Miller, Jones, Small and Pinker agreed human behavior is not entirely explicable in terms of evolutionary psychology. How much of it is is a question for research to delimit.
Take the issue of sexual selection. How did our ancestors solve the problem of selecting mates with good genes and avoiding those with bad genes?
Sensitivity to small differences in physical appearance is one such measure. Physical appearances provide important clues to the quality of one’s genes.
The more symmetrical your body is the better on average your genes are. Less robust genes are more likely to get knocked off course by environmental setbacks such as physical injuries and parasites.
If the left and right sides of the body are very similar it’s a sign that the genes that led to that development are quite robust. Anyone who was sensitive to small differences in body symmetry and who preferred to mate with more symmetrical people would tend to have children with better genes.
So we would expect natural selection to have designed a mate selection module that was geared to detect and prefer more symmetrical mates. Research has confirmed that that is the case.
Researchers measured various features from footbreath and handbreads to ear length and ear breath and the combined these measures to produce an overall index of bodily symmetry for each person studied. When they asked volunteers to evaluate the same people for attractiveness and compared the results they found that there was a close correlation between attractiveness rating and the degree of symmetry. More symmetrical people were seen as more attractive.
Here one of the researchers in this project, evolutionary biologist Randy Thornhill discusses this and other findings youtu.be/6DqJ1Wv6EtQ
So, many people today think that standards of beauty are entirely culturally determined. But the evidence has increasingly shown many aesthetic preferences are both universal and innate. Thornhill et al have shown that preferences for more symmetrical people, for example, are cross-cultural.