Are you kidding me? Can't u see the CLEAR difference between aboriginals and africans?

A polar bear and grizzly bear are both distinct population just because there's a mixed polar-grizzly hybrid beats does not stop them from being 2 separate groups just like humans

3.40 These percentage arguments are inherently emotional. We are made to believe that if the difference is 0.1% then it must be small. That is a nonsense argument. All it shows that small differences in DNA can cause large differences in appearance.

According to what I understood, he is saying: -> Most of genetic variations(90%) between people are due to subgroups(etnicity) & there are 4-7 major groups -> But human eye to distinguish these subgroups calling them "races" can fail many times Buts subgroups or etniicities or races, or as you want to call it, EXISTS. Though NOTHING bad about that, its actually nice that we have these biological races.

I liked the part when he put up the picture of the aboriginal and African woman and I immediately knew that which races they were. In fact, there have studies done that show that people's self-identified race correlates very strongly with genetic clustering. But I guess the fact that different groups mix means that the different groups don't exist.

So you handwave it away because race exists along a spectrum? By the same token I guess there are no rich or poor people.

You can put humans in as many groups as you want. That's why the "subspecies" concept in zoology is not a rigorous one.

Race is more then skin tone and complexion for example many East Asians And West Europeans are light skinned but you could still tell they are different from each other based on there facial and bodily features as well as natural hair colors.

7:48 He represents images of people clearly are result of mixing in the modern era. Modern era is just 1% of the time humans have lived outside Africa. If we viewed the situation in 1500 the intermixing would be much rarer. Sure there has been longer mixing in areas like Somalia.

I think genetics has, for the most part, actually affirmed much of old racial anthropology based on anthropometry, particularly craniometry. If you filter out a lot of bunk from the old era and focus on straight data---facial forms identified by early anthropologists, the race categories they came up with are mostly vindicated West Eurasian East Asian Subsaharan African Possible others include American and Oceanian (Australasian)

There are many breeds of dogs. Dogs make up one species because all the breeds can interbreed. Anyone can tell the difference between a bulldog and a poodle. Are breeds of dogs a social construct or a biological physical reality?

Humans basically popped onto the scene. In archeology we don't have Human bones, we only have hominid bones. It's as if someone put us here isn't it? I think that's exactly what happened and it explains the different races. Europeans and Asians didn't come out of Africa. We were created. There's not enough time on the timeline for us all to stumble out of Africa and evolve to become so different. It's way more than skin color. Our bones are different. Our skulls are different. We are different races and it's time to grow up and face it. It's so obvious. Once we have enough fully sequenced genomes it can't be hidden.

Just because factors exist on a continuum does not mean that all points along that continuum are equal and indistinguishable from one another. In my eyes, saying that race exists on a continuum, therefore race does not exist and is purely a societal construct seems like a lazy analysis of known scientific information.

logically its a impossibility for their not to be differences in race.

This doesn't mean the separate (continental) groups haven't evolved in ways that make them noticeably (or not noticeably) different from other groups.

Alot of People confuse race with nationality in america

Call me a bigot, but I knew instantly that the left was a sub-Saharan African, and the right was an Australian aboriginal. Also: with all this talking he didn't even take a second to elaborate on the claim that "races" are a social construct. A disappointingly weak argument, and I don't even know what sociopolitical point he's trying to make.

That conclusion was rushed and was not justified given the flow of information prior to the conclusion

You forget physical differences and how important they are, your race affects your ability to run, jump and swim as the ability to do so comes down to physical racial differences, but of course you neglect this and only pick the things that line up with what you want, you are making the data fit a result you have already decided on, you've fallen for the very same bias you point out.

Correct facts and theses but completely wrong conclusion

Lewontin's fallacy

Well i'll just have to rely on the title because youtube has banned most of the truthful channels that talk about race and genetics.

How does the body know that they are separated from other like species

I figured out that race was a social construct when I was five. So is gender That's why I ended up deciding to be a white dude

Excellent presentation! I’ll be using this in my course on human diversity to explain the concept of a cline-

And here I am baffled by the fact they think so low about us that we should think a sub saharan African looks anything like an aboriginal. You kan do better than that.

Yes.

90% of the difference is within groups and not between them. Let's say for the sake of argument that this is correct. A 10% difference, being intrinsic to biologic conditions is very relevant and totally justifies categorization. And if it is biological, it is NOT a social construct, Mr. Bow tie.

Since race is apparently a social construct, can we get rid of affirmative action please?

I bet there would be more than a mere fractional difference if those 5 races were in the sun for 8 hours a day.

I get what he's saying, that, as a biological tool/lens, "race" doesn't pick out discrete genetic or physiological categories that can group people together and predict meaningful biological data from. I also understand that racial distribution is a cline of a function of time and distance out of Africa, and, honestly, that makes perfect sense. His example of the two women failed a bit because, while I get he was trying to discuss discriminating based on skin color, despite their different origins, I picked up that one was from Africa and the other was Aboriginal immediately. That example required ignorance to work. Anyway, all that being said, for the vast majority of people, we can tell continental or sub-continental level distinctions. A few people, by either being mixed race or just having a incidently unique combination of genes, look ambiguous. Of course, this is complicated by modern and historical immigration and migration patterns, but still. This isn't just "social". There is a biologic element, even if it's just 5% of .001% of the genome. It's still there. And it's also based on geography, the environment, and time, which is how the cline happened to begin with. Now, I'm not saying that these incredibly minute differences, primarily in appearance, are worthy of moral judgment, because I'm not. It's morally and intellectual abhorrent to judge or oppress someone for small physical differences. So, races are "real" not just in a sociological way, but in a "scientific" way, as well. We can see, observe, and measure these differences, so they're scientifically real. They may not be biologically useful, but they're there. Also, there's more to the social "realness" of race than systems of oppression. Many many ethnic groups around the world have a conception of themselves based not only on their culture, history, territory, religion, and language, but on their race, too. I think this is value-neutral, although it's clear to see how it can easily become subverted to something bad. As more immigration and migration happens in the modern world, made easier ever day by technology, and made more necessary by wars, conflicts, and environmental degradation, more and more people are going to have to confront the transience of their racial conceptions.

Funny though I knew exactly where each were from haha

Is his conclusion true? Anyone have links to another arguement from an expert?

One race, HUMANITY . Nothing else should matter. If we all started in Africa then we are all African.

I was actually able to tell the difference between the African and Aboriginal women before he said what they were. the hair texture and facial structure of the aboriginal people are noticeably different than that of Africans. it's accurate to say simply having dark skin doesn't makes someone African, but it doesn't mean that Africans don't exist as a distinct group.

showing a percentage is pointless, you can't mistake a swede for a senegalese.

First, humans only use about 2% of their DNA. That's right, a whopping 98% of our DNA is just along for the ride. So the 'one tenth of one percent' difference he talks about is really about 5% in effect. Because of the fact that humans originated in Africa you can have the possibility that one African group migrated to Australia and became the Aboriginals and another group from a different part of Africa migrated elsewhere would explain the huge difference. Humans are descendent from two separate groups who were genetically far apart. Also the humans and Neanderthals interbred and that is a huge difference. Anyhoo, it does not make a huge difference. The studies have shown that classroom discipline has a huge effect on school outcome as well as who your parents were.

The facts is the sun disagree with u.

9:11 I can easily tell the difference between an Aboriginal woman and an African one. I'm sure 99 percent of people could differentiate. This is a bad point.

..there is a continuum of genetic admixture and there haven't been enough separation between humans to form sub species or races

So I’m white I carry up to 5% Neanderthal DNA in my genome. Coz I’m a hybrid or at least my ancestors were. Africans got 0% Neanderthal There’s your percent of a percent blown up right there 🤷🏿‍♂️ Not to mention African also carry a small percentage of Australopithecus so now it’s already more than 5% different. Not same same. Sorry if that offends you I didn’t choose it, but doesn’t make it any less real.

Races are social constructs?

This guy's closing arguments make no sense. I could agree, to a point, that race is a social construct, but to say that it's "not a biological entity" and "doesn't predict genetic similarities or differences" completely contradicts his entire speech. He literally showed a genetic map that demonstrated the biological differences! Two parents of a single race will not have a child of any other race, that is predictable. Two parents of any two races will not have a child of any other race of which the parents are not, that is not a social construct. To say that race is a social construct and is not biological is like saying there is only one species of every animal. In other words, to use his example of birds, there is only one species of bird, and any variation is social construct, not biological. Maybe I misunderstood the point he was trying to make, or maybe he just wasn't able to get it across very clearly, but I don't know how anyone can take this guy seriously when his closing statement completely opposed everything he just showed us.

Fun myth: It is a popular myth among race "realists" that SS Africans are better sprinters: this proves race realism. However, it's false. The truth is that only East Africans are better sprinters, and mostly, it's Kenyans, and mostly, its certain geographic areas of Kenya, and mostly its certain ethnic groups, and mostly some isolated communities. Barring a few groups isolated for thousands of years, SS Africans have the same sprinting ability as other races. Race is not sub-species, or any major taxonomic rank. Human biodiversity is very small.

although what are he saying mostly true he kinda messed up a little bit

Anyone notice Australia as red

Dr. Allen Gathman for United States Congress!

I hate it when people align to my demographic just because they have a similar skin colour...

Does behavior also differ in a smooth pattern across the globe? Is skin color the only thing which varies greatly?

Anybody got a speech or text from an actual honest person about race & evolution?

Now all we need to do is teach people how to drill holes on ground to make wells and teach the concept of present and future and that actions have consequences

I would recommend including Bidil in your lecture.

Graecopithecus seems to be different from any other ancient ape found in Europe Painting by Chicago-based artist Velizar Simeonovski according to scientific instructions of Madelaine Böhme and Nikolai Spassov The last common ancestor we shared with chimps seems to have lived in the eastern Mediterranean - not in East Africa as generally assumed. This bold conclusion comes from a study of Greek and Bulgarian fossils, suggesting that the most mysterious of all ancient European apes was actually a human ancestor, or hominin. However, other researchers remain unconvinced by the claim.

Anyone with an IQ in triple digits can see what this dudes trying to do here.

One answer to all American expert in human races. Are there 7.5 billions races or only one species?

Ima put it this way different genetics mean different genus

One race that has different variations depending on the environment ergo race categories are a social construct....meaning you can make as many races as you want depending on where you draw the lines,...Irish people as I remember correctly where once not in the “white category”,....ergo you can even exclude a “tribe”

There is only one race, the human race.

It's pretty hilarious to see all of Papa JF's drones flood the comment sections of videos like these. The entire idea of race realism at it's best hinges on facts that are loosely associated with biology and don't even really disagree with what the man in this video is saying. Outside of social classifications of convenience, race doesn't have any baring in biology. The genes that correlate with facial features,skin color, hair texture - all of the things we use to distinguish from each other don't even make up a fifth of the genetic picture. Turns out you can believably discredit pretty much anything with certain groups if you throw in enough buzzwords. Please go back to /pol/

There are 100% Africans who are light skinned! We cannot base everything on phenotype!

We need more balding History buffs to tell the Genetics guys they are wrong. *rolling eyes*

Skin colour is not a good way to distinguish among human races. This does not sound really profound

very interesting, thank you for sharing

Ssso your point was that your lecture was about nothing?

great lecture thanks

The greatest genetic distance between two continents is between Africa and Oceania, at 0.2470. Based on physical appearance this is counterintuitive, since indigenous Australians and New Guineans resemble Africans (with dark skin and curly hair). This measure of genetic distance reflects the isolation of Australia and New Guinea since the end of the last glacial maximum, when the continent was isolated from mainland Asia due to rising sea levels. The next-largest genetic distance is between Africa and the Americas, at 0.2260. This is expected, since the longest geographic distance by land is between Africa and South America. The shortest genetic distance, 0.0155, is between European and extra-European Caucasoids. Africa is the most genetically divergent continent, with all other groups more related to each other than to sub-Saharan Africans. This is expected, according to the single-origin hypothesis. Europe has a general genetic variation about three times less than that of other continents; the genetic contribution of Asia and Africa to Europe is thought to be two-thirds and one-third, respectively. - From Wiki

More of a personal opinion than fact when it comes to the social construct conclusion.

I immediatly could tell that the women were respectively from africa and australia.

Race and skin color does not divide people, culture does. 'There is no such thing as racism or color prejudice there is culturalism, and I don't care for people who very deliberately want to destroy my culture.' Source of quotation: Me, Erepsekahs.

Excellent lesson, thank you. Sharing if possible...

This doesn’t really explain everything with a reason to back his points on race

Im confused

Dr, Gathman set out comparing the taxonomy of animals and humans and demonstrated the development of humans through migration, how humans may be grouped into five major categories and subcategories, and in the end demonstrated how using a person's skin pigmentation may be a false indicator of ones race. After much talk of taxonomy, genealogy, and the science, he concludes race is a social construct. Was the second half edited out?

I could tell straight away that that was an African woman and an Australian aboriginal woman. Woke science sucks.

The scientific community needs to step up. While I applaud wealthy actors recently appearing on TV in opposition to Trump and his supporters. Famous celebrities that under threat of loosing many of their fans, choose to put their reputations on the line to do what is right is admirable. However, race and climate change are two of the most pressing issues in our country today. Just as the most distinguished scientific minds chimed in to combat the disinformation in regards to climate change, I also think the time has come for a concerted effort to combat the false idea of race on the scientific front, by those educated and qualified to speak on the subject. Scientists need to step up and help America deal with its issues on race. Most of the political divisions in our society boil down to false assumptions on race and I think the scientific community has been negligent in tackling it.

Africa is the most genetically diverse continent so how are they all one color?

I feel like ive transcended to the 5th dimension.

Great explanation. I can hear some of the people on here who wish this wasn’t so, heads exploding. Poor dears.

Why didn't Dr Gathman feel the urge to tell us they % genetic difference between mainland and spotted bunnies? That's where bias starts

Allen Gathman who made you Dr of something?

We are not the same Africans worldwide are stronger genetically and our DNA is very different from other race ,white ppl on the other end have a DNA close to animals it was done many a times

Phenotype and genotype correspond with historical geographical populations. It's a visual correspondence of appearance (innate nude specimen) and long term historical location of occurrence. I do not see race in the reference of 'social injustices',.. I only see races as distinguishable human populations as a matter of phenotype. Skin color is not the defining aspect,… it's overall morphology. Morphology is biology,… phenotype is biology. Race is a biological construct.

So you just described the fact that races are different and then you said it was a social construct.

His theory make no sense

I know she was from Australia and the other one was from Africa. Regardless that is one of the very few examples

So.... in other words, Native Americans came from Africa not Mongolia or China? I am asking for a friend...

He sounds like a younger jim Carrey

While race is largely social constructs of the people claiming to be from the same region, they do roughly represent the same genetic construct as they are of similar blend (being largely made of ancestors that have walked in the area (or passed by the area).

Who is Jacob and who is esau🤔

Superb video.

Lost in genitics, which is beyond human understanding, science cannot fathom,,,, with all the technology given,,,,

Dr. Gathman, your awesome. Very well said. Keep up the good work in informing the public about the myth of race. Many people are agreeing that it's been a social construct, and that since the invention of the racial concept 500 years ago it has caused nothing but strife and separation.

Race is a social construct, what everyone in the comments are saying are just opinions. Where you’re from makes up your ethnicity. And those tiny genetic differences only affect your hair and skin color, not intelligence.

LOL Who doesn't recognize that the one woman is from Africa and the other from Australia?

Its easy, phenotype might be similar, but genotype might not

Amazing Speech

Race is about many belief systems and the competition for dominance

Autosomal DNA can be used to determine race with an 85% accuracy rate. The problem with racial classificiation is that there is a clear divide between Sub-Saharan Africans (L mtDNA), and the rest of the world (M and N mtDNA) around 50,000 to 40,000 years ago, but there is no clear divide between White/Caucasian and Asian. The mixing that took place in the past means that there is shared genetic heritage between those two races, making classification difficult. Not to mention there's also a Denosivan influence on the Asian genome and a Neanderthal influence on the European genome that further complicates classification and probably accounts for the majority of the ingroup genetic variation. Looking at the epigenetics, there is a study that compared Mexican Hispanic to Peurto Rican Hispanic. They were able to identify a whole host of markers that varied based upon ethnicity. From that, they determined that 75% came from a shared genetic ancestry and 25% came from a shared culture. One day a test would probably be able to determine ones Epigenetic variation just as we are able to test for Autosomal variation now. Race really is more than skin deep. We minimize it now, because we are wishing to avoid the mistakes of the past, but it does not help to deny science.

Animals and Huemans aren't the same. Man and mankind are not the same. Hueman and human is not the same. Israeli and Israelite are not the same. I think therefore I am ...is philosophy of a counterfeit. I am ...therefore , I think.... Is the original hueman.

WHY WOULD EVERYONE HAVE THE SAME LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE?.........