I'm not "applying it". I'm stating what it is.
> But then you can't say the natural programming is the reason.
Sure you can. Because as I said, infants do it. It's why the researchers chose infants and toddlers. Nobody TAUGHT an infant to prefer their own kind over others.
> It's one factor and not one of the bigger factors.
You are simply not getting it. We are NATURALLY programmed to prefer our in-group. But we can be programmed via propaganda ( government, media, education, etc ) to go AGAINST our programming.
> Do I seriously need to pull out a genetics textbook? If you keep a steady population
Not only do you fail at genetics, you fail at statistics.
> If two people with one copy have children, about a quarter of them will have blue eyes.
Right and 3/4th will have non-blue eyes. Just think about it. Breeding at random, the blue eyed population will simply diminish generation after generation.
> and have people marry at random
Also, who is talking about "random". The original commenter wrote : "I think people have an instinct for enriching their genome, that's why we're attracted to features our own group lacks, like different skin/hair color, facial structure, etc."
He was saying that people have an "instinct" and preference for out-group. I proved this was false with many sources. Science says that people have an "instinct" to prefer their in-group. The only way to counter it is with societal programming/propaganda. As I said.
I provided the sources. You aren't arguing against me, you are fighting against science. I'll end the "debate" here as it gets tiring repeating science over and over again.