4th. Mendelian, Gene Finding, KnockOut Studies, Protein Anly

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 specific candidates 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 (Icurrently 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.

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.

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 pronouncements scientists make with non-molecular methods obviously shows this isnt needed (from IQ itself to other mental traits, mental disorders, and medical/physical differences between races), even on intelligence. 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.


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

In addition to the quote never saying imperative, and affirming that behavioral traits have genetic origins without doing any knockouts protein analysis, and his examples from qualitative genetics. Or the fact that his claim that a certain study has dodgy metholody and results is unsunstantiated, at least not by his highlighted text citations. Or his inability to recognize TAH never said molecular genetics is obsolete just that quantitative genetics is still relevant, currently boasts greater predictive validity regarding the genetic influence on traits, and that Kraut is arbitarily using Molecular Genetics as an standard when it affirms neither position due to youth. As well as his 'chaos of nature' example not just missing the point by arguing that AltHype said humans were selectively bred, or the fact that animals were selectively bred means no concepts are generalizable to humans when selective breeding simply accelerates the development of traits, but also affirming the central premise that it is impossible for nature to decide on equality in the trait we as humans have decided we value the most an endgoal to evolution.

Sandre debunked your whole premise at 40:52! He didn't have a "gene knockout study" on the Neanderthals, but he could still tell that they weren't as intelligent as us, how did he do that Kraut?????

I focus on the demand for molecular genetics because it is his central point and it's just unbelievably wrong. Even knockout studies rely on statistical inference, which he disparingly calls social science, to parse out overlapping effects. Moreover, his own scientist in the audio recordings obtained by JF said this was nonsense. And also pointed out that Kraut (and Sandre) dont know the difference between a small effect size and margin of error

Moreover, it's arbitrary in a sense that we could use the same logic to argue genes arent deep enough and we need to study at the subatomic level to understand

As ape and uzalu have said, Ape being more thorough on this: Kraut edits the standards he judges arguments by out of convenience. Most real is he is demanding the impossible and unnecessary but he also relaxes standards for his own side.
Also as Ape said, we agree on plenty of differences between races being genetic and racial without doing knockout studies. We agree on bone density, skin color, sickle cell, etc
Ape's point, throughout the debate, is that by elimination we only have genetic factors left. Epigenetics cant account for these gaps, being the only other possibility.

Uzalu's take was specifically that if other causes are eliminated or deemed to be unlikely then we have to give preference to the remaining option even if we dont fully understand it.

https://archive.is/Tt6vs

So, Kraut and tea dropped yet another steamer. These are the only two things that are required to BTFO Kraut:
The definition of heritability:
" Heritability is a statistic used in the fields of breeding and genetics that estimates the degree of variation in a phenotypic trait in a population that is due to genetic variation between individuals in that population.[1] In other words, the concept of heritability can alternately be expressed in the form of the following question: "What is the proportion of the variation in a given trait within a population that is not explained by the environment of random chance?"[2]"
A value for the heritability of IQ:
The general figure for the heritability of IQ, according to an authoritative American Psychological Association report, is 0.45 for children, and rises to around 0.75 for late adolescents and adults.(74][75] Heritability measures in infancy are as low as 0.2, around 0.4 in middle childhood, and as high as 0.9 in adulthood.(76][77]
Nevertheless, let's dissect Kraut's newest video in detail:
Kraut's "expert" talks about how it's good to have a lot of sources. That's definitely true, and I've written plenty of papers that contain 50-100 sources, all of which I've read. The problem here was that Kraut is an idiot and there's zero indication that he has read anything he cited. It's like he just wanted to sound smart by citing a bunch of shit. Sources aren't an end goal in and of itself: they're used to get a comprehensive view of the thing you're talking about, something which Kraut did not have. Can he show us what he took from each source, and where it is in his presentation? Kraut then moves on to critisize genome wide association studies, arguing that there's no "protein analysis", and that correlation does not prove causality. Just because A and B are correlated, that doesn't mean A causes B. This is true enough, but correlation does prove correlation, and given the predictive validity of the correlation, it does prove there is a causality somewhere. I consider myself to be a fairly imaginative guy, and I don't see any other explanation than that these genes are directly tied to intelligence. I mean how does this work in Kraut's stupid little mind? People become intelligent due to whatever environmental factor, which then causes them to spontaneously sprout the corresponding genes? Also, we know for a fact that these genes that GWAS found are essential for brain functions (mice that had these genes knocked out grew to be retarded, even more so than Kraut).
Kraut also makes yet again the same tired old claim that "you need muh molecular genetics to prove dis". It's a completely retarded argument that stems from his inability to understand heritability and quantative genetics. It's like saying that you can't say gravity exists because we haven't found gravitons yet. His standard of evidence is both retarded and arbitrary. You can infer gravity from shit falling down. You can infer heritability from quantative genetics. Despite this retarded standard Kraut set, scientists do meet it (we have both GWAS and knock-out studies). Kraut also goes on to say that you need knock-out studies to prove that these genes matter, and being an idiot he is, he doesn't even realize that those have been done already on mice.
Kraut also goes on to critisize AH's example about selective breeding. Again, retarded Kraut misses the point entirely. Humans haven't been bred for selective intelligence, and that has never been a claim made by race realists. AH simply showed by example that one can infer heritability even without "knowing the genes".
"This is stuff 17-year olds are thought in highschool" How would Kraut, a high school drop-out, know that?
Kraut's retard expert goes on a rant about heritability, not understanding what it is. Yes, obviously, heritability can vary between populations. More extreme effects can have much more deleterious effects. But the thing these retards do not understand is that heritability of IQ in WESTERN COUNTRIES is about 80%, and we still see big IQ differences between groups. Yes, things like malnutrition can have a negative effect on IQ, but it is practically non-existent in western countries, and does not contradict the race realist case in any way.
Later on, Kraut revisits his retarded point about "muh molecular genetics". The AH article showed that, everything we know about molecular genetics so far seems to support the hereditarian case. Kraut doubles down on his "only muh molecular genetics counts" retardation.
Kraut's "new expert" revisits a claim made in Kraut's last video, namely that some snips can be activated and others deactivated, and that this somehow casts doubt on genome wide association studies. No it doesn't, this is a retarded claim. If those genes studied in GWAS were deactivated, and had no effect, GWAS would not be able to find them. But because they can find them, then obviously they are expressed. Obviously they do matter. Kraut's new expert also goes on to claim that if there were any evidence for genetic differences in IQ, then "ambitious mavericks" would go on to say so in a quest for glory. Well there is evidence and people have come out and said it, and their careers got destroyed as a result (Rushton, Murray, Watson, etc.). They also say that if there were proof then "race realism" would not be of dissident status. It really isn't, according to expert surveys (Rindermann, Coyle and Becker 2013, Rothman and Snyderman 1984). Also, it should be noted, the hereditarian position is gaining ground fast, despite the taboos surrounding it. Kraut also made the claim that Bruce Lan's studies "don't prove race realism" hurr durr. Alt-Hype never cited those, the point was that he got attacked simply for trying to research the issue.
Kraut's expert goes on a rant about brain size, saying that it is nothing more than adaptation for darker climates (more volume in the visual cortex). How, then, do they explain brain size (moderate) correlation with intelligence? Did they ignore this? The expert also goes on to say that Neanderthals had large brain size, and that they were retarded as proven by their lack of tools and farming. If this expert weren't retarded, he'd know that Neanderthals went extinct before a long time before modern humans invented farming. He'd need to compare Neanderthals to their contemporaries (not that it would matter much, given how different Neanderthals are from modern humans). As for why Neanderthals went extinct is a more complicated matter but I'll let readers read their wiki on that.
Kraut's expert also makes the claim that blacks have a larger orbitofrontal cortex, which should make them better at decision making. It is an interesting hypothesis, and it would be interesting to see if it's true after correcting for IQ.
Kraut also critisizes AH's book quote, saying he left out an important part "When heredity is important, and it almost always is for complex traits like behaviour, it is now possible to identify specific genes by using the methods of molecular genetics". The quote never said that this can be done for all traits and that we can find every single gene associated with such traits. Yet, despite this, we have indeed found some of the genes associated with intelligence (see: GWAS and mice gene knockout studies). Kraut, being an idiot, also critisizes Mendel's predictive models, saying that they only provide a statistical chance, and "molecular genetics has the final say". This is retarded. By the traits of the parents, we can tell that offspring has X % chance of inheriting something. To see if the offspring actually inherit it, we need to see if they actually inherited that trait (for Kraut's example, Huntington's disease, it is diagnosed by genetic testing). There is nothing difficult about this, except for Kraut apparently. This doesn't contradict AH's claims in any way. Statistical model predicts 50 % chance of inheriting Huntington's disease (because genes are combined randomly), and to verify if that risk came true, you test genetics. This doesn't BTFO quantative genetics in any way.
Kraut also doesn't seem to understand the next passage he reads, namely that intelligence does not follow simple mendelian laws of heredity. This is true, because general cognitive capability is a highly polygenic trait influenced by many genes (whereas Mendel's model only had a few genes affecting a few highly visible traits). Again, this doesn't contradict the hereditarian position in any way. He goes on to make the same "correlation does not prove causality" type of retarded point. The book also says that it would be great to find the actual genes and their functions by the way of molecular genetics, and this is true, but it doesn't disprove the validity of GWAS or quantative genetics. Yet again, Kraut demands gene knockout studies, which have been done already. Kraut doesn't understand even the most basic genetics. Yes, for a full understanding, it would be great to perform molecular genetics to see what genes actually do what, but it still isn't required to infer heritability. Kraut and his book go on a tirade yet again about "find the genes". Yes, full molecular genetic analysis would be required for full understanding, but it isn't required to infer heritability, which Kraut still doesn't understand. He is incapable of comprehending what heritability means, and why it is enough to make the claims Alt-Hype makes. In Kraut's mind, the book proves that "finding the genes is of most significant importance". It depends, most significant importance for what? For molecular genetics? Because it sure as hell isn't "most significant importance" for the kinds of claims Alt-Hype makes (see: heritability). This quote sums up Kraut's retardation: "Robert Plomin throughout the entire book, makes it entirely clear that quantative genetics can merely provide candidate genes to further molecular genetic research, and that it is molecular genetic research that, in the end, will provide evidence for if specific genes are responsible for behavioral traits suspected to be heritable". Alt-Hype does not need to show the specific genes. Although GWAS do show some of them, along with knock-out studies to prove them, it still isn't needed to infer heritability. You can still prove heritability without finding the actual genes.
TL;DR: Another steaming pile of shit by Kraut and tea. Kraut doubles down on his retarded find the genes dogma, completely ignores general heritability. Kraut's demand is like saying that you have to find gravitons to prove gravity (we don't, because we can just observe stuff falling down). He says you need muh molecular genetics to prove dem genes, without realizing that it's been done already. It's no wonder that Kraut, being the idiot he is, shies away from quantative genetics, because even he ahs to realize that quantative genetics isn't on his side.