Well I said that a lot of the sources didn't actually wholeheartedly support the positions I took them to be presented as holding. So that's saying something. I also showed that they have a small sample size, and are mostly non-academic, so that's something too.

EuropeanNationalist2 made great points on this. The sources cited are written by people who have actual experience with science. Would you accept a blog by Dr. James Thompson? He's a doctor, but uses a blog to get information out. Same thing, no?

And several people, some of whom I referenced in OP, claim we do not have the technology or the ability to empirically verify this claim.

I found a paper on PNAS on the matter. I only have enough time to read the abstract and reply to you now, but I'll finish reading it tomorrow and reply to your next reply to me about it.

Genomic surveys in humans identify a large amount of recent positive selection. Using the 3.9-million HapMap SNP dataset, we found that selection has accelerated greatly during the last 40,000 years. We tested the null hypothesis that the observed age distribution of recent positively selected linkage blocks is consistent with a constant rate of adaptive substitution during human evolution. We show that a constant rate high enough to explain the number of recently selected variants would predict (i) site heterozygosity at least 10-fold lower than is observed in humans, (ii) a strong relationship of heterozygosity and local recombination rate, which is not observed in humans, (iii) an implausibly high number of adaptive substitutions between humans and chimpanzees, and (iv) nearly 100 times the observed number of high-frequency linkage disequilibrium blocks. Larger populations generate more new selected mutations, and we show the consistency of the observed data with the historical pattern of human population growth. We consider human demographic growth to be linked with past changes in human cultures and ecologies. Both processes have contributed to the extraordinarily rapid recent genetic evolution of our species.

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/52/20753.full

No, I just don't think that they had a significant behaivour, nor do I think that these differences correspond with what people usually mean when they talk about race. I said in my post "genetic differences between human populations have likely arisen since the development of agriculture." Did you even read the whole thing?

Yes I did read the whole piece. So you don't think races differ by behavior? How about cognitive function?

49% isn't most, its as close to most as you can be without being most, but it isn't most. This may be true, I haven't read the article, but if you are going to claim this you should source the article, so I can read it! Don't just be like "Well Nature said this." Be like "Here, look at what Nature has to say on this matter." There is nothing wrong with saying "most traits are inheritable" there is a problem with saying that without discussing what is meant by a trait, and without posting sources.

Eh, it's 50/50. For instance, intelligence is one of the most heritable traits we have. I'm only partly through the paper myself, I'm going to finish reading it tomorrow night.

http://www.gwern.net/docs/2015-polderman.pdf

And I don't believe that. The truth of this proposition does not, however, entail race realism.

How so? It implies that there are differences between races because there are differences depending on where your ancestors evolved.

Probably not. I'd probably link someone more recent. And my goal isn;t to say who is right or wrong, my goal is to critically analyse things and see, at the end of it all, which claims are reasonable and which aren't. I am not the independent, omniscient verifier of knowledge, it's not my place to say whose right or wrong. I do, however, have the ability, through reading widely, to critique arguments, and that is what I am doing.

Well both of them are known frauds. Fair enough on your last point.