Yes. Look up "sexual selection" sometime if you want to *begin* to have the most elementary education on this topic, the kind of basic knowledge that someone really ought to have before they attempt to discuss or critique evolutionary biology. For starters, see the brief intro to sexual selection in Introduction to Evolutionary Biology. Also, since you are obviously over 130 years behind on your education, check out the sections on sexual selection in On the Origin of Species (1859).
(Also, minor changes in physical appearance does not function as working proof for molecules-to-man evolution.)
No one claimed that it did. Go try your straw man fallacy on an audience uneducated enough not to catch you at it.
The reality of evolutionary common descent is based on far more than that -- something you'd know if you bothered to learn about a subject before you tried to attack it and those who understand it.
I really object to his portrayal of it because it sounds like he's saying that a woman thinks, "Hmm, men seem to really like big breasts, I guess I'll just tweak these genes so that my daughters end up with big breasts." It's silly, simplistic and completely inaccurate.
Of course in modern times if that's all she's concerned about she just waits until her daughter's a teen and then pays a few thousand for augmentation. :-D
Note Chapters XIX and XX. Not only has male selection shaped the female, but female selection has shaped the male.
T.O. is not a scientific site, it publishes absolutely no peer reviewed articles.
My impression is that a knock on Creationsists is that they don't cite peer reviewed articles in their evangelistic arguments against evolution. Why do you feel it appropriate to also use equivalent web sites for your main sourcing?