I would question the premise, if I were to think about it for long...

What makes one face more attractive than another? The premise is stating that the one closest to the ratio is.

I'm not entirely sure what the ratio is supposed to be (center of eye to eye? triangular with nose? cheekbones? Jaw? Chin? <boggle>) but I'll use it as a 'ratio' term for the moment.

To bring it all down to a specific ration - incorporating any of the golden ones you mentioned originally - seems to exclude ethnicity preferences and individual tastes.

The survival trait, it would appear, is not in the mass preference of the appropriately well-ratio'ed face, but in the fringe preferences for the differences. Distinct appearances, genetically traited, would persist and strengthen so long as like seeks out like. This applies equally to both. But, in conditions where it becomes necessary to survival for like to mate with like only, then the 'fair ratio' faces would demonstrate a survival trait.

Yet, in conditions where it was the opposite... then the ill-portioned ratio faces would become the survival trait.


Can someone cite the work re: evolution where it was proven that some genetic traits are selected for in a species with no relation to survival at the time of selection? That would seem to be quite relevant here.