>>17970153
>>17970165
The statements
>the impact of genetics on intellect is certain and indisputable
and
>the precise polygenetic contribution is currently not knowable, given we're aware we've not yet found all the genetic variants which contribute to intellect
Are contradictions. It cannot be both as good as fact and something we will know about many years from now.

And anyways, I'm not asking "do we know which genes place an upper bound" I'm asking is the gap, that currently exists, primarily the product of some innate genetic cause or is it the product of environments borne through history to the present day? That is the question that you can't answer.

> it's statistically extremely unlikely that NONE of the variants relevant to cognitive traits differ in frequency AT ALL across populations, yes
it's statistically extremely unlikely that NONE of the variants relevant to laser vision differ in frequency AT ALL across populations.

We cannot assume that intelligence varies just because genes do, unless we can identify the genes that would "put an upper bound" on intelligence as you call it. The crux of your argument is
>People are different
>Therefore people are different in this hyper-specific way

And that just isn't the case. It's very possible that of the genes that vary between humans, affecting surface level differences like melanin and hair shape, intelligence was not affected. It is not more or less likely to evolve just because the genes are different somewhere else. Again, this is illustrated in an earlier post >>17969351


>the current state IS known, and we can currently genetically account for ~10-15% of a person's intellect
This does not account across ethnic groups. I refer you to the image in >>17969763 for a visual example of why that is the case.