Podcasts about Nina Jablonski

This time on The Children's Hour, we explore the skin we are in. We are joined by Dr. Holly McGee and Dr. Nina Jablonski, who have written a book to explain the cultural and social history of skin color called It's Just Skin, Silly. Then we meet Dr. Adnan Mir, a pediatric dermatologist who helps us understand even more about our skin from a medical point of view. This episode comes with a digital Learn-Along guide that meets and cites educational content standards, to be used in the classroom.

Nina G. Jablonski is an American anthropologist and palaeobiologist who's work focusses on the social and biological meanings of skin color in humans. She completed her PhD in Anthropology in 1981 and she is currently an Evan Pugh University Professor at Pennsylvania State University. Her work spans broad yet intimately connected topics such as human evolution, human diversity, and racism. She was recently elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and in 2009, she was elected to the American Philosophical Society.-Nina is the author of several books including “Living Color: The Biological and Social Meaning of Skin Color”, and “Skin: A Natural History” which examine the biological basis of skin pigmentation as well as the sociocultural implications of varying degrees of melanin density.- Timestamps00:00:00 - Intro00:01:32 - How Nina Started Studying Skin00:11:45 - The Goldilocks Zone of UV Exposure00:16:22 - Evolutionary Depigmentation Events00:22:58 - Discussing Skin Pigmentation in the Medical Field00:28:37 - Balancing Sun Exposure in Our Unnatural World00:31:42 - Vitamin D or Sunlight?00:39:32 - Epidemiology of Skin Cancers & Public Health Messaging00:44:33 - How Pigmentation Impacts Addictive Behaviour Patterns00:48:22 - Color-Based Discrimination00:58:08 - Dissecting Race & Culture with Regard to Identity01:01:28 - Importance of Early Childhood Education01:05:08 - Categorical Thinking & Minimal Group Paradigm Bias01:07:20 - Nina's Current Projects01:09:19 - Hair in Human Culture01:12:59 - Outro-Follow Nina HereWebsiteBooks-Follow My WorkWebsiteConsultationInstagramYoutubeSpotifyApple PodcastsLinkedinLinktree

This podcast is a commentary and does not contain any copyrighted material of the reference source. We strongly recommend accessing/buying the reference source at the same time. ■Reference Source https://www.ted.com/talks/nina_jablonski_skin_color_is_an_illusion ■Post on this topic (You can get FREE learning materials!) https://englist.me/159-academic-words-reference-from-nina-jablonski-skin-color-is-an-illusion-ted-talk/ ■Youtube Video https://youtu.be/QqZM627DzCU (All Words) https://youtu.be/d-0FrFdzPcg (Advanced Words) https://youtu.be/eBuIIj8-n_0 (Quick Look) ■Top Page for Further Materials https://englist.me/ ■SNS (Please follow!)

Professor Jablonski is a biological anthropologist at Penn State University. She has done extensive research in the fields of the evolution of skin and skin color. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/james-herlihy/message

Mike Isaacson: Race horses don't even live in a society! [Theme song] Nazi SS UFOsLizards wearing human clothesHinduism's secret codesThese are nazi lies Race and IQ are in genesWarfare keeps the nation cleanWhiteness is an AIDS vaccineThese are nazi lies Hollow earth, white genocideMuslim's rampant femicideShooting suspects named Sam HydeHiter lived and no Jews died Army, navy, and the copsSecret service, special opsThey protect us, not sweatshopsThese are nazi lies Mike: Thanks for joining us for another episode of The Nazi Lies Podcast. You can get merch and access to early episodes by subscribing to our Patreon. Throw us a donation on our PayPal or CashApp, and we'll toss you some merch as well. Today, we're trashing race realism–the idea that race is biologically real and bears upon behavior and intelligence. With me is Dr. Robert Anemone, who has his PhD from the University of Washington and is professor of biological anthropology and paleoanthropology at UNC Greensboro. His book, Race and Human Diversity: A Biocultural Approach, explores the intersections of race and biology, surveying anthropological and biological knowledge across history up to the present day. Thanks for joining us Dr. Anemone. Robert Anemone: You're very welcome, Mike. Looking forward to it. Mike: So one thing I liked about your book is that at the end of every chapter it has helpful discussion questions to explore the concepts further. So I decided that it wouldn't make much sense for me to write my own questions when yours are right there. Is it okay if I ask you some questions from the book? Robert: Sounds great. Mike: Okay great! So the first one relates to the subtitle of your book. What do anthropologists mean when they talk about using a biocultural approach to some questions like the meaning of race? Robert: Sure. Well, I've found in the literature on race in anthropology, sociology, that a lot of people approach it from one or the other of these sort of paradigms. And yet I really think that to understand race, you have to understand and look at the interaction between these two different paradigms; the biological, evolutionary, and the cultural or social. The biological or the evolutionary perspective recognises that human variation is a result of evolution, you know, that natural selection and the other forces of evolution like mutation and genetic drift have played a role in creating the diversity we see in Homo sapiens. However, that's not the whole story, because the cultural approach is really necessary. We recognise that racial classifications vary over time and space. Societies or cultures create the meanings and stereotypes that they associate with racial groups. So in my book, I really tried to do two things. I explore the biological nature of human diversity from an explicitly evolutionary perspective. For example I try to talk about things like why tropical populations tend to be darker skin than those living in the temperate zones. Or why genetic diseases like, for example, sickle cell anaemia are more common among some human populations than others. But in addition to that sort of biological approach, I examine the historical, the economic, and the political ways in which societies sort of decide that, for example, differences in skin colour reflect deeper, innate inequalities between human populations or individuals. So for me and for many anthropologists, really being able to bring together biological and social or cultural approaches is a more complete way to look at this very complex phenomenon that we call race or racial variation today. Mike: This next one is a good one. In what ways does arbitrariness creep into any attempted racial classification, and how does this help clarify the difficulty that anthropologists have had in answering the question: How many races exist? Robert: Well, it's very interesting that anthropology, which is a field that began in the 19th century with the stated goal of understanding human race and human variation, has never agreed-- We've never agreed on a simple question, how many races exist? Why is that sort of weird? Well, I think the reason is that it's basically impossible to create an objective and scientific classification of human races that everyone will agree on, because there's some really significant arbitrariness that creeps in at several different levels of the analysis. The first place that arbitrary decisions come in is when we decide which trait we're going to base our racial classification on. I mean, skin colour is the obvious one, many people use that. But there are other ways to do it too. There's other variable traits, like, for example, another one that's been used a lot is, you know, blood group genetics. Some people use a combination of skin colour, hair colour, eye colour, body build.... There's all these different traits to choose, and there's no real rules for which one you should use. So people just sort of arbitrarily choose one and ignore the others. Importantly, these different variables are not concordant. They don't evolve similarly. For example, Australian Aboriginals and African populations resemble each other in skin colour, but they're completely different with blood types. So, since the different traits that one might choose are discordant, any classification based on a different trait will end up looking very different. So that's the first level, deciding which trait to base your classification on. The second level where arbitrariness rears its ugly head is that when we realise that most of these traits we're looking at are continuously variable. They vary along a normal distribution or bell curve. And we should know, if we know the most basic statistics, that you cannot really divide a continuously variable trade into a finite group of categories or groups. You can do it, but you can do it in any number of ways. You can do it arbitrarily. For example, skin colour varies continuously across different populations and within populations. Sicilians tend to be darker skin than Irish. But are they different enough to call them a different race or not? Well, it's kind of a judgement call, you know? It's arbitrary. I use the analogy a lot in the book between skin colour and stature to show how impossible it is to really reach objective answers to a question like this, how many races are there? The basic skin colour classifications try to divide the world into light and dark skinned populations. Similar problems though, if you wanted to divide the world into tall and short races. How do you do that? I mean, height is continuously variable, where do you draw the distinctions? You know, how tall is tall? How tall do you have to be to be in this race or that race? In the book, I use the example; being tall is very different in the NBA than it is in the race track. Right? A tall jockey might be 5'7", and 5'7" in the NBA would be quite short. All these things are completely arbitrary. The simple answer is that when you have a continuously variable trait like skin colour, or gene frequencies or stature, you cannot objectively really divide that variation into finite groups in any one way. You can do it in a million different ways, but they're all equally arbitrary. Hence, I think, the 150 years of disagreement among anthropologists in deciding how many human races there are, it's just the wrong question to ask. It can't really be answered based on the continuously varied in nature the traits we're looking at. Mike: I think your book asks a lot of the right questions, right? I guess this next one a lot of Nazis love to misunderstand. Which is, what does it mean to say that race in America is a social construction? Robert: Yeah. I mean, it's a simple fact or statement that basically race means different things at different times in different places. And that the meanings that we associate with race are determined by social groups, typically by those in power, you know? So if we compare the contemporary United States and contemporary Brazil, completely different racial classifications, different terminology, different number of groups, very, very different. Or if we compare race in the United States of 1850 and the United States today. If race was some objective thing, you wouldn't expect it to vary over time and space. But in fact, it completely varies over time and space. In each of these places or times, there live different experiences of people are very different. Right? The ideas that people carry around in their heads with them about what, for example, black people or Latin people are like, are different. The very names we use in classifying different races are different in all these settings. So we're just saying that basically, what we think about race is sort of decided by groups in power in different societies. Now, this doesn't mean that race is not real, or that there are no biological differences between individuals, between groups, or that race is not important. It really just means that we, society's cultures, create the meanings associated with race. And again, I find a useful analogy here between race and kinship. What does it mean to be a brother or a cousin or an uncle? And this varies in different societies, both race and kinship are based on biological differences and similarities, right? And kinship is sort of based on the percentage of genes you share with people, right? A cousin shares a certain amount of genes with an individual. But the meanings that we associate with a cousin or an uncle, how you relate to a cousin or an uncle, can be very different in different societies. You know, my students always groan when I tell them that Charles Darwin married his first cousin, Emma Wedgwood, but I then tell them that first cousins were considered ideal marriage partners for upper class Victorian Englishmen. Not so much for contemporary Americans. So, kinship in the sense of who we marry and in general, how we relate to and behave towards our relatives, is also a cultural construction. Very similar to race, I think. There's some biology there, but then there's a lot of cultural notions, cultural ideas, stereotypes that go along with it, that sort of structure our behaviour and what we think about these people. Mike: This next one you kind of alluded to earlier, and this is when I have difficulty explaining to people when I argue that race isn't biology. Describe the clinal variation seen in the skin colour in the old world, and discuss how vitamin D skin cancer rickets and foley play a role in explaining this cline. Robert: This is really one of the classic and one of the best documented stories of how natural selection has shaped human evolution. We've known really since 1960s that if we look at the map of sort of where Aboriginal traditional living peoples have lived in the old world, we see this gradual geographic variation in skin colour that when you're at the Equator or close to the equator, people who've lived there traditionally tend to be very dark skin, lots of melanin, right? That's the pigment in our skin, in our eyes, and our hair. And as you move closer to the poles, skin colour tends to lighten up. People have known this for a long time. And the traditional idea has always been that well, melanin protects against the harmful effects of, of solar radiation, protects against like skin cancer, and things of that sort. So therefore, it's adaptive to have dark skin in the tropics because there's so much ultraviolet radiation. But when overall populations spread from the tropics to the temperate zones–of course, we evolved in the tropics with almost certainly evolved with dark skin colour, the first humans certainly had dark skin colour–but when their descendants moved to Northern and Southern climes away from the from the tropics and the equator, all of a sudden, the lower levels of ultraviolet radiation led to lightning and skin colour because they do have to worry about skin cancer and things of that sort. But if you had really dark skin and you live in like Scotland, it's hard to create enough vitamin D in your skin to avoid rickets and sort of soft bones, you know? Because the calcified tissues, you know, the bones and teeth require vitamin D. And we only really get vitamin D through solar radiation in our skin. There are very few things that humans eat other than oily fish that have too much vitamin D in them. Mike: And you mentioned the exception, generally, with Inuit peoples and the skin colour changes. Robert: Yeah. It's not a perfect thing, and people have moved around the world quite a bit. You know the Inuit are darker, but It's not a perfect correlation. I'm not sure if there's a great answer for some particular populations. But there's been a recent sort of addition to this whole thing, because the weak point in this whole theory was that; well, skin cancer tends to kill you when you're old, long after you've been able to reproduce. Natural selection doesn't work very well with things that kill you in your 50s or 60s or 70s, right? But my colleague, Nina Jablonski, some years ago, looked at another piece of this puzzle and it's fully one of the B vitamins which is in our bloodstream. And it turns out that foley is damaged by high ultraviolet radiation in light skin. So, dark skin protects against skin cancer but also protects against the destruction of folate. And we also know now that low levels of folate in pregnant women lead to increased incidents of neural tube defects like spina bifida. And natural selection would work brilliantly against this. So if you have really light skin colour and you're living in the tropics, you would be at a serious disadvantage because you would have low levels of folate and your offspring would tend to be born at high frequencies with these very serious problems. So natural selection seems to have really, you know, been the cause of the variation that we see in skin colour. And it's again, final variation just means it's variation over geographic space. So it gradually lightens as you move away from the equators towards the poles. It's kind of an interesting combination of things like vitamin D and its effect on bone growth and bone calcification, skin cancer, folate, and all these things leading to this variation of skin colour. Which then sort of becomes the basis of racial classifications. But the interesting story about skin colour, of course, is not whether people with dark skin or light skin are superior, but how each of these two skin colours have kind of evolved in particular environments. And it's really a great example, one of our best examples, of how natural selection has shaped some of the variation that we see in modern humans. It's an evolutionary story, right? The cultural stuff sort of comes in later but originally, skin colour variation is all about natural selection. It's all about biological variation and how natural selection sort of shapes that in different environments. Mike: Right. Going back to the classification question, one of the conceits of race realists and racists in general, is taken for granted that race is natural. But race has a history. So again, another question from the book. When, where, and under what circumstances did the concept of human races first appear in the Western world? Robert: Race definitely has a history, and it is a relatively brief one at that. Historians have demonstrated that the notion of deep innate significant differences between human populations was not something that was present in the ancient world, say the Greeks and Romans. Certainly, they had slavery, but skin colour played no role in determining who was slave and who was master. Right?Slaves were not considered deeply inferior by nature. Slaves could purchase their freedom, they could be freed, and they could become Roman citizens. Slavery was typically the fate of those defeated in warfare. It wasn't until really the Age of Discovery in the 15th and 16th centuries in Europe, that the notion of deep and innate inequalities between global populations was created, followed quickly by the notion of chattel slavery-- lifetime slavery in which people were not even considered humans based simply on skin colour. At the time, the Europeans were heavily influenced by the Judeo-Christian notion that's called the Great chain of being. This idea that God's creation ranges from the simplest living things to the most complex, sort of on a chain, or a scale or a ladder. And then at the top, of course of the angels and God up above at the top. So the notion of hierarchy was really built into the European worldview at the time. And when Europeans met for the first time, the new African, Asian, Pacific Islander, American populations, they immediately try to fit them into their notion of the great chain of being Where did these new populations fit? Where did the dark skinned people fit in the great chain? And, you know, anthropologists talk a lot about ethnocentrism, this notion that, you know, one's own culture is somehow superior to others. It was clearly ethnocentrism that led European Caucasians to put themselves at the top of the great chain just below the angels, and put these new dark skinned populations lower closer to the apes-- lower on the great chain and therefore less than deserving of fully human or even humane treatment. So we see that colonialism and imperialism are really closely tied to the origins of their racial worldview as they still are today. It's a definite history. It's a recent history, it's not something that's been with us forever, and it doesn't have to be with us forever. We can change these things, these ideas are, are not written in stone. They can be changed. Mike: Yeah, that notion of the great chain of being. It still has echoes in fascist thought, too. It reflects not just a theory of kind of biological variation among different species, and races by extension, according to these people, but also between various classes of people. I mean, it kind of explains the the class structure of society or intends to Robert: Sure. I think the common idea here is hierarchy. Certain classes, certain races, certain genders are higher, better, more worthwhile than others. Absolutely similar. Mike: Okay, here's a thorny one to wrap up with. Why are many anthropologists skeptical of the proposition that IQ scores provide a reasonable measure of the innate intelligence of individuals and populations? Robert: This is a very thorny issue, isn't it? It's probably one that is highly influenced by the political leanings of individuals who talk about it. But it certainly is true that anthropologists are skeptical of what IQ tests can tell us about innate differences in human intelligence. And I think there are many reasons for this, some historical. I mean, if we started historically, if we look at the history of IQ testing, we see that the early IQ tests that were developed in the first half of the 20th century, in the First World War and the Second, they were seriously flawed. Stephen Jay Gould has really best documented the cultural biases and the methodological problems in much of this research. So while I'm no expert in intelligence testing, I'm certain that modern tests are not crudely biassed against minorities like these early ones were. But I still remain a skeptic of whether a single test can array individuals along the linear dimension of intelligence. The idea that an IQ score, a simple number, can be independent of their background, their privilege, and their schooling is is tough for me to swallow. Any psychologist today following Howard Gardner advocate the notion of multiple intelligences that a single IQ score doesn't tell us much. We can learn much more by studying people's spatial intelligence, their mathematical intelligence, their social intelligence, kinesthetic, spatial... all these multiple intelligences. So I think intelligence is a very complex thing. It's tough to reduce it to a single number on a single scale. And finally, there's a sort of a methodological reason that, or maybe a philosophical reason that many anthropologists are skeptical of this notion. And that is that most anthropologists probably consider themselves to be interactionists. We are opposed to pure genetic determinism and opposed to pure environmental determinism, right? So when we consider the development of complex human traits like intelligence, it makes great sense to us that both genes and environment play a serious role. I mean, there's much evidence that environment does play an enormous role on adult intelligence. And while genetics certainly plays some role also, I think many anthropologists are convinced that the best interpretation is that adult intelligence is a multifaceted thing that is probably not reducible to a single IQ score, and that it is strongly influenced by both genetics and environment. And intelligence itself, I mean, finally, a very difficult thing to define and a very difficult thing to measure. So I think the story is complex, the simple idea that everybody's intelligence is simply encoded in our genes is almost certainly incorrect. No one has found a gene for intelligence. Clearly, you can mess with genes and lead to mental problems. So genes play a role. But there's no simple story that there's a gene for intelligence and some populations have more copies of the good gene than others. Mike: Yeah. The claims of eugenicists, ultimately, is that these genes are concordant with race, right? That somehow there is a co-determination genetically between race and IQ. And we don't have evidence for a genetic causation, well, a direct genetic traceable causation for either one, much less a co-determination. Right? Robert: Yeah, absolutely not. Those eugenic notions come from a really outdated, sort of very simplistic Mendelian model–that there's a gene for skin colour, and there's a gene for intelligence. We know intelligence as a very complex genetic thing or probably hundreds of genes that influence one's adult intelligence, one's ability to learn... It's clearly not a simple Mendelian thing like, you know, pea plants with either the gene for tall plants or short plants. Those kinds of notions are just genetically very naive and really outdated. Mike: All right. Well, Dr. Anemone, thank you so much for coming on The Nazi Lies Podcast and helping me trash race realism. Again, the book is Race and Human Diversity out from Routledge. You could follow Dr. Anemone on Twitter @paleobob. Thanks again. Robert: Thank you very much, Mike. It was fun. Mike: If you enjoyed this episode of The Nazi Lies Podcast, consider becoming a Patreon subscriber. Patrons get exclusive access to early episodes and a shipment of stickers and even zines depending on how much you give. Don't want to commit to monthly donations? No problem. Make a one-time donation to our CashApp or PayPal with your name and address, and I'll send you some merch. [Theme song]

Talking about race is something that often makes us uncomfortable. Research has found that as parents we don't like to talk to our young children about race. But it's a conversation that we need to have and the earlier we start the better.  In this conversation Dr Sindiwe Magona helps us to understand why it is so important to talk to our children about the different colours of our skins.  We also discuss her unique book Skin we are in which she co-authored with Nina Jablonski. It is the perfect resource to help us talk to our children about race.  In this episode we share an exclusive preview of the audio book of Skin we are in which will be available on the BiB App in October. Download the iOS or Android app and follow them on @mybib.africa on Instagram and Facebook for Africa's Audio Library 

Recent Penn State graduate Amy Mook interviews Nina Jablonski about her ground-breaking research into the evolution of skin pigmentation, and the promise of that research to help to heal the damage inflicted over generations through misguided racist constructs perpetuated by the scientific establishment of the past.   HOST:Amy Mook, 2020 graduate of Penn State's Genetics and Developmental Biology programGUESTS:Dr. Nina Jablonski, Evan Pugh Professor of Anthropology, Penn State Co-director of the Center for Human Evolution and Diversity

"Never stop working for humanity" - Nina JablonskiAmerican anthropologist, Prof Nina Jablonski, joins us to discuss the evolution of skin colour. We discuss the biological concept of race and the social construct of racism. We differentiate between racial categorization and racial identification. Were the ancients indifferent to race? Did you know that neither Carl Linnaeus nor Charles Darwin placed people in a power hierarchy? Philosophers David Hume and Immanuel Kant had definite racist views. What might have been the reason for this? Racism took on its destructive modern form from the 18th century - the heydays of the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade. Join us to find out whether it's possible to eliminate racial labels. Find us on twitter @WilliamHPalk, @C_duPlessis and @NinaJablonski1.2:50 Why do people have different skin colours?7:40 How did skin colour become a social construct?16:00 Was Linnaeus responsible for laying the foundation of modern racism?20:00 People identify with either a superior or inferior mindset22:30 Racial categorization compared to racial identification26:00 How did racism become so entrenched in human society? 30:30 Can we get rid of racial labels?34:00 Othering does not mean subordination 37:20 Cooperation as an evolutionary strategy37:50 How do we change mindsets and attitudes?39:20 Turning history on its head40:00 Do the "powerful" need to give up their wealth and power?44:10 Humanity's special trait of collective learning45:40 Finding stories of cooperation47:50 What is the link between Darwinism and Social Darwinism and eugenics?53:00 Will genetic engineering play a role in shaping racial attitudes?Support the show (https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=Q8KGSAT37YCPA&source=url)

Now that we've given the hair on our head its due, we're traveling south to explore the hair we have everywhere else. And we mean everywhere: Our bodies are covered with about five million follicles from tip to toe, except for our lips, palms, and the soles of our feet. First, Michelle and Jenny travel back in time with anthropologist Nina Jablonski, who explains how our ancestors went from thoroughly hairy to basically naked over the course of a half-million years. After that, dermatologist Kavita Mariwalla stops by to talk through all the many options for removing body hair, if that's what you choose to do. Don’t miss out on new episodes of Allure: The Science of Beauty on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. This episode of Allure: The Science of Beauty is presented by Pantene. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Each species of our primate cousins is unique as it represents the outcome of independent evolution. Yet, humans appear to be a remarkable outlier as we have numerous characteristics so far un-described in any other primate. Why should this be? This symposium will address several important distinctly human "biologically enculturated" characteristics, both in relation to each other and in contrast to our evolutionary cousins, and will also help to organize how and in what sequence distinctly human physical, mental, social, and cultural features evolved. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Science] [Show ID: 36194]

Each species of our primate cousins is unique as it represents the outcome of independent evolution. Yet, humans appear to be a remarkable outlier as we have numerous characteristics so far un-described in any other primate. Why should this be? This symposium will address several important distinctly human "biologically enculturated" characteristics, both in relation to each other and in contrast to our evolutionary cousins, and will also help to organize how and in what sequence distinctly human physical, mental, social, and cultural features evolved. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Science] [Show ID: 36194]

Each species of our primate cousins is unique as it represents the outcome of independent evolution. Yet, humans appear to be a remarkable outlier as we have numerous characteristics so far un-described in any other primate. Why should this be? This symposium will address several important distinctly human "biologically enculturated" characteristics, both in relation to each other and in contrast to our evolutionary cousins, and will also help to organize how and in what sequence distinctly human physical, mental, social, and cultural features evolved. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Science] [Show ID: 36194]

Each species of our primate cousins is unique as it represents the outcome of independent evolution. Yet, humans appear to be a remarkable outlier as we have numerous characteristics so far un-described in any other primate. Why should this be? This symposium will address several important distinctly human "biologically enculturated" characteristics, both in relation to each other and in contrast to our evolutionary cousins, and will also help to organize how and in what sequence distinctly human physical, mental, social, and cultural features evolved. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Science] [Show ID: 36194]

Each species of our primate cousins is unique as it represents the outcome of independent evolution. Yet, humans appear to be a remarkable outlier as we have numerous characteristics so far un-described in any other primate. Why should this be? This symposium will address several important distinctly human "biologically enculturated" characteristics, both in relation to each other and in contrast to our evolutionary cousins, and will also help to organize how and in what sequence distinctly human physical, mental, social, and cultural features evolved. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Science] [Show ID: 36194]

Each species of our primate cousins is unique as it represents the outcome of independent evolution. Yet, humans appear to be a remarkable outlier as we have numerous characteristics so far un-described in any other primate. Why should this be? This symposium will address several important distinctly human "biologically enculturated" characteristics, both in relation to each other and in contrast to our evolutionary cousins, and will also help to organize how and in what sequence distinctly human physical, mental, social, and cultural features evolved. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Science] [Show ID: 36194]

Each species of our primate cousins is unique as it represents the outcome of independent evolution. Yet, humans appear to be a remarkable outlier as we have numerous characteristics so far un-described in any other primate. Why should this be? This symposium will address several important distinctly human "biologically enculturated" characteristics, both in relation to each other and in contrast to our evolutionary cousins, and will also help to organize how and in what sequence distinctly human physical, mental, social, and cultural features evolved. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Science] [Show ID: 36194]

Each species of our primate cousins is unique as it represents the outcome of independent evolution. Yet, humans appear to be a remarkable outlier as we have numerous characteristics so far un-described in any other primate. Why should this be? This symposium will address several important distinctly human "biologically enculturated" characteristics, both in relation to each other and in contrast to our evolutionary cousins, and will also help to organize how and in what sequence distinctly human physical, mental, social, and cultural features evolved. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Science] [Show ID: 36194]

Each species of our primate cousins is unique as it represents the outcome of independent evolution. Yet, humans appear to be a remarkable outlier as we have numerous characteristics so far un-described in any other primate. Why should this be? This symposium will address several important distinctly human "biologically enculturated" characteristics, both in relation to each other and in contrast to our evolutionary cousins, and will also help to organize how and in what sequence distinctly human physical, mental, social, and cultural features evolved. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Science] [Show ID: 36194]

Each species of our primate cousins is unique as it represents the outcome of independent evolution. Yet, humans appear to be a remarkable outlier as we have numerous characteristics so far un-described in any other primate. Why should this be? This symposium will address several important distinctly human "biologically enculturated" characteristics, both in relation to each other and in contrast to our evolutionary cousins, and will also help to organize how and in what sequence distinctly human physical, mental, social, and cultural features evolved. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Science] [Show ID: 36194]

Each species of our primate cousins is unique as it represents the outcome of independent evolution. Yet, humans appear to be a remarkable outlier as we have numerous characteristics so far un-described in any other primate. Why should this be? This symposium will address several important distinctly human "biologically enculturated" characteristics, both in relation to each other and in contrast to our evolutionary cousins, and will also help to organize how and in what sequence distinctly human physical, mental, social, and cultural features evolved. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Science] [Show ID: 36198]

Each species of our primate cousins is unique as it represents the outcome of independent evolution. Yet, humans appear to be a remarkable outlier as we have numerous characteristics so far un-described in any other primate. Why should this be? This symposium will address several important distinctly human "biologically enculturated" characteristics, both in relation to each other and in contrast to our evolutionary cousins, and will also help to organize how and in what sequence distinctly human physical, mental, social, and cultural features evolved. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Science] [Show ID: 36198]

Each species of our primate cousins is unique as it represents the outcome of independent evolution. Yet, humans appear to be a remarkable outlier as we have numerous characteristics so far un-described in any other primate. Why should this be? This symposium will address several important distinctly human "biologically enculturated" characteristics, both in relation to each other and in contrast to our evolutionary cousins, and will also help to organize how and in what sequence distinctly human physical, mental, social, and cultural features evolved. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Science] [Show ID: 36198]

Each species of our primate cousins is unique as it represents the outcome of independent evolution. Yet, humans appear to be a remarkable outlier as we have numerous characteristics so far un-described in any other primate. Why should this be? This symposium will address several important distinctly human "biologically enculturated" characteristics, both in relation to each other and in contrast to our evolutionary cousins, and will also help to organize how and in what sequence distinctly human physical, mental, social, and cultural features evolved. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Science] [Show ID: 36198]

Each species of our primate cousins is unique as it represents the outcome of independent evolution. Yet, humans appear to be a remarkable outlier as we have numerous characteristics so far un-described in any other primate. Why should this be? This symposium will address several important distinctly human "biologically enculturated" characteristics, both in relation to each other and in contrast to our evolutionary cousins, and will also help to organize how and in what sequence distinctly human physical, mental, social, and cultural features evolved. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Science] [Show ID: 36198]

Each species of our primate cousins is unique as it represents the outcome of independent evolution. Yet, humans appear to be a remarkable outlier as we have numerous characteristics so far un-described in any other primate. Why should this be? This symposium will address several important distinctly human "biologically enculturated" characteristics, both in relation to each other and in contrast to our evolutionary cousins, and will also help to organize how and in what sequence distinctly human physical, mental, social, and cultural features evolved. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Science] [Show ID: 36198]

Each species of our primate cousins is unique as it represents the outcome of independent evolution. Yet, humans appear to be a remarkable outlier as we have numerous characteristics so far un-described in any other primate. Why should this be? This symposium will address several important distinctly human "biologically enculturated" characteristics, both in relation to each other and in contrast to our evolutionary cousins, and will also help to organize how and in what sequence distinctly human physical, mental, social, and cultural features evolved. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Science] [Show ID: 36198]

Each species of our primate cousins is unique as it represents the outcome of independent evolution. Yet, humans appear to be a remarkable outlier as we have numerous characteristics so far un-described in any other primate. Why should this be? This symposium will address several important distinctly human "biologically enculturated" characteristics, both in relation to each other and in contrast to our evolutionary cousins, and will also help to organize how and in what sequence distinctly human physical, mental, social, and cultural features evolved. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Science] [Show ID: 36198]

Each species of our primate cousins is unique as it represents the outcome of independent evolution. Yet, humans appear to be a remarkable outlier as we have numerous characteristics so far un-described in any other primate. Why should this be? This symposium will address several important distinctly human "biologically enculturated" characteristics, both in relation to each other and in contrast to our evolutionary cousins, and will also help to organize how and in what sequence distinctly human physical, mental, social, and cultural features evolved. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Science] [Show ID: 36198]

Each species of our primate cousins is unique as it represents the outcome of independent evolution. Yet, humans appear to be a remarkable outlier as we have numerous characteristics so far un-described in any other primate. Why should this be? This symposium will address several important distinctly human "biologically enculturated" characteristics, both in relation to each other and in contrast to our evolutionary cousins, and will also help to organize how and in what sequence distinctly human physical, mental, social, and cultural features evolved. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Science] [Show ID: 36198]

Variation in human skin color has fascinated and perplexed people for centuries. As the most visible aspect of human variation, skin color has been used as a basis for classifying people into “races.” In this lecture, Leakey Foundation grantee Dr. Nina Jablonski explains the evolution of human skin color and discusses some of the ways that harmful color-based race concepts have influenced societies and impacted social well-being. Links Nina Jablonski's website Video - "The Evolution and Meaning of Human Skin Color" Skin, A Natural History Skin We Are In Finding Your Roots curriculum and activities Bill Nye's TikTok on Dr. Jablonski's work The American Association of Physical Anthropology's Statement on Race and Racism The Leakey Foundation Origin Stories is a project of The Leakey Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to funding human origins research and outreach. Support The Leakey Foundation Support this show and the science we talk about. Donate today and your gift will be matched. leakeyfoundation.org/donate Lunch Break Science Lunch Break Science is The Leakey Foundation's web series featuring short talks and interviews with Leakey Foundation grantees. Episodes stream live on the first and third Thursdays of every month. leakeyfoundation.org/live. Learn about the evolution of human hair Join The Leakey Foundation's Young Professionals Group on November 19 for an evening with evolutionary biologists Tina Lasisi and Elizabeth Tapanes to learn all about the evolution of human hair. Visit leakeyfoundation.org/ypg for an invitation to the event.

This bonus episode accompanies episode 3.1, "Wait, she's black?" As we talk to our experts looking for answers to the questions for the show, we sometimes have conversations that might not quite fit within the main episode - but we don’t think that should keep you all from hearing them. One of the things we've been hearing a lot, in all the conversations about race this summer, is an idea that “I don’t see color.” Karen Grigsby Bates and Nina Jablonski helped us gain insight into how to respond to that statement. www.lincolncottage.org See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

------------------Support the channel------------ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter SubscribeStar: https://www.subscribestar.com/the-dissenter PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter PayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuy PayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9l PayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpz PayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9m PayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao ------------------Follow me on--------------------- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedissenteryt/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheDissenterYT Anchor (podcast): https://anchor.fm/thedissenter Dr. Nina G. Jablonski is Evan Pugh University Professor of Anthropology at The Pennsylvania State University. A biological anthropologist and paleobiologist, she studies the evolution of adaptations to the environment in Old World primates including humans. Her research program is focused in two major areas. Her paleoanthropological research concerns the evolutionary history of Old World monkeys, and currently includes an active field project in China. Her research on the evolution of human adaptations to the environment centers on the evolution of human skin and skin pigmentation, and includes an active field project examining the relationship between skin pigmentation and vitamin D production. In this episode, we talk about the evolution of skin pigmentation and the social implications of racism. We start with how we evolved a skin that has much less hair, and is darker and sweatier than our ancestors'. We also mention depigmentation as an adaptation to places where people are exposed to less sunlight and UV radiation. We talk about the importance of vitamin D, and urbanization and modern migration as a cause of vitamin D deficiency. Finally, we discuss scientific and philosophical racism. -- A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: KARIN LIETZCKE, ANN BLANCHETTE, PER HELGE LARSEN, LAU GUERREIRO, JERRY MULLER, HANS FREDRIK SUNDE, BERNARDO SEIXAS, HERBERT GINTIS, RUTGER VOS, RICARDO VLADIMIRO, BO WINEGARD, CRAIG HEALY, OLAF ALEX, PHILIP KURIAN, JONATHAN VISSER, DAVID DIAS, ANJAN KATTA, JAKOB KLINKBY, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, JOHN CONNORS, PAULINA BARREN, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, DAN DEMETRIOU, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ARTHUR KOH, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, MAX BEILBY, COLIN HOLBROOK, SUSAN PINKER, THOMAS TRUMBLE, PABLO SANTURBANO, SIMON COLUMBUS, PHIL KAVANAGH, JORGE ESPINHA, CORY CLARK, MARK BLYTH, ROBERTO INGUANZO, MIKKEL STORMYR, ERIC NEURMANN, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, BERNARD HUGUENEY, ALEXANDER DANNBAUER, OMARI HICKSON, PHYLICIA STEVENS, FERGAL CUSSEN, YEVHEN BODRENKO, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, DON ROSS, JOÃO ALVES DA SILVA, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, OZLEM BULUT, NATHAN NGUYEN, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, J.W., JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, AND IDAN SOLON! A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, IAN GILLIGAN, SERGIU CODREANU, LUIS CAYETANO, MATTHEW LAVENDER, TOM VANEGDOM, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, AND VEGA GIDEY! AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MICHAL RUSIECKI, ROSEY, AND JAMES PRATT!

We're currently conducting interviews to prepare for season 3. The other day, we spoke with Dr. Nina Jablonski, an anthropologist who studies the evolution and social positioning of human skin color. As you might imagine, the conversation was inflected by current events.Dr. Jablonski explained where our present-day ideas about “race” originated, how they took hold so firmly, and what their relationship is to the science of skin pigmentation. We wanted to share an excerpt with you, in the hopes that it’s helpful as you work to build your own understandings of how to think about race and racism. www.lincolncottage.org See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Some safeguards against COVID-19 don’t require a medical breakthrough. Catching sufficient Z’s makes for a healthy immune system. And, while you wash your hands for the umpteenth time, we'll explain how soap sends viruses down the drain. Plus, your body’s largest organ – skin – is your first line of defense against the pandemic and is also neglected because of it. Find out why we're suffering from "skin hunger" during this crisis. Guests: Cody Cassidy – Author, “Who Ate the First Oyster: The Extraordinary People Behind the Greatest Firsts in History.” Nina Jablonski – Anthropologist, paleobiologist at Pennsylvania State University and author of “Skin: A Natural History.” Eti Ben Simon – Neuroscientist and sleep researcher, Center for Human Sleep Science, University of California, Berkeley  

Anthropologist and paleobiologist Nina Jablonski talks about how “this little piece of RNA with a punk haircut” is causing us to reflect on our relationship with nature and technology, and why future discourse needs to be structured around a classic liberal-arts education.

  For part 2 of 'Is Melanin a Super Power?' we interview Dr. Nina Jablonski. She is an anthropologist and paleontologist, known for her work on the evolution of skin color in human beings. She is currently the Evan Pugh University Professor of anthropology at Penn State University. Dr. Jablonski is the author of two books Skin: A Natural History, and Living Color: The Biological and Social Meaning of Skin Color. She has also been featured on PBS, TED Talk, and the Bill Nye Science Podcast among many more publications and broadcasts.   

Ever wonder why your skin is the color it is? Decades ago, Dr. Nina Jablonski wondered the same thing. She’s here to tell us the science behind the story of our skin and to break down some of the deeply entrenched myths about race and color. You can listen to ad-free new episodes of Science Rules! only on Stitcher Premium. For a free month of Stitcher Premium, go to stitcherpremium.com and use promo code ‘SCIENCE.' This episode is sponsored by Ministry of Supply (www.ministryofsupply.com code: SCIENCERULES), HelloFresh (www.hellofresh.com/sciencerules80 code: SCIENCERULES80), KiwiCo (www.kiwico.com/SCIENCERULES), and Quality Logo Products (www.qualitylogo.com code: SCIENCERULES).

In this pilot episode, we discuss the importance of collaboration as an evolutionary driver and explore ways that trans-disciplinary teams of scientists can mimic nature, evolving the way research is done. We also unpack the story of why and how Penn State has become a hotbed for this kind of work. Relevant Links:TransdisciplinarityPenn State's Diversity Inspires a Thriving CommunityAlways Adapting: Disease Dynamics in Plant-Pollinator SystemsGuests: Andrew Read – Evan Pugh University Professor of Biology and Entomology, Eberly Professor of Biotechnology and director of the Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences at Penn StateNina G. Jablonski – Evan Pugh University Professor of Anthropology at Penn StateCristina Rosa – Assistant Professor of Plant Pathology and Environmental Microbiology at Penn State

World-renowned expert on the evolution and meaning of skin color, biological anthropologist Nina Jablonski talks to Chris Lynn, professor of anthropology at the University of Alabama, Jo Weaver and Erik Peterson. Dr. Jablonski has moved well beyond trying to explain how the distribution of skin color in human populations is not a racial marker to trying to provide educational experiences for K-12 children to understand how and what science has to say about human variation.

Dr. Nina Jablonski is Evan Pugh Professor of Anthropology at Penn State University. She is a primatologist and paleoanthropologist but has also become among the foremost experts in the world on the biology and evolution of human skin pigmentation. She is author of Living Color: The Biological and Social Meaning of Skin Color (2012) and Skin: A Natural History (2006). Dr. Jablonski was interviewed by Chris, along with Jo Weaver and Erik Peterson, while in Tuscaloosa, AL to give a lecture for the ALLELE speaker series. The interview was recorded by Jim Bindon. Jo, Erik, and Jim produce the Speaking of Race podcast, and we shared portions of the interview. Learn more about Dr. Jablonski’s research and teaching at her department webpage: anth.la.psu.edu/people/ngj2. Contact Nina Jablonski: Ngj2@psu.edu. Get info about the Finding Your Roots program she develops and runs with Henry Louis Gates www.findingyourroots.la.psu.edu/ Tmw119@psu.edu Find more information about the UA ALLELE series: evolution.ua.edu/. Nina Jablonski’s full lecture with video will be posted on the ALLELE Vimeo site: vimeo.com/channels/allele/videos Contact Us: www.facebook.com/groups/humanbiologyassociation humbio.org/ twitter.com/HumBioAssoc Michaela Howells is Chair of the Publicity Committee, howellsm@uncw.edu. Cara & Chris are committee members and produce this show: Cara Ocobock www.albany.edu/anthro/72074.php cocobock@albany.edu twitter.com/CaraOcobock Chris Lynn cdlynn.people.ua.edu/ cdlynn@ua.edu twitter.com/Chris_Ly Interview engineered by Jim Bindon. Lecture recorded by UA’s eTech. Mixing and editing by Chris. Music by the Morning Shakes. “Sausage of Science” logo by Lux Lynn (LuxL1312@gmail.com).

Dr. Nina Jablonski is Evan Pugh Professor of Anthropology at Penn State University. She is a primatologist and paleoanthropologist but has also become among the foremost experts in the world on the biology and evolution of human skin pigmentation. She is author of Living Color: The Biological and Social Meaning of Skin Color (2012) and Skin: A Natural History (2006). Dr. Jablonski was interviewed by Chris, along with Jo Weaver and Erik Peterson, while in Tuscaloosa, AL to give a lecture for the ALLELE speaker series. The interview was recorded by Jim Bindon. Jo, Erik, and Jim produce the Speaking of Race podcast, and we shared portions of the interview. Learn more about Dr. Jablonski’s research and teaching at her department webpage: http://anth.la.psu.edu/people/ngj2. Contact Nina Jablonski: Ngj2@psu.edu. Get info about the Finding Your Roots program she develops and runs with Henry Louis Gates http://www.findingyourroots.la.psu.edu/ Tmw119@psu.edu Find more information about the UA ALLELE series: http://evolution.ua.edu/. Nina Jablonski’s full lecture with video will be posted on the ALLELE Vimeo site: https://vimeo.com/channels/allele/videos Contact Us: https://www.facebook.com/groups/humanbiologyassociation http://humbio.org/ https://twitter.com/HumBioAssoc Michaela Howells is Chair of the Publicity Committee, howellsm@uncw.edu. Cara & Chris are committee members and produce this show: Cara Ocobock http://www.albany.edu/anthro/72074.php cocobock@albany.edu https://twitter.com/CaraOcobock Chris Lynn http://cdlynn.people.ua.edu/ cdlynn@ua.edu https://twitter.com/Chris_Ly Interview engineered by Jim Bindon. Lecture recorded by UA’s eTech. Mixing and editing by Chris. Music by the Morning Shakes. “Sausage of Science” logo by Lux Lynn (LuxL1312@gmail.com).

The Dr. Jewel Show December 19 2012 - Skin Pigmentation - Featuring Nina Jablonski

Woher kommt die Vorstellung von 'Menschenrassen'? Und was für Begriffe brauchen wir wirklich, um die Vielfalt des Lebens sinnvoll zu ordnen? Das großes Forschungsthema der Paläoanthropologin Nina Jablonski ist die Evolution der Hautfarben. Sie sagt, in der westlichen Welt habe man sich, angeregt von dem Philosophen Immanuel Kant, eine Hierarchie der Hautfarben ausgedacht. Auch Volker Mosbrugger, Generaldirektor der Senckenberg-Gesellschaft für Naturforschung, plädiert dafür, nicht mehr von Menschenrassen zu sprechen. Und er erzählt, warum es am Fundament der biologischen Systematik bröselt.

Nina Jablonski explores the nature and sequence of changes in human skin through prehistory, and the consequences of these changes for the lives of people today. Series: "UC Berkeley Graduate Lectures" [Public Affairs] [Science] [Show ID: 32130]

Nina Jablonski explores the nature and sequence of changes in human skin through prehistory, and the consequences of these changes for the lives of people today. Series: "UC Berkeley Graduate Lectures" [Public Affairs] [Science] [Show ID: 32130]

Nina Jablonski explores the nature and sequence of changes in human skin through prehistory, and the consequences of these changes for the lives of people today. Series: "UC Berkeley Graduate Lectures" [Public Affairs] [Science] [Show ID: 32130]

Nina Jablonski explores the nature and sequence of changes in human skin through prehistory, and the consequences of these changes for the lives of people today. Series: "UC Berkeley Graduate Lectures" [Public Affairs] [Science] [Show ID: 32130]

Nina Jablonski explores the nature and sequence of changes in human skin through prehistory, and the consequences of these changes for the lives of people today. Series: "UC Berkeley Graduate Lectures" [Public Affairs] [Science] [Show ID: 32130]

Nina Jablonski explores the nature and sequence of changes in human skin through prehistory, and the consequences of these changes for the lives of people today. Series: "UC Berkeley Graduate Lectures" [Public Affairs] [Science] [Show ID: 32130]

Skin is the primary interface between ourselves and our environment. Nina Jablonski, Pennsylvania State University, looks at what makes our skin unique and, perhaps, more important than we realize. Series: "UC Berkeley Graduate Lectures" [Science] [Show ID: 32129]

Skin is the primary interface between ourselves and our environment. Nina Jablonski, Pennsylvania State University, looks at what makes our skin unique and, perhaps, more important than we realize. Series: "UC Berkeley Graduate Lectures" [Science] [Show ID: 32129]

Skin is the primary interface between ourselves and our environment. Nina Jablonski, Pennsylvania State University, looks at what makes our skin unique and, perhaps, more important than we realize. Series: "UC Berkeley Graduate Lectures" [Science] [Show ID: 32129]

Skin is the primary interface between ourselves and our environment. Nina Jablonski, Pennsylvania State University, looks at what makes our skin unique and, perhaps, more important than we realize. Series: "UC Berkeley Graduate Lectures" [Science] [Show ID: 32129]

The evolution of mostly naked skin in the human lineage heralded major changes in the biological and social functions of skin. Nina Jablonski of Pennsylvania State University provides many examples of both in this wonderful presentation. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Science] [Show ID: 30211]

The evolution of mostly naked skin in the human lineage heralded major changes in the biological and social functions of skin. Nina Jablonski of Pennsylvania State University provides many examples of both in this wonderful presentation. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Science] [Show ID: 30211]

This symposium brings together scientists representing evolutionary biology, genetics, dermatology, anthropology, and physiology to share their knowledge and questions about human skin in an explicitly evolutionary framework. Mark Shriver begins with a discussion about The Genetics of Skin Pigmentation, followed by Nina Jablonski on Naked, Colorful Skin and Its Role in Human Social Interactions, and James Cleaver on The Skin and Ultraviolet Radiation: Effects on DNA and Carcinogenesis Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Science] [Show ID: 30205]

This symposium brings together scientists representing evolutionary biology, genetics, dermatology, anthropology, and physiology to share their knowledge and questions about human skin in an explicitly evolutionary framework. Mark Shriver begins with a discussion about The Genetics of Skin Pigmentation, followed by Nina Jablonski on Naked, Colorful Skin and Its Role in Human Social Interactions, and James Cleaver on The Skin and Ultraviolet Radiation: Effects on DNA and Carcinogenesis Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Science] [Show ID: 30205]

Dr. Biology gets the skinny on our largest organ - our skin. Professor and author Nina Jablonski talks about the important ways our skin works for us each day. Learn some fun facts like - did you know you are not wearing the same skin from last year?