But sexual selection isn't natural selection.
Right. Natural selection is "more effective replicators more effectively replicate", whereas sexual selection is "more effective replicators more effectively replicate".
One theory is before the "whereas", and one is after it. Different theories.
Peahens selecting peacocks on the basis of the size or perfection of the peacock's tails (and it's not certain what the peahens find so attractive) isn't the same as peacocks dying early because they can't avoid predators or get enough food to survive.
Right. In natural selection, reproductive success is critical. In sexual selection, reproductive success is critical. Completely different theories.
Why do Scandanavians have blue eyes, blond hair and fair skin. If you were an adaptionist, you'd say that in scandanavian winters there isn't much sunshine so having fair skin is a means of increasing vitamin D synthesis in the skin.
Jared Diamond's explanation is that the small groups of humans who happened to reach Scandanavia after the end of the last glaciation just happened to be blue eyed, blond and fair skinned.
I'm waiting for the science. There is science here, isn't there?
He goes on to note that what humans find sexually attractive in mates is usually limited to what they see in their childhood...
Sure. Humans find that huge bossy people several multiples of their height and weight are incredibly sexually attractive.
"Step on me... pleeese... step on me..."
"I looove it when you tell me to clean my room..."
That explains why some guys like Amazons...
leading to xenophobia, so if anyone with a new mutation causing darker skin wouldn't be able to find a mate.
Xenophobia: "No same-sized people need apply!"
We hate people who aren't much much bigger than we are.
Having blue eyes in snow conditions isn't an adaptation, because the individual would be more prone to snow blindness.
"Olaf, I can't find Jared Diamond's new book. The snow is too bright..."
Open to you now to mount a counterargument ...Sigh...