The latter is a subset of the former. They are not different categories.
I suspect that early man - even before homo sapien - discovered that animal skin made good blankets. Even if a temperature is surviveable doesn’t mean it’s comfortable so it doesn’t seem to be much of a leap to make those blankets wearable. Heck, those first clothes probably looked just like snuggies!
Another possible reason for clothes could have arisen when early man became more organized. Sites where early man lived usually have garbage dumps nearby indicating that the tribes valued cleanliness. Clothing provides a barrier for dirty butts and menstrual fluids.
And finally, if hunters are chasing game then a little support goes a long way during the run.
It’s easy to think of practical uses for clothing that doesn’t involve concepts of morality. Over time those clothes would become symbolic in their own right. The most valuable members of the society would have the best fitting clothes, and the best decorated.
I didn’t say they are, and this doesn’t help us. There is a distinction between natural selection generally and sexual selection specifically. The former concerns the survival of the species most generally, whereas the latter concerns the specific effects of sexual selection on which populations reproduce comparatively better. As I said, Darwin himself proposed sexual selection to explain racial diversity, and lots of folks have continued to propose sexual selection to explain penis size in humans, lack of hair, racial diversity, etc. Jared Diamond has a couple popular books out in which he discusses the issue at some length. Hardly a novel or implausible idea.
Not particularly relevant to the discussion, but tangentially related, and more important, entertaining:
I’m trying to explain the proper scientific terms that should be used. Don’t blame me if you are using them incorrectly.
The term you are looking for is “ecological selection”. Both ecological selection and sexual selection are forms of natural selection. So, there is a distinction between ecological selection and sexual selection.
It’s simply wrong to say that natural selection “generally” doesn’t include sexual selection.
You’re tilting at conceptual windmills. As you were.
No, I’m correcting errors in your post. Again, don’t blame me for for your errors.
n.b.: I’m not trying to undermine your argument, but this site is devouted to fighting ignorance. You are spreading ignorance. Not on purpose, I’m sure. There is nothing personal here. I’m just correcting an error you are making. If I"m wrong, then prove to me that I’m wrong, If I’m right, just acknowledge it and move on. This is not a competition.
I didn’t realize this was a zombie thread until I saw that.