Find the genes

This isn't the case. Since in the question of phenotype you have genotype and/or environment, you can use reductive reasoning to find whether X trait is genotypical differences or environmental differences. Since we didn't have the tech back then (and largely today) 'we' decided to hold environment constant instead of finding the genes since that's something we can actually do. Since we don't find it be environmental differences in phenotype, that only leaves what? Genotypical differences since that's the only other option in the phenotype. Reductive reasoning. The people telling you this are just pulling a currently impossible standard out of their asses and telling you to do when they know you can't. Stop playing their B.S. games.

Even from an experiment, the "cause-effect" observations are still correlations. Your inability to recognize this is a fault in your ability to be a good scientist. The same is true that scientific "facts" that you promote are merely strong theories comprised of correlations.
Theories are generally considered true when there are a sufficient number of correlations to convince the observer. This is, and always will be, subjective, outside mathematics
And if you dislike this, well the people we are arguing against are deny correlations are evidence at all. It is about what is likely and tenable versus what isnt. Absolute proof will be impossible in science, as per Karl Popper. Proof is for mathematicians and alcoholics


First of all, molecular genetics is looking at specifics illuminated by GWAS hits. Too expensive and time consuming to model our understanding of the gaps off of that for such a polygenic trait
https://archive.is/bAfvj
https://archive.is/ooUHZ

Quantitative genetics vs molecular genetics is a false dichotomy, the exact "candidate" genes that are involved aren't very relevant to the debate. You don't need to understand molecular mechanisms to demonstrate causality. The way twin studies are designed demonstrate causality bc of the way MZ / DZ twins differ. Don't need to know mechanisms. And since so many thousands of genes may be involved, it'd be a waste of time anyway.

Okay, molecular genetics doesnt come down on either side, it is too young and underpowered (currently focusing on disease as well). So it is silly to only accept that and say social sciences cant provide useful info. It's a way of denying the issue altogether. And it reeks of convenience since non-molecular evidence does come down on a side. And also it's denying fields of science. Not just social science but quantitative genetics too.

It makes two errors with regards to science: that science is about 'proof' rather than determining what is more or less with the methods we have via falsification (the race realist argument is in many ways arguing that environmental determinism has been falsified). And assumes that environmental determinism is some kind of default is not subject to falsification and which needs to evidence in its favor, just needs to argue that a partial genetic cause hasn't met some arbitrary evidentiary standard

Ultimately it comes down to not realizing that science is about abductive reasoning, that science strives to prove things to be probabilistically true, that predictive validity matters more than mechanistic explanations, and ultimately it falls to what is more likely or less likely with the best tools we have.

The level of genetic findings scientists make with certainty (from IQ itself to other mental traits, mental disorders, and medical/physical differences between races) shows this is not true. Plomin says IQ is 80% heritable in the United States for instance. As does the existence of quantitative genetics. Trying to proclaim only a single methodology is valid is obviously just a convenient denial of evidence you don't like
People who do this say we need molecular genetics to sufficiently prove the idea of a partial genetic basis for racial IQ gaps. But this is misguided for three reasons: 1) the methods of molecular genetics are still too young to come down on either side of that question 2) the purely environmental hypothesis is not exempt from having to argue for itself 3) the nonmolecular evidence has made the purely environmental hypothesis very unlikely, which is what science cares about rather than proof. Science is about determining which propositions are more likely and less likely via falsification, not about proof since it is nearly impossible to prove things with the scientific method even with the best possible technologies at our disposal. So science goes with theories which have predictive validity and have survived falsification.

This is not a debunking, it is a demand for more evidence. Disproves nothing. And in some cases, doing these knockout studies and protein analyses on mice isnt enough. So they are demanding nazi-esque. And offerring no proof for their position, otherwise it's an appeal to ignorance

The distinction between dizygotic and monozygotic twins is used to calculate a measure of "genetic influence" called a heritability index. The heritability index is the amount of statistical variability (in test scores or other measurements) accounted for by genes. Heritability isnt a correlation. The direction is clear as well, by comparing di and mono, toward more genetic influence. And they remove the big environmental factors, making it unlikely the rest is hiding behind what remains, which seems to be the only argument against them, unspecified as it is. Stereotype threat is usually the biggest, which is bunk. The idea that you can pull back all the evidence for these genetic findings based on minor criticism is silly. Statistical corrections are needed of course, because twin studies tend to not give twins to poor families as that is unethical
https://msutwinstudies.com/why-twin-studies/
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/08/are_twin_studie.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_correlation
Closest correlation concept related to heritability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability#Regression/correlation_methods_of_estimation


Appeal to ignorance in the sense that because we dont meet his standard of proof, that therefore his side is right despite his own position not meeting the samne or similar standard

Newton isnt a real scientist, didnt have gravitons when he postulated on gravity

Turkheimer isnt a real scientist, he didnt find the genes for everything when he came up with his 3 laws

Astronomers arent real scientists, they've never even saw these black holes they claimed existed. Just their effect on the space around them.

Molecular genetics isnt a real science, doesn't go down to the subatomic level which is a deeper and more fundamental level (he has already dismissed quantitative genetics for using statistics)

General relativity is no good, only explains large things. Quantum mechanics is better because it goes at a smaller and deeper level!

In fact, why find the genes? We need to look at the gluons and quarks!

You need to show me the electrons going through the wires to prove electrivity

I could go on

It's just constantly demanding more evidence. Yes, non-molecular models have their limits but none of them amount to making innate equality tenable. Height changed over time and gaps in height changed over time despite large heritability, yes (due to improved environment) but that does not mean height is a social construction and racial gaps are not genetic at all. We see an obvioous environmental reason, unlike with IQ.
science is about more likely and less likely. Molecular evidence proves neither case, non-molecular evidence is on our side

And in some cases we have done the knockout studies with these intelligence genes and made lab mice retarded. But of course, this isnt people so it isnt good enough. Insane Nazi-like experiments are needed.

The fact is, outside of these insane and conveniently contrived standards, there is no argument left for innate equality. Equality of the Gaps

Also, molecular genetics uses statistical inference to parse out overlapping effects. And non-molecular methods, because molecular methods are new, have greater predictive validity which is superior for the purposes of this debate than understanding the mechanisms precisely. If we eliminate all other options, then we have to give preference to the remaining option even if we dont fully understand it.