not at all what I'm saying.

Discovering a fixed distance, say to the moon or sun, or length of the U.S-Canadian border doesn't require any more studies; once we've found it, it's done; let's move on.

But estimates about ephemeral relationships in the socio-biological sphere don't have that property; we can get more precise figures with additional research (larger samples, better longevity, better stats); techniques can show different results; and more importantly, reality itself can shift. Maybe it was 50:50 at some point, maybe it's 70:30 in the modern world (information, globalization blah-blah).

So I was asking a rather simple question since you seems to have strong views on this: using that as a proxy for having-looked-into-the-weeds, are those 50:45:5 still roughly the leading estimates for nature vs nurture question?