Now when you speak of genetic superiority, you are speaking of how a different race or group can adapt to their surroundings. Each group is designed for their environment. Doesn't make one superior to the other, it just means one is better built for the environment.
My point was that genetic superiority is entirely dependent on environmental circumstances. Within the context of a given situation, certain people are genetically superior for that situation.
Smart people can have dumb kids and vice versa.
Yes, and dwarves can give birth to regular sized children, but the chances of that happening are far less than for those of non-dwarves. Let me put it to you this way: Tall people usually have tall children and short people usually have short children. Sometimes small people can have tall children and sometimes tall people can have small children. The chances of a tall person having a tall child is MUCH GREATER than those for a short person. If we wanted to build the tallest population we could, we would only want tall people to have children.
Smart people usually have smart children and dumb people usually have dumb children. Sometimes smart people have dumb children and sometimes dumb people have smart children. The chances of a smart person having a smart child are MUCH GREATER than those of a dumb person. So, if we want to push our species to the smarter side of the spectrum, we should only encourage smart people to breed.
I'll ask again, because you haven't answered my previous question. If there is no genetic or biological basis for intelligence, then why are monkeys and dogs not as smart as people? Also, if you agree there is a genetic/biological basis for intelligence then (even by probability alone) why would you expect all people or groups of people to have equal intelligence?