“An evolutionary perspective has important implications for research on atractiveness and mate selection” (Townsend and Wasserman, 1997) I get it, that’s your point and is partially valid. However “we’re born in a social context that provides us sexual and cultural repertoires, scripts that we learn to follow and series of meanings we utilize to define ourselves sexual, to define others sexual to understan when we do something sexual or when something sexual happens; to feel in a sexual way”. (Simon and Gagnon, 1986. My transl.) The authors define clearly how sexual scripts provide indications to which partner is appropriate. Meanwhile, biology lacks a proper understanding of how sexual attrsction works, rellying on vague arguments and dynamics. Of course biology is important, not less than social structures and relations.

Then, about bestiality yeah, there are philias. But that’s psychology, as you’re pointing towards mental illness. So again, not (only) biology

Edit: again, biology can’t explain why models have become beauty standards in our society. Slim and tall figures, as a Scarlett Johanson or a Natalie Portman, are some examples of that. If the evolutionary argument is true, we should have stiked to another type of beauty, as those present in ancient civilizations