> Are actually there studies that claim a special ability is due to genetics only?
Of course there are, like tetrachromacy [1]. Or even more mundane: XY chromosomes prevent men from having the ability to give birth.
I also think you're vastly underappreciating the results from genetic studies. Twin studies have repeatedly shown that identical twins separated at birth and growing up in wildly differing conditions, still largely end up with similar temperaments, similar world views, and similar intelligence.
Why would cognitive ability be different than any other characteristic, like height, athletic ability, and so on? Those same twin studies have shown that intelligence and academic performance are also highly heritable.
Certainly nurturing an ability will enhance performance, but there's an inherent upper limit to everything. Just like eating right and exercising won't make you grow taller than some max threshold, so studying and solving riddles won't make you more intelligent than some upper bound dictated by your genes. We don't know how to measure that yet, for either height or intelligence, but that bound is there.
I'm astonished about how many people here are using physical traits that are observable (even with the naked eye) as analogies to brain functions. Yes, we know a lot about muscle fibers, nutrition, physics and all that stuff, we can make reasonable conclusions about physical limits, but we don't know much about our brains or minds for that matter, not even state-of-art neurology have come up with solid conclusions, yet people here are talking (and being absolutely sure, which is the worst part) about intelligence inherited by genes, brain limits...
You're arguing for magic. If brain function does not follow from our physical makeup, then where exactly do you think it comes from? Sure learning is like exercising a muscle and can shape your brain, but environment affects muscle growth too via exercise and nutrition. Would you deny that your genetics place an upper limit on your achievable strength?
Sorry to say, there is already plenty of evidence of direct genetic impact on cognitive ability that you can see with your own eyes, even ignoring the twin studies that all but prove that cognitive functions are largely heritable. For instance, down syndrome, Tay-Sachs disease and Leukodystrophies.
The scientific case is in: given comparable nutrition and a standard education, your intelligence as compared to your peers is determined by your genetic makeup.
This says nothing about your work ethic or your determination of course, and thus what you can achieve if you put in enough effort. Intelligence is merely a metric stating that given the same amount of work expended on cognitive problems, those with higher intelligence will do better on average.
Of course there are, like tetrachromacy [1]. Or even more mundane: XY chromosomes prevent men from having the ability to give birth.
I also think you're vastly underappreciating the results from genetic studies. Twin studies have repeatedly shown that identical twins separated at birth and growing up in wildly differing conditions, still largely end up with similar temperaments, similar world views, and similar intelligence.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy