> 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.

But I'm not talking about infants. I'm talking about people in general. By the time you're an adult, it's 90% culture.

If culture and instincts were opposites, culture would win. Which you agree with!

So when you say "If people naturally favored the out-group ( people who look different ), racial/ethnic groups and diversity wouldn't exist." that's not true. If you flipped the instinctual switch, people would still be clique-y.

> Breeding at random, the blue eyed population will simply diminish generation after generation.

No it won't. Oh my god. The more the blue-eyed population shrinks this way, the more brown-eyed carriers you have. The more carriers you have, the more often two brown-eyed people have a blue-eyed baby. This hits a steady state very quickly. We don't run out of people with a recessive trait.

And if people suddenly preferred to hook up with opposite-eyed people, the number of blue-eyed kids would actually drop down for a generation before rising over time to the steady state!

> Also, who is talking about "random".

I laid out the random scenario and the extreme out-group scenario. Neither one causes recessive traits to stop showing up en masse.

> He was saying that people have an "instinct" and preference for out-group. I proved this was false with many sources.

Yeah he was wrong about that. But you overcorrected.

Edit:

Let me put this by itself. Really simple logic.

> Right and 3/4th will have non-blue eyes. Just think about it.

These sentences were discussing parents that have one of each gene, right?

So all the parents under discussion here have brown eyes.

But only 75% of their children have brown eyes.

That sure doesn't sound like blue eyes disappearing to me!