so you're saying genetics can limit how intelligent someone can be
He might not be. I do sometimes find it hard to tell what people mean by their posts.
I'll say it though. Someone's genetic make up puts an upper limit on how intelligent* they can be. As does their upbringing, specifically, and especially, things such as diet and stimulation during their formative years. Ask if we can quantify this limit in any sensible fashion, however, and the answer is no, not really. But it would seem that certain of the genetic indicators for this potential have finally been identified.
tell me, what would be good evidence enough for you? ... explain what would be sufficient evidence of your conjecture that 'races' are genetically limited to how intelligent they can be
Before I address this, obviously extremely contentious issue, allow me to point out that I am not the GP.
As it happens I do not believe that intelligence* is racially determined. I think it unlikely that the genetic factors that determine things such as skin or eye colour, or the shape of one's epicanthic folds, would be correlated with the genes that the article identifes as being indicative of superior intellectual performance.
However, I'm prepared to admit I might be wrong. With but a moments consideration I can come up with a number of plausible scenarios where skin colour could be linked with, for example, vitamin intake and uptake which could affect how the brain develops, or how a racially linked food allergy could affect cognitive devolpment. Even if there were mechanisms such as these in play though, I would hazard that the magnitude of any disparity would be trival compared to the general variation within any racial group caused by non-linked genetic, social, economic, motivational, and educational factors.
Of course, I do not know. But then, that's what science is about. Asking questions, making hypotheses, testing them, drawing conclusions, then starting all over again. If you refuse to consider a reasonable sounding hypothesis based on, how shall I put it, moral or ethical convictions, that's not science. That's blind faith.
Which brings me to my question, and I only ask it since you seem so sure of your opinion. What evidence would be good enough for you to reconsider your position?
*The problem with referring to intelligence in such a way is that it's such a catch all term. Are we referring to one's ability to memorise stuff? The speed with which someone can solve an algorithmic problem? The ability to construct a novel and creative solution to a previously insoluble problem? Spatial awareness? Linguistic skill? The list is endless...