I've voted to re-open, need four more votes.
It's clearly true that there is some confusion about the implications of Prof. Turner's paper, with sources (including Turner herself writing in The Lancet and at least two major newspapers) talking as if it accounts for, variously, all a male's intelligence, all their genetically-derived intelligence, or ~70-80% of their intelligence; seemingly containing contradictory lines in different places in the same articles.
On the face of it, it looks like a classic case of a researcher and reporters over-stating the implications of some research while summarising it. This seems to be why it was closed: a mod believes these quotes don't reflect the evidence presented in the body of the paper.
A study being exaggerated by popularisers who stretch it to a more attention-grabbing but unwarranted conclusion is exactly the sort of thing Skeptics.SE exists to debunk, and the tool to clear up such a matter is an answer.
If it's true that an author's summaries, press releases etc about their study aren't supported by the paper's own evidence, that's the answer to the question. Hiding that fact behind a close vote doesn't help anyone.
1: Sklivvz says:
The claim seems to be scarcely notable.
...which makes no sense because the question quoted a highly respected academic journal (The Lancet) and a major newspaper (The Independent). Normally, just one of these would be enough.
I've added a second quote from a major newspaper (Wall Street Journal). This is plenty of notability. Each contain at least one quote that appears to state the premise of the question as a matter of fact:
- The Lancet: "his sons’ intelligence, if that is important to him, is solely dependent on his partner"
- The Independent: "Intelligent men owe their brains to their mothers"
- Wall Street Journal: "...all the credit for the [son]'s genius goes to Mom"
If for any reason they're wrong to say these things, and there's evidence demonstrating this, that's the answer to the question.
2: Sklivvz says:
I see no evidence that a lot of people believe that intelligence is solely due to the X chromosome.
Normally, when a mainstream source presents something as fact, we don't also need some kind of proof that readers believe what they read. The fact it's presented as fact is usually enough.
Also, at least four variants of this question have been asked now. Two that asked if "80%" of intelligence is so explained are now closed as dupes of this one, and the question is "Do the mother's genes almost exclusively determine the sons' intelligence?" and says "supposedly his intelligence is dominated by his mother's genes". There's no need to get hung up on "solely".
3: Sklivvz says:
That conclusion is present but it's not coherent with the rest of the paper.
This is an answer not a close reason. Many researchers give their research attention-grabbing conclusions that stretch beyond the logical implications of the evidence, and that's exactly the sort of thing that skeptics should debunk, especially if it's being done in a highly respected journal like The Lancet and being repeated in major newspapers.
A comment and a close vote are not the correct tools for debunking a researcher and several newspapers' excessive conclusions: not only is it opaque and doesn't contain space to summarise the evidence properly, but also, if it turned out Sklivvz was wrong and, surprisingly, the claim was actually true and was supported by evidence (unlikely but possible), it'd be impossible for someone to comment or write a better answer explaining this.
4: "closed as unclear what you're asking by Sklivvz"
None of the stated reasons have anything to do with being unclear, and the fact that it's so easy to identify that a newer question is a duplicate of this one proves that the question is clear enough to understand what's being asked.
5: Latest comment:
Here are a few suggestions on how to fix: (1) "Are the conclusions on this paper coherent with the evidence it presents" -> ask on Biology (2) "Is this reporting of a paper coherent with it" -> reword and ask here (3) "Is this claim in a newspaper coherent with evidence" -> reword and ask here (4) "is there any update on this paper's findings" ask on Biology
This seems to suggest that you need to know what the answer to a question is in order to choose where to ask it and how to frame it, and overcomplicates things needlessly.
Normally, what you need for a skeptics question is, a claim, and proof that the claim is notable. You don't also need to pick one possible reason out of many why the claim might not be true and narrow it to that. In fact, most times I've seen askers talk about why they think a claim might be mistaken, it's been edited out.
The question is, "Do the mother's genes almost exclusively determine the sons' intelligence?". There are three sources proving the claim is notable.
Is it true?
The three sources happen to be different sources' comments on evidence presented in one Lancet paper; but the question would be just as valid if the three notable sources each cited different papers, or if they were unreferenced remarks in things like speeches or viral images.