More Bunk Science

Which I guess is why this ridiculous notion is something that you've made up in your head rather than anything that any scientist has ever actually claimed.You really can misunderstand absolutely anything, can't you? Do you want to be Kent Hovind when you grow up? That people have a preference for facial symmetry is a well-established fact. Which perhaps explains why a creationist is calling it "bunk science".

No: the word "tabloid" implies a depth of integrity and seriousness of purpose which the Daily Mail does not possess.

Which is why no-one ever said it was. Answer: they didn't. This study was not into whether people found symmetry attractive. That has already been done. Or you could follow the scientific method ... well, you couldn't. But one could. If it is your intention to make a fool of yourself, I guess this sort of nonsense will do as well as anything.

I know. I was being mean to the Daily Mail.

No. No.

This is why they calculated p.Have you not read their paper, or did you not understand it?

Though the authors did not in fact do so: they drew conclusions about facial asymmetry and behavior. If they'd wanted to draw conclusions about attractiveness and behavior, they would presumably have used a "Hot Or Not" style test to evaluate their subjects.The authors wrote: "We cannot assume that our more symmetric subjects will be identified as the more attractive". It's the journalists who have put that together with results showing that symmetry is attractive to reach a conclusion of "Gee whiz, scientists prove that you can't trust pretty people!"