"Also it's pretty common to call something "neutral" when it has no direct adaptive value even when it *is* strongly selected for by sexual selection (the phenomenon which drove the evolution of the brilliantly flashy but anti-adaptive peacock tail)."

That doesn't make sense. Peacock tails (or blue eyes) aren't "anti-adaptive". If there's sexual selection inferring some advantage towards reproduction and passing on your genes, i'd say it's adaptive! I think it's interesting he's found the specific mutation and estimated the time line, but i think the rest of what he's saying about it being a neutral mutation is complete crap.