Ok, so I have been thinking about this for some and decided that it could make a worthwhile discussion here. Note that this has little to do with creationism, I just want to know if my understanding of sexual selection is accurate.
Now I don't deny that sexual selection is a real phenomenon, and in fact Endler's well known experiment on guppies is a classic example of it. My question is rather on how much explanatory power does sexual selection actually have ?
Because the very fact that a female prefers bright colors over dull colors is itself a trait of the female, and is therefore also subject to natural selection. Doesn't this imply that sexual selection is limited by natural selection, and therefore have explanatory power only in the complete absence of predators ? (which is a rare occasion)
How would a female population aquire the tendency to prefer bright colors in an environment where predation is present ? Wouldn't natural selection work against this ?
A corrollary of this would be an extension of Endler's experiment: What if we had let the guppies with predation for an extended period of time, long enough for NS to fix dull color preference in the female population. When this was reached, if we then removed the predators from the environment, the females should continue to select with dull colored males.
Am I missing something ?
™ Version 4.2