Dermatoglyphics and the origin of races

Digital pattern type frequencies and frequencies of patterns in the Hypothenar, Thenar/Ist interdigital, IInd and IIIrd interdigital areas have been used for computing multivariate distances among four human geographical races. Results: Europids and Negrids stand near one another, Mongolids are remote from both and Australids are more remote from the three other races. This pattern of phenetic relationships corresponds to the evolutionary tree of Homo sapiens as reconstructed by the author on the basis of palaeoanthropological data.     

Biological races in humans

Races may exist in humans in a cultural sense, but biological concepts of race are needed to access their reality in a non-species-specific manner and to see if cultural categories correspond to biological categories within humans. Modern biological concepts of race can be implemented objectively with molecular genetic data through hypothesis-testing. Genetic data sets are used to see if biological races exist in humans and in our closest evolutionary relative, the chimpanzee. Using the two most commonly used biological concepts of race, chimpanzees are indeed subdivided into races but humans are not. Adaptive traits, such as skin color, have frequently been used to define races in humans, but such adaptive traits reflect the underlying environmental factor to which they are adaptive and not overall genetic differentiation, and different adaptive traits define discordant groups. There are no objective criteria for choosing one adaptive trait over another to define race. As a consequence, adaptive traits do not define races in humans. Much of the recent scientific literature on human evolution portrays human populations as separate branches on an evolutionary tree. A tree-like structure among humans has been falsified whenever tested, so this practice is scientifically indefensible. It is also socially irresponsible as these pictorial representations of human evolution have more impact on the general public than nuanced phrases in the text of a scientific paper. Humans have much genetic diversity, but the vast majority of this diversity reflects individual uniqueness and not race.     

Arms races between and within species.

An adaptation in one lineage (e.g. predators) may change the selection pressure on another lineage (e.g. prey), giving rise to a counter-adaptation. If this occurs reciprocally, an unstable runaway escalation or 'arms race' may result. We discuss various factors which might give one side an advantage in an arms race. For example, a lineage under strong selection may out-evolve a weakly selected one (' the life-dinner principle'). We then classify arms races in two independent ways. They may be symmetric or asymmetric, and they may be interspecific or intraspecific. Our example of an asymmetric interspecific arms race is that between brood parasites and their hosts. The arms race concept may help to reduce the mystery of why cuckoo hosts are so good at detecting cuckoo eggs, but so bad at detecting cuckoo nestlings. The evolutionary contest between queen and worker ants over relative parental investment is a good example of an intraspecific asymmetric arms race. Such cases raise special problems because the participants share the same gene pool. Interspecific symmetric arms races are unlikely to be important, because competitors tend to diverge rather than escalate competitive adaptations. Intraspecific symmetric arms races, exemplified by adaptations for male-male competition, may underlie Cope's Rule and even the extinction of lineages. Finally we consider ways in which arms races can end. One lineage may drive the other to extinction; one may reach an optimum, thereby preventing the other from doing so; a particularly interesting possibility, exemplified by flower-bee coevolution, is that both sides may reach a mutual local optimum; lastly, arms races may have no stable and but may cycle continuously. We do not wish necessarily to suggest that all, or even most, evolutionary change results from arms races, but we do suggest that the arms race concept may help to resolve three long-standing questions in evolutionary theory.     

Evolution: sexual arms races

The reproductive interests of males and females usually differ, resulting in sexual conflict. Recent studies in which experimental selection trials were carried out under conditions of either 'high' or 'low' sexual conflict show that conflict can promote speciation and reduce female reproductive success.     

Genetics and the origin of human races

In the last decades, the concept of human races was considered scientifically unfounded as it was not confirmed by genetic evidence. None of the racial classifications, which strongly differ in the number of races and their composition, reflects actual genetic similarity and genealogy of human populations inferred from variability of classical markers and DNA regions. Moreover, intercontinental ("interracial") variability was shown to be far lower than that within populations: the former constitutes 7 to 10% and the latter, about 85% of the total genetic variation. It is believed that the low level of differentiation of regional population groups contradicts their race status and suggests a recent origin of humans from one ancestral population. The results of studies of various genetic systems are in agreement with last conclusion rejecting the hypothesis of regional continuity. According to this hypothesis, the populations of continents regarded as large races have developed during long evolution from local types of archaic humans, in particular, Neanderthals. Phenotypic similarity of different, sometimes unrelated, populations united into one "race" is explained by strong selection since race-diagnostic traits characterize body surface and thus are directly subjected to the influence of environmental (primarily climatic) factors. It has been recently established that variability of the most important of these traits, body and hair pigmentation, is largely controlled by one locus (MC1R), which accounts for its high evolutionary lability. Other traits used for race identification are also likely to be labile and controlled by major genes. However, the fact that the currently existing race classifications are groundless does not mean that such classifications are impossible in principle. Commonly used argumentation (races do not exist because populations are not genetically separated) does not hold water. A polytypic species is characterized by genetic continuity of allopatric populations rather than the presence of narrow genetic boundaries between them. Borderlines between races are usually conventional and arbitrary. As to intergroup variation in humans, it is indeed low but comparable with that in some other species. There are no obstacles to the development of genetic systematics of human races.     

So-called conjugating and non-conjugating races of Paramaecium

Ohne Zusammenfassung

---

So-called conjugating and non-conjugating races of Paramaecium

     

Genetic and morphological distances between major human races

Dendrograms reflecting differentiation for structural gene markers' frequencies and for polygenic morphological traits of major human races represented by a series of ethnoterritorial groups are considered. It is claimed that separation of the negroid branch preceded the divergence of europeoids and mongoloids. The conclusion is drawn that the hypothesis of initial separation of humans to Euro-African and Asian-Oceanic groups of populations does not hold.     

Sister-chromatid exchange in 4 human races

The frequencies of sister-chromatid exchanges (SCE) were investigated in lymphocytes in 32 normal adult individuals of both sexes with no interracial familial backgrounds from Caucasian, American black, oriental and native American races. There was no significant difference in the average frequency of SCEs in the 4 races.