I think we can fairly easily come up with examples of things that are regarded as attractive in some cultures and not others.

For example, tanned skin. Back in the "olden days" in Europe, pale skin was considered the ideal. The much-desired "fair maiden" in old tales is literally one with light-colored skin that is kept out of the sun so it doesn't tan. Today, in the U.S. at least, skin with a slightly bronze tan is often considered the ideal.

This may or may not have to do with social class. Prior to industrialization, lower class people would be tanned from working outside on farms, while higher class people (nobility, etc.) could stay inside and keep their skin nice and pale. Once poor people switched from working on farms to working in indoor factories, they, too, had pale skin, while the wealthier could afford to waste time sitting in the sun getting a tan. "Find signals of high status attractive" might be a genetically influenced trait (I'd be surprised if it weren't) but genes don't seem to determine exactly how people signal high status.

Plenty of behavior has genetic influences, but people learn an awful lot from their environment, too. When a dog is trained to roll over on command, is that a genetic behavior? If it is, then so is everything and it becomes a meaningless category.

If preference for large breasts was genetic, surely there might be a family somewhere with some mutation which would prefer small breasts. Do we have any evidence of that?

Brain-coding phenomena like sexual preferences seem to be built from large collections of genes that are interconnencted with other systems, such that there aren't many possible mutations that would undo the feature without wreaking havoc elsewhere in the phenotype as well.

In fact, the universality of such preferences across neurologically intact humans is evidence that they come from Paleogenes rather than memes or fresh genes, either of which can more easily be altered without deleterious effects elsewhere.

http://the10000yearexplosion.com/

The 10000 year Explosion shows very good evidence that this isn't quite true; many significant genetic adaptations are indeed far more recent and have been developping faster since the end of the Paleolithic.

It's also an enjoyable read.

A very common belief here is that most human behaviour is based on Paleolithic genes, and only trivial variations are cultural (memetic), coming from fresh genes, or from some other sources.

...

If preference for large breasts was genetic, surely there might be a family somewhere with some mutation which would prefer small breasts. Do we have any evidence of that?

Maybe there is also disagreement about what is and isn't a trivial variation.

If preference for large breasts was genetic, surely there might be a family somewhere with some mutation which would prefer small breasts. Do we have any evidence of that?

On the other hand, do we have disconfirming evidence? (Would we expect to have noticed?)

So I suspect memes might be much more important relative to Paleogenes than we tend to assume.

I agree with this.

Sure:

"All conventional theories of cultural evolution, of the origin of humans, and what makes us so different from other species. All other theories explaining the big brain, and language and tool use and all these things that make us unique, are based upon genes. Language must have been useful for the genes. Tool use must have enhanced our survival, mating and so on. It always comes back, as Richard Dawkins complained all that long time ago, it always comes back to genes.

The point of memetics is to say, "Oh no it doesn't." There are two replicators now on this planet. From the moment that our ancestors, perhaps two and a half million years ago or so, began imitating, there was a new copying process. Copying with variation and selection. A new replicator was let loose" [...] - Sue Blackmore.