What are the differences between races? Genetic differences between races - myth or truth

Racial differences

Classification, starting with Linnaean, distinguished between “races” if it was possible to determine with high accuracy the differences between group members from each other. Reliable identification of differences requires that some races differ from others in a certain frequency of alleles of certain genes that affect observable traits. This criterion can be accepted for most subgroups of humanity as a biologist. kind. The most widely used classification. Ras divides them into Caucasian, Mongoloid and Negroid races. Other, more subtle differentiations of humanity as a species include the 9 races of Garn and the 7 main races of Lewontin.

All people, regardless of race, share a common evolutionary history. It seems highly unlikely that the selection factor would vary significantly from group to group. All humans have faced the same general problems throughout most of their evolutionary history. OK. 6% of genetic variation in humans as a species is explained by race, 8% by differences between populations within racial groups, and over 85% by differences between individuals of the same populations within racial groups.

In zap. In the world, divisions into races are often based on skin color. However, Charles Darwin rightly noted that “color is usually assessed by the taxonomist naturalist as an unimportant feature.” Much more important are other differences, such as morphology, physiol. and behavior.

Phys. differences may be the result of natural selection, mainly due to adaptive evolution. For example, most groups inhabiting high Arctic latitudes are characterized by stocky torsos and short limbs. This type of body leads to an increase in the ratio of its mass to its total surface area and, consequently, to a decrease in the loss of thermal energy while maintaining body temperature. Tall, thin, long-legged representatives of the Sudanese tribes, maintaining the same body temperature as the Eskimos, but living in extremely hot and humid climatic conditions, developed a physique that suggests a max. the ratio of the total surface area of ​​a body to its mass. This type of body best serves the purpose of dissipating heat, which would otherwise lead to an increase in body temperature above normal.

Dr. physical differences between groups may arise due to non-adaptive, neutral viewpoints. evolution of changes in different groups. Throughout most of their history, people lived in small clan populations (dims), in which the random variability of the gene pool provided by the founders of a given dim became fixed characteristics of their offspring. Mutations that arose within a dim, if they turned out to be adaptive, spread first within the given dim, then in neighboring dims, but probably did not reach spatially distant groups.

If we consider R. r. with t.zr. physiol. (metabolism), a good example of how genetic influences may account for differences between races would be sickle cell anemia (SCA). SKA is typical for the black population of the West. Africa. Since the ancestors of black Americans lived in Western Europe. Africa, the black population of America is also susceptible to this disease. People suffering from it live shorter lives. Why is the likelihood of SCD so high only for certain groups? Allison discovered that people who were heterozygous for the hemoglobin S gene (one gene of this pair causes sickling of red blood cells, and the other does not) were quite resistant to malaria. People with two “normal” genes (i.e., hemoglobin A genes) are at a significantly higher risk of malaria, people with two “sickle cell” genes are anemic, and those with heterozygous genes are at a much lower risk of both diseases. This “balanced polymorphism” evolved independently—presumably through the selection of random mutations—in a number of different racial/ethnic groups in malaria-infected regions. The various types of anemia due to sickle cell are not genetically identical in different racial/ethnic groups, but they all share the same basis - the advantage of heterozygosity.

Since we do not yet have all the facts, such information is like a warning signal: despite the fact that R. r. may exist, the reasons for these differences require comprehensive and careful investigation. The supposed genetic differences may turn out to be superior in origin. - or solely - due to environmental factors.

It has long been known that black Americans score lower on intelligence (IQ) tests than white Americans. However, it has been repeatedly reported that people of Asian descent show higher results on intelligence tests than whites, for which these tests b. hours were standardized. The question, at least with regard to differences between blacks and whites, is not whether there are differences in their test scores, but what the reasons for these differences might be.

The IQ controversy has reignited after a period of quiet with the publication of an article by Arthur Jensen. Although Jensen accurately presented the data available to him regarding within-group heritability in his article, more recent research. found that within-group differences are much less subject to genetic control than Jensen believed. In addition, Hirsch et al. showed that even if within-group differences have a genetic basis, these differences are not really relevant when assessing the extent of genetic influence on differences between groups.

De Vries et al. published an article that is especially relevant to recall in this context, since it shows that differences between generations of the same ethnic groups turn out to be close to the magnitude of the reported differences between black and white Americans. Generational and sex differences are consistent with changes in status (eg, parental education, occupation) that have occurred across generations, a strong argument for a significant environmental influence on performance on cognitive tests.

Personality characteristics are more difficult to measure than intelligence. The results of personality tests that assess current characteristics are potentially unclear due to changes in mood, emotions and behavior. R.r. in personality traits (eg, aggressiveness, caring) may exist. It is generally believed that these differences are due solely to environmental influences. However, this appears to be an overly simplistic view of things. Friedman and Friedman presented data proving the existence of genetically determined R. r. in personality traits. Dr. data suggest the presence of a genetic component to the variability of personality traits within the racial/ethnic groups studied. Group differences may exist, although at the subgroup rather than racial level.

S. Drobyshevsky: You understand everything correctly! There are no “Caucasian” or “Negroid” haplogroups in nature at all. Races were distinguished based on the external characteristics of modern people. Haplogroups are gene variants that occur in different morphological races with different frequencies. It’s just that some geneticists tend to either simplify the writing or do not understand what they themselves are writing. When a haplogroup is FREQUENTLY found among Caucasians, geneticists call it “Caucasoid.” When it is often found among some peoples, they can easily call it “Turkic”, “Indo-European” or “Finno-Ugric”. And this is completely nonsense, because linguistics is not directly related to races and genes at all. But it can be convenient. In short, what to say: “a haplogroup that is found with the greatest frequency among representatives of peoples speaking languages ​​of the Ugric linguistic family compared to representatives of other peoples.” If a haplogroup is found in Central Africa, this means that it exists there and is just as “Negroid” as “Caucasoid”. And here some migrations can be done in both directions. And even more so it’s nonsense to attribute a certain specific skin color to the carriers of a certain haplogroup! Skin color is determined by a mass of genes that have their own history. Now in Africa the carriers of this haplogroup are black, why then did the haplogroup necessarily have to be brought by white people? And if the pre-Holocene movement of haplogroup carriers has somehow been proven, it is stupid to talk about skin color, because we really don’t know what it was like then. Before the Holocene, there were no modern Caucasians at all; this has been no secret for 50-60 years. With the same success we can talk about the migrations of the Slavs in the Middle Paleolithic. Some people say, however...

Letter to the Editor: Are dark-skinned South Asians Australoid? Or are Australoids only Negritos, Melanesians and Australian Aborigines, and South Asians are closest to Caucasians?

S.D.: Are dark-skinned South Asians Vietnamese and Javanese? Or Dayaks and Badjaos? Or semangs with aetas? It's not all the same thing. If the Vietnamese are with the Javanese, then they belong to the South Asian race of Mongoloids and are not much closer to the Caucasians than the same Melanesians; but then they themselves are in no way Australoids. If the Dayaks are from the Badjaos, then they are classically classified as Veddoids, although I personally have great doubts in this regard, but in any case they will be representatives of the Eastern Equatorial variant with some admixture of the South Asian race; they will belong to the Australoids in the broad sense (synonyms are eastern equatorials, Australo-melanezoids), but not to the Australoids in the narrow sense (these are only Australian aborigines). If you meant the Semang, Aeta and Andamanese, then these are the Negritos you mentioned, who definitely belong to the Australoids in the broad sense. None of those mentioned are any closer to Caucasians. Closer to Caucasoids are African blacks, representatives of the Ural race and some of the Western Mongoloids mixed with Caucasians - people of the South Siberian race.

Mr_Bison (forum paleo.ru) : Is it possible to say that genetic mixing of races does not have harmful consequences for the offspring and are there any exceptions (pygmies?)?

S.D.: We can absolutely say that there are no harmful consequences. This has been checked and rechecked a hundred times, in terms of the incidence of diseases, mental disorders, birth rates, children's performance in school, and so on. Moreover, the most diverse mestizos were studied: Negro-European of various varieties, Polynesian-Japanese-European, Japanese-Negro, Bushman-European, Mongoloid-European, Australian-European, Russian-Buryat, Russian-Kazakh, and so on and so forth. Nowadays, in general, a GOOD percentage of the world's population are mixed races of various variants. More than half the population of Central and South America, for example. Almost all are Mexican. But the pygmies are very weakly mixed. It is from them that the flow of genes comes to the blacks, but no one goes to live with the pygmies. Mixed races of blacks and pygmies are quite normal; this is a significant percentage of the population of Central Africa.

The fact is that races differ from each other very slightly, mainly in external characteristics, but not even at the level of subspecies. Actually, the difference between races and subspecies is that subspecies are usually well isolated from each other, but races are not isolated in any way; there are always transitional variants. And always, at all times, there was mixing. Therefore, there are no harmful consequences. It is not very long ago that the races arose and were never separated by sharp barriers.

Svetlana Borinskaya: There may be various effects. I haven’t looked at the articles on interracial offspring - you can ask anthropologists, but my geneticist colleagues have data on interethnic marriages. Children from interethnic marriages in Moscow (you need to look in more detail - this is the long-standing work of Yu.P. Altukhov) at birth had, on average, lower health indicators. According to the distribution, for example, weights often fell not into the middle of the bell-shaped weight distribution curve (which is optimal), but into the edges. The descendants of Russians and Selkups had, on average, higher cholesterol levels than Russians or Selkups (works by M.I. Voevoda, it seems). The reasons may be genetic ( Parents are adapted to different environmental conditions, but to which will the child be adapted?), and social - in interethnic marriages in Moscow, at least one spouse was most likely a newcomer, and newcomers may have less favorable social conditions.

Mr_Bison: Could you name, as an example, some differences in the phenotype of races that are not adaptive, but are caused, say, by the bottleneck effect and/or random mutations? Do these maladaptive differences outweigh the adaptive ones?

S.D.: Blonde hair in many groups is such an example. Light hair color does not seem to be adaptive or very weakly adaptive. And it arose many times independently: in northern Europe, in the North Caucasus, among the Kabyles in the Atlas Mountains, among the inhabitants of the Hindu Kush, among the Melanesians of the Solomon Islands, among the aborigines of Central and Northern Australia. Most likely, this brightening is associated precisely with the bottleneck effect on the scale of small isolated populations.

This is probably how epicanthus arose - the version that it protects the eye from dust, although widespread, does not stand up to criticism (a lot of groups live in dusty places without epicanthus - Bedouins, Arabs and Australians, for example - and the Mongoloids did not arise at all in dusty places).

The shape of the bridge of the nose is most likely also from this series, although it may be subject to the effects of sexual selection.

It's hard to say what prevails. On the one hand, we may not know the adaptive value, on the other hand, we generally imagine a clear adaptive value for a very small number of traits. Moreover, one does not interfere with the other: the value may be so weak that the statistical effects of changes in gene frequencies may outweigh this value. In general, it is difficult to count the signs. Should hair color be considered as one sign or several, given that even black color is encoded differently in the genome of different people? Such calculations, by definition, will be speculative.

S.B.: There are plenty of neutral genetic differences between races. For example, the same haplogroups mtDNA or Y - (for individual haplogroups a connection with adaptive traits was assumed, but it seems that it was never proven).

Mr_Bison: Is it possible to say that when mixing races, the health of the offspring should, all other things being equal, increase rather than decrease, since the likelihood of the transition of harmful recessive genes characteristic of each race into a homozygous state and heterozygous advantage decreases (such as the HbSHbS mutation that protects against malaria or the CFTR that protects against cholera) has now almost lost its role while its harmful side effects in the homozygous state remain?

S.B.: It is forbidden. According to HbS characteristics, the majority of representatives of groups where malaria was rampant are heterozygous without additional effort. At the population level, interracial or interethnic marriages are not significant for reducing the frequency of homozygotes (there are already 1%-2% of them - not significant for the survival of the population, although significant for an individual family in which a sick child may be born).

There are many such works. For example,

Genetic structure of human populations.

Rosenberg NA, Pritchard JK, Weber JL, Cann HM, Kidd KK, Zhivotovsky

Within-population differences among individuals account for 93 to 95%

of genetic variation; differences among major groups constitute only 3

Mr_Bison: I have seen many times on the Internet the statement that the genetic distance between large races does not exceed 0.03 according to Masatoshi Nei, but unfortunately I have not found a credible source. Forum posts only. Is this really true? And is the genetic distance between subspecies according to Ney usually equal to 0.17-0.22?

S.B.: There are many such works. For example, Genetic structure of human populations.Rosenberg NA, Pritchard JK, Weber JL, Cann HM, Kidd KK, ZhivotovskyLA, Feldman MW.Science. 2002 Dec 20;298(5602):2381-5: Within-population differences among individuals account for 93 to 95%of genetic variation; differences among major groups constitute only 3to 5%.

Mr_Bison: Do I understand correctly that it is nevertheless impossible to talk about the effect of heterosis (increased viability of hybrids) when different races are mixed, since the races are too close to each other genetically?

S.B.: It is correct that the heterosis effect does not apply to interracial or interethnic marriages. The description of the reasons is incorrect. What is important is not the label of race or nationality, but the fact that living in an environment to which a person is not adapted has harmful consequences for offspring. And it is usually adapted to the conditions in which its ancestors lived. Members of different races (or ethnic groups) were adapted to different environments. The consequences for the offspring depend on how much the environment differs from the one to which the ancestors who passed on the genes were adapted.

For example, in Europeans, the e4 allele of the apolipoprotein E gene is associated with elevated cholesterol levels and occurs with a frequency of 5% to 15%. In Africans (allele frequency up to 40%), the e4 allele does not increase cholesterol levels, while in African Americans cholesterol is increased, but less than in Europeans.

In fact, over the past 10 thousand years, most people began to live in conditions other than those to which their ancestors were adapted - they stopped being hunter-gatherers. Genetic changes have occurred, but they cannot keep up with environmental changes - the environment is changing faster than genes. See the "thrifty genes" hypothesis in the article "Genes and food traditions." In interracial or interethnic marriages, a child may receive both the advantages of both parents and maladaptive characteristics. Therefore, from the point of view of genetics, the only question is that the environment and lifestyle correspond to the genotype.

Vasily (letter to the Editor; style preserved): COULD YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION: THE CRO-Magnons AND THEIR EASTERN CONTEMPORARIES PEOPLE FROM THE ASCENT HOME ARE EXTINCTION OR THERE ARE THEIR GENES IN MODERN EUROPEANS AND WHAT PEOPLES ARE SIMILAR TO THEM. AND HOW THEY DIED OUT IF AND NOW PEOPLE LIVE AS WELL AS MORE PRIMITIVE THAN THEM IN SKULL STRUCTURE. AUSTRALIANS FOR EXAMPLE.

S.D.: The question of the continuity of the Upper Paleolithic European Cro-Magnons and modern Europeans has two versions of the solution. Anthropology shows that Cro-Magnons are quite suitable for the ancestors of Mesolithic Europeans, and the latter - Neolithic, and those - modern people. Moreover, many modern groups in Europe are not fundamentally different from the Cro-Magnons and, apparently, are their more or less direct descendants - groups in Northern Europe, England, the Balkans, the Caucasus (taking into account all sorts of migrations and mixing, of course). But genetic data gives two versions. According to one, approximately 95% of modern Europeans are descendants of Cro-Magnons, the remaining 5% are descendants of Neolithic settlers from the Middle East, who brought agriculture, which the “Cro-Magnons” mastered. Surprisingly, other calculations by other geneticists show that 95% of modern Europeans are descendants of Neolithic settlers from the Middle East who brought agriculture, and the remaining 5% are descendants of Cro-Magnons, who were completely displaced by advanced migrants. How to understand such a difference in calculations is a question for geneticists. It seems that the very approach of calculating the percentage of locals and immigrants is erroneous. There was more than one migration and it did not happen all at once; some of the genes were initially common, some disappeared due to all sorts of genetic drifts, and some changed a lot. The problem is that geneticists analyze only modern DNA (and what kind of samples do they have??? did they look at everyone???), and draw conclusions about the Paleolithic and Neolithic. And this is wrong.

The question - which peoples are similar to the Cro-Magnons - does not make sense, because peoples are defined by social characteristics, and now no one hunts mammoths and no one sprinkles ocher on their burials. Anthropologically, many groups (NOT PEOPLES!) are similar, mainly on the periphery of Europe, which is logical in some ways. But the full set of Cro-Magnon traits cannot now be found in Europe, except in individual cases. It is clear that over 20 thousand years everything mixed up and changed several times; it would be strange to look for Cro-Magnons, even if Europe were an isolated island like Tasmania.

Australians are no more primitive than Cro-Magnons in terms of skull structure. What exactly is primitiveness? In a smaller brain volume? Then the Europeans are more primitive than the Cro-Magnons. Strong development of the brow? The Cro-Magnons had it too. In large teeth? The Cro-Magnons have no less. Primitiveness is generally determined by proximity to the ancestral state. Australians are no closer to some Heidelbergers than European Cro-Magnons. In general, the question of how the Cro-Magnons became extinct, if anyone is more primitive than them, seems strange. First of all, who said Cro-Magnons are extinct? Secondly, how could the population of Australia prevent or help a group in Europe become extinct? Stone Age globalization? Newts, coelacanths, and all sorts of foraminifera live now and do not die out because we are also on the planet. But here the difference in levels is much greater.

Question to Svetlana Borinskaya from the Editorial Board of the portal ANTHROPOGENES.RU: On October 8, the Rossiya-1 channel airs a film with the odious title “Genetics against Darwin.” In the announcement of the film, among several famous names, yours appears...

Once upon a time, in some corridor, when asked to comment on the ideas of some freak (that monkeys descended from humans), I replied that this was complete nonsense.

I was not informed that my interview would be included in a film called "Geneticists vs. Darwin." Naturally, I am not against Darwin. I am against scammers on television.

The population of our planet is so diverse that one can only be surprised. What kind of nationalities and nationalities can you meet! Everyone has their own faith, customs, traditions, and orders. Its own beautiful and extraordinary culture. However, all these differences are formed only by people themselves in the process of social historical development. What lies behind the differences that appear externally? After all, we are all very different:

• dark-skinned;
• yellow-skinned;
• white;
• with different eye colors;
• different heights and so on.

Obviously, the reasons are purely biological, independent of people themselves and formed over thousands of years of evolution. This is how modern human races were formed, which explain the visual diversity of human morphology theoretically. Let's take a closer look at what this term is, what its essence and meaning are.

The concept of "race of people"

What is race? This is not a nation, not a people, not a culture. These concepts should not be confused. After all, representatives of different nationalities and cultures can freely belong to the same race. Therefore, the definition can be given as given by the science of biology.

Human races are a set of external morphological characteristics, that is, those that are the phenotype of a representative. They were formed under the influence of external conditions, the influence of a complex of biotic and abiotic factors, and were fixed in the genotype during evolutionary processes. Thus, the characteristics that underlie the division of people into races include:

• height;
• skin and eye color;
• hair structure and shape;
• hair growth of the skin;
• structural features of the face and its parts.

All those signs of Homo sapiens as a biological species that lead to the formation of a person’s external appearance, but do not in any way affect his personal, spiritual and social qualities and manifestations, as well as the level of self-development and self-education.

People of different races have completely identical biological springboards for the development of certain abilities. Their general karyotype is the same:

• women - 46 chromosomes, that is, 23 XX pairs;
• men - 46 chromosomes, 22 pairs XX, 23 pairs - XY.

This means that all representatives of Homo sapiens are one and the same, among them there are no more or less developed, superior to others, or higher. From a scientific point of view, everyone is equal.

The species of human races, formed over approximately 80 thousand years, have adaptive significance. It has been proven that each of them was formed with the aim of providing a person with the opportunity for a normal existence in a given habitat and facilitating adaptation to climatic, relief and other conditions. There is a classification showing which races of Homo sapiens existed before, and which ones exist today.

Classification of races

She's not alone. The thing is that until the 20th century it was customary to distinguish 4 races of people. These were the following varieties:

• Caucasian;
• Australoid;
• Negroid;
• Mongoloid.

For each, detailed characteristic features were described by which any individual of the human species could be identified. However, later a classification became widespread that included only 3 human races. This became possible due to the unification of the Australoid and Negroid groups into one.

Therefore, the modern types of human races are as follows.

1. Large: Caucasoid (European), Mongoloid (Asian-American), Equatorial (Australian-Negroid).
2. Small: many different branches that formed from one of the large races.

Each of them is characterized by its own characteristics, signs, external manifestations in the appearance of people. All of them are considered by anthropologists, and the science itself that studies this issue is biology. Human races have interested people since ancient times. After all, completely contrasting external features often became the cause of racial strife and conflicts.

Genetic research in recent years allows us to again talk about the division of the equatorial group into two. Let's consider all 4 races of people who stood out earlier and became relevant again recently. Let us note the signs and features.

Australoid race

Typical representatives of this group include the indigenous inhabitants of Australia, Melanesia, Southeast Asia, and India. The name of this race is also Australo-Veddoid or Australo-Melanesian. All synonyms make it clear which small races are included in this group. They are as follows:

• Australoids;
• Veddoids;
• Melanesians.

In general, the characteristics of each group presented do not vary too much among themselves. There are several main features that characterize all small races of people of the Australoid group.

1. Dolichocephaly is an elongated shape of the skull in relation to the proportions of the rest of the body.
2. Deep-set eyes, wide slits. The color of the iris is predominantly dark, sometimes almost black.
3. The nose is wide, with a pronounced flat bridge.
4. The hair on the body is very well developed.
5. The hair on the head is dark in color (sometimes among Australians there are natural blondes, which was the result of a natural genetic mutation of the species that once took hold). Their structure is rigid, they can be curly or slightly curly.
6. People are of average height, often above average.
7. The physique is thin and elongated.

Within the Australoid group, people of different races differ from each other, sometimes quite strongly. So, a native Australian may be tall, blond, of a dense build, with straight hair and light brown eyes. At the same time, a native of Melanesia will be a thin, short, dark-skinned representative with curly black hair and almost black eyes.

Therefore, the general characteristics described above for the entire race are only an averaged version of their combined analysis. Naturally, crossbreeding also occurs - the mixing of different groups as a result of natural crossing of species. That is why it is sometimes very difficult to identify a specific representative and attribute him to one or another small or large race.

Negroid race

The people who make up this group are the settlers of the following areas:

• Eastern, Central and Southern Africa;
• part of Brazil;
• some peoples of the USA;
• representatives of the West Indies.

In general, such races of people as Australoids and Negroids used to be united in the equatorial group. However, research in the 21st century has proven the inconsistency of this order. After all, the differences in the manifested characteristics between the designated races are too great. And some similar features are explained very simply. After all, the habitats of these individuals are very similar in terms of living conditions, and therefore the adaptations in appearance are also similar.

So, the following signs are characteristic of representatives of the Negroid race.

1. Very dark, sometimes bluish-black, skin color, as it is especially rich in melanin content.
2. Wide eye shape. They are large, dark brown, almost black.
3. The hair is dark, curly, and coarse.
4. Height varies, often low.
5. The limbs are very long, especially the arms.
6. The nose is wide and flat, the lips are very thick and fleshy.
7. The jaw lacks a chin protrusion and protrudes forward.
8. The ears are large.
9. Facial hair is poorly developed, and there is no beard or mustache.

Negroids are easy to distinguish from others by their external appearance. Below are the different races of people. The photo reflects how clearly Negroids differ from Europeans and Mongoloids.

Mongoloid race

Representatives of this group are characterized by special features that allow them to adapt to rather difficult external conditions: desert sands and winds, blinding snow drifts, etc.

Mongoloids are the indigenous people of Asia and much of America. Their characteristic signs are as follows.

1. Narrow or oblique eye shape.
2. The presence of epicanthus - a specialized fold of skin aimed at covering the inner corner of the eye.
3. The color of the iris is from light to dark brown.
4. distinguished by brachycephaly (short head).
5. The superciliary ridges are thickened and strongly protruding.
6. Sharp, high cheekbones are well defined.
7. Facial hair is poorly developed.
8. The hair on the head is coarse, dark in color, and has a straight structure.
9. The nose is not wide, the bridge is located low.
10. Lips of different thicknesses, often narrow.
11. Skin color varies among different representatives from yellow to dark, and there are also light-skinned people.

It should be noted that another characteristic feature is short stature, both in men and women. It is the Mongoloid group that predominates in numbers when comparing the main races of people. They populated almost all climatographic zones of the Earth. Close to them in terms of quantitative characteristics are Caucasians, whom we will consider below.

Caucasian

First of all, let’s designate the predominant habitats of people from this group. This:

• Europe.
• North Africa.
• Western Asia.

Thus, the representatives unite two main parts of the world - Europe and Asia. Since living conditions were also very different, the general characteristics are again an average option after analyzing all the indicators. Thus, the following appearance features can be distinguished.

1. Mesocephaly - medium-headedness in the structure of the skull.
2. Horizontal eye shape, lack of pronounced brow ridges.
3. A protruding narrow nose.
4. Lips of varying thickness, usually medium in size.
5. Soft curly or straight hair. There are blondes, brunettes, and brown-haired people.
6. Eye color ranges from light blue to brown.
7. Skin color also varies from pale, white to dark.
8. The hairline is very well developed, especially on the chest and face of men.
9. The jaws are orthognathic, that is, slightly pushed forward.

In general, a European is easy to distinguish from others. Appearance allows you to do this almost without error, even without using additional genetic data.

If you look at all the races of people, the photos of whose representatives are located below, the difference becomes obvious. However, sometimes the characteristics are mixed so deeply that identifying an individual becomes almost impossible. He is able to relate to two races at once. This is further aggravated by intraspecific mutation, which leads to the appearance of new characteristics.

For example, albinos Negroids are a special case of the appearance of blondes in the Negroid race. A genetic mutation that disrupts the integrity of racial characteristics in a given group.

Origin of the races of man

Where did such a variety of signs of people’s appearance come from? There are two main hypotheses that explain the origin of human races. This:

• monocentrism;
• polycentrism.

However, none of them has yet become an officially accepted theory. According to the monocentric point of view, initially, about 80 thousand years ago, all people lived in the same territory, and therefore their appearance was approximately the same. However, over time, growing numbers led to a wider spread of people. As a result, some groups found themselves in difficult climatographic conditions.

This led to the development and consolidation at the genetic level of some morphological adaptations that help in survival. For example, dark skin and curly hair provide thermoregulation and a cooling effect for the head and body in Negroids. And the narrow shape of the eyes protects them from sand and dust, as well as from being blinded by white snow among Mongoloids. The developed hair of Europeans is a unique way of thermal insulation in harsh winter conditions.

Another hypothesis is called polycentrism. She says that different types of human races descended from several ancestral groups that were unequally distributed around the globe. That is, there were initially several foci from which the development and consolidation of racial characteristics began. Again influenced by climatographic conditions.

That is, the process of evolution proceeded linearly, simultaneously affecting aspects of life on different continents. This is how the formation of modern types of people from several phylogenetic lines took place. However, it is not possible to say for certain about the validity of this or that hypothesis, since there is no evidence of a biological and genetic nature, or at the molecular level.

Modern classification

The races of people, according to current scientists, have the following classification. There are two trunks, and each of them has three large races and many small ones. It looks something like this.

1. Western trunk. Includes three races:

• Caucasians;
• capoids;
• Negroids.

The main groups of Caucasians: Nordic, Alpine, Dinaric, Mediterranean, Falsky, East Baltic and others.

Small races of capoids: Bushmen and Khoisan. They inhabit South Africa. In terms of the fold above the eyelid, they are similar to the Mongoloids, but in other characteristics they differ sharply from them. The skin is not elastic, which is why all representatives are characterized by the appearance of early wrinkles.

Groups of Negroids: pygmies, nilots, blacks. All of them are settlers from different parts of Africa, so their appearance is similar. Very dark eyes, same skin and hair. Thick lips and lack of chin protuberance.

2. Eastern trunk. Includes the following large races:

• Australoids;
• Americanoids;
• Mongoloids.

Mongoloids are divided into two groups - northern and southern. These are the indigenous inhabitants of the Gobi Desert, which left its mark on the appearance of these people.

Americanoids are the population of North and South America. They are very tall and often have an epicanthus, especially in children. However, the eyes are not as narrow as those of the Mongoloids. They combine the characteristics of several races.

Australoids consist of several groups:

• Melanesians;
• Veddoids;
• Ainians;
• Polynesians;
• Australians.

Their characteristic features were discussed above.

Minor races

This concept is a rather highly specialized term that allows you to identify any person to any race. After all, each large one is divided into many small ones, and they are compiled on the basis of not only small external distinctive features, but also include data from genetic studies, clinical tests, and facts of molecular biology.

Therefore, small races are what make it possible to more accurately reflect the position of each specific individual in the system of the organic world, and specifically, within the species Homo sapiens sapiens. What specific groups exist was discussed above.

Racism

As we have found out, there are different races of people. Their signs can be very polar. This is what gave rise to the theory of racism. It says that one race is superior to another, since it consists of more highly organized and perfect beings. At one time, this led to the emergence of slaves and their white masters.

However, from a scientific point of view, this theory is completely absurd and untenable. The genetic predisposition to the development of certain skills and abilities is the same among all peoples. Proof that all races are biologically equal is the possibility of free interbreeding between them while maintaining the health and vitality of the offspring.

How did racial differences develop? Different races developed and were formed differently. Physical differences may be the result of natural selection, mainly due to adaptive evolution. That is, differences in the genotype of races and nations have accumulated over thousands of years in the process of adaptation to habitat, landscape, climate, lifestyle, nutritional habits, past infections, diseases, inevitable genetic mutations and many other factors. For example, most groups inhabiting the high Arctic latitudes are characterized by stocky torsos and short limbs. This type of body leads to an increase in the ratio of its mass to its total surface area and, consequently, to a decrease in the loss of thermal energy while maintaining body temperature. The tall, thin, long-legged representatives of the Sudanese tribes, maintaining the same body temperature as the Eskimos, but living in extremely hot and humid climatic conditions, developed a physique that implies a maximum ratio of the total body surface area to its mass. This type of body best serves the purpose of dissipating heat, which would otherwise cause the body temperature to rise above normal.

Other physical differences between groups may arise from nonadaptive, evolutionarily neutral changes across groups. For most of their history, people lived in small clan populations (dims), in which the random variability of the gene pool provided by the founders of a given dim became fixed characteristics of their offspring. Mutations that arose within a dim, if they turned out to be adaptive, spread first within the given dim, then in neighboring dims, but probably did not reach spatially distant groups.

There are many racial differences, such as head shape, facial features, degree of physical maturity at birth, brain formation and skull volume, visual and hearing acuity, body size and proportions, number of vertebrae, blood type, bone density, length of pregnancy, number of sweat glands, the degree of alpha wave emission in the newborn brain, fingerprints, ability to digest milk, hair structure and arrangement, odor, color blindness, genetic diseases (such as sickle cell anemia), galvanic resistance of the skin, pigmentation of the skin and eyes, and susceptibility to infectious diseases.

Baxter, based on American military statistics, proved that representatives of the white races are superior to blacks and Indians in lifetime lung capacity. This phenomenon is believed to be due to the greater metabolic energy and greater development of strength in whites.

Heart rate is also not the same among different races. Gould gives the following average values ​​in this regard (beats per minute):

Among some peoples of tropical countries, Jousset notes a lower lung capacity, a higher respiratory rate, a small chest volume, a weaker type of abdominal breathing, a higher frequency and lower tension of the pulse, compared to Europeans. Along with such features, weakness of muscle strength, decreased urination and increased sweat production are noted. However, it is not yet sufficiently clarified, since the phenomena observed by Joussett depend on climate and geographical conditions, and since they really constitute a racial feature. Gould's above data are more valuable to us in the sense of proving racial differences in the physiological functions of the body, since these data are based on a study of a very large number of individuals, approximately the same age and under the same living conditions.

In relation to the racial physiology of the nervous system, it is interesting that some peoples, for example blacks, have significantly lower pain sensitivity compared to whites. This feature has been established on the basis of accurate research and is well known to those surgeons who have had to perform operations on blacks. The latter easily and almost resignedly endure the most difficult operations. http://www.uhlib.ru/nauchnaja_literatura_prochee/_russkaja_rasovaja_teorija_do_1917_goda_tom_1/p17.php

It should be noted that with these characteristics, many savages are characterized by extraordinary acuity of vision and hearing, allowing the savage to distinguish very distant objects in detail and hear clearly the faintest noise, completely inaccessible to the ear of a European; however, harmonic combinations of sounds, colors and tones are little accessible to the savage.

Having touched on the issue of anatomical and physiological characteristics in different representatives of the human race, I cannot pass in silence the interesting and instructive fact that significant differences in the structure of individual parts of the body can occur even when these parts appear completely similar to the naked eye. I am referring to the significant racial difference that is observed in the structure of human hair. Let us take, for example, on the one hand, straight or smooth black hair from the head of a Mongol, and on the other, the straight and black head hair of a Great Russian. The study will show that among Mongolians the cross-sectional shape of the hair appears to be almost round or broadly oval, with the short diameter of the oval relative to the long one as 80–90:100. In the Great Russian, the cross-section of the head hair has the shape of an elongated oval, the short diameter of which is related to the long one as 61–71:100. In the hair of a Mongolian, the grains of pigment are somewhat larger than in the hair of a Great Russian, and, in addition, the head hair of a Great Russian is, on average, somewhat thinner than that of a Mongolian. For comparison, let’s take two more hair of the same color: the red head hair of an Arab and the red hair of a Great Russian. In the red hair of an Arab, I personally observed that the granular pigment is located mainly in the central parts of the cortex, and in the hair of a Great Russian - in the peripheral parts of this substance.

Perhaps something similar to what we observe in hair also exists in certain internal organs, that is, perhaps, despite complete external similarity, there is a more or less significant difference in the histological structure. But in this regard, anthropology does not yet give us the proper answer and only opens up a wide field for scientific research.

I consider it necessary to note, by the way, the important role that hair can play in studying the type of primitive prehistoric population of various places on the globe, since they are preserved along with bones for centuries and even millennia, buried in the ground, for example, in burial grounds and mounds. I found that it is impossible to draw conclusions about their original color from the appearance of Kurgan hair, since the latter can change significantly under the influence of chemical and physical agents; Moreover, for the most part, it is not the pigment that changes, which is generally distinguished by its unusually high durability, but the horny substance of the hair, which takes on a yellow, brown or dirty-brown color. Thanks to this change in the horny substance, black hair can lighten and light hair can darken. Only one histological examination of hair on transverse sections gives us the opportunity to determine with positivity or with greater or lesser probability the original color of the hair, namely by thickness, color, location of granular pigment and some of its other properties. Studying hair from the kurgans of central Russia, I found that the kurgan population was dark-haired. This circumstance contradicts the very widespread opinion that our Slavic ancestors were fair-haired, and confirms, on the contrary, the opinion of some anthropologists, including our fellow member of the Anthropological Department, Dr. V.V. Vorobyov, that the Proto-Slav had, in all likelihood, dark hair. http://www.uhlib.ru/nauchnaja_literatura_prochee/_russkaja_rasovaja_teorija_do_1917_goda_tom_1/p17.php

Having made a brief review of some data on the issue of anatomical and physiological racial differences, we will now touch upon racial pathology. It must be said that in this regard we have much more data than on the physiology of races. There is no doubt that different human groups, depending on their racial characteristics, have varying degrees of immunity or predisposition to certain pathological processes, just as we observe in the animal world. It is known that some species of animals are easily affected by diseases to which other species exhibit complete or relative immunity. The study of racial characteristics in pathology presents numerous difficulties due to, firstly, the impossibility of excluding other factors that themselves can play a significant role in the etiology of diseases, such as: living conditions, climate, nutrition, and secondly, due to lack of extensive and widespread medical and statistical research. Due to these reasons, we often encounter the most contradictory opinions on this issue. For example, some authors consider blacks to be completely immune to malaria; Others say that blacks are equally susceptible to this disease as Europeans. However, based on the available data, it should be assumed that the truth is in the middle, as is often the case when there are two opposing opinions. If malaria occurs among blacks living in their homeland, that is, in tropical countries, it is much less common than among Europeans, and is generally tolerated by them much more easily than by Europeans. Upon relocation to colder countries, with a sharp change in all living conditions, blacks gradually lose their immunity. Europeans who find themselves in tropical countries in places inhabited by blacks are much more likely to suffer from malaria and in more severe forms.

Interestingly, the degree of susceptibility to malaria varies among different types of the white race. According to Bushan, Swedes and Norwegians are most susceptible to this disease; The Germans and Dutch are somewhat less receptive, the Anglo-Saxons are even less receptive, then come the French, Maltese, Italians and Spaniards.

The Mongolian race appears to be comparatively little susceptible to malaria and tuberculosis.

Jews, according to some indications, are less likely to be affected by plague, malaria and typhus; but, as is known, they are especially predisposed to nervous and mental illnesses and more often than others suffer from diabetes. Statistics show that the death rate from diabetes in Jews is 3-6 times higher than the death rate from this disease in other races. The data available on the issue of the incidence of nervous and mental illnesses among Jews convinces us that neither special living conditions, nor social status, nor marriages with close relatives can fully explain the extraordinary frequency of the disease. If certain living conditions of Jews cannot be excluded from the number of etiological factors, then, in any case, they do not play a dominant role in this regard, and in frequent cases of nervous and mental illnesses one must see, first of all, the racial peculiarity of Jews . Ziemssen, Blanchard and especially Charcot point out that no race provides as much material on neuropathology as the Jewish one. Statistics from various European countries show us that the number of Jews suffering from mental illness is up to 4-6 times higher than the number of patients of other races. Of the forms of mental illness, mania appears to be the most common. Tabes is found much less frequently among Jews than among other races (Minor, Shtembo, Gaykevich).

In relation to mental illnesses among European peoples, it has been noted that peoples belonging to the Scandinavian-German group, i.e., representatives of the light type, are most often affected by depressive forms of psychosis. Among the peoples of the Celto-Roman group and the Slavs, that is, the dark-haired type, manic forms of psychosis are most common (Bannister and Herkoten). Among Germans and Swedes, melancholy is observed much more often than mania. In Danes and Norwegians, according to Bannister and Herkoten, melancholy is twice as common as mania. In East Germany, where the Slavic element predominates, melancholy and mania, according to statistics from psychiatric institutions, occur in approximately equal quantities, or the latter is more common than the former.

In connection with the indicated predominance of melancholy among the German-Scandinavian group, and mania among the Celto-Romans and Slavs, apparently, there is an unequal frequency of suicide among these peoples. According to statistics from James Weir, from 1880 to 1893, it turns out that per one million population, the German-Scandinavian group, i.e., representatives of the fair-haired type, accounted for 116 suicides annually, and among the Celto-Romans, i.e., representatives of the short, dark-haired European race, only 48 per million, therefore almost two and a half times less. Havelock came to similar conclusions. It is further known that in those parts of Austria where the German population predominates, suicides occur much more often than in places with a predominant Slavic or Hungarian population. The lowest percentage of suicides is observed among southern European peoples. For example, in Italy there are 40 suicides per million, and in Spain there are 35 suicides per year, i.e. significantly less than in Germany, where there are 271 suicides per million. It is also remarkable that in the southern provinces of Italy - Apulia and Calabria, where the Celto-Roman population predominates, there are 17-33 cases of suicide per million inhabitants, and in the northern provinces, such as Lombardy and Venice, where representatives of German group - about 65–66 cases, i.e. at least twice as many as in the southern provinces.

Regarding nervous and mental illnesses among other races, such as Mongols, blacks, etc., our information is still very limited. There are, for example, indications that the Japanese are more predisposed to manic forms of mental disorders. Among the Ostyaks, Samoyeds, Tungus, Buryats, Yakuts and Kamchadals, a painful timidity is observed, accompanied by bouts of frenzy. Among the Kachins, according to Pallas, menstrual psychoses are especially frequent. There are also indications of peculiar mental disorders among the Malays and the inhabitants of Java and Sumatra; but further verification observations are required to clarify the connection of such psychoses with racial characteristics.

No matter how small, fragmentary and in many respects incomplete the data on the anatomical, physiological characteristics of the human race, on its immunity and predisposition to disease may be, these data are still quite sufficient to convince us that in the etiology of diseases, in addition to various external factors, undoubtedly play a very important role, the racial characteristics of the organization and functions of the human body. These features should be the subject of further observations and research.

Perhaps someone will now raise the question: is there a need to apply to the study of the connection between the internal etiology of diseases and the anthropological type of individuals where we have to deal with apparently homogeneous material, with homogeneous anthropological elements, for example, with representatives of the Great Russian people who speaks the same language, professes the same faith, has the same historical past? But in fact, the Great Russian people, like the Little Russian people, do not consist of homogeneous units, but arose in the distant past from the merger of at least two or three races. Between the Great Russians and Little Russians we find brachycephals and dolichocephals, tall and short, dark-haired and fair-haired, and these features are inherited from those races from the fusion of which the modern Great Russian people were formed.

Due to the peculiarities of hair color, eyes, skull shape, etc., other anatomical and physiological characteristics are, of course, inherited, and with them - varying degrees of immunity and predisposition to certain pathological processes. In this regard, the observation of our compatriot Dr. Emme is interesting, who noticed that the predisposition to malaria varies among different types of Little Russian people: black-haired Little Russians are less predisposed to malaria than fair-haired ones. However, Haeckel also noted that black-haired representatives of mixed European races acclimatize more easily in tropical countries and are much less likely to be exposed to some epidemic diseases, for example, yellow fever, than fair-haired Europeans. http://www.uhlib.ru/nauchnaja_literatura_prochee/_russkaja_rasovaja_teorija_do_1917_goda_tom_1/p17.php

In 1892, Galton was the first to compare finger patterns of different racial and ethnic types. It was from this time that the development of fingerprinting, in addition to solving purely forensic problems, began to develop in line with classical racial theory. Further, Harris Hawthorne Wilder, Harold Cummins and Charles Meadlo make a major contribution to the development of a new science, which is called ethnic and racial dermatoglyphics.

In Russia, dermatoglyphic research began in full swing only in Soviet times. It is amazing, but it is a fact that it is in the country that has adopted the theses of internationalism that racial research receives official scientific recognition. We refer you to the work of P. S. Semenovsky “Distribution of the main types of tactile patterns on human fingers” (Russian Anthropological Journal, 1927, T. 16, issue 1–2, pp. 47–63). The Institute of Anthropology of Moscow State University organizes numerous expeditions to various parts of our country. The largest Soviet anthropologists A. I. Yarkho, V. P. Alekseev, G. F. Debets create a theoretical basis for ethnic and racial dermatoglyphics. M.V. Volotsky, T.A. Trofimova, N.N. Cheboksarov are improving the methodological basis of research.

From the very beginning, differentiation of fingerprints begins to be made at three levels: racial, ethnic and territorial - which immediately speaks of the accuracy of the method and the great potential for its development. That is, a person’s fingerprints determine not only his race and nationality, but also the geographic region from which he comes. Galton's brilliant guess at the end of the 19th century by the thirties of the 20th century finds its full confirmation in the study of hundreds of ethnic groups in different parts of the world.

Moreover, amazing accuracy can be achieved at first, even with the relative simplicity of the method. There are three main types of papillary patterns: arcs, loops and swirls, the latter also including double loops. The table shows the proportions of the frequency of twists, loops and arcs among some peoples.

The leading German specialist in this field, Dr. Erich Karl, in the article “Fingerprints as racial characteristics and their transmission by inheritance,” published in the journal Volk und rasse, 1936, v 7, gives the following summary of numerous studies:

“Representatives of the yellow race, led by the Eskimos, have the most twists and the fewest arcs and loops. For Europeans, the ratio is the opposite: for them, the number of arcs and loops increases due to twists. The Indians are closely related to the Asians, and the Ainu occupy an intermediate position between the yellows and the whites. Jews differ greatly from Europeans in having a large number of twists and a relatively small number of arcs. Among European peoples, northern Europeans have more arcs and fewer twists, while southern Europeans, on the contrary, have more swirls and fewer arcs. Among northern Europeans, Norwegians have the most arcs and the fewest twists; they are followed by the Germans, the British and the Russians.”

05/20/2003, Tue, 14:05, Moscow time

Races - groups of people with clearly distinguishable characteristics - have long symbolized numerous attempts to divide people into lower and higher categories. Until recently, it was believed that the observed differences between races were due not to genetic, but to purely external reasons, including social ones. But there is evidence that populations and races still differ from each other in DNA. That is, races are a genetic reality. But what then determines a person’s behavior - antisocial or non-traditional sexual orientation - special genes or upbringing?

“The DNA of all people, regardless of their skin color or hair texture, is 99.9% identical, so from a genetic point of view the concept of race is meaningless,” says Sally Lerman in the pages of the authoritative Scientific American. According to this point of view, the observed differences between races are not due to genetic, but to purely external reasons, including social ones. “Research shows that the concept of race at the genetic level is nonsense,” she continues. - Races are subject to change, both geographically and historically. ...By placing too much emphasis on DNA, we turn a health problem into a biological inevitability. There is also a great temptation to use the same tool when talking about the genetic basis of criminal tendencies or intelligence.”

In general, the conclusion about the great influence of living conditions on personality development in different ethnic and racial groups is correct. However, genetic differences do exist. Moreover, we undertake to assert that populations and races differ from each other in DNA - this is the subject of a commentary (provided by the editors from the June issue) by Lev Zhivotovsky, professor, doctor of biological sciences.

One can completely agree with most of its (Sally Lerman's article) provisions. Indeed, the concept of race, as a group of people with clearly distinguishable morphological characteristics, has long become a symbol of the division of people into lower and higher categories. Differences between races in hair pigmentation, skin and related characteristics in recent centuries have become the basis of the thesis about the biological inequality of people.

Eugenics and psychology, relying on testing data (intellectual development coefficient IQ), tried to prove the genetic nature of racial inequality. However, population genetics has shown the inconsistency of this view. It turned out that the differences between members of the same race far exceed the differences between races. And recently it was found that people of even different races differ from each other in DNA less than different individuals of chimpanzees in the same herd. However, we are not identical genetically (only identical twins have almost the same DNA) - we are all slightly different from each other.

Sally Lerman argues that the observed differences between races are not due to genetic factors, but to purely external factors, including social ones. In general, the conclusion about the great influence of living conditions on personality development in different ethnic and racial groups is correct. However, genetic differences also exist. Based on data from recent years, we undertake to assert that populations and races still differ from each other in DNA. But their genetic difference in itself cannot serve as a measure of the hereditary inequality of people of different origins. Genetic differences between populations and races are not biological inequality: they arose evolutionarily and are capable of evolutionary change.

“The DNA of all people, regardless of their skin color or hair texture, is 99.9% identical, so from a genetic point of view, the concept of race is meaningless.”
The argument given against the existence of genetic differences between races is not really an argument. Indeed, the human genome consists of three billion nucleotides (more precisely, they speak of pairs of nucleotides, because DNA consists of two complementary chains). Therefore, 99.9% match, or 0.1% difference, means that people differ from each other in three million base pairs. Probably, most of these differences occur in informationally “silent” regions of the genome, but the remaining functionally significant differences are sufficient to ensure the individuality of each of us. It is known that the DNA of humans and chimpanzees coincides by 98-99% - this figure is also large at first glance. However, humans and chimpanzees are different zoological species, separated by at least five million years since their evolutionary branches separated from a common ancestor.

“Research shows that the concept of race at the genetic level is nonsense.”
Now we can say that this is not so - the indicated three million nucleotide pairs are enough to cause genetic differences between races. Recently, more than fifty native populations from various regions of the world (South Africa, Western Eurasia, East Asia, Oceania, America) were examined at almost four hundred genetic loci of various parts of the genome. These geographic population groups correspond to the main human races (the term “race” was not used in these publications, since over many decades it turned out to be emotionally overloaded and evokes associations that are far from scientific). It turned out that among these loci there are no ones that would clearly “mark” one or another race. However, for each of them, an interracial difference that was practically indistinguishable by statistical methods was revealed. These tiny differences were accumulated by all four hundred loci until complete racial identification - according to the genetic “profile”, each individual could be unambiguously assigned to one of the geographical groups.

“Races are subject to change, both geographically and historically.”
The above data confirms this conclusion: statistically significant differences were found between populations (ethnic groups) from the same geographic region (same race). However, these differences were not one hundred percent: an individual could not always be unambiguously assigned to one or another population1. The differences themselves between geographic groups and between populations within a region evolved evolutionarily over many tens of thousands of years under the influence of mutations and population genetic processes, and the degree of difference corresponded to the time that passed after humans left Africa and settled across different continents.

The time of genetic isolation between regions was sufficient for the accumulated genetic differences between them to become identificationally significant. However, the division of populations within the region occurred much later, and therefore there was not enough evolutionary time for the development of significant differences within the region. True, this does not exclude the possibility that the involvement of, say, several thousand loci in the analysis accumulates additional differences and makes it possible to identify populations within a race. Mass migrations, interracial marriages and miscegenation can quickly, within a few generations, destroy evolutionarily established genetic differences. This suggests that race, although real, is not a frozen category that does not absolutely separate people according to biological characteristics. Race, like ethnicity, is a historical, evolutionary concept.

This is confirmed by another fact. In terms of DNA, we are quite close to the Neanderthal, much closer than to the chimpanzee, but we represent different evolutionary branches that diverged from a common ancestor much earlier than the human races from each other - about 500-700 thousand years ago. Within the framework of the issue under discussion, we and Neanderthal man are simply very different races that have reached the status of subspecies of Homo sapiens: according to modern nomenclature, we are Homo sapiens sapiens, and Neanderthal man is Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. However, the genetic differences between modern human races are much smaller, than the differences between us and Neanderthal man.

“Race exists at least as a factor of distinction from a medical point of view. It is impossible to abandon this concept without abandoning along with it all the epidemiological data known today.”
The different prevalence of hereditary pathologies in different races is also associated with evolutionary processes. Hereditary diseases arise as “harmful” mutations – “breakdowns” of functionally important genes, which are then passed on to descendants if the carriers of such mutations survive to reproductive age. Therefore, a certain mutation, if it does not disappear, spreads mainly among close populations and further through migration. Thus, based on a purely random process of the appearance of harmful mutations, regional differences in certain hereditary pathologies arise over time. This process leads to differences in the spectrum of hereditary diseases not only between races, but also between populations within a race. Of course, the prevalence of a particular hereditary disease can be restrained or, conversely, enhanced by specific environmental factors. And in this sense, we can agree with the author’s phrase: “Race is part of the environmental background of the human genome.”

“By placing too much emphasis on DNA, we turn a health problem into a biological inevitability. There is also a great temptation to use the same tool when talking about the genetic basis of criminal tendencies or intelligence.”
These fair phrases touch on the most important problem: how the contributions of genes and environment relate to the development of the characteristics and characteristics of each person. Is antisocial behavior or non-traditional sexual orientation really determined by special genes or is it due to upbringing? It has now become fashionable to refer to the genetic fatality of today's expanding extreme manifestations of personality. However, there is no serious evidence for this, except in cases where marginal behavior is caused by serious hereditary defects. On the contrary, there is a large number of facts confirming the leading role of perception, imitation and motivation in the development of personal characteristics.