It is not at all uncommon for them to raise the bar of necessary evidence, but it is selective. They only do it for hereditarian evidence and fail to explain how significant their criticisms are. For example, one I see more is underestimated GxE. Of course, there isnt a way around this possibility but how much does one think it changes things? It certainly doesnt make 100% environment tenable so why bring it up? And environmental factors discount the role genes play with how one selects, modifies, and responds to their environment as well.

 Then they regress to saying they just dont want people thinking hereditarianism is the etched in stone truth. But that's bull. Science, the reasoning science employs, and especially so for complex issues is about analyzing what is more or less likely with the tools we have. It is very hard to totally prove something using the scientific method as Popper would tell you.