had little or no social interaction save bonding with a mate, though they were nearly as intelligent as they are now. Say a large portion of the population was wiped out and the gender balance of the species was shifted heavily toward females. As a result, male apes would no longer have to seek out and compete for a mate as the females instead formed groups around them, eliminating most antagonism between males. For a male to have the most opportunities to pass on his genes, it would be beneficial to keep as many of the females alive as possible. Now say I told you there is a part of the human brain that specifically causes compassionate and altruistic influences (there is, and it's called the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, though that's not important right now). Say an ape, via some mutation or another, has a more developed version of this part of the brain that causes him to be more social and compassionate toward his mates and his children and therefore, more willing to sacrafice for them. Not only will his children have a better chance of survival because of this but they will likely have more success maintaining their own communities. This is a case of nature via nurture- a genetic change bought on by the environment.
Now, this example only explains moralistic impulses so I'll give another, again using apes.
Gorillas, particularly male ones, constantly engage in infanticide. This, by itself needs some explanation. Because gorillas are so huge and largely herbivores, they generally stay in one place and are, for that reason, highly territorial. As a result, they gather harems of female gorillas to mate with. When one gorilla finds anothers harem unguarded, he will dash in and bash any offspring he can find to death. This will not only remove the rival from the gene pool, but will also cause the females to follow him back to his harem. Thus, the most successful and agressive gorillas get the biggest share in the gene pool and the tradition continues. This is a behavior that was originally developed by nurture (tight competition between large numbers of males before gorillas developed their terrific size and generally sedimentary nature) and continues via nature. A large number of apes behave similarly.
However, among another sort of apes, the bonobos, females have found a way to prevent this and ensure their own . Female bonobos, as well as bonobos in general, are extremely promiscuous. Bonobos are constantly having sex- not only from procreation, but communication and social interaction as well. As a result of all this, nobody can possibly tell whose child is whose. Any male who wanted to kill off a rivals child might well be killing his own. This behavior is encouraged by the social environment of bonobos as well as their natural impulses- more promiscuous females had a better chance of passing on their genes in the environment created by infantcidal males. This has developed into the modern bonobo society, thus nurture via nature.
Ultimately, to sum it all up, it's never been nature vs. nurture. To claim that it's either one side of the argument or another is ridiculous. Even genetic behaviors are often triggered by environmental factors. If, out of two twins, one is schizophrenic, the other has a higher than normal chance of becoming schizophrenic, but is not bound to this fate? Why? Because science has determined schizophrenia to be brought on not only by a genetic factor but by an enviromental one as well (as to what that factor is, no one knows). The two are so deeply intertwined as to be inseperable.
So yeah, scientists are stubborn gits.
Side note: I'm aware this isn't as scientific as some of the other write-ups and for anyone who strongly wishes to investigate the matter shouldn't really bother with this one. It's basically an abridged version of the whole thing.