>>16767220
Your argument is a classic example of cherry picking scientific facts and stripping them of all context to support a nonsense racialist conclusion.It prouves a fundamental misunderstanding of modern genetics, and the very nature of polygenic scores.You absolutely misunderstood what a polygenic score is your entire premise hinges on the false idea that a polygenic score (PGS) is a direct,absolute measure of genetic "potential."this is categorically wrong.
A PGS is not a genetic thermometer It is a statistical model, built from a genome wide association study (GWAS) here’s what that means: a GWAS looks for tiny genetic markers (SNPs) that are correlated with a trait in a specific population,a PGS then sums up the effect of these markers to create a prediction,
this prediction is based on the genetic architecture and environmental context OF THE SPECIFIC POPULATION IT WAS BUILT ON.This is why (Lee et al) explicitly state: pic related:"Because the discovery sample used to construct the score consisted of individuals of European ancestry, we would not expect the predictive power of our score to be as high in other ancestry groups"they are not describing a biological reality about "African genes."They are describing a statistical artifact known as the "portability problem."
>Guess what?The correlation that was derived for the genes that affect Europeans height only works for europeans.
The average height of populations has changed dramatically over very short periods(South Koreans gaining 6 inches in 50 years),these changes are 100% attributable to environmental factors: improved nutrition, reduced childhood disease, and better healthcare.The European height PGS fails in non-european populations not because those populations lack "height potential" but for the exact same technical reasons listed above(LD, allele frequency, GxC).And if the poor portability of a height PGS does not prove genetic limits for height (because we have direct environmental evidence).