Seems to carry a hint of Lamarkian Evolution.
Not at all, although I can see how it could be misread that way.
He's not saying that softer foods *caused* the genetic changes, he's saying that in an "environment" of softer foods, mankind no longer needed such long, strong jaws, and selection was then free to make the beneficial trade-off of larger craniums (with the resulting smaller faces/jaws).
There are also other factors playing here. A lot of work has been done on facial symmetry and other factors.
Here's a link to a recent paper which will lead you to more studies if you wish.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10535106&dopt=Abstract
Bottom line: men appear to like symmetrical faces in women as do women, but other factors also come into play (cheekbones and jaws). We all know people that we find "striking" - unforgettable faces. They are usually asymmetrical. But most when asked who'd they like to "get to know better" (less sexual) will choose a much more symmetrical face.
So Mamzelle might be right about the sweet baby face in women, but women still seem to prefer "rougher" faces. Lots of factors in play here.