Why "mysterious ways" don't matter.

[Esquilax]

Beauty is a good analogy because objective beauty does exist and our perception of it certainly can't be explained by evolution.

I'm going to do you a huge favor and ignore the repeated fiat assertion and the argument from ignorance you just committed (but seriously, stop doing that. As Bad Wolf said, you need to provide evidence when you say things like this) and just remind you that I gave you an example of how our evolution has influenced our concept of beauty in the post you are responding to. The things we find ugly in organisms (I hope you can see how this is too large a topic to exhaustively cover in one post) like bared teeth, asymmetry, sharp edges and so on, are all things that spelled death for us in our evolutionary past. Even in our concept of beauty in humans outright aggression- which is signified through a lot of the same imagery- isn't considered beautiful, while a more natural, placid or happy expression is. Things that we find cute, like big eyes and so on, are traits that our infants have; that pleasure response is due to the visual similarities there.

This isn't hard to see, and can in fact be studied. The fact that you think it "can't be explained" isn't an issue. It can be, you just aren't aware of that. But you are now, so...

We perceive a sunset or a mountain vista as beautiful. We perceive some music as beautiful. If you are suggesting the beauty in a persons face is somehow programmed by evolution, I think that is also wrong.

That's great. But what you think isn't relevant. What you can demonstrate is.

There is no evolutionary value in a pretty face.

What do you mean? A pretty face denotes health, youth and vitality, all things that are good to have in a breeding partner. That's recursive, by the way; our ideal for "a pretty face," comes from the fact that those traits we associate with beautiful features do denote health, and were thus selected for. See, our concept of beauty in humans evolved in tandem with the rest of our traits. It's pretty cool, if very complex and hard to explain comprehensively.

All that would count is that the opposite sex be young, fertile, and otherwise healthy.

... Which tends to show up in their appearance.

We're a visual species, Steve. And we aren't the only ones, either; surely you've seen birds put on mating displays and whatnot?

It is absurd to think that 60 year old Kim Basinger is not more attractive then most 60 year old women--none of which are ready to bare children.

Do you think evolution is somehow aware of that? It's not a precision process, dude; the traits that make her beautiful persist, even beyond the age of viability for breeding. So what?

So, just as we have an aesthetic sense, we have a moral sense. By intuition, we know when a situation is right or wrong. There are baby studies that show that even infants and toddlers recognize right and wrong. http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/us/baby-lab-morals-ac360/

Yep, social instincts are an evolved trait. Those that are more instinctively able to cooperate within the human social structure get to breed more with time, as they're able to better interact with others. Conversely, those lacking those instincts breed less, for the same reason.