Women prefer taller men. That’s probably a good thing from an evolutionary perspective. If the preference worked in the other direction, eventually our descendants would evolve smaller and smaller until squirrels ate them.
The usual explanation for why humans have certain preferences in mates is because the preferred traits signal good health, and that is an advantage for baby-making.
But what if those preferences are just coincidences? For example, I have clear preferences for some types of automobile designs, but I don’t want to hump those cars and produce tricycles.
My hypothesis of evolution is that every creature with eyes and a brain has a sense of beauty that coincidentally overlaps with health, but is independent. Studies have shown that mood is directly affected by the color and design of your environment. Most people prefer being on a beach or in the mountains compared to a cubicle. But you don’t prefer the beach or mountain because you want to have their babies. They just make you feel good.
Even your dog has a preferred place in the house or in the yard, for whatever doggie reasons he has.
I think you choose your mate based on a personal sense of beauty. And if your environment only has a few choices, you pick the one with the most beauty, relatively speaking.
You can see some divergence between beauty and reproductive health in popular culture. Models and actresses are often too thin to appear as optimal baby-makers while still considered highly attractive.
Bonus philosophical question: If all creatures with brains have an innate and individual sense of beauty, is that evidence of God?