References

vavilov

Вавиловский журнал генетики и селекции

Vavilov Journal of Genetics and Breeding

2500-3259

Institute of Cytology and Genetics of Siberian Branch of the RAS

10.18699/VJ17.268

vavilov-1031

Research Article

ГЕНЕТИКА ЧЕЛОВЕКА

HUMAN GENETICS

О природе человека (вслед за Д.К. Беляевым)

On the human nature (following in the steps of Belyaev)

Маркель

А. Л.

Markel

A. L.

markel@bionet.nsc.ru

Федеральный исследовательский центр Институт цитологии и генетики Сибирского отделения Российской академии наук Новосибирский национальный исследовательский государственный университетРоссияInstitute of Cytology and Genetics SB RAS Novosibirsk State UniversityRussian Federation

2017

27072017

214492500

2017

Маркель А.Л.

Markel A.L.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://vavilov.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/1031

Статья инспирирована работами Д.К. Беляева, в которых обсуждались вопросы природы человека, и посвящается 100-летию со дня рождения Д.К. Беляева. В обзоре приводятся основные представления и теории, раскрывающие природу человека. Исследуются пути эволюции генома и культуры на протяжении антропогенеза. Показаны взгляды ведущих ученых прошлого и современности на закономерности геном-культурной коэволюции. Кажущееся противоречие между «генетиками» и «социологами» снимается благодаря разработке концепции коэволюции генома и культуры. Эволюция генов и культуры – единый, а не раздельный процесс. В своем развитии человек модифицирует и реконструирует свою социокультурную среду. Новая среда создает новые векторы отбора и формирует новые пути и направления генетической эволюции. Благодаря развитию культуры изменялась также генетическая детерминация когнитивных процессов человека. Ярким примером коэволюции культуры и генома является саморазвитие человеческой речи, голосового и мимического аппаратов общения. Увеличивающееся значение способов социального общения в популяциях человека способствовало сохранению генетических особенностей, облегчающих такое общение. На ранних этапах эволюции человека произошли расширение и реорганизация участков коры мозга, отвечающих за развитие речи. Представления о коэволюции культуры и генома присутствуют также в теории конструкции экологических ниш. Подчеркивается, что эволюция культуры, которая многими рассматривается как надбиологический феномен, по всем параметрам аналогична дарвиновскому процессу, в результате которого путем селекции и передачи в ряду поколений формируется адаптивная для данного сообщества социокультурная среда. По сути, речь идет об эпигенетическом наследовании в эволюции культуры и морали. В обзоре подробно излагаются взгляды и теоретические построения генетиков, социологов, социальных психологов, антропологов, бихевиористов и этологов при объяснении феномена человеческой эволюции. Рассматриваются некоторые противоречия, обусловленные разными темпами эволюции культуры и генома. Показано, что беляевская трактовка биосоциальной природы человека находит подтверждение в современных исследованиях генетиков, социологов и психологов.

This article was inspired by some works of Belyaev in which he discussed the biosocial human nature, and is dedicated to the 100 year anniversary of Belyaev’ birth. The main views and theories of the human nature and the main paths of genome and culture evolution during anthropogenesis are overviewed. The views of the leading past and present world-wide scientists on the basic principles of the genome-culture interactions are discussed. The seeming contradictions between “geneticists” and “sociologists” are resolved due to the development of the concept of co-evolution of the genome and culture. The evolution of genes and culture is a whole, but not separate processes. During their evolution, humans modify and reconstruct their sociocultural environment. The new environment creates new selection vectors and forms new ways and directions for genetic evolution. In response to the culture development, the genetic determination of human cognitive processes also changed. A good example of the co-evolution of culture and the genome is the development of human speech, the voice and mimic apparatus of communication. The vital importance of the new possibilities for social communication in human populations disposes to the fixation of genetic features that facilitate such communication. At the early stages of human evolution, the areas of the cerebral cortex that were responsible for the development of speech expanded and reorganized. The point of genome-culture co-evolution is well illustrated by niche construction theory. It is emphasized that the evolution of culture, which is widely regarded as a non-biological phenomenon, is quite similar in all its respects to the Darwinian process, as a result of which a sociocultural environment that is adaptive for a given community is formed through selection and transmission in a series of generations. In fact, we are talking about epigenetic inheritance in the evolution of culture and morality. The review details the views and theoretical concepts of geneticists, sociologists, social psychologists, anthropologists, behaviorists and ethologists in explaining the phenomenon of human evolution. Some contradictions caused by different rates of evolution of culture and genome are considered. In conclusion, it is shown that Belyaev’s interpretation of the biosocial nature of humans finds confirmation in modern studies by geneticists, sociologists and psychologists.

человекантропогенезэволюциягеномкультура.

humansanthropogenesisevolutiongenomeculture

References1

Allman J., Hakeem A., Watson K. Two phylogenetic specializations in the human brain. Neuroscientist. 2002;8:335-346.

Aronson E. The Social Animal. N. Y.: Palgrave Macmillan, 1980.

Baddeley A.D. Human Memory. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1990.

Bandura A. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs. N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977.

Beer J.S., Heerey E.A., Keltner D., Skabini D., Knight R.T. The regulatory function of selfconscious emotion: insights from patients with orbitofrontal damage. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2003;65:594-604.

Belyaev D.K. Problems in human biology: genetic reality and need for sociobiological synthesis. Priroda = Nature (Moscow). 1976;6:26-30. (in Russian)

Belyaev D.K. Modern science and the problems of human research. Voprosy filosofii = Problems of Philosophy. 1981a;3:3-16. (in Russian)

Belyaev D.K. Some factors in hominids evolution. Voprosy filosofii = Problems of Philosophy. 1981b;8:69-77. (in Russian)

Belyaev D.K. Main wealth of the mankind. Nauka i religiya = Science and Religion. 1982;1:2-6. (in Russian)

Boyd R., Richerson P.J. Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985.

Boyd R., Richerson P.J., Henrich J. The cultural niche: Why social learning is essential for human adaptation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2011;108:10918-10925.

Burrows A.M. The facial expression musculature in primates and its evolutionary significance. BioEssays. 2008;30:212-225.

Camille N. The involvement of the orbitofrontal cortex in the experience of regret. Science. 2004;304:1167-1170.

Cavalli-Sforza L.L., Feldman M.W. Cultural transmission and evolution. Princeton University Press, 1981.

Cavalli-Sforza L.L., Feldman M.W., Chen K.H., Dornbusch S.M. Theory and observation in cultural transmission. Science. 1982;218:19-27.

Chomsky N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1965.

Chomsky N. Rules and representations. Behav. Brain Sci. 1980;3(1):1-15.

Cosmides L., Tooby J. Evolutionary psychology: new perspectives on cognition and motivation. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2013;64:201-229.

Darwin Ch. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray, Albemarle street, 1859;424.

Dawkins R. The Selfish Gene. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press, 1976.

Dean L.G., Kendal R.L., Schapiro S.J., Thierry B., Laland K.N. Identification of the social and cognitive processes underlying human cumulative culture. Science. 2012;335:1114-1118.

Dean L.G., Vale G.L., Laland K.N., Flynn E., Kendal R.L. Human cumulative culture: a comparative perspective. Biol. Rev. 2014;89:284-301.

Diamond J. The Tasmanians: The longest isolation, the simplest technology. Nature. 1978;273:185-186.

Dobzhansky T. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. The American Biology Teacher. 1973;35(3):125-129.

Dunbar R.M. The Human Story. N. Y.: Faber & Faber, 2005.

Ehrlich P.R. Human natures: genes, cultures, and the human prospect. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2000.

Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Ed. B.F. Grimes. Dallas, Texas: SIL International, 2000. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com/14.

Feldman M.W., Laland K.N. Gene-culture coevolutionary theory. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1996;11(11):453-457.

Flynn E., Smith K. Investigating the mechanisms of cultural acquisition: How pervasive is adults’ overimitation? Soc. Psychol. 2012; 43:185-195.

Glukhov V., Kovshikov V. Psikholingvistika. Teoriya rechevoy deyatelnosti [Psycholinguistics. Theory of Speech Activity]. Moscow: AST Publ., 2007;318. (in Russian)

Herrmann E., Call J., Hernandez-Lloreda M.V., Hare B., Tomasello M. Humans have evolved specialized skills of social cognition: The cultural intelligence hypothesis. Science. 2007;317:1360-1366.

Hewlett B.S., Cavalli-Sforza L.L. Cultural transmission among Aka pygmies. American. Anthropologist. 1986;88:922-934.

Ihara Y. Evolution of culture-dependent discriminate sociality: a geneculture coevolutionary model. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 2011;366:889-900.

Jurmain R., Nelson H., Kilgore L., Travathan W. Introduction to Physical Anthropology. Cincinatti: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1997.

Kareiva P., Watts S., McDonald R., Boucher T. Domesticated nature: shaping landscapes and ecosystems for human welfare. Science. 2007;316:1866-1869.

Kendal J., Tehrani J.J., Odling-Smee J. Human niche construction in interdisciplinary focus. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 2011;366:785-792.

Laland K.N., Kendal J.R., Brown G.R. The niche construction perspective: implications for evolution and human behaviour. J. Evol. Psychol. 2007;5:51-66.

Laland K.N., Odling-Smee F.J., Feldman M.W. Cultural niche construction and human evolution. J. Evol. Biol. 2001;14:22-33.

Laland K.N., Odling-Smee F.J., Myles S. How culture shaped the human genome: bringing genetics and the human sciences together. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2010;11:137-148.

Leeuwen E.J.C. van, Call J., Haun D.B.M. Human children rely more on social information than chimpanzees do. Biol. Lett. 2014;10: 20140487.

Lyons D.E., Young A.G., Keil F.C. The hidden structure of overimitation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2007;104:19751-19756.

Mace R., Pagel M. The comparative method in anthropology. Curr. Anthropol. 1994;35:549-564.

Markel A.L. Evolutionary and genetic roots of hypertensive disease. Genetika = Genetics. (Moscow). 2015;51(6):644-657. (in Russian)

Markel A.L. Biosocial base of aggressiveness and aggressive behavior. Zhurnal vysshey nervnoy deyatelnosti im. I.P. Pavlova = I.P. Pavlov Journal of Higher Nervous Activity. 2016; 66(6):1-12. (in Russian)

Marks J. The biological myth of human evolution. Contemporary Social Science: J. Acad. Soc. Sci. 2012;7(2):139-157.

Mednick S.A., Kirkegaard-Sorenson L., Hutchings B., Knop J., Rosenberg R., Schulsinger F. An example of bio-social interaction research: the interplay of socio-environmental and individual factors in the etiology of criminal behavior. Biosocial Bases of Criminal Behavior. Eds. S.A. Mednick, K.O. Christiansen. N. Y.: Gardner Press, 1977.

Mesoudi A. Cultural Evolution. Chicago, IL: Univ. Chicago Press, 2011.

Mesoudi A., Whiten A., Laland K.N. Towards a unified science of cultural evolution. Behav. Brain Sci. 2006;29(4):329-347.

Moll J., Zahn R., di Oliveira-Souza R., Krueger F., Grafman J. The neural basis of human moral cognition. Nat. Neurosci. 2005;6: 799-809.

Nielsen M., Tomaselli K. Imitation in Kalahari Bushman children and the origins of human cultural cognition. Psychol. Sci. 2010;21:729-736.

O’Brien M.J., Darwent J., Lyman R.L. Cladistics is useful for reconstructing archaeological phylogenies: Palaeoindian points from the southeastern United States. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2001;28:1115-1136.

Parsons T. Evolutionary universals in society. Am. Soc. Rev. 1964;29: 339-357.

Pilipenko I.V., Pristyazhnyuk M.S., Kobzev V.F., Voevoda M.I., Pilipenko A.S. Polymorphism of LCT gene regulatory region in Turkicspeaking populations of the Altay-Sayan region (southern Siberia). Vavilovskii Zhurnal Genetiki i Selektsii = Vavilov Journal of Genetics and Breeding. 2016;20(6):887-893. DOI 10.18699/VJ16.209. (in Russian)

Pollard K.S. What makes us Human? Comparison of the genome of humans and chimpanzees are revealing those rare stretches of DNA that are ours alone. Scientific American. 2009;300(5):32-37.

Relethford J.H. The human species: an introduction to biological anthropology. N. Y.: McGraw-Hill, 2007.

Rendell L., Fogarty L., Laland K.N. Runaway cultural niche construction. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 2011;366:823-835.

Richerson P.J., Boyd R. Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.

Richerson P.J., Boyd R., Henrich J. Colloquium paper: gene-culture coevolution in the age of genomics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2010;107:8985-8992.

Rousseau J.-J. On the Social Contract. Mineola, N. Y.: Dover Publications, Inc, 2003.

Schultz W., Dayan P., Montague P.R. A Neural substrate of prediction and reward. Science. 1997;275:1593-1599.

Stringer C., Andrews P. The Complete World of Human Evolution. London: Thames & Hudson, 2005.

Tomasello M. Natural History of Human Thinking. Harvard University Press, 2014a.

Tomasello M. The ultra-social animal. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2014b;44: 187-194.

White L.A. The Evolution of Culture: The Development of Civilization to the Fall of Rome. N. Y.: McGraw-Hill, 1959.

Whiten A., Custance D.M., Gomez J.C., Teixidor P., Bard K.A. Imitative learning of artificial fruit processing in children (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). J. Comp. Psychol. 1996; 10:3-14.

Zajonc R.B. Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences. Am. Psychol. 1980;35:151-175.

Zajonc R.B. On the primacy of affect. Am. Psychol. 1984;39:117-123.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.