There are already about 6 billion people on Earth. None of them, and

there can be two completely identical people; even twins developed from

one egg, despite the great similarity of their appearance, and

internal structure, always differ from each other by some small features

friend. The science that studies changes in the physical type of a person is known as

the name of "anthropology" (Greek, "anthropos" - man). Particularly noticeable

bodily differences between territorial groups of people remote from each other

from a friend and living in different natural-geographical settings.

The division of the species Homo Sapiens into races occurred two and a half centuries ago.

The origin of the term "race" is not precisely established; it is possible that he

is a modification of the Arabic word "ras" (head, beginning,

root). There is also an opinion that this term is associated with the Italian razza, which

means "tribe". The word "race" in the sense in which it is used

now, it is already found in the French scientist Francois Bernier, who

Races are historically formed groupings (population groups) of people

different numbers, characterized by the similarity of morphological and physiological properties, as well as the commonality of the territories they occupy.

Developing under the influence of historical factors and referring to one species

(H.sapiens), the race is different from the people, or ethnic group, which, having

a certain territory of settlement, may contain several racial

complexes. A number of peoples may belong to the same race and

speakers of many languages. Most scholars agree that

there are 3 major races, which in turn break up into more

small. Currently, according to various scientists, there are 34 - 40

races. Races differ from each other in 30-40 elements. Racial Features

hereditary and are adaptive to the conditions of existence.

The purpose of my work is to systematize and deepen knowledge about

human races.

Races and their origin.

The science of race is called Racial Science. Racial science studies racial

features (morphological), origin, formation, history.

1.1. History of human races.

People knew about the existence of races even before our era. Then they took

and the first attempts to explain their origin. For example, in ancient myths

Greeks, the emergence of people with black skin was due to the negligence of the son

the god Helios Phaeton, who on the solar chariot so approached

Earth that burned the white people standing on it. Greek philosophers in

explaining the causes of the origin of races, climate was of great importance. IN

in accordance with biblical history, the ancestors of white, yellow and black

races were the sons of Noah - beloved by the god Japhet, Shem and cursed by the god Ham

respectively.

The desire to systematize ideas about the physical types of peoples,

inhabiting the globe date back to the 17th century, when, based on the differences

people in the structure of the face, skin color, hair, eyes, as well as features of the language and

cultural traditions, the French doctor F. Burnier for the first time in 1684

divided humanity into (three races - Caucasoid, Negroid and

Mongoloid). A similar classification was proposed by K. Linnaeus, who, recognizing

humanity as a single species, singled out an additional (fourth)

pacy - Lapland (population of the northern regions of Sweden and Finland). In 1775

J. Blumenbach divided the human race into five races - Caucasian

(white), Mongolian (yellow), Ethiopian (black), American, (red)

and Malay (brown), and in 1889 the Russian scientist I.E. Deniker - on

six main and more than twenty additional races.

Based on the results of the study of blood antigens (serological

differences) W. Boyd in 1953 identified five races in humanity.

Despite the existence of modern scientific classifications, in our time it is very

widespread division of mankind into Caucasians, Negroids,

Mongoloids and Australoids.

1.2. Hypotheses about the origin of races.

Ideas about the origin of races and the primary centers of race formation

reflected in several hypotheses.

In accordance with the hypothesis of polycentrism, or polyphilia, the author of which

is F. Weidenreich (1947), there were four centers of racial formation - in

Europe or Western Asia, in Africa south of the Sahara, in East Asia, in South

East Asia and the Greater Sunda Islands. In Europe or Asia Minor

a hotbed of racial formation has developed, where, on the basis of European and

Neanderthals originated Caucasians. In Africa from African Neanderthals

Negroids were formed, in East Asia the Sinanthropes gave rise to the Mongoloids,

and in Southeast Asia and the Greater Sunda Islands, development

Pithecanthropus and Javanese Neanderthals led to the formation

australoids. Therefore, Caucasoids, Negroids, Mongoloids and Australoids

have their own breeding grounds. The main thing in racial genesis was

mutations and natural selection. However, this hypothesis is objectionable. In-

First, there are no known cases in evolution when identical evolutionary

the results were reproduced several times. Moreover, evolutionary

changes are always new. Secondly, scientific evidence that each race

has its own focus of racial formation, does not exist. As part of

hypotheses of polycentrism later G.F.Debets (1950) and N.Thoma (1960) proposed

two variants of the origin of races. According to the first option, the focus of racial formation

Caucasians and African Negroids existed in Western Asia, while

the focus of the race formation of Mongoloids and Australoids was confined to the Eastern and

South-East Asia. Caucasoids moved within the European

mainland and adjacent regions of Asia Minor.

According to the second option, Caucasians, African Negroids and Australians

constitute one trunk of racial formation, while the Asian Mongoloids and

Americanoids is another.

In accordance with the hypothesis of monocentrism, or. monophyly (Ya.Ya. Roginsky,

1949), which is based on the recognition-community of origin, social

mental development, as well as the same level of physical and

mental development of all races, the latter arose from one ancestor, on

one territory. But the latter was measured in many thousands of square

kilometers It is assumed that the formation of races occurred in territories

Eastern Mediterranean, Western and possibly South Asia.

2. Mechanism of formation of races.

There are four stages of race formation (V.P. Alekseev, 1985)

stage, the formation of primary foci of race formation took place

(territories in which this process takes place) and the main racial

trunks, western (Caucasoids, Negroids and Australoids) and eastern

(Asian Mongoloids and Mongoloids and Americanoids). Chronologically, this

falls on the epochs of the Lower or Middle Paleolithic (about 200,000 years

back), i.e. coincides with the emergence of modern man.

Consequently, the main racial combinations in the western and eastern regions

of the Old World took shape simultaneously with the appearance of the signs inherent in

modern man, as well as with the resettlement of part of humanity in the New

Light. At the second stage, secondary foci were identified

racial formation and the formation of branches within the main racial trunks.

Chronologically, this stage falls on the Upper Paleolithic and partly the Mesolithic.

(about 15,000 - 20,000 years ago).

At the third stage of race formation, the formation of local races took place. By

time is the eve of the Mesolithic and Neolithic (about 10,000 - 12,000 years ago).

At the fourth stage, Quaternary centers of race formation and

populations with deep racial differentiation were formed, similar to

with modern. It began in the Bronze and Early Iron Ages, i.e. in IV-III

millennium BC.

2.1. factors of racial genesis.

Among the factors of racial genesis, the greatest role belongs to natural selection,

especially in the early stages of racial formation. Responsible for skin color

skin cells containing a pigment called melanin. All people for

with the exception of albinos, they have melanin in skin cells, the amount of which

determined genetically. In particular, pigment formation is determined

the presence of a gene that controls tyrosinase, which catalyzes

conversion of tyrosine to melanin. However, in addition to tyrosinase on skin pigmentation

another enzyme is affected, for which another gene is responsible,

melanin. When this enzyme is synthesized, melanin is formed in small

quantities and the skin is white. On the contrary, when it is absent (not

synthesized), then melanin is formed in large quantities and the skin is

value and melanin stimulating hormone. So in color control

skin involved at least three pairs of genes.

The importance of skin color as a racial trait is explained by the relationship between

sunlight and vitamin D production, which is essential for

maintaining calcium balance in the body. Excess of this vitamin

accompanied by the deposition of calcium in the bones and leads to their fragility, then

how lack of calcium results in rickets. Meanwhile, the quantity

vitamin D, synthesized normally, is controlled by the dose of sunlight

radiation that penetrates cells deeper than the melanin layer.

The more melanin in the skin, the less light it transmits. Before the period

when methods of artificial fortification of food with vitamin D were developed,

people were dependent on sunlight for vitamin D production. To

vitamin D was synthesized in optimal amounts, i.e. sufficient for

maintaining a normal calcium balance, people with fair skin should have

live at a certain geographical latitude far from the equator, where

solar radiation is weaker. On the contrary, people with black skin had to

be closer to the equator. As can be seen, the territorial distribution of people

with different skin pigmentation is a function of geographic latitude.

Clarification of the skin in Caucasians contributes to the penetration of sunlight

deep in human tissue, which accelerates the synthesis of anti-rachitic vitamin

D, which is usually synthesized slowly under conditions of insufficient solar

radiation. Migration of people with intensely pigmented skin to distant

from the equator to latitudes, and people with insufficiently pigmented skin - to

tropical latitudes could lead to vitamin D deficiency in the former and excess in

the second with the ensuing consequences. Thus, in the past, skin color had

selective value for natural selection.

A significantly protruding narrow nose in Caucasians lengthens the nasopharyngeal

way through which cold air is heated, which protects against

hypothermia larynx and lungs. The development of mucous membranes contributes to a greater

heat transfer. Curly hair is the best way to protect your head from overheating.

how to create an air gap. Elongated high head too

heats up weaker than wide and low. Undoubtedly, these signs

are adaptive. Thus, as a result of mutations and natural

selection, many racial traits arose as an adaptation to the conditions

geographic habitat.

The factors of racial genesis also include genetic drift, isolation and mixing

populations.

Drift of genes that control traits can change the genetic

population structure. It is estimated that as a result of genetic drift, the appearance

populations can change over 50 generations, i.e. about 1250 years old.

The essence of genetic drift is that in isolated

populations where almost all marriages are endogamous, the chances of

meeting in allelic pairs of recessive genes, the level of

heterozygosity and increases the concentration of recessives in the homozygous

condition.

In populations (demes) where marriages are concluded for many generations

predominantly within their own group, over time may occur

noticeable changes in racial characteristics that lead to the fact that

Initially similar populations turn out to be different. Emergence

such differences, which are not adaptive in nature, are the result of

shifts in the frequency of occurrence of individual signs. They lead to

some features can disappear completely, while others get very

wide use.

The isolation of populations manifested itself in various forms and volumes. For example,

geographic isolation of primitive groups in the Paleolithic era

was accompanied by differentiation of their genetic composition, interruption

contacts with other groups. Various geographic barriers

influenced not only the genetic differentiation of populations, but also

on the concentration of cultural traditions.

Mixing populations mattered in the distant past, and even more so

In the formation of young races. In the distant past, more progressive forms

met with archaic ones, which led not only to the extermination of the latter, but also

to miscegenation. Among the "young" races, the most characteristic is

North American colored race (Negro population of the USA) who

arose as a result of the mixing of the forest Negroid race with the Bantu races, and

also northwestern European, Alpine, Mediterranean and,

possibly by other races. The South African colored race arose on the basis of

Bantu, Bushmen and Hottentots. Currently in Hawaii

a new racial group is formed due to the miscegenation of Caucasians,

Mongoloids and Polynesians.

At the present stage, the future of races is determined by a number of

time factors. The world population continues to grow

its migration increases, the frequency of interracial marriages increases.

It is assumed that due to the last two factors in the distant future

a single race of mankind will begin to form. At the same time, it is also possible

another consequence of interracial marriages associated with the formation of new

populations with their own specific combinations of genes.

2.2 The role of environmental conditions on the formation of races.

The influence of natural conditions on the development of human races is undeniable.

Initially, in ancient humanity, it was probably stronger, in

the process of the formation of modern races was less pronounced, although until now

pores in some signs, for example, in pigmentation of the skin,

appears with sufficient clarity. The influence of the entire complex population

conditions of life, obviously, was of paramount importance for the emergence,

formation, weakening and even disappearance of racial characteristics.

When settling on the Earth, people fell into different natural conditions. But these

conditions that so strongly affect the species and subspecies of animals could not

and act with the same intensity on qualitatively different races

mankind, more and more using nature and transforming it into

social labor process.

In the evolution of different human groups, many racial features,

undoubtedly had a certain adaptive value, but later in

largely lost it due to the growing role of factors

social character and a gradual weakening, and almost complete

termination of natural selection. Initially great importance

for the development of races had resettlement in new areas, due to which many

groups of people, having got into different natural conditions, existed for a long time

separately from each other. Their way of eating was accordingly differentiated.

Later, however, as the human population increased, more and more

the contact of racial groups increased, which led to the process of their

mixing with each other.

3. Rasogenesis and genetics.

Previously, there was a notion that each individual

bears the characteristics of a certain race. It is called typological

race concept. This name is associated with a very clear and practically only

the only task of racial analysis is to determine the racial type

individual. The typological concept of race was based on the hypothesis

inheritance of racial traits, according to which they are transmitted from

generation to generation as a whole. This means that the racial properties

are hereditarily linked, genes for racial traits are located in one or

several close chromosomes and any racial trait physiologically

inextricably linked to all others. But the physiological relationship between

racial characteristics are actually either completely absent, or very

weak. What do low correlation coefficients between races indicate?

signs. There is a group of scientists who argue about independent

inheritance of racial traits, their first basic postulate is that the individual is not

there is a carrier of racial properties. The second postulate is population and race (as

a group of populations) is not a sum, but a collection of individuals;

Within a population and race, certain patterns of variability operate.

Racial variability is group, not individual, and it makes sense

speak from the population level. Similar morphologically and

genetically, the populations that form a particular racial community are related

among themselves not by chance, but by virtue of origin or some other

historical reasons. Race, any racial community consists of individual

historically organized elements, but these, however, are not individuals (as

thought before), but populations. The mosaic of racial variability consists of

mosaics of population variability. Together they create everything.

the richness of the variability of the human species. Each population was studied

not as a sum of individuals, but as a unique combination in its specificity

group properties. The population concept is based on achievements

population genetics, latest biometrics, mathematical theory of evolution

Racial differences. Level of mental development

The main indicator that has been studied in psychology in the study of racial differences is intelligence or the level of mental development.

In the results that are obtained when testing intelligence in children and adolescents with different skin colors, one can identify the following trend: children belonging to the Mongoloid race cope best with tests, somewhat worse - to Caucasoid, much worse - to Negroid, and even worse - descendants American Indians. At one time there were attempts to explain such differences in terms of genetic differences between races. They proceeded from the fact that races are groups of people who have been geographically separated for a long time. Their isolation from each other could lead to genetic differences - affect the frequency of occurrence of genes in populations of different races. And the frequency of occurrence of genes may be the reason that causes differences in intelligence.

Are there really differences between different races, and if so, whether they are related to genetic differences, we will consider in this section of the text. First of all, it should be noted that the differences between the two races - Caucasoid and Negroid - have been studied most consistently. Research on other races is fragmentary and their data is not very reliable. Therefore, all the material presented here will concern the comparison of only two groups - the one that has white and the one that has black skin.

In the study of the level of intellectual development on representative samples (that is, on such samples in which all groups of the population are proportionally represented in the composition of the subjects), differences are always found between white and black people. These differences may vary within one standard deviation (i.e., they do not exceed 15 points on standard intelligence tests), but the general meaning of these differences does not change: whites always have, on average, higher intelligence than, on average, people with black skin.

Thus, to the first question posed at the beginning of this chapter - do people of different races differ in intelligence, we can immediately answer: there are differences among whites, indeed, compared with blacks, intelligence is, on average, higher .

In trying to understand the reasons for these differences, researchers have noticed that differences in intelligence of about one standard deviation often occur between privileged and disadvantaged populations, regardless of their race. So, for example, lower intelligence, in comparison with other groups of the population, is found among representatives of the untouchable caste in India.

A change in the official status of deprived (deprived of rights) groups does not immediately lead to a change in their position in society - to more prestigious activities, to an increase in the level of education, to a change in the attitude of others, etc. Because of this, they may continue to lag behind in intelligence from more prosperous populations for a long time. Indicative in this sense is the example of one of the Japanese minorities - Burakumi.

Burakumi have been pariahs in Japan for many centuries and could only do the most unprestigious and low-paid work. At the end of the XIX century. they were officially equalized in rights with the rest of the population, but the attitude of those around them changed little. Accordingly, the lag in the level of intelligence has also been preserved. However, when the Burakumi emigrate to the US, their children are no different in intelligence from other Japanese children. In the USA, Burakumi are not a stigmatized group (a group that has a seal of inferiority), others treat them the same way as other Japanese, and the result of this is the leveling of the level of intellectual development (Atkinson et. al., 1993).

Such data suggest that racial differences in intelligence may also be the result of social causes. These reasons may be different - the low socio-economic level of the black population, long-term restrictions on rights that still affect values, prejudices and prejudices of others, etc.

To test this assumption, studies were conducted in which groups of white and black subjects were equalized by a large number of indicators - by socioeconomic status, by family composition, by family relations, by parental values ​​(in particular, by parents' attitude to education). ). Racial differences in intelligence are not found in such cases (Mercer, 1971).

The determining role of developmental conditions for achieving one or another level of intelligence was obtained in the study of adopted children. Cases have been described in the psychological literature in which white parents of middle and high socioeconomic status adopted black children in their first months of life. By the time they entered school, the intelligence of these children was above average and significantly exceeded the intelligence of children from black families living in the same region (Scarr S., Weinberg R., 1976). This fact is an excellent demonstration that the color of the skin determines the level of development only insofar as it is associated with the socio-economic level of the families in which children grow up. When a child gets into favorable conditions for development, you increase his intelligence, regardless of what race he belongs to.

The same conclusions were reached by researchers who compared the intelligence of illegitimate children whose mothers were Germans and whose fathers were American soldiers (both white and black) who served in Germany after World War II. Both white and black children grew up in Germany, were brought up in approximately the same conditions and did not differ in terms of intelligence (Eyferth K., et al., 1960).

It is also indicative that as racial prejudices are eliminated, racial differences in intelligence also decrease. Black children are becoming more similar in their math and verbal abilities to white children. This trend has been traced over the past thirty years and is observed in children of different ages - from the first to the twelfth grade of school (Jones L.V., 1984).

The facts considered so far show that racial differences in intelligence are closely related to differences in the social conditions of development. The following example shows that social conditions can exert their influence not only directly, but also through other psychological characteristics.

When conducting one of the experiments in which intelligence was determined, two groups of subjects were recruited - white and black children. Both groups were split in half. One half of the children were told that if they answered correctly, they would be rewarded with a toy at the end of the experiment. The other half of the children (the control group) were not promised a reward. After taking an intelligence test, it turned out that black children who were promised a reward performed significantly better on the test than black children who were not given anything for correct answers. The difference between these groups was 13 points. In white children, there were no differences between the two groups; the motivation for taking the test did not change, depending on whether they were given a reward for it or not.

The results of this test show that when motivation is needed, white children do better than black children. This motivation, on the one hand, is a consequence of the social conditions of development (in particular, the high value of education, which is much higher in families of white children than in families of black children). On the other hand, a low level of adaptation can reduce the level of intelligence: if a child is not interested in intellectual activities and he needs additional motivation in order to work at full strength, then, in all likelihood, he will not particularly strive for these intellectual activities, will not choose them voluntarily. And this, sooner or later, will affect the level of his intelligence.

Richard Lynn in his work "Racial Differences in Intelligence" analyzed the results of studies of representatives of various races, which he divided into eight groups: Europeans, Aborigines of Equatorial Africa, Bushmen, Aborigines of South Asia and North Africa, Aborigines of Southeast Asia, Australian Aborigines, Aborigines Pacific Islanders, East Asians, Arctic peoples, American Indians.

As a definition of the term intelligence, the author uses the definition proposed by L. Gottfredson: "Intelligence is a very general mental ability which includes, among other things, the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience. It's not just book knowledge, a narrow academic skill, or the ability to take tests. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper ability to comprehend the environment - "grasping", "comprehension of the meaning" of things or "understanding" what to do. "In his study, the author relies on the results obtained using various methods of measuring IQ, such methods can include the tests of Wexler, Cattell, Eysenck, Raven, Amthauer and others.

The species Homo sapiens (modern man) appeared about 150,000 years ago, and about 100,000 years ago, groups of Homo sapiens began to migrate from equatorial Africa to other areas of the world and about 30,000 years ago colonized most of the globe.

According to R. Lynn, differences in intelligence are due to the fact that each of the races over a long period of time developed in different climatic conditions. For example, the natives of central Australia have a better developed spatial memory than Europeans, according to Kearins, this is due to the fact that the natives had to navigate in the desert, which had few landmarks on the ground. Those of the races that lived in the immediate vicinity of the glacier, as a result of extreme conditions and selection, were forced to find different ways for their survival. The variety of available races has arisen as a result of four biological effects:

• 1 The founder effect is that when a population splits and one of the groups migrates to a new location, the group that migrates will not be genetically identical to the group that remains in the same place. Therefore, these two populations will differ genetically;
• 2 The effect of genetic drift is that the frequencies of genes change over time to some extent randomly, and this leads to differences between populations. The drift continues, and over time leads to an increase in the differences between races;
• 3 The effect of mutations is that new alleles (alleles - alternative forms of genes) appear in populations at random, and if they are favorable for survival and reproduction, they will gradually spread in the population. A favorable new allele may appear as a result of a mutation in one race, but not in others;
• 4 The effect of adaptation is that after the migration of a population to a new habitat, some alleles that were not favorable in the old habitat become favorable. Individuals with favorable alleles will produce more viable offspring in the new habitat, so their alleles will be selected and gradually spread through the population.

Due to the fact that for a long time the races lived apart, their distinctive features were fixed and reproduced in each new generation. However, both in the distant past and now, cases of hybridization (children from marriages of representatives of different races) are not uncommon, as a result of which the level of intelligence in such people is equal to an intermediate value between the race of the father and the race of the mother.

For a long time, scientists have paid great attention to the influence of the environment on the level of intelligence, but according to the results of research, we can say that the environmental influence is not significant. However, malnutrition and iron deficiency can reduce a person's intelligence by several points, while Africans living in the UK, on ​​the contrary, increase their intelligence by an average of 7-8 points. All studies conducted over the past 80 years allow us to talk about the constancy and numerical proportions in the difference in intelligence indicators among representatives of different races, including studies with separated twins adopted by representatives of different races.

Since the early years of the twentieth century, the validity of intelligence tests has been tested by the degree to which their scores correlate with educational attainment. Numerous studies have found that the correlation of IQ with educational achievement is in the order of 0.6 to 0.7, so there is no doubt about the validity of the methods used. Another method of establishing the validity of intelligence tests is to study the relationship of test scores with per capita income and economic growth. The correlation between IQ and GDP and GNP is 0.62, hence the level of intelligence makes a significant contribution to national wealth (approximately 40% of income). At first glance, the correlation of per capita income and IQ is not as strong as the correlation of income and possession of natural resources, but it is nations with a high IQ that are able to produce complex goods and services (computers, mobile phones, cars, airplanes, pharmaceuticals, etc.). e.) highly valued in international markets, which ensures a high average per capita income, which creates favorable conditions for the development of intelligence in the next generations.

According to the data given in the book, the average IQ of the inhabitants of our country (Russians) is 97 points. These results were obtained in studies conducted from 1960 to 1994 among schoolchildren.

According to the author himself, his work is intended for the widest range of readers, especially since similar works have not been carried out in our country, and the very question of the difference in the intelligence of representatives of different races was under an unspoken ban.

Summing up the results of various studies described here, we can confidently say that social influences are extremely important for the formation of racial differences in intelligence. The opposite hypothesis - about the biological determinism of racial differences in the level of intelligence - has no reliable evidence to date.

If racial differences in intelligence are influenced precisely by genetic differences between races, then we can expect that the number of white ancestors should affect the level of intelligence of representatives of the Negroid race. The more white ancestors there were (the more "white" genes), the higher the intelligence should be. When checking this pre. the result was negative: the level of intelligence did not depend on the number of white ancestors (S. Scarr et al., 1977, cit. no Atkinson et al., 1993).

Nevertheless, it is possible that the biological prerequisites of racial differences still have an impact on intelligence, but this influence is manifested not in level indicators, but in the ratio of different types of abilities. Some experimental data support this.

When comparing the performance of different tests by white and black children from families with an average socioeconomic status, it turned out that children belonging to different races are successful in different types activities (Sitkei E. G., Meyers C. E., 1969). White children performed particularly well on verbal tasks and were more successful at describing and remembering pictures, while black children outperformed white children in spatial problem solving, memory capacity, and perceptual speed (see Figure 22).

At the beginning of this section, two questions were asked - are there racial differences in the level of intelligence and, if so, what is their nature. Summarizing the material that was presented here, we can say the following. First, there are racial differences in the level of intelligence. Secondly, differences in the level of intelligence are due to social reasons. Third, racial differences in intelligence scores tend to decrease as societies overcome racial barriers.

List of used literature

• 1 Richard Lynn. Racial differences in intelligence. Evolutionary analysis. / Per. from English. Rumyantsev D.O. - M.: Profit Style, 2010. - 304 p.
• 2 Egorova M.S., Psychology of individual differences. - M.: Planet of children, 1997. - 328s
• 3 Druzhinin V.N. Psychology of general abilities - St. Petersburg: Publishing house "Piter", 1999. - 368 p.

The genetic basis of skin pigmentation also has a very important race-delimiting function. V. A. Spitsyn writes in this regard: “It is known that a thick layer of melanin in dark-skinned races, preventing ultraviolet rays from penetrating into the deeper layers of the skin, creates the basis for rickets. This explains the presence of a compensatory mechanism, which is expressed in the fact that people living in the tropics have abundant secretions of sebaceous glands, much larger than those of Europeans.

In Caucasians, the frequency of the gene (Gc) should not exceed 10%, while in blacks it exceeds 30%. It is the frequency of this gene that is associated with the characteristic Negro smell ...

The most important conclusion of V. A. Spitsyn is as follows: “There is no data on the relationship between climatic and geographical factors and the distribution of Gm factors.” This suggests that racial traits are non-adaptive in nature, the environment does not have any influence on them at all. The color of the eyes, hair, skin, etc., is not the result of a person's adaptation to the appropriate environmental conditions, but rather genetic ornaments that nature distributed to different races, based on the natural principle "to each his own."

The latter conclusion is in excellent agreement with both direct observations (for more than 400 years of the history of African-American blacks, there are still no known cases of their whitening due to climate change; the white descendants of Dutch settlers, the Boers of South Africa, have not turned black either), and with the theory of lithospheric catastrophes , which is discussed below. It should also be noted that the average annual temperature and the number of sunny days per year change in the same way as you move away from the equator, regardless of whether the North or South Pole, however, black individuals live mainly in Africa, and not at all wherever the sun shines and warms just as much. bright and strong. The Negroids did not form either in Central or South America, or in the overwhelming part of Asia, and, moreover, in parts of Europe equidistant from the equator. If we talk about the southern tip of Africa, originally also inhabited by blacks, then even more so on no continent of the northern hemisphere of the Earth, we will not find natural Negroids in the corresponding climatic zones. This allows us to reject once and for all the hypothesis of the "blackening" of the Negroid race due to exposure to sun rays as anti-scientific.

V. A. Spitsyn also emphasizes: “Each of the largest races has a characteristic gene complex of gammaglobulins and alkaline phosphatase of the placenta, peculiar only to it alone.”

In general, serology, that is, the science of blood groups, reliably presents us with a number of racial diagnostic markers: it has been proven, for example, that the polygenic hereditary factors of serum proteins are specifically distributed at the level of large races. Encyclopedia "Peoples of Russia" (M., 1994) fixes: "According to the systems of immunoglobulins that provide a protective reaction against various diseases and transferrins that ensure the normal circulation of iron ions in the blood stream, large human races are clearly distinguished."

So, people of different races and nationalities differ in protein structures, biochemical composition immune system and electromagnetic properties of blood. No less rigorous and reliable information about the race of a person is also provided by the biochemical composition of earwax.

In their joint work The Teaching of Human Heredity (1936), E. Baur, O. Fischer and F. Lenz stated: “Racial differences mainly depend on differences in internal secretion. The constitution of the body, intellectual and mental characteristics and other racial characteristics are determined by them. Today, without denying the significance of internal secretion for racial diagnosis, scientists prefer to talk about the correlation of markers. This thesis can be illustrated by a quote from the article by M. G. Abdushelishvili and V. P. Volkov-Dubrovin “On the correlation of racial and morphophysiological characteristics” (Problems of Anthropology. Issue 52, 1976): “There is a known relationship between skin color and some physiological characteristics. The lightest ones have a slow blood flow and the highest mineral saturation. bone tissue, and the most dark-skinned have significantly lower skeletal mineralization and faster blood flow.”

The development of the biochemical theme has already led us pages above to the data on the invariable difference between races presented by science. genetics interpreting the problem of heredity. It was in the field of this science (within the framework of the so-called "mitochondrial" theory) that an attempt was made at the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st century to refute the obvious: racial differences between people. They tried to convince us that white, yellow, black - all people consist of one building material, and therefore they are a single whole. Simply, they tried to hide the forest behind the trees. These conjectures were immediately seized upon by supporters of the theory of monogenism, who tried to impose on the public consciousness the idea of ​​​​our common foremother - “black Eve”, from which (in the bowels of Central Africa), supposedly, all of humanity in general originated. After that, some descendants of this Eve migrated to the North, where everyone turned white without exception, and others - to the East, where they also turned yellow and numb.

As will be irrefutably seen from what follows, the results of conscientious genetic research lead to completely different conclusions.

The outstanding Soviet biologist I. I. Shmalgauzen, in his programmatic book “Cybernetic Questions of Biology” (Moscow, 1968), brilliantly developed the postulates of racial theory directed against vulgar Lamarckism: “The hereditary code is protected by a nuclear membrane and regulatory mechanisms of the cell and the whole organism as a whole from direct influence external factors. Inheritance of traits acquired during the life of an individual is virtually impossible, since this “acquisition” concerns only the transformation of information in a given individual and dies with it. The hereditary material was not affected by this transformation and remained unchanged. At the same time, it is emphasized that mutations, the role of which geneticists are so fond of discussing, are in fact of a random nature, in addition, there is no freedom of mutations, because they are possible only within certain boundaries set by hereditary racial traits ...

Thus, it turns out that it is not the removal of racial characteristics in the process of evolution that is an adaptive factor, but, on the contrary, their strengthening and consolidation. In the process of evolution, racial traits are a kind of adaptive toolkit, "evolutionary equipment", without which the biological development of a race is not possible. Racial traits are, both physically and mentally, the genetic “knots of strength” on which the entire structure of a person rests. Without them, degeneration and decay are inevitable.

The 1st international conference "Race: myth or reality?", held in Moscow from October 7 to 9, 1998 under the auspices of the Russian branch of the European Anthropological Association and with the support of numerous international and domestic specialized scientific institutions, provided a platform for geneticists .

In a collective study entitled "A new DNA marker as a racial diagnostic feature", the material for obtaining a new genetic marker CAcf685 on the 19th chromosome is analyzed, on the basis of which the value of the genetic distance Gst between Caucasoids and Mongoloids (in this case, the Chukchi) is estimated as sixfold. This marker is recognized as valuable in racial diagnostic terms.

The keynote speech of one of the best Russian geneticists Yu. G. Rychkov "Genetic foundations of the stability and variability of races" was devoted to the same topic. His report was a summary of many years of theoretical and practical research. In it, he said that despite the fact that human genetics has been at odds with anthropology for the past 35 years, nevertheless, molecular genetics is discovering more and more "so-called DNA markers that can be considered markers of racial differences."

The report of the well-known molecular biologist V. A. Spitsyn “The effectiveness of different categories of genetic markers in differentiating large anthropological communities” was devoted to the analysis of these new racial diagnostic markers.

S. A. Limborskaya, O. P. Balanovsky, S. D. Nurbaev in the collective work “Molecular genetic polymorphism in the study of population: the genogeography of Eastern Europe” speak of the great success achieved recently in deciphering the DNA of the human genome. “In the course of this work, a large number of highly polymorphic DNA markers suitable for population genetic studies were discovered. By studying living populations with the help of these markers, it is possible to obtain information about their genetic history and, in some cases, to date - with varying probability - important events related to the origin of man, his races, and human settlement on a global scale. The results of the analysis of the racially complex region of Eastern Europe indicate the high resolution of DNA markers in the analysis of the gene pool.”

Based on the results of the named conference, a program document “The Problem of Race in Russian Physical Anthropology” (M., 2002) was published, which may well be considered as the official position of Russian anthropological science. So, in particular, E. V. Balanovskaya indicated in her report, included in the general version, the following: “The objective classification of individual genotypes by DNA markers almost completely corresponds to racial classification.” It was also supported by G.L. Hit, in turn, pointing out that each of the major racial groups of humanity has a unique combination of certain frequencies of key features inherent only to it. E. 3. Godina emphasized: "The main racial differences are largely formed already in the prenatal period."

The title of the book by A.F. Nazarova and S.M. Altukhov "Genetic portrait of the peoples of the world" (M., 1999) also speaks for itself, because it gives a detailed description of the frequencies of genes in all major and even many relict populations of mankind. And the leading domestic anthropologists A. A. Zubov and N. I. Khaldeeva in their joint article from the collection with the characteristic title “Race and racism. History and Modernity" (M., 1991) give the following conclusion: "It means "type", i.e., the characteristic sum of genetic and morphophysiological features that mark certain groups within a species, is a very real phenomenon, and therefore, deserving of research."

Not only Russian geneticists stand on the positions of racial distinction: it is the famous “Table of Genetic and Linguistic Distances between Nations” by the American geneticist L. Cavalli-Sforza that finally illustrates the objectivity of differences between biotypes. And his colleague J. Neal states that at present any individual can be attributed to one or another well-studied large ethnic community with an accuracy of 87%.

In a word, under the influence of new discoveries, as well as as a result of strict scientific criticism of the so-called. "mitochondrial" genetic theory, half a century of confrontation between "population geneticists" on the one hand and anthropologists and racologists on the other ends today. The existence of the great primordial races is no longer seriously disputed. 130 years later, during the tense research work hundreds of scientists and fierce discussions of supporters and opponents of racology, the scientific community has finally matured, fully armed with arguments, to a simple conclusion made by I. I. Mechnikov back in 1878: “The differences between large human groups, peoples and races are so large and obvious that I I even consider it superfluous to dwell on it.

Patterns on the skin are visible, but invisible to the naked eye when meeting a person. It takes effort to see them. As for the genes and blood molecules or earwax, they cannot be seen at all without an electron microscope. But in the human body there are signs that are easily noticeable to anyone: the shape of the head and body, facial features, the color of the skin, eyes, hair, etc. They testify, first of all, to the race of a person. And, of course, they have been studied since the earliest days of racial science.

Skull, brain, face and more

IMPORTANCE of turtle science data - craniology- is absolutely indisputable. Another of the most recognized authorities of the Italian anthropological school, Giuseppe Sergi, in the monograph “Types and Varieties of the Human Race” (1900) wrote: “The skull is most important for classification. One skull can distinguish between ethnic elements that make up mixed groups. Primary classification is possible even according to one stable feature. The most stable brain and facial parts of the skull. From the most ancient times to our time, no new forms of skulls have appeared.

The classical school of anthropology by J. F. Blumenbach (1752–1840) found that it is the development of the brain that determines the formation of the human skull, but not vice versa. Its representative S. T. Sommering (1755-1830) wrote: "It must be assumed that nature forms the cranial bones so that they can adapt to the brain, but not vice versa." Much later, the famous Soviet geneticist N. P. Dubinin in the book “What is a person?” (M., 1983) outlined a similar set of ideas: “The human brain has genetically determined properties. For the normal development of the brain, a normal genetic program is needed. It has been proven that 5/6 of the human brain is formed after birth. Anthropological collection "Problems of the evolutionary morphology of man and his races" (M., 1986) does not leave any ambiguity in this matter: V.P. : "In the pair" brain - cranium "the brain was the leader". Therefore, it is so important to know and correctly interpret the racial differences of the skull in the dynamics of their age development.

Let's dwell on the most noticeable and relevant of them, and these are, first of all, the cranial sutures. Due to the extreme importance of the specificity of the overgrowing of the skull sutures in representatives of different races, as well as the clarity and indisputability of this racial diagnostic feature in the study of sociocultural processes, Professor V.N. Zvyagin even suggested using a special name - suturology- the science of the study of patterns of cranial sutures.

And that's what this science reveals.

Russian craniologist D. N. Anuchin (the Institute of Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences bears his name) in his work “On some anomalies of the human skull and mainly on their distribution by race” (M., 1880) dwelled in detail on pterion- a small area of ​​​​the surface of the skull, on each of the sides of which, in the temporal fossa, four bones converge: frontal, parietal, temporal and main. This site is a good racial diagnostic marker, because different kinds its anomalies in terms of frequency in large human races have a difference of 4–8 times. A prominent German anthropologist of the same time, Georg Buschan, confirmed all the conclusions of D. N. Anuchin regarding the racial delimiting function of the pterion site. He pointed out: “Pterion is a zone of connection of the temporal, frontal, parietal and sphenoid (basic) bones. Usually, the upper edge of the large wing of the sphenoid bone reaches the anterior-lower edge of the parietal bone, separating the temporal bone from the frontal; the seams present here then form a figure in the genus of the letter "H". But occasionally it happens that a process extends forward from the anterior edge of the temporal bone, connecting with a suture to the frontal bone. In higher races, this process is very rare. Among Europeans in 1.6%, among Mongols and Malays in 3.7%, among lower races, on the contrary, it is relatively frequent, so among the black race up to 13%, among Australians up to 15.6%, among Papuans up to 8.6% . This attitude suggests that the connection of the temporal bone with the frontal by means of a process should be considered as a lower (pithecoid) formation, and this is all the more so since we meet it constantly in the gorilla, chimpanzee and most other monkeys.

Eugen Fischer also wrote: “Sometimes there is a connective bone between these four bones that form the region of the pterion. In the lower races, the frontal bone and the temporal bone come into contact much more frequently than in the higher races. We observe this, for example, in Europeans - 1.5% of cases, in Mongols - in 3.8%, in Australians - in 9%, in blacks - in 11.8%, in gibbons - in 13.7%, in orangutans - 33.6%, chimpanzees - 77%, gorillas - 100%. Undoubtedly, the presence of the frontotemporal suture depends to a large extent on the relative size of the brain. The more the brain expands the skull, the more the frontal and temporal bones will diverge, the less often they will be able to connect into a seam.

The next, even more important marker, according to Anuchin, is metopism(a seam formed at the junction of the two halves of the frontal bone). Avdeev states the importance of this indicator as follows: “This frontal suture overgrows in most newborn babies, but in some individuals it persists for life. It is precisely this anomaly of the skull that is an excellent racial diagnostic and, as a result, sociocultural marker. It is the frontal lobes of the brain, which are responsible for the highest manifestations of the human psyche and intellect, that in some individuals during the initial phase of growth exert increased pressure on the corresponding sections of the frontal bone, pushing them apart, which, in turn, causes the appearance of a frontal suture called metopism. According to Anuchin's observations, metopic, that is, with a frontal suture, skulls have a capacity of 3-5% more than ordinary ones.

Further, analyzing the frequency of occurrence of metopism in different races and peoples, he draws the following conclusion: “The table of observational results shows that the frontal suture is much more common among Europeans than among other races. While for the various series of European skulls the percentage of metopism is found to vary from 16 to 5, the series of skulls of the lower races in most cases only 3.5-0.6 percent. A certain correlation seems to exist between the inclination towards metopism and the intelligence of a race. We see, for example, that in many races the more intelligent tribes represent a greater percentage of metopic sutures. Among the higher representatives of the Mongolian and white races, it is expressed in a figure at least 8-9 times greater than among the Australians and Negroes.

Subsequently, on the basis of statistical data, a generalization was made, according to which individuals with a preserved frontal suture have larger brain mass, and this increase is not only absolute, but also relative, that is, not associated with an increase in body size. Preservation of the frontal suture, in turn, affected the higher level of mental and intellectual abilities of these individuals.

Of particular importance for the development of the question of metopism works of Russian scientists. An article by V. V. Maslovsky, published in the Russian Anthropological Journal for 1926, volume 15, no. 1-2, bears the special title "On Metopism". In it, the author, developing the ideas of Anuchin, writes: “Thus, the phenomenon of preserving the frontal suture in a person can be viewed as a phenomenon associated with the improvement of his organization. Such a dissection of the skull into paired frontal bones is a favorable factor both for the contents of the skull and for itself. The growth of the latter in various directions occurs due to the presence of sutures "... Finally, such a luminary of anthropology as V.V. Bunak in the article "On the crests on the skull of primates" (Russian Anthropological Journal, volume 12: book 3–4, 1922) wrote: " An abnormal frontal suture in humans is observed more often in cultural races, which is associated with an increase in the brain and its increasing pressure on the frontal bone "...

Among foreign scientists who dealt with skull anomalies in the context of racial systematics, the following names should be distinguished: Georges Papillot (1863-?), Georg Bouchand (1863-1942), Marciano Limson (1893-?), Wenzel Leopold Gruber (1814-1890), Johann Ranke ( 1836-1916), Hermann Welker (1822-1897), Josef Girtl (1811-1894), Paolo Mantegazza (1831-1910). The famous Swedish anthropologist and anatomist, Professor of Stockholm University Wilhelm Lehe in his book "Man, his origin and evolutionary development" (M., 1913), summing up numerous studies in different countries in the field of anomalies of the sutures of the skull, gave such a clear and detailed summary: “... That the preservation of the frontal suture is really usually a criterion of mental superiority should follow from the fact that skulls with this feature are more common among civilized peoples than among savages. In this regard, I want to mention that so far no great ape skull has been described with a preserved frontal suture. Georg Bushan in his famous book The Science of Man (Moscow, 1911) emphasized: “Metopism is the property of the higher races. Metopic skulls have a greater weight, a more complex structure of the sutures, and a longer non-overgrowth of the sutures. The lower races give a smaller percentage of such skulls than the higher, the so-called cultured peoples.

Another master of classical German anthropology, who specialized precisely in the field of comparative morphology, Eugen Fischer, in his fundamental textbook Anthropology (1923) pointed out: “Racial differences in the frequency of metopism are associated with different brain capacities. We meet it, for example, among the Germans - 12.5% ​​of cases, on the skulls found in Pompeii - in 10.5%, among the ancient Egyptians - in 7%, among Negroes - in 1% of cases.

The Spanish scientist Juan Comas, in his dissertation “On the study of metopism” (1942), testified in exactly the same spirit: “Anuchin was one of the first to put forward a hypothesis about a direct connection between metopism and intelligence, that is, the trait is more common in higher races and, therefore, its can be considered a feature of progressive evolution, indicating the tendency of an organism to modify its usual type of skull.

The famous German anthropologist Karl Vogt, in his book “Man and his place in nature” (St. Petersburg, 1866), summarizing the data of contemporary science, stated: “The Negro skull follows a different law regarding the fusion of its seams than the white skull: that the anterior sutures, frontal and coronal, like in a monkey, fuse very early, much earlier than the posterior ones, while in the white man the order of fusion of the sutures is completely reversed. If so, then there is no particular boldness in suggesting that in the brain of a Negro there may be the same simian course of development that is proved in his skull.

Another well-known German anthropologist Robert Wiedersheim later confirmed this point of view, emphasizing in his book “The structure of man from a comparative anatomical point of view” (M., 1900): “Graziola showed that the seams in higher races disappear in a different sequence than in lower . In the latter, like in monkeys, the process always begins in front, from the frontal region of the skull, that is, on the border of the frontal and parietal bones, and from here it goes back. Needless to say, this is reflected in the early formation of the anterior lobes of the brain, which in the higher (white) races, where the fronto-parietal suture is obliterated after the occipital-parietal suture, can develop even further. This must be put in connection with the mental difference of the tribes.

Complete the topic of cranial sutures- the subject of suturology - we can quote from the monograph “A New Theory of the Origin of Man and His Degeneration” (Warsaw, 1907) by the largest Russian racologist V.A. capable of learning and as intelligent as a white man. But as soon as the fatal period of manhood sets in, then, together with the fusion of the cranial sutures and protrusion of the jaws, the same process is observed in them as in monkeys: the individual becomes incapable of development. The critical period, when the brain begins to decline, occurs much earlier in the Negro than in the white, and this is evidenced by the earlier fusion of the sutures of the skull in the Negro.

But the story about cranial sutures will be incomplete if we do not once again emphasize the importance of this parameter as a racial diagnostic feature. The book by A. G. Kozintsev “Ethnic cranioscopy. Racial variability of the sutures of the skull of modern man” (Leningrad, 1988). Unlike liberal biased anthropologists, who are only busy with “erasing” and “removing” racial features, A. G. Kozintsev sees the goal of his work in the exact opposite: “The polymorphism of some features allows you to change the traditional course of research, rebuilding, and even creating morphological schemes with a special calculation for increasing the effectiveness of race differentiation and, in some cases, for reducing the role of other factors, in particular age.

Analyzing the results of practical research, the author of the monograph states that the frequency of the race-delimiting feature in the bones occipital-mastoid suture for Caucasians it averages 6.4%, and for Mongoloids - 16.6%. Based on morphologically close occipital index (OI) racial differences are even more pronounced. So, for Caucasoids, the frequency of this feature is 8.4%, and for Mongoloids - 48.5%. The occipital index of the second order (ZI II) also effectively helps to distinguish between races: 2.8% for Caucasians and 13.4% for Mongoloids. “When considering the values ​​of the occipital index (SI) and (SI II), one gets the impression that the trait “works” only at the level of large races. No regularities in the distribution of frequencies within the Caucasoid and Mongoloid complexes can be identified.”

A. G. Kozintsev writes further: “We have analyzed about 30 signs related to the sutures of the skull, and identified six main, most valuable. Caucasoid and Mongoloid races, as we remember, differ in all the main features. For a total quantitative assessment of these differences, the author of the book introduces a special Mongoloid-Caucasoid index (MEI). In Caucasoid populations, it ranges from 13 to 39, and in Mongoloids from 54 to 82.5.

Representatives of the Nordic race are also easily distinguished from other Caucasians with the help of North European Index (NEI). "The value of both indicators (MEI) and (SEI) in northern Europeans is higher than in southern ones." The clear and reasoned conclusion given by A. G. Kozintsev in the book leaves no room for misunderstandings and speculations. “Racial indexes are a simple but effective means of analysis. Five features - the occipital index, the sphenomaxillary suture, the posterior zygomatic suture, the complexity index of the infraorbital pattern, and the index of the transverse palatal suture - serve primarily to distinguish between Caucasoids and Mongoloids. Combinations of features have greater delimiting power than individual features. The Mongoloid-Caucasoid Index (MEI) and the First Principal Component (GC I) are extremely effective in separating Mongoloids and Caucasoids. Differentiation within the Caucasoid race can be traced with the help of the Northern European Index (NEI) and the second main component (II GC).

Beyond the seams, in the structure of the human skull is noticeable many other racial diagnostic markers with a good discriminant effect. The prominent German anthropologist Robert Wiedersheim wrote in this regard: The nasal bones, which usually remain separate, sometimes fuse into one bone., and this is much more common in the lower races than in the higher ones. Since such fusion is normal for monkeys, we probably have one of the atavistic phenomena in it in humans. In chimpanzees, it occurs already in the second year of life.

Let us briefly point out other parameters of the skull that are essential for the differentiation and diagnosis of races.

Infraorbital Pattern Complexity Index (ISPU) possesses the greatest separation power. For Caucasoids, it is 38.0, and for Mongoloids - 57.9. And this is natural, because the eyes of different races have different mounting equipment. This feature also "works" at the level of large races. Peoples, nations, ethnic groups and tribes are indeed the result of a later historical process, but the gigantic abyss of irreducible racial differences testifies in favor of the prehistoric, namely, the biological nature of their origin.

A.P. Pestryakov in the article “Differentiation of the large Mongoloid race according to the data of the generalized total dimensions of the cranium” (in: Historical dynamics of racial and ethnic differentiation of the population of Asia. - M., 1987) wittily notes that the size of the brain is a “biological birthmark on the body of a race." Further, the author develops his idea: “It is necessary to stipulate the well-known scientific fact that there is a so-called "brain rubicon", i.e., the minimum, but sufficiently large, necessary volume of the brain, starting from which its carrier - a person - can function as a social being. The average group size of the cranium can be an important parameter in the study of the racial history of mankind ”... A.P. Pestryakov, on the basis of material that is completely different from that of other authors, comes to the same conclusion that according to the size of the cranial capsule Caucasoids vary least of all and Mongoloids are most polymorphic, which indicates their "possible racial heterogeneity." The scatter of signs in the latter is 2–2.5 times greater than in Caucasians, while in Negroids and American Indians it is 1.5–2 times greater than in the Caucasian race. From which we can make a legitimate conclusion that of all the large races - Caucasians - the most homogeneous. "We are studying generalized quantitative characteristics of the cranium are more stable over time than most descriptive racial-morphological characters. From this statement of the author of the article follows the conclusion that racial characteristics, especially as important as the size of the brain, are indeed a “birthmark” that cannot be washed off in the process of historical development, as science charlatans want. “The proposed parameters can serve as good anthropological markers in the study of ethnogenetic processes. An analysis of the values ​​of generalized parameters in craniological series allows us to distinguish racial filiation, as well as inclusions that are foreign from a craniological point of view.”

In this regard, any racial parameters of the skull in general, of which there are many, are of particular interest.

For example, in an article on racial craniology: "World distribution occipito-parietal index» Yu. D. Benevolenskaya compares the average value of this indicator for the main races:

Caucasians - 91.6

Mongoloids - 96.6

Caucasians - 0.738

Mongoloids - 0.581

Negroids have 0.706.

There is a common, unsupported opinion that Caucasoids are anthropologically closer to Mongoloids than to Negroids, but this indicator clearly shows the depth of the difference between the first and second - 27%.

"The Caucasoid series show less dispersion than the Mongoloid series and a closer intergroup relationship with the vertical-longitudinal index." In general, this suggests that Mongoloids are less racially homogeneous than Caucasians.

In the collection "Historical dynamics of racial and ethnic differentiation of the population of Asia" (M., 1987) Yu. D. Benevolenskaya in the article "Racial differentiation in Asia (according to the structure of the frontal skull)" based on a study fronto-sagittal index(LSI) also speaks of "the greatest consolidation of Caucasians compared to other races."

Finally, in the collection “Problems of the evolutionary morphology of man and his races” (M., 1986), the same Benevolenskaya in the article “Racial variations in the signs of the cranial vault” in addition to this writes: “Since the races are not similar, they are of different quality in the type and scale of intra-racial race-forming processes, racial diagnostics according to LSI looks peculiar in each case. Thus, Caucasoids are the most consolidated race, and this is probably why (LSI) the fronto-sagittal index does not give clear racial distinctions within Caucasoids. The LSI reveals the greatest differences within the Mongoloid race.

Among the more modern collective works, the collection “The Unity and Diversity of the Human Race” (M., 1997) should be noted. In it, Yu. D. Benevolenskaya, one of the recognized leading experts in the field of craniology, develops to the logical limit the original concept of the original existence of two extreme variants of facial morphology in mankind. “The results of the analysis lead to the conclusion that there are two main racial components. Caucasoid type reveals features trapezoidal morphotype, eastern - rectangular. The idea of ​​the existence of these morphotypes finds a biological justification for one of the factors of polymorphism in human populations. Moreover, both of these morphotypes reflect the evolutionary stages in the development of races. Turning to the structure of morphotypes, we see that the rectangular morphotype is most characteristic of the features of the initial phase of growth, the trapezoid - the final phase.

This concept of morphotypes is easily linked with the theory of the non-adaptive size of the brain by V.P. Alekseev and, depending on the size of the cranium, set by the brain in the process of “growth phases”, it makes it possible to speak scientifically of “higher” and “lower” races. Moreover, the idea of ​​these morphotypes "finds a biological justification" in that one of them belongs to the initial, that is, the lower phase of growth, and the other to the final, that is, the higher phase.

Benevolenskaya continues: “These “building elements”, that is, two morphotypes as the fundamental basis of diversity, do not dissipate without a trace in the new phase of human differentiation at the level of formed races, but are traced in their basis.” This means that the higher have always been and will be higher, and the lower - lower: "The hypothesis of dimorphism can be formulated as a phenomenon of parallelism of races." That is, according to the author, the difference in types indicates the mutual independence of their origin.

Another author of the collection "Problems of the evolutionary morphology of man and his races" Yu. K. Chistov in the article "Racial differences in median-sagittal contour human skull" on the basis of another morphological parameter draws a similar conclusion: "The Caucasoid series differ the least in terms of the sum of the linear characteristics of the contour of the skull, and the equatorial groups most of all." He, in the monograph “Differentiation of human races according to the structure of the median-sagittal contour of the skull” (M., 1983) indicates: “The results of the studies obtained allow us to speak with sufficient confidence about the presence of certain differences in the shape of the sagittal contour of the human cranium in the “northern” and “ southern" populations of modern man. The intraracial values ​​of this indicator differ significantly from the interracial ones, i.e., representatives of contrasting racial types differ from each other both in terms of the sum of degree and linear characteristics of the median-sagittal contour. One of the most interesting conclusions is the statement of the fact that modern craniological series differ just as much in the magnitudes of the degree and linear characteristics of the frontal part of the contour, as in the pattern of the occipital region.

It was all taken together that science knows today about the human skull that allowed T. V. Tomashevich at the 1st international conference "Race: myth or reality?" name your report “It is better to consider the differences of races as real”.

In fact, we have nothing to add to this extremely delicate and politically correct statement.

Meanwhile, the skull is important for a person not in itself, but insofar as it is the receptacle and repository of the highest organ of spiritual activity - the brain. And here it is appropriate to talk about those differences in the structure and functions of this organ, due to all the above differences in the structure of the skull.

In the most general form, these differences are expressed in the data neurophysiology And psychiatry.

In the works of such scientists as F. Tiedemann (1781–1861), P. Graziole (1815–1865), K. Vogt (1817–1895), W. Waldeyer (1836–1921), G. Retzius (1842–1919) , J. G. F. Kolbrugge (1865-?), C. Giacomini (1840–1898), A. Ecker (1818–1887), A. Weisbach (1836–1914), G. Schwalbe (1844–1916), D. N. Zernov (1843–1917), a conscious and purposeful study of the specifics and forms of the structure of the brain of various human races begins, unshakably establishing their initial deep difference.

Founder phrenology F. J. Gall (1758–1828) identified 27 main zones - organs (as he called them) of localization of higher mental functions, the degree of development of which determines the main mental and cultural differences between individuals, tribes and entire races. He wrote: “It is also known that peoples with large brains rise above peoples with small brains to such an extent that they conquer and oppress them as they please. The Indian brain is much smaller than the European brain, and everyone knows how a few thousand Europeans conquered and now keep millions of Hindus in bondage. In the same way, the brain of the American native is smaller than the brain of the European, and the same thing happened to America as it happened to India.”

Relentlessly testing his hypotheses in practice, Gall calculated that the capacity of the skull in the white race is from 75 to 109 cubic inches, while in the Mongoloid race it extends from 69 to 93 inches. According to the volume, the weight of the brain of different races also changes. In the future, similar observations were covered by all major races and peoples. Volume and weight of the brain have become a recognized racial marker.

In addition to significant differences in the weight of the brain and its parts in representatives of large human races and even individual nationalities, differences in convolution organization.

One of the first to study racial differences in the structure of the brain was the well-known Russian anthropologist D. N. Zernov. His work with the characteristic title "Convolutions of the brain, as a tribal trait" was published as early as 1873, and in 1877 he already published a fundamental monograph "Individual types of cerebral convolutions in humans."

Another domestic scientist A. S. Arkin in his article “On racial features in the structure of the human cerebral hemispheres” (Journal of neuropathology and psychiatry named after S. S. Korsakov, book 3-4, 1909) derived such new racial signs: “Middle frontal the sulcus is a sulcus, which, to a greater extent than other sulci of the brain, is subject to changes and has different outlines in representatives of different races. In addition, based on a huge foreign material, Arkin throughout the article talks about "brains rich in convolutions, which, as you know, are considered to be more perfectly arranged." The conclusion in Arkin's work is simple and convincing: "Racial differences in the structure of the brain have favorite furrows and convolutions, where they appear more often and in relief."

Arkin's fundamental discovery can be considered the conclusion that "the most characteristic racial differences are noted in the area association centers". These centers have a relatively later development compared to other parts of the brain. They also easily read the external morphological differences in the structure of the brain in representatives of the "higher" and "lower" races.

His contemporary and compatriot R. L. Veinberg in the article "On the Teaching of the Shape of the Human Brain" (Russian Anthropological Journal, 1902, N4) revealed racial differences in the structure of the Roland and Sylvius furrows. The eminent German anthropologist Karl Vogt also wrote in this connection: "The Sylvian fissure of the Negro has a more vertical direction, and so does the Roland fissure."

The greatest French anthropologist Paul Topinard in his fundamental book Anthropology (1879) emphasized: “The convolutions are thicker, wider and less complex in the lower races. The nerves of the Negroes, and especially the nerves of the base of the brain, are thicker; the substance of their brain is not as white as that of Europeans.

Possessing a thicker bone of the skull, as the ancient Greek historian Herodotus wrote about, representatives of the Negroid race therefore naturally have a lower threshold of pain sensitivity. Karl Vogt was the first to discover that impact strength of brain substance in blacks exceeds this figure in white Caucasians. "The substance of the brain of a Negro is incomparably denser and harder than that of a white man," Vogt declared. This neurophysiological fact was pointed out as early as the second half of the 19th century by boxing associations, refusing to compete with black athletes on the grounds that they were less sensitive to pain than whites.

Jean-Joseph Virey developed in the same direction our ideas about the specificity of the Negro brain: “In Negroes, the gray matter of the brain has a darker color. But the main thing is that blacks have much more than Europeans, developed peripheral nervous system , and the central one, on the contrary, is smaller. It seems that the brain of the Negroes has partially gone into the nerves, as if animal life developed at the expense of mental life.

What is summary result all the differences described above in the structure of the skull and the brain located in it? It manifests itself in objective figures obtained by neurophysiology, psychiatry and psychology.

If Caucasians have an average IQ (intelligence indicator) of 100, then Negroids have no more than 70, and Mongoloids (but not all: Chinese, Japanese) have 102. These are the same differences in reaction speed. The Canadian professor J. Philip Rushton writes in this connection, in the highly publicized study Evolution and Behavior of Races: large sizes(containing more developed brains) are in direct correlation with intelligence. Big heads tend to shine with their intelligence. This correlation is also true for different racial groups. At the age of seven, African children are 16% larger than European children, but their brain perimeter is 8% smaller ... Blacks have an average of 480 million fewer neurons in their heads than whites. With a small brain in a large body, they are less intellectually gifted, because most of the Negro brain is occupied with vital functions, and not with conscious thoughts.

It is truly no secret that there is a direct and significant connection not only between the structure of the skull and the brain (where the brain, we recall, is the main shaping agent), but also the brain, skull and face. And in the face, thus, the main psychological features of its carrier, the properties of his mind and character are imprinted. On this basis such science builds its conclusions as physiognomy, founded by the Swiss thinker I.-K. Lavater.

Here again we are dealing with racial differences. Professor I. A. Sikorsky in his monograph “General Psychology with Physiognomy” (Kyiv, 1904) stated in this connection: “The black race belongs to the least gifted on the globe. In the structure of the body of its representatives, there are noticeably more points of contact with the class of monkeys than in other races. The capacity of the skull and the weight of the brain of blacks is less than in other races, and, accordingly, spiritual abilities are less developed. The Negroes never constituted a large state and did not play a leading or prominent role in history, although they were in remote times much more widespread numerically and territorially than later. The weakest side of the black individual and the black race is the mind: one can always see in portraits weak contraction of the superior orbital muscle, and even this muscle in Negroes is anatomically much less developed than in whites, meanwhile it is the true difference between man and animals, constituting a special human muscle.

Modern studies of the human face and its individual components (eyes, ears, teeth, etc.) have greatly contributed to the establishment of reliable racial diagnostic markers. The famous Soviet anthropologist M. I. Uryson in his work “The relationship of the main morphological features of the human skull in the process of anthropogenesis” (M., 1964) wrote: “Based on the consideration of the skull as a total skeletal structure, it can be assumed that the progressive development of the brain exerted its influence not only on the formation of the brain box, but also through its change to the restructuring of the facial section. We are talking, therefore, about the mutual influence of the braincase and the facial part of the skull, as well as the factors that cause their change in the process of evolution of the skull.

Today in the arsenal modern science there is such an accurate and impartial method of racial diagnosis as anthropological photography. The work of N. N. Tsvetkova “Anthropological photography as a source for research on ethnic photography” (M., 1976) serves as a clear and convincing illustration of this. In it, she writes: “As a result of the analysis of photometric features, it was revealed that almost all angular dimensions of the face have good group delimiting properties. They have an intergroup range of more than two standards.” This means that the value of objective racial differences in the structure of the face among representatives of different races consistently exceeds the measurement error.

In general, the racial geometry of the face is as follows. Caucasoids, according to photometry, have the most direct profile along the upper facial angle, and the latter (83–87°) is always greater than the midfacial angle (81°), a relatively small angle of protrusion of the nose to the horizontal (57–63°), a very strong protrusion of the nose to the line profile (21–27°) and a straight upper lip (85–91°).

Mongoloids are distinguished by a tendency to mesognathism in the upper facial angle and the angle of protrusion of the upper lip (72–82°). Their upper facial angle (82–87°) is always less than the mid-facial angle (83–88°). The angle of protrusion of the nose to the horizontal is the largest (65–72°) among all the studied groups.

Negroids are prognathous (that is, they have a sharply protruding lower jaw) along the upper (73–77 °) and midfacial (76–80 °) angles and the angle of protrusion of the upper lip.

This again means that the racial and ethnic type is an objective reality and can be accurately measured not only in general, but also in individual parts of the portrait.

In the modern collection of works "Problems of the evolutionary morphology of man and his races" (Moscow, 1986), the topic under discussion is taken to a qualitatively new level. So in the article "Prospects for the use of near stereophotogrammetry in anthropology", created by a team of authors: L. P. Vinnikov, I. G. Indichenko, I. M. Zolotareva, A. A. Zubov, G. V. Lebedinskaya - it is said that that high-quality color photography allows you to identify all the nuances of pigmentation of the eyes, skin, hair, as well as determine the interpupillary distances and protrusion of the eyeball. In this connection, the authors of this development believe that the method they propose: "... opens up broad prospects for an extremely detailed study of the surface of a person's face and can be used with great success in ethnic anthropology."

So, it is quite obvious that the racial proportions of the "features" and the whole head as a whole, perceived in the process of anthropo-aesthetic evaluation, is a real fact.

One of the classics of the German anthropological school, Baron Egon von Eickstedt, in his basic monograph "Racology and the Racial History of Humanity" (1937-1943) linked the features of the morphology of the face of various races with the evolution of their development:

“In relation to the comparative morphology of the soft parts, two main phenomena should be mentioned that are of evolutionary significance. This is, firstly, the presence of Jacobson's organ, a short rudimentary passage with a blind end in the anterior lower part of the nasal septum, which performs a special functional task in lower species. Further, the lateral parts of the posterior cartilage are of interest, which in progressive Caucasoids branch towards the end, and in primitive races, like the Melanesians, form a continuous wide plate. This is an intermediate form leading to the great apes.

The square muscle in primitive, especially dark-skinned races is also much more compact than in Caucasians, in which individual parts of the fibers have developed so much that French anatomists generally consider them to be separate muscles. Small transverse tissues of the nasal muscle usually strongly correlate with the general nature of the skin covering of the soft parts. Therefore, their thickness usually also corresponds to a stronger descent and more fleshiness of the wings of the nose, sometimes even, as is often found in Jews and pseudo-Jewish types in New Guinea, a greater thickness of the folds of the eyelids and lower lip. In Negroes and Paleo-Mongoloids, few tissues can be completely lost in spongy connective tissue. This massiveness gives rise to deep grooves at the wings of the nose, which on flat faces run in an almost continuous line from the corner of the eye through the wing of the nose to the lower jaw.

If we draw a general evolutionary picture of what the muscles of the nasal region show, then the same is even more clearly expressed here as in the region of the orbits: the higher the forms, the greater the differentiation of the muscles. Lips are a characteristic feature of both an individual and a racial face, they say a lot about the mental type of a person. The region of the mouth is the most expressive and indicative in terms of racial physiognomy.

If we also take into account the areas of the orbits, nose and cheeks, then the general direction of the evolutionary development of the muscles of the human face becomes clear. In all cases, the higher the evolutionary stage, the higher the possibilities of muscle mass differentiation. There is only different forms expressions of one major trend. Thus, we can see and unravel the secrets and relationships of the origin of species and its constructive paths using a specific example.

We can judge the intermediate stages of human evolution by the atavistic modern forms of primitive races. In them, the entire muscular mass of the middle part of the face is thicker and less differentiated. In general, non-differentiation should be considered a sign of primitiveness. Massive and repeatedly intertwined muscular connections are still characteristic of the Mongoloids.

Although thickening of the lips is especially characteristic of Negroids, it is more or less common in other races, for example, among the Eastern Veddoids. Very thick lips in the southern Chinese, relatively narrow in the primitive Austroloids, very narrow in the North American Indians. A disproportionately thick lower lip may be a hereditary trait of an entire people, as, for example, among the Jews.

A childish mouth with indistinct contours, like that of European children, is found in infantile primitive races. The contour of the upper lip and crescent-shaped mouth opening is typical of Western Veddoids, especially women.

On the Nordic profile, the lips do not protrude, while in the southern races they protrude. The latter phenomenon is often associated with a subsidence of the contour of the profile, a concave snout typical of Negroes.

An unsurpassed storehouse of information on questions of racial physiognomy is also the book "The Language of the Human Face" (1938) by a prominent German anatomist and physician F. Lange, not to mention the aforementioned Lavater.

We will not dwell on the most obvious differences in the racial appearance of the various inhabitants of the Earth. Parts of the face- skin color, hair, shape and color of eyes, nose, hair, lips, ears, teeth, facial contours are the most significant in the ethno-racial characteristics of the perceived appearance. According to these indicators, even a five-year-old child at first glance will distinguish a Negroid from a Mongoloid and a Caucasoid.

Let us quote only briefly two specialists in regard to the racial structure of the eyes and hair.

J.-J. Virey: “Some animals have a third eyelid. In humans, it is rudimentary, but in Europeans it is much less pronounced than in Negroes, who in this respect are close to orangutans. The distance between the European and the Negro is small compared to the abyss that separates man from the great apes. However, the physical forms of the Negroes are to some extent intermediate between European and ape.

N. A. Dubova: “If among representatives of the Mongoloid race, epicanthus, one of its most characteristic features, occurs in 20-100% of cases, then among Caucasians this figure varies from 0 to 10% of cases. Straight hair is common among both Mongoloids, American Indians, and Caucasians, but they never occur among classical Negroids. Australoids, including Veddoids, are characterized by broad and narrow wavy hair. What distinguishes Mongoloids and American Indians from Caucasians is the considerable stiffness of straight hair (a trait that almost never occurs in Caucasians).

The human skeleton, especially in the pelvis in women(because it is the female pelvis that forms the hereditary shape of the skull of each race) also makes it possible to detect permanent racial differences. Well-known Western anthropologists P. Broca, P. Topinar and S. T. Sommering compared the pelvis of the "lower" races with the pelvis of monkeys. Franz Pruner-Bey, due to the clarity and accuracy of the feature, generally proposed abandoning the classification of races according to the structure of the skull and switching to a classification of races according to the shape of the pelvis. The branch of anthropology concerned with the study of racial differences in the pelvis is called pelvimetry. Racial differences are quantified using Turner input pointer.

Of the Russian classical works on this topic, one can name the works of M. I. Lutokhin “Historical Review of the Literature on Racial Differences in the Pelvis” (M., 1899) or V. A. Moshkov “The New Theory of the Origin of Man and His Degeneration” (Warsaw, 1907) . The well-known Russian ethnographer and anthropologist O. V. Milchevsky in his essay “The Foundations of the Science of Anthropoethnology” (Moscow, 1868) emphasized in the same connection: “The forms of the pelvis in relation to various tribes were studied quite thoroughly by Weber. With a more elongated shape, more vertical and higher iliac bones, a narrower and higher sacrum, the pelvis of the Hottentot, or booty, closely approaches the pelvis of animals ... Professor Weber even divides people into 4 classes, looking at the different shapes of their pelvises, oval (Europeans), round (Indians), quadrangular (Mongols), wedge-shaped (among black races).

This section of physical anthropology later received a thorough scientific development. Racial pelvimetry reached its highest peak in the works of Egon von Eickstedt, as he pointed out in particular: “Racial differences in the size of the pelvis are significant and are not explained only by the size of the body, but are due to racial variations in heredity. So the basins of the Veddoids, Negritos and Paleo-Mongoloids (in Japan), both absolutely and relatively, are smaller than those of Europeans. The Negro pelvises are distinguished by their small size, narrowness and height, while in Europeans the lateral and anterior edges of the ilium diverge widely. The transverse-oval shape prevails in Caucasians, round in Negroids. The Chinese have different shapes, but in the southern brachycephals, the transverse oval shape predominates. Among the racial differences is the tilt of the pelvis. The Japanese have a small one.

Quite a few other fragments of the skeleton (for example, tibia, etc.) also have persistent racial differences both in form and, as domestic science has found out, in content (biochemical). So, in the collection under the characteristic title "Ethnography, anthropology and related disciplines: correlation of subject and method" (M., 1989), we will find a bright and convincing article by M. V. Kozlovskaya "The experience of studying the epoch-making dynamics of the variability of some physiological characteristics", in which based biochemical processes an unambiguous confirmation of the hypothesis about the initial existence of two morphotypes and the parallelism of races is given. The author of the article analyzes such an important biochemical factor for human anthropology as mineralization of bone tissues of the skeleton, which is also racial, rigidly genetically determined. M. V. Kozlovskaya confirms: “A high level of mineralization is not functionally necessary, but is reproduced by genetically determined mechanisms. The concentration of microelements in bone tissue is a complex of various indicative features.

There are also other signs racial differences, no less vivid and unchanged, although not always visible to the naked eye. Today, despite ideological and political slingshots, they are recognized and taken into account not only by fundamental science (racology, anthropology), but also by applied sciences directly related to the life of the human masses, for example, medicine. Thus, the title of AI Kozlov's report "Accounting for racial characteristics in preventive cardiology" speaks for itself, because it indicates a deep understanding of the practical daily significance of racial differences. Patients of different races are arranged differently, they suffer from the same disease in different ways, they need to be treated differently: to understand this means saving many lives.

It would be possible to delve into all the subtleties and nuances of racial differences again and again, but it seems that what has been said is more than enough to repeat, following the modern Russian researcher G. A. Aksyanova: “The polymorphism of those physical features of modern humanity that are called racial, exists regardless of the positive or negative attitude to the term "race" itself. The historical intertwining of this scientific term from the field of biological systematics with negative social manifestations does not change its biological essence when applied to a person. Racial differentiation in human morphology is an objective reality.

Notes:

Back in 1922, the Russian scientist V. G. Shtefko in the article “Biological reactions and their significance in the systematics of monkeys and humans” (Russian Anthropological Journal, volume 12, book 1–2, 1922) made a significant conclusion: “Considerations expressed on based on experimental data, lead us to an extremely important and highly interesting conclusion. The cultural races of mankind, such as the Europeans, have a more complex structure of the protein molecule than the lower races. Thus, from a biological, or rather, biochemical point of view, they are more complexly organized than the latter.

Avdeev V. B. Decree. Op., p. 289–290.

The report by N. A. Dubova (in the collection “The Problem of Race in Russian Physical Anthropology” - M., 2002) emphasizes: “Until now, there is not a single (!) Fact when very dark skin pigmentation, characteristic of equatorial groups, was would be noted for individuals whose ancestors were not born on the African, Australian or South Asian continents. Likewise, no light-skinned, light-eyed population has appeared in Africa or South Asia without an influx of migrants who had such signs.

As A. de Benois put it, population geneticists, creating their virtual, artificial populations, fell into an "optical illusion", denying the reality of racial differences visible to the naked eye. In Russian, this is called not to see the forest for the trees.

Racial differences

Classification, starting with Linnean, distinguished between "races" if it was possible to determine with high accuracy the differences between group members from each other. Reliable discrimination requires that some races differ from others by a certain frequency of alleles of certain genes that affect observable traits. This criterion can be adopted in relation to most subgroups of humanity as a biologist. kind. The most widely used class. races subdivides them into Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid races. Other, more subtle differentiations of humanity as a species include the 9 races of Garn and the 7 major 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 for almost their entire evolutionary history. OK. 6% of genetic differences in humans as a species are due to race, 8% to differences between populations within racial groups, and over 85% to differences between individuals of the same populations within racial groups.

In zap. In the world, racial divisions are often based on skin color. However, even Charles Darwin rightly noted that "color is usually regarded by the systematic naturalist as an unimportant feature." Other distinctions, such as morphology, fiziol are much more important. and behavior.

Phys. differences may be the result of natural selection, mainly due to adaptive evolution. For example, most of the groups inhabiting the high Arctic latitudes are distinguished by a stocky torso and short limbs. This type of body leads to an increase in the ratio of its mass to the total area of ​​its surface and, consequently, to a decrease in thermal energy losses while maintaining body temperature. Tall, thin, long-legged representatives of the tribes of the Sudan, 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 meets the goals of heat dissipation, which otherwise would lead to an increase in body temperature above normal.

Dr. physical differences between groups may arise due to non-adaptive, neutral in terms of sp. evolution of changes in different groups. Throughout most of their history, people lived in small tribal populations (dims), in which the random variability of the gene pool, provided by the founders of this dim, became fixed signs 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. sp. physiol. (metabolism), a good example of how a genetic influence on differences between races can be explained would be sickle cell anemia (SCA). SKA is typical for the black population of Zap. Africa. Since the ancestors of black Americans lived in the West. Africa, this disease also affects the black population of America. People suffering from it live less. Why is the likelihood of SCD so high only for certain groups? Allison found that people heterozygous for the hemoglobin S gene (one gene from this pair causes red blood cells to sickle and the other does not) are 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" has developed independently - presumably as a result of random mutation selection - among a number of different racial/ethnic groups in malaria-infested regions. The various types of sickle cell anemia are not genetically identical across racial/ethnic groups, but they all share the same underlying heterozygosity advantage.

Since we do not yet have all the facts, such information is, as it were, a warning signal: despite the fact that R. r. may exist, the reasons for these differences require a comprehensive and thorough research. The proposed genetic differences may be predominant in their origin. - or exclusively - due to environmental factors.

It has long been known that black Americans score lower on intelligence (IQ) tests than white Americans. At the same time, it has been repeatedly reported that people of Asian descent show higher results on intelligence tests than whites, on 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 might be the reasons for these differences.

The IQ controversy has flared up again after a quiet period following the publication of an article by Arthur Jensen. Although Jensen accurately outlined in his article the data available to him regarding within-group heritability, later research. found that within-group differences are much less subject to genetic control than Jensen believed. In addition, Hirsch et al. have shown that even if within-group differences have a genetic basis, these differences are not really relevant in assessing the degree of genetic influence on differences between groups.

De Vries et al. published an article that is especially relevant in this context, as it shows that the differences between generations of the same ethnic groups turn out to be close to the size of the given difference between black and white Americans. Intergenerational and gender differences correlate well with changes in status (eg, parental education, occupation) that have occurred from generation to generation—a strong argument for significant environmental influences on cognitive test performance.

Personality characteristics are more difficult to measure than the level of intelligence. The results of personality tests assessing actual characteristics are potentially fuzzy 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 seems to be an oversimplified view of things. Friedman and Friedman presented data proving the existence of genetically determined R. r. in personality traits. Dr. the data indicate the presence of a genetic component in the variability of personality traits within the studied racial/ethnic groups. Group differences may exist, albeit at a subgroup rather than a racial level.

Language can be learned. The child of French-speaking parents living in France is not born with the ability to speak French. However, as soon as he reaches the age of five, this child will easily learn to speak French. The child of German-speaking parents living in Germany will just as easily learn to speak German.

And it's not because any child is born with a special aptitude for the language of their parents. If children from a French and German family were exchanged in infancy, then little Pierre would learn to say "Auf Wiedersehen", and little Hans could say "Ai revoir" with equal ease. And if little Pierre and Hans ended up in America in the first years of their lives and grew up with American children, then they would both learn to say “Good bye” without any accent.

Any normal child will learn any language spoken by the people around him, regardless of what his father's and mother's native language was.

As you can see, language thus cannot be a mark of race. If you close your eyes and hear the voice of a man speaking perfect English language, then you cannot say for sure where this person's parents come from, from New York, Shanghai or Timbuktu. Just by hearing a person's voice, you cannot tell what the color of their hair, the shape of their head, or their height is.

The same applies to the food that a person loves, and to the clothes that he prefers to wear. These taste preferences depend on what he is used to from childhood. The children of immigrants in America are just as easily addicted to hamburgers and fried beans as the children of native American parents.

Differences between people that are the result of learning are called cultural differences. Cultural differences cannot be taken into account to divide people into races. It would be like trying to classify dogs into different breeds according to the tricks they could do. Imagine such a division: all dogs that can "play dead" belong to one breed, and all who can "sit and beg" belong to another!

What we have to do is find the characteristics of the person that are not the result of learning. We must find those traits that each person is born with or develops as he grows, but without any outside interference. For example, a child is born with ten fingers and ten toes. And this is long before his hair grew and his eyes took on a certain color. By the time of his maturation, a person reaches a certain height and acquires an individual physique. Differences in such characteristics, including the size, shape, and color of various parts of the body, are all physical differences. These differences have been used by anthropologists (scientists who specialize in the study of humans) to divide people into different races.

Leather

One way to divide people into races is to determine the color of the skin. We can find good example in America, in the case of the Negro and the white man. Most Negroes are different from most white people, and you could easily tell one from the other.

In addition, skin color is determined from birth. A Negro child may grow up to be a recognized writer, an excellent lawyer or scientist, perhaps even a member of Congress or a Nobel laureate, but his skin color will not change. He will always belong to the Negroid race.

The color of normal human skin depends on the presence of three types of coloring substances, or pigments. The most important of these pigments is melanin, a dark brown substance. The skin of all healthy people contains melanin. Some people, however, have more melanin than others. Whites generally have a small amount of melanin in their skin. People with more melanin are darker. Blacks naturally have much more melanin in their skin than whites. The question is not in the difference in skin color, but only in larger or smaller amounts of melanin, which determine one or another shade.

The second of the three pigments is carotene. This is a yellow substance that is present in carrots (from the English carrot - carrots), in the yolk of an egg, or in human skin. Like melanin, carotene is present in the skin of all people. Due to its light color, the presence of a significant amount of carotene in the skin of people is not so clearly visible. Melanin hides it. Among people with a small amount of melanin in the skin, some have more carotene, others less. East Asian peoples with large amounts of carotene have somewhat yellowish complexions.

The third pigment is hemoglobin, which colors blood red. Naturally, it is present in all people. However, hemoglobin is found in the blood vessels under the skin, so it is hardly visible. Its presence is completely blocked by the proper amount of both melanin and carotene in the skin. Hemoglobin can only be seen in the skin of white people, especially those with fair complexions. And it is hemoglobin that makes the cheeks pink and allows you to blush.

Based on these differences in coloration, humanity is sometimes divided into

1) black race - determined by the high content of melanin;

2) yellow race - low in melanin, but high in carotene;

3) the white race - with a low content of both melanin and carotene.

Such a division would seem quite satisfactory were it not for some difficulties. On the one hand, the described differences are not so clear-cut. All kinds of intermediate skin colors are available. Southeast Asians and Native Americans - the Indians - are darker, for example, than the Chinese and Japanese - members of the yellow race. On the other hand, they don't look like blacks. Sometimes the inhabitants of Southeast Asia, as well as the inhabitants of many of the Pacific islands, are referred to as the Melanesian race, while the American Indians are referred to as the red race. (This description is perhaps incorrect, as the Indian has a brownish tinge, but not red.) In other respects, these peoples are known to fit rather with the yellow race; so that perhaps the best solution would be to classify them with the yellow Melanesian race, which includes all these groups.

Another source of doubt is that groups of people can have the same skin color and yet differ in many other ways. There are the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, called Negroes, and there are the dark-skinned Aborigines of Australia. The average native is more obscure than the average black, but it would not be entirely correct to consider both of them only as representatives of the black race. In many other physical characteristics, besides skin color, the African Negro and the Australian Aborigine are quite different. There is a third group of dark-skinned people called Dravidians, they were among the earliest inhabitants of India and now live compactly in the southern regions of this country. Despite their dark complexion, in many ways they are different from both the blacks of Africa and the Australian Aborigines.

And not all black Africans are as dark-skinned as we might imagine. Americans are used to seeing black blacks because the ancestors of most black Americans were brought to America from West Africa. And this is the region where the most dark-skinned peoples live. There are blacks whose skin is much lighter. Some East African tribes, for example, are slightly brown, almost yellowish.

Skin color does not remain completely unchanged. Although the skin cannot become lighter, at the same time it often becomes darker, tanned by natural sunlight. UV rays can be quite harmful to the skin if they penetrate the outer layer of the skin. (Many of us know from experience the pain of sunburn.) Melanin protects the skin by blocking ultraviolet rays. Many whites, without having enough melanin in their skin to protect themselves, can get extra melanin over time if they work or play while exposing their body to the sun. (This is a slow process, and so too much exposure to the sun first causes a burn.) Very fair-skinned people, no matter how hard they try, often cannot produce enough melanin. They "burn" and do not get a tan.

The darkness of a tanned person's skin will slowly disappear if he is no longer exposed to the sun. However, many tanned whites actually have more melanin in their skin than many black Africans.

Hair

Hair color, unlike skin color, was not used to divide mankind into races. The most important pigment found in hair, as well as in skin, is melanin. Most people's hair contains enough melanin to give it a dark brown or black color. Some representatives of the white race are brown-haired or blond, because they have a small amount of melanin in their hair. Some people have red pigment in their hair. Its color appears in fair-haired people in the form of various shades of red hair. As we age, the ability to form melanin for the new hair that continuously replaces the old hair is often lost. The result is gray, or white, hair.

In Europe and North America, where modern racial theories have developed, people have such different shades of hair that people no longer pay much attention to it. Of course, the German-speaking peoples who invaded Western and Southern Europe in the 6th century, had fairer complexions than the Romanesque peoples they conquered. Until complete mixing occurred, blond hair was more common among the aristocratic descendants of the invaders than among the descendants of the conquered peasants. Perhaps it is for this reason that blond princesses are often found in fairy tales (many of which were created during the Middle Ages).

Hair color aside, however, some anthropologists have tried to classify people into races according to the shape of their hair. Hair can be straight, wavy or curly.

Virtually all members of the yellow Melanesian race, for example, have straight hair without a hint of waves or curls. The Eskimos, whom most scholars would classify as yellow, also have straight hair, but so do the Turkic peoples of Central and Western Asia, and many of them, especially in Western Asia, are considered white.

Curly or finely curled hair is characteristic of the black race living in Africa and New Guinea and neighboring islands.

Wavy hair is found among the white race, as well as among the dark-skinned Dravidians of India and the Aborigines of Australia.

Here, not everything is as simple as it seems at first glance. Many Europeans or European Americans have perfectly straight hair, although they belong to the wavy hair group. On the other hand, there are at least three types of curly hair. There is short curly hair that evenly covers the entire scalp, like most Negro peoples. There are short curly stripes that grow in strands that create pomp, as in some East African groups. There are also longer curly hair among the peoples of the southwestern Pacific islands. Australian Aboriginal hair is generally curly or wavy, with the exception of one small group in Queensland who have what is called curly hair.

Eyes

Eye color, like hair color, is not used to distinguish between races. The iris (which is the colored part of the eye), like hair and skin, contains the pigment melanin. In people with brown eyes, the iris contains enough melanin. Those with very little melanin have blue eyes.

There is one feature of the structure of the eye that has been used in determining racial differences - the epikaitic section of the eyes. This is the fold of skin that covers the upper eyelid and sometimes even the upper row of eyelashes when the eyes are wide open. It makes the eyes narrower and is sometimes incorrectly called "narrow-eyed". The epicanthic section of the eyes is characteristic of many representatives of the yellow Melanesian race, such as the Chinese, Japanese, Mongols and Eskimos, but, however, not all. It is not commonly seen in the other groups of people we have already mentioned.

Skeletal system

Along with skin color, the skeletal system is most often used in determining the differences between people. Bones form the skeleton human body, it is the skeletal system that is responsible for the fact that one person is tall and narrow-shouldered, while the other is squat and has short fingers. (Of course, the fat layer also affects the appearance of a person, but this is easily changed by diet.) Height is usually a distinguishing feature of different peoples. In all groups of people there are short and tall individuals. However, the average height of the Scandinavians is significantly greater than the average height of the Sicilians. Residents of northern France are on average slightly taller than residents of southern France.

Representatives of the yellow and black races can also be divided into different groups depending on their height. The Chinese are taller than the Japanese. Great diversity is also observed among African peoples. Representatives of some Negro tribes are as tall as the Scandinavians, or even taller than them. On the other hand, the Pygmies of the Congo are the shortest people.

However, the growth criterion has its own difficulties. First, the growth of an individual cannot be known until he has finally grown; so the growth rate is useless in classifying children. In addition, a single Sicilian can be taller than a single Scandinavian. In addition to this, height also depends on the sex of the person, usually males are taller than females of the same group. Finally, human growth is partly dependent on the food system. Children of European immigrants in America often grow up taller than their parents, which is probably because their nutrition has improved.

head shape

Head shape is often used for racial classification. When viewed from above, the head is oval in shape, and its length (forehead to occiput) is greater than its width (distance from ear to ear). If the length from the forehead to the back of the head is taken as 100, then the width of the head from ear to ear will be equal to some smaller value. If the width is three quarters of the length, this indicator will be equal to 75, if four fifths of the length, then the indicator will be 80.

The ratio of the width of the head to its length is known as the cephalization index. Naturally, the cephalization index in different people unequal. People with a cephalization index of less than 75, when viewed from above, have narrow, oblong skulls, since their skull is less than three-quarters wide in relation to its length. People with skulls of this shape are called dolichocephals, which means in Greek "long-headed." With a cephalization index of more than 80, the head appears shorter and broader when viewed from above. People with similar skulls are called brachycephals, which in i-i means "short-headed." A cephalization index between 75 and 80 gives us mesocephals, which in Greek means "average annuals".

Groups of people can also differ from each other in the shape of the head. The peoples of northwestern Europe, including the inhabitants of Scandinavia, Great Britain, Holland, Belgium, as well as the northern parts of France and Germany, are most often mesocephalic. People living further south - in Central France, Southern Germany and Northern Italy (as well as almost all the peoples of Eastern Europe) - are brachycephalic. Further south, among the inhabitants of the Mediterranean, in Portugal, Spain, southern France, Italy and the Balkans, live mesocephals. There are many dolichocephals in North Africa and the Middle East.

Using the size of the skull as the main criterion, some researchers have tried to divide the white race into three subdivisions.<ы. Жителей Северо-Западной Европы они называют скандинавами. Скандинавы имеют i-иетлую кожу и являются мезоцефалами. Жителей Центральной и Восточной Европы относят к альпийцам. Они имеют темную кожу и являются брахицефалами. Наконец, жителей Южной Европы и Северной Африки называют средиземноморцами. Они имеют темную кожу и являются долихоцефалами.

With such a classification, some European countries would be inhabited mainly by one such iodra. For example, Norway would be almost entirely Scandinavian, Hungary almost entirely Alpine, and Portugal almost entirely Mediterranean. Other countries would be made up of two or even three sub-races. There are both Scandinavians and Alyts in Germany. Both Alysh and Mediterranean people live in Italy. France, which has a highly culturally homogeneous population, is represented by all three sub-races.

Head shapes also change outside the white race. Most of the black race are dolichocephalic or mesocephalic, and most of the yellow Melanesian race are brachycephalic.

Head shape, like height, can change with diet. Children born during the long northern winter are deprived of sunlight in the early months of their lives. If they are not given fish oil or vitamin supplements, they are deficient in vitamin D. Such children suffer from a disease known as rickets, in which the bones do not strengthen properly. The soft, malleable skulls of such children can also be deformed by the pressure of the cradle, and the size of the skull at a later age will no longer mean anything.

droplets of life

The smallest living organisms are called protozoa, or protozoa. Some of them are barely visible to the naked eye, but most are microscopic in size. That is why they are studied under a microscope.

A protozoan, such as an amoeba, consists of a tiny drop of a jelly-like liquid called protoplasm. This drop of protoplasm is separated from the water in which the amoeba lives by a very thin membrane. Protoplasm separated by a membrane from the external environment is called a cell.

Although the amoeba is microscopic in size, it performs all the essential functions of life. It can capture food particles that are smaller than itself in volume, digest them and throw out undigested residues. She can detect danger and in this case move to avoid it. It can grow, and when it grows to a certain size, it can split in two so that in place of one amoeba two will form. When the amoeba splits in two, the new daughter cells that appear will have all the characteristics of the old parent cell.

It would be reasonable to believe that if we could understand how a cell divides into two cells while retaining all of its features, then this could be a starting point for studying how these features are transmitted in larger organisms, creatures, such as humans.

The protozoa are made up of a single cell. Animals larger than protozoa are composed of many cells closely adjacent to each other. Since each of these cells is approximately the same size as a protozoa cell, it takes quite a lot of them to form a large animal. Man, for example, is made up of trillions and trillions of microscopic cells. Every human cell is made up of protoplasm; each surrounded by a cell membrane. Animals made up of many cells are called metazoa. Man also belongs to the metazoa.

A single protozoa cell is a kind of jack-of-all-trades. She can do a little of everything. In the metazoa, cells have different specializations. In humans, for example, there are long thin cells that make up muscle tissue, which become short and thick when the muscle is tensed. There are jagged nerve cells that carry messages from one part of the body to another. There are skin cells that serve as elastic protection for the rest of the body.

Some of these various cells, such as those that make up the brain and nerves, have become so specialized that they have lost the ability to divide. Other types of cells, however, continue to divide throughout life, or at least can divide whenever it becomes necessary. For example, the outer skin cells gradually wear out throughout life. For this reason, the cells in the deeper layers of the skin continuously grow and divide to replace the lost cells.

The process of human cell division is almost the same as that of protozoa cells. Human cells retain their characteristics after division in the same way as kayu and protozoa cells. In fact, the division process is approximately the same in all cells. To explore this process, let's take a closer look at the cell.

In the beginning, all cells that grow and divide are made up of two parts. Somewhere within the cell, often near its center, there is a small patch of protoplasm, separated from the rest of the cell by a membrane even thinner and more delicate than the outer membrane of the cell. This inner part of the cell is called the nucleus. The protoplasm surrounding the nucleus is called the cytoplasm.

Of these two parts of the cell, the nucleus is the most important. Suppose an amoeba is divided in two by a microscopic needle point in such a way that one half contains a whole nucleus, while the other half does not contain a nucleus. The half with the core will be able to restore the missing part and will then continue to live a normal life, growing and dividing. The half without a nucleus lives only for a short time, but after that it dries up and dies. It does not grow and never divides.

So now let's take a closer look at the core itself. If we take very thin sections of tissue from certain organs and place them under a microscope, we can see individual cells and even perhaps cell nuclei within cells. If we confine ourselves to viewing only, then we will not see anything special in the core. But we will not be limited to this.

The nucleus, like the cell as a whole, is made up of a large number of different substances. Some chemicals, when added to the water in which the cloth plate is placed, can enter the cells and combine with some, but not all, of the substances that are there. The resulting chemical compounds are sometimes colored in one color or another. By adding the right chemical to the cell tissue, we stain some parts of the cell and leave other parts untouched. When, for example, a drug called Feulgen's reagent is added to a cell, the scattered parts of the nucleus turn bright red (Felgen's stain). These parts are called chromatin (from the Greek word for "color"). If a drug is added to cells at various stages of division, the behavior of chromatin can become visible to us, and it is this behavior that is the key to the situation of interest to us.

How cells divide

At the very beginning of the process of cell division, the chromatin of the nucleus begins to assemble into small filamentous forms. These strands of chromatin are called chromosomes. The number of chromosomes is different in the cells of different animal species. A fly, for example, has only eight chromosomes in its cells, while a spiny lobster has more than a hundred. All cells of any animal of the same species have the same number of chromosomes. In human cells, for example, chromatin is assembled into exactly 48 chromosomes during the process of cell division.

Since chromatin is assembled into small thread-like forms during cell division, the process of cell division is called mitosis, from the Greek word for thread.

After the chromosomes have formed, the nuclear membrane disappears and substances from the nucleus mix with the cytoplasm. Chromosomes meanwhile stretch across the cell in the middle.

This is the decisive moment. It's called metaphase. The chromosomes remain in the middle of the cell, and after a while each chromosome is suddenly duplicated by a companion chromosome lining up next to the original chromosome. In a dividing human cell, the number of chromosomes thus increases from 48 to 96 in metaphase.

After metaphase, everything happens pretty quickly. First, the chromosomes separate from each other. One set of 48 chromosomes (in human cells) moves to one end of the cell. Another set of 48 chromosomes is at the other end of the cell.

The chromosomes at each end of the cell are then enveloped by new nuclear membranes. Within a short time, the cell has two nuclei at once. Within each nucleus, the chromosomes begin to unfold and lose their threadlike form. But they do not disintegrate and do not dissolve. This can be compared to how if a strongly stretched string, after being released, suddenly weakened and became long and twisted. This is how chromosomes unfold into chromatin and wait for the next cell division when they once again form chromosomes.

After these two nuclei have formed at opposite ends of the cell, the cell begins to narrow in the middle. The middle becomes narrower and narrower until the cells separate. In the protozoa, the two resulting cells detach from each other and become two separate individuals. In the metazoa, two daughter cells remain in place. The new cell membrane, however, now separates the two parts of what was once a single cell.

Now back to metaphase. One unusual thing that may interest us in the process of mitosis is the doubling of chromosomes. Everything else is just a matter of dividing the substance of the cell into two equal parts and separating them from each other by a membrane.

You may ask, “Isn't the same thing happening with chromosomes? Doesn't each chromosome simply divide along its length, becoming two chromosomes?

To answer this question, it is not enough for us to consider only the cell itself, or even the nucleus. We must turn our attention to the chromosome itself.

Inside the chromosome

Now we're dealing with objects that are so tiny that we have to pause to consider how small we can possibly get anyway. As all of us living in the age of the atomic bomb probably know, the whole world is made up of atoms. Atoms are extremely small objects. A chromosome that is large enough to be seen with a microscope contains many billions of atoms.

Atoms come in a hundred different types, some more simple than others. With rare exceptions, atoms are bound together in groups. Sometimes such a group consists of atoms of only one kind. More often, a group consists of two or more different kinds of atoms. Sometimes these groups can be made up of only two atoms each, sometimes half a dozen, sometimes several million. In any case, a group of atoms, whether it consists of one kind or many, whether it contains two atoms or two million, is called a molecule.

Each of the various types of substances known to us (and there are many hundreds of thousands of them) consists of molecules of its own kind. Each of the different kinds of molecule has its own set of properties and characteristics.

For example, if you cut a piece of a substance, such as sugar, in two, each piece will still be sugar. If you keep dividing the sugar into smaller and smaller pieces, each piece is still sugar. Even if it were possible to divide sugar so precisely as to separate it into individual molecules (billions and trillions of molecules), each molecule would still be sugar. A molecule, however, is the smallest particle that can retain the characteristics of the substance it makes up. If you were to split a sugar molecule in two, you would be left with two groups of atoms, each one half the size of the original molecule. One of the new bands, however, would no longer be sugar.

It's the same as if you took a class of 16 students and split it into two. You would then have two classes of 8 students each. You could go ahead and do 4 classes with 4 students each, 8 classes with 2 students each, or even 16 classes with 1 student each. But you should have stopped there. If you tried to continue this fascinating process and form 32 classes with half a student each, you would end up with no classes at all, no students, but serious trouble with the police.

Now let's get back to the chromosome. The chromosome is made up of a substance called a nucleoprotein. The nucleoprotein molecule is huge compared to most molecules. It is a million or more times larger than, for example, a sugar molecule. (Even so, still too small to be seen under normal microscopes.) A chromosome is a string of several thousand of these giant nucleoprotein molecules strung together.

Now imagine what would happen if each chromosome were to split in the middle at metaphase and become two chromosomes. It would be like breaking a pearl necklace. You wouldn't have more than two pearl necklaces, just two sets of bunches of pearls and nothing else.

Now we can answer the question with which we ended the previous section. Chromosomes don't just split in the middle, becoming two chromosomes in metaphase. If the chromosome were split down the middle, every nucleoprotein molecule would be destroyed. Instead of having two chromosomes, we would have none.

Therefore, in order for each chromosome to become two chromosomes in metaphase, one of them must be created anew from simpler materials.

How it's done? Nobody knows for sure. Many scientists are studying this process. Once they have a complete answer, they will have at their disposal one of the important keys to knowing the nature of life itself.

In a rough approximation, however, this seems to work in the following way: the protoplasm in the cell contains various simple substances that can be combined to form a chromosome. (It's like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle when you see which one, when properly combined with the others, can make up the big picture.) Some of these substances are called amino acids. Others are called purines, pyrimidines, pentoses, and phosphate ions. In some way these simple substances are pulled out of the protoplasm and lined up around the various chromosomes. The arrangement of substances is such that each amino acid in each chromosome has a similar amino acid next to it; each purine is adjacent to a similar purine, and so on. When the building is completed, all these small molecules and ions are connected together, and in the end we have a second chromosome next to the first. Since the second chromosome is made up of exactly the same molecules and ions as the first, and lined up in the same order, we have an exact duplicate of the first chromosome. The first chromosome acted as a kind of model, but by which the second was fashioned.

The process by which a chemical structure forms another structure solely and directly from materials in protoplasm is known as self-reproduction.

Summing up, therefore, what happens in a dividing human cell in metaphase, we see that each of these forty-eight chromosomes in the cell reproduces itself. The formed second set of chromosomes is an exact duplicate of the first set. The two sets move to opposite ends of the cell, and as the cell divides, each daughter cell has its own set of chromosomes.

Enzymes and genes

We have seen that the cell contains many different substances that can be used as raw materials in the manufacture of complex chromosome structures. Each cell, in fact, contains many thousands of different chemicals within its microscopic structure. These chemicals are constantly colliding and combining with each other, exchanging atoms, splitting and separating, rearranging atoms within their own structure, etc. Actions of this kind are called chemical reactions.

As you might imagine from this description, events within a cell must be very intricate, with molecules scurrying back and forth like people bumping into each other in a crowded train station. However, there is one type of molecule that brings order and meaning to the chemical reactions that take place within a cell. These are enzymes. Enzymes are relatively large molecules that can influence the course of some chemical reactions. Each enzyme can influence one specific chemical reaction, since only this one takes place near it, and no other.

Within a single cell, various enzymes appear to be arranged in an orderly manner. For example, a variety of enzymes are parts of small structures within the cytoplasm of a cell. These structures are called mitochondria. Like chromosomes, mitochondria are made up of a nucleoprotein. The mitochondrial nucleoprotein, however, is chemically different from the chromosomal type.

We can look at the cell as something like a microscopic factory. Molecules of all kinds enter our body from the air and from the food we eat, and are carried to individual cells by blood streams. This is reminiscent of the way in which coal, steel, rubber and other raw materials are brought to factories by trains and ships.

In the cell, these molecules break down to give up energy as a result, or they line up to form more complex molecules. It's like how factories burn coal for energy, or use steel and other materials to create complex structures like a car or an airplane. Every chemical reaction in a cell is controlled by an enzyme, just as every action in a factory is controlled by a worker. Enzymes are organized in mitochondria in the same way that workers are placed along assembly lines.

Just as a factory couldn't do anything significant if all the workers went on strike, for example, so a cell can't create anything without its thousands of enzymes. But then where do the enzymes themselves come from? This is an important question. The best answer we know so far is this: Enzymes are formed by nucleoprotein molecules within chromosomes.

As we said, the chromosome is not made up of a single nucleoprotein molecule, but of thousands of such extended molecules. Each nucleothyroid molecule is called a gene.

Genes have two important properties. The first is the ability to reproduce itself during mitosis, a process explained in How Cells Divide and Within the Chromosome. The second is the ability to produce an enzyme. The exact process by which the enzyme is produced is not yet known. Perhaps the whole gene is used as a model for another gene, and only some part of the gene is used as a model for an enzyme.

Some scientists believe that each gene has the ability to form one specific enzyme and no other. Others are not entirely convinced that genes are so specialized. It seems fairly reasonable, however, that the nature of the genes present on a cell's chromosomes determines the nature of the enzymes in the cell. Since enzymes control chemical reactions, genes control the chemistry of the cell. After cell division, each daughter cell has identical genes and therefore an identical chemical composition. This is the result of self-reproduction in mitosis: both daughter cells have identical genes.

Genes and physical characteristics

Now that we have shown how cells retain their characteristics after division, you may wonder how all this relates to the problem of human races. The application of all this is this: the physical characteristics that we mentioned in the previous section are determined by the chemistry of the cell. Anything that affects the chemistry of the cell in some way can affect the bodily physical characteristics in one way or another.

Let's take skin color as an example.

The large pigment molecule melanin is formed in skin cells from a much smaller molecule called tyrosine. (Tyrosine is colorless and is present in all cells.) The specific steps in this process are still unknown, but one of the first steps we know of requires the presence of an enzyme called tyrosinase. In the skin cells of most people there is at least one gene, the work of which should lead to the formation of tyrosinase. If the gene is of the kind that can produce significant amounts of tyrosinase, the skin cell is like a well-equipped factory. Significant amounts of melanin are formed, and a person with this gene therefore has dark brown skin, black hair, and dark brown eyes. If the gene is of a species that produces only a small amount of tyrosinase, the opposite will be true. Only a small amount of melanin will be formed and the person will have pale skin, blond hair and light eyes. In addition, there are some people whose genes do not form tyrosinases at all. Since their cells don't even have a small amount of tyrosinase, they can't have melanin either. Such people have very fair skin, white hair, and they have no iris pigmentation at all. (Their eyes look reddish because small blood vessels show through the clear, colorless iris.) These people are called albinos. If you have ever met an albino, you could see for yourself what an amazing effect on the physical condition of a person can have the presence or absence of only one gene.

There are other enzymes, and therefore many other genes are involved in the formation of melanin. The color of the skin, for this reason, is more complex than it might appear from what we have so far talked about.

Another physical characteristic we might consider is height. One of the chemical factors that affect human growth is known as growth hormone. This substance is formed in the cells of a small structure called the pituitary gland, which is located just below the brain. Growth hormone passes from the pituitary gland into the bloodstream. The blood carries it to all parts of the body, somehow (again we don't know the exact details) encouraging the cells to grow and divide.

Unless there are other factors that could be considered in conjunction with it (such as diet or disease), a person with more HGH in their blood will grow more rapidly than a person with less HGH. He will probably get big and very tall. There are people in whom, for some reason, only a very small amount of growth hormone is produced by the pituitary gland. Such a person hardly grows at all, and as a result he remains a dwarf. On the contrary, some people have excessive production of growth hormone, and as a result they turn into giants. The dwarfs and giants we see in circus performances are the result of too little or too much growth hormone.

Growth hormone is formed in the pituitary gland under the control of enzymes. The amount of growth hormone therefore depends, at least in part, on the amount of certain enzymes formed in the cells. This, in turn, depends on the nature of the genes responsible for the formation of these enzymes. So height, like skin color, depends on the nature of the genes that a person possesses.

Similar arguments can be made for any physical characteristic. It's always a matter of genes. For this reason, it is logical to assume that if we are to succeed in dividing people into racial groups, we must first study everything we can learn about how genes are passed from parents to children.

egg and sperm

All but the simplest animals produce specialized cells that, under favorable circumstances, have a way of developing into new individuals. Such cells produced by female animals are known as ova. The ovum is often called the Latin word ovum, which means "egg". A hen's egg is an ovum that we are all very familiar with. In this example, you can immediately see how much the egg differs from other cells. Look at a chicken egg and remember that it is just a single cell. Now compare it to cells that are so small that they can only be seen with a microscope. In fact, only a microscopic speck on the surface of the egg yolk is alive. Everything else is just a supply of food. It will take three weeks for a chicken to grow from this microscopic speck into a small creature that fills the shell. The egg should contain all the calories, vitamins and minerals that the chick will need during those three weeks.

In humans (as well as other mammals) the situation is somewhat different. The egg develops inside the mother's body. Shortly after the fertilized egg begins to grow, an organ known as the placenta is formed. In the placenta, the developing baby's blood vessels come very close to the mother's blood vessels. Nutrients, vitamins, oxygen - in general, everything necessary to sustain life - pass from the mother's blood into the child's blood. This is the way a mother feeds a child. (Note that the blood vessels of the mother and baby do not connect. There is no mixing of blood!)

Since it is the mother's blood that nourishes the developing fetus, there is no need for a human egg to contain many nutrients. Therefore, it is much smaller than a chicken egg. In fact, the size of a human egg is only "/.75" in diameter. But even so, it is still the largest cell in the entire human body.

Males also produce special cells that contribute to the development of new individuals. They are called spermatozoa, or semen. They are much smaller than eggs. 600 or more sperm weigh the same as a single egg.

The human sperm cell is a very unusual kind of cell because it can move on its own. It does this with its long tail, swinging it in all directions. This tail is approximately ten times the size of the rest of the cell. When viewed under a microscope, a spermatozoon looks very much like a tiny tadpole.

Both eggs and sperm are all produced in special organs. The eggs are formed in the ovaries. All normal women have two ovaries. In them, they produce one egg every four weeks. Sperm cells are produced in the testicles, all normal men have two testicles. The testicles continuously produce vast amounts of sperm. The drop of fluid produced by the testicles contains many, many millions of spermatozoa.

When the sperm is released near the egg, many spermatozoa randomly rush to it. Only one of the sperm enters the egg through the layer of small cells surrounding it. Once a sperm enters an egg, no other sperm can do the same. The combination of an egg and a sperm is called a fertilized egg, or a zygote.

The difference between an egg formed in the ovaries and a fertilized egg is extremely large. If the formed egg is not fertilized by the sperm, then it will soon be destroyed. The fertilized egg, however, immediately begins to divide and divide again, grow and develop into an embryo. Finally, if everything goes smoothly, a human baby is born.

Now we can ask ourselves many questions at once. Why exactly two cells are required to produce a new individual? Why does he have to have both father and mother? Does it matter that a spermatozoon is so different in appearance from an egg?

To answer these and other similar questions, let's turn our attention back to chromosomes.

Earlier we said that human cells contain 48 chromosomes. These 48 are lined up in pairs. Each human cell therefore contains 24 pairs of chromosomes. The genes on any chromosome are like the genes on the chromosome that is paired with it. If one chromosome contains the gene that forms tyrosinase, so does its twin chromosome. This gene is even located in the same place on each chromosome. The genes may not be identical; that is, one of them, for example, may be capable of generating more tyrosinase than the other. However, both of them are associated with the same enzyme.

In other words, a human cell contains 24 different chromosomes, plus spare parts for each of those 24, for a total of 48.

You may remember that in the previous chapter we mentioned one exception to the rule that all human cells contain 48 chromosomes. This exception is the female egg and sperm.

Eggs and sperm cells are formed from parental cells containing the usual 48 chromosomes. The parent cells, however, undergo an unusual form of cell division known as meiosis. Chromosomes do not reproduce themselves. Instead, these 48 chromosomes simply split into two groups and travel to opposite ends of the cells. At one end there are 24 different chromosomes, and at the other end there are 24 "spare parts".

The result of this is that both eggs and sperm are only "semi-cells", at least in terms of the number of chromosomes. They have but 24 chromosomes.

A small sperm cell contains the same number of chromosomes - 24 - as a much larger egg. A sperm cell, however, contains almost nothing else: just 24 chromosomes, tightly packed together and driven back and forth by a wagging tail. The egg, on the other hand, contains a significant amount of nutrients, due to which the embryo can live until the placenta is formed.

When a sperm cell enters an egg (leaving its tail outside), it becomes a nucleus, much like the small nucleus in an egg. These two nuclei approach and dissolve into each other. Now the fertilized egg is already a full-fledged cell. It contains all 48 chromosomes. This is why a fertilized egg can develop into an embryo while an unfertilized egg cannot. This requires the total number of chromosomes - namely 48.

There is one important difference between a fertilized egg and all other cells in the female body in which it exists. Chromosomes are different! Only 24 of the chromosomes of the fertilized egg were obtained from the cells of the woman, that is, from the mother. The other 24 chromosomes entered the cell from outside, i.e., from "the father's sperm. Now that the fertilized egg divides and divides again, each new self-replicating cell has chromosomes that are identical to the chromosomes of the original, fertilized egg. The cells of every person on earth therefore contain 24 chromosomes which he received from his mother, and 24 chromosomes received from his father.In addition, in each pair of chromosomes, one received from his mother and one from his father.Now we can go further.Every person has two genes responsible for each specific enzyme , and in each case one gene is from the mother and one from the father (There are some exceptions to this rule, as we shall see later.)

It does not matter that the mother seems to sacrifice much more than the father for the development of the child. She donated an egg that is much larger than her father's sperm cell. And then, for nine months, only the mother's blood feeds the growing embryo. However, as far as chromosomes are concerned, each parent makes an equal contribution. And it is the chromosomes that determine the specific inheritance of physical characteristics.

Man and woman

The first question anyone asks about a newborn baby is "Boy or girl?" You may wonder when exactly the sex of a baby is determined. The answer to this may surprise you. The sex of the baby is determined when the sperm cell fertilizes the egg.

Let's see why this is so. As we have already said, all human cells (except eggs and sperm cells) contain 24 n chromosomes. In fact, this is not entirely correct. A woman's cells do contain 24 perfect pairs. The male's cells, however, contain 23 perfect pairs plus a 24th pair, which is a bit unusual. The 24th pair in males consists of one perfect chromosome and one stunted little partner. A complete chromosome is called an X chromosome. The stunted partner is called the Y chromosome. In other words, the 24th pair in men does not have a proper "spare part". What does this mean for the maturation process? When an egg is formed, the 24 pairs of chromosomes in a woman divide evenly. Each egg receives 24 perfect chromosomes. Therefore, all eggs are similar in this respect and each contains an X chromosome.

However, when a spermatozoon is formed, the 24 pairs of chromosomes divide so that one cell of 1 sperm gets 24 perfect chromosomes and the other gets 23 perfect chromosomes plus a Y chromosome. Therefore, two types of sperm cells are formed - one type with a Y chromosome, the other without it. Both of these species are formed in equal proportions.

Now, if an egg is fertilized by sperm without a Y chromosome, the fertilized egg is found to have 24 perfect pairs of chromosomes, and the embryo automatically develops as a female. If the egg is fertilized by sperm with a Y chromosome, the fertilized egg is found to have 23 perfect pairs of chromosomes and the 24th pair with a Y chromosome. The embryo then automatically develops as a male1.

Since both types of sperm cells are formed in equal proportions, there are equal chances for one of the first or second type to fertilize an egg, and for this reason there are as many men in the world as women.

In fact, the distribution of iols is somewhat different from the 50/50 ratio. Eggs fertilized by sperm with a Y chromosome are somewhat more common than eggs fertilized by sperm with an X chromosome. The reason for this is still unknown. But there is another factor that requires our consideration. Having a spare for each chromosome is very helpful. If something wrong happens to a gene on a particular chromosome, then the gene on its part can be in perfect order, and the organism can get out of a difficult situation in this way. With respect to 23 pairs of chromosomes, both sexes are equal. On chromosome 24, however, females have an advantage. They have a spare part, but men do not. If women have an imperfect gene on the X chromosome, the spare part saves them. If men have an imperfect gene on the X chromosome, they are very unlucky.

It is for this reason, perhaps, that male embryos encounter more difficulties than female embryos. Fewer of them live to the moment of birth. In addition, more male infants die at an early age than female infants, and in general men live less than women. Thus, despite the fact that there are more conceptions of boys than girls, the general population has a slightly higher percentage of women.

In short, men may be taller, heavier, and more muscular than women, but as far as their chromosomes are concerned, they are in fact the weaker sex.

Variations among genes

As we have said, genes control the development of enzymes and thus govern the nature of physical characteristics. Unfortunately, our knowledge of cell chemistry is very limited. We can hardly ever know exactly which enzyme or enzymes govern ordinary physical characteristics. In fact, we know that the enzyme tyrosinase is necessary for the formation of melanin, and it determines the color of the skin, hair and eyes. We believe, however, that other enzymes are also required for this process.

For this reason, one can skip the details of the enzyme and only connect the gene to a physical characteristic. For example, we could talk about a baldness gene, a five-finger gene, or an eye color gene. Sometimes it would be convenient for us to talk about different genes that affect the same physical characteristic, but in different ways. Eye color is a good example. We could talk about the brown eye gene and the blue eye gene.

Each place on a chromosome can only be occupied by one gene at a time. However, there may be several genes that can take this place. When different genes are able to occupy a certain place on a chromosome, they are said to form alleles, that is, specific forms of the same gene. Usually, different allele genes affect the same physical characteristic, but in different ways. For example, a gene that produces tyrosine and is capable of generating a significant amount of tyrosinase will cause a child to have brown eyes. Another similar gene, which is capable of generating only minute amounts of tyrosinase, and which will thus cause blue eyes, may be in the same place on the chromosome in some other individuals. The brown eye gene and the blue eye gene are two alleles of the same gene.

Except for the genes on the X and Y chromosomes in males, all genes exist in pairs because all chromosomes exist in pairs. For every gene that exists at a certain place on the chromosome, there is a second gene that controls the same physical characteristic and is in the same position on the other paired chromosome. These two genes may or may not be identical, but they both affect the same physical characteristic - they may affect it in the same way or in different ways.

Each cell has two genes that are responsible for eye color through the formation of tyrosinase. One is on some chromosome and the other is on the same spot on the twin chromosome. One might be the brown eye gene, and so might the other; or it could be the blue eye gene, and the other one too. Whenever these two genes are identical, the person is said to be homozygous for that characteristic. He is homozygous for the brown eye gene in the first case, and homozygous for the blue eye gene in the second case.

But these two genes do not have to be identical. They may be different alleles of a specific gene. A person can have the gene (allele) for brown eyes on one chromosome and the gene for blue eyes on the twin chromosome. Such a person is heterozygous for the genes that determine eye color.

"Homozygous" and "heterozygous" are difficult words. Sometimes people talk about "pure lines" when the two genes are similar, and "hybrids" when they are not. These are much simpler terms, and also more familiar. You may wonder why we don't use them instead of "homozygous" and "heterozygous". Unfortunately, too many people think that there is something good about being "pure" and something bad about being a "hybrid". To avoid getting into trouble with these prejudices (in fact, as we shall see, there are good and bad sides to both of these conditions), we will stick with the words "homozygous" and "heterozygous" in this book.

Let's continue our topic with eye color genes. Consider, for example, eggs that are produced by a woman who is homozygous for hazel eyes. The pairs of chromosomes divide, and since a woman only has the brown eye gene, each egg will have one brown eye gene. With regard to the eye color gene, all eggs will be identical.

A man who is homozygous for brown eyes will in the same way produce sperm cells that have one gene for brown eyes.

Suppose this homozygous man and the homozygous woman are married and have a child. The child will have an eye color that depends on the nature of the genes in the sperm cell and in the egg that combined to form the fertilized egg. But, as we have already explained, all eggs contained one gene for brown eyes, and all sperm cells contained one gene for brown eyes. Therefore, no matter which sperm cell fertilizes an egg, that fertilized egg will always have two genes for brown eyes. Like both parents, the child will be homozygous for brown eyes. All other children from this marriage will be the same.

If the mother and father are both homozygous for blue eyes, then, reasoning in the same way, all their children will be homozygous for blue eyes.

But - and this is a very big but - does it often happen that one parent is homozygous for brown eyes and the other is homozygous for blue eyes? Suppose the mother is homozygous for brown eyes. Then each egg she produces will contain one gene for brown eyes. Father is homozygous for blue eyes; so every sperm cell he produces will contain one gene for blue eyes. Regardless of which sperm fertilizes the egg, the fertilized egg will contain one gene for blue eyes and one gene for brown eyes. The child will be heterozygous.

If not the mother had brown eyes, but the father, and the mother had blue eyes, the result would be the same. Each egg would have one blue eye gene, and each sperm cell would have one brown eye gene. Again, a fertilized egg would have both genes, and the child would be heterozygous.

What happens to a child who is heterozygous for eye color? The answer is: he (or she) has brown eyes. The child has one gene that can produce a large amount of tyrosinase and a gene that can produce a small amount of tyrosinase. However, a single gene can generate a relatively large amount of tyrosinase, and it may be enough to color the eyes brown.

As a result, two parents, one homozygous for brown eyes and the other homozygous for blue eyes, have children who are heterozygous and at the same time have brown eyes. The blue eye gene does not appear. He is invisible. It seems to be disappearing.

When a person has two different genes for some physical characteristic at identical locations on a pair of chromosomes, and only one gene is expressed, that gene is called dominant. A gene that does not show up is recessive. In the case of eye color, the brown eye gene is dominant in relation to the blue eye gene. The blue eye gene is recessive to the brown eye gene.

It is impossible to tell just by looking at a person whether they are homozygous or heterozygous for brown eyes. Either way, his eyes are brown. One way to say something definite is to find out something about his parents. If his mother or his father had blue eyes, he must be heterozygous. Another way to know something is to see the color of his children's eyes.

We already know that if a homozygous brown-eyed man marries a homozygous brown-eyed woman, they will have homozygous brown-eyed children. But what happens if he marries a heterozygous girl? A homozygous male would only form sperm cells with genes for brown eyes. His heterozygous wife would produce two types of eggs. During meiosis, since her cells have both a brown eye gene and a blue eye gene, the brown eye gene will travel to one end of the cell and the blue eye gene to the other. Half of the formed eggs will contain the gene for brown eyes, and the other half - the gene for blue eyes.

The chance of a sperm cell fertilizing a brown-eyed egg or a blue-eyed egg is therefore 50/50. Half of the fertilized eggs will be homozygous for brown eyes, and half will be heterozygous. But all children will have brown eyes.

Now suppose that. both father and mother are heterozygous. Both would have brown eyes, but both at the same time have the gene for blue eyes. The father would form two kinds of sperm cells, one with the blue eye gene and the other with the brown eye gene. In the same way, the mother would form two kinds of eggs.

Several combinations of sperm and egg cells are now possible. Suppose one of the sperm cells with the brown eye gene fertilizes one of the eggs with the brown eye gene. The child in this case will be homozygous for brown eyes and will naturally have brown eyes. Let us suppose that a sperm cell with the gene for brown eyes fertilizes an egg with the gene for blue eyes, or a sperm cell with the gene for blue eyes fertilizes an egg with the gene for brown eyes. Either way, the baby will be heterozygous and still have brown eyes.

But there is another option. What if a sperm cell with a blue eye gene fertilizes an egg with a blue eye gene? In this case, the child will be homozygous for blue eyes and will have blue eyes.

Thus, two brown-eyed parents can have a blue-eyed child. The gene that seemed to have vanished reappeared. In addition, you can, by looking at the child, say something about the parents. Although their eyes are brown, just like a homozygous person, you know that they both must be heterozygous or the blue eye gene would not be expressed.

When two people are similar but in some specific physical characteristics, they are said to belong to the same phenotype. All people with brown eyes have the same phenotype in terms of eye color. The same is true for people with blue eyes. When two people have the same combination of genes for some specific physical characteristic, they belong to the same genotype. Since all blue-eyed people are homozygous and have two genes for blue eyes in their cells, they all have the same combination of genes and all belong to the same genotype in terms of eye color. Brown-eyed people, however, can be either homozygous or heterozygous. For this reason, they belong to two different genotypes in terms of eye color. One genotype includes people with two genes for brown eyes; the other includes people with one gene for brown eyes and one for blue eyes.

You can determine a person's phenotype just by looking at them, but you can only determine a person's genotype by examining their parents, or their children, or both. Sometimes, as we will see, you will not be able to determine the genotype of a person even in this case.