>>17969638
>given the nascency of the science, it's moot
>more alleles will be identified over time
The Human Genome Project was completed in 2001, and more study had been done for decades before. It has been over 24 years and we have not found any evidence that the ethnic gap in IQ is genetic.

>we can thus far explain some ~10-15% of the variance in cognitive traits using polygenic scoring
This is a decades old misconception. Comparisons between members of the same group do not translate between comparisons between different groups. This is what I mean when I say you don't understand heredity. Pic related illustrates this.

>"there is a genetic difference in intellect along racial lines"
When you say genetic difference, do you mean
>The gap in intelligence is directly caused by the genetics of certain ethnic groups
>The gap in intelligence is caused by environment, which is caused by social factors associated with genes, a la >>17968047

>please, recognise the actual point which I'm making, and have the grace to bow out, now that you've decided not to actually argue against it

This is the motte and bailey fallacy, and is not an argument in good faith.

>There may be a statistically insignificant genetic contribution to the gap between ethnicity, although we have not found evidence of it.
>The lion's share of the gap is caused by genetics that specifically vary between ethnicity.

These are two wildly different points and you switch between them depending on whichever you think will work best.

Why haven't you addressed the thought experiments in
>>17968047
or in
>>17969351

you keep fleeing what I've said and hyperfocusing on what you think I've said.