https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2223161/

Interesting, notes the imperfections, but notable by its absence in these attempts to knock down arguments is the lack of evidence for their position. By saying these tools are imperfect and therefore the obvious trend being away from environmental determinism is invalid too, by what method can you prove your position? Moreover, the listed interventions and confounding factors arent shown to matter in this debate

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2223161/

You can note causation for autism is not known despite increasing rates and high heritability, you can note that gene-environment interaction is not fully parsed out or separated, but without stating the bearing on the race-IQ debate or at least a way to (better) do so which can be later tried, it is just stonewalling and implicitly assuming your position is some kind of default (when these also impact your position since you lack credible environmental factors or a way of separating them from genes)

For reference, this would be like afrocentrists arguing about the imperfections of facial remodeling to say that the current evidence the Egyptians werent black is wrong and they are therefore black. No, not evidence for your position unless you assume it is the default

https://archive.is/DsB9c
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11965323_Building_Faces_from_Dry_Skulls_Are_They_Recognized_Above_Chance_Rates

Kemet means black land because of the soil btw, noted by the poster above. He's just being accurate, not an afrocentrist
https://archive.is/IFVcF
https://archive.is/JIAdm