No, I don't. But you've lost track of the thread, because I didn't claim he said 15-50%. There's a reason I cited him where I did: to point out how silly the 0.80 estimate the previous commenter's cite was in current context. His antecedent in this thread is "even hereditarians...".
But now we have an authority figure saying 30-70, so I'll trust that over your 15-50. And yes I know why you didn't cite the 30-70, its because you disagree with it. You shouldn't say others use biased examples and then say you believe it could be as low as 15% without anything to back that up.
He didn't use a "biased example"; he used a prehistoric example based on premodern methology. The only thing we've established here is that he doesn't understand his own cite.
later
In other words, I deliberately cited someone on his side of the debate.
How much do I love that this person got promoted from woke social scientist to "authority figure" in the space of one Google query, though? Amazing.
