For me?

The simplest answer is that's what recombination does.  It spreads the genome out in all sorts of directions.  Some, by chance, will not be as "attractive" as others.

A few different things contribute to this.  First, recombination.  There are literally trillions of possible combinations from one genome, and during outcrossing, you're combining two.  No matter how many pretty people you put together, there will be some ugly children.

Second, physical attractiveness is not the only feature humans select for.  Like it or not, Bill Gates could, in theory, be one of the most successful reproducers on the planet.  It has always been so.  The male that can provide the best resources is not always the most attractive.

Third, natural selection is not a race to a goal.  It's a million treadmills running against each other.  Without looking it up, I can't remember the name of the principle I'm thinking of, but as everyone becomes attractive, nobody is.  In other words, women (the selectors) are looking for a man who can stand out, whether it's physically or intellectually, or whatever.  Suppose that blonde hair and blue eyes is the most attractive thing today.  If, in two hundred years, two out of every three people are blonde and blue, that will be mundane, and women will start going for something else -- perhaps brown hair and hazel eyes.

When something becomes a selection criteria, a couple of things can happen.  First, you can experience runaway selection, and end up with something like a peacock's tail.  It's so extravagant that it's a detriment to the male's survival, but tails just keep getting bigger because that's what peahens like.  Usually, you reach a point of diminishing returns, where there is no longer any advantage to selecting for bigger tails, or whatever.  Or, the environment can change, including new predators, new parasites, climate or ecological change... whatever.

The last thing to consider is that with humans, our incredible diversity also gives us an incredibly wide set of parameters to cover the word, "attractive."  It's not just culture, either.  When we do brain scans on people who are being shown different kinds of faces, we find that people really are neurologically attracted to different types.

With all this in mind, it should be easy to see that breeding ugly out is completely impossible.

No.  Pretty parents have ugly children, and vice versa.

Ugly people do suffer disadvantages, but have you noticed that very few are celibate?  They just don't often mate with the 10s.  We're not like some of the primates, where only the top males get to mate.  All human males get to mate within our social structure (theoretically.)  The "aesthetically disadvantaged" can either make lots of money, be very funny, learn a valuable skill... whatever.   A disadvantage for humans is not a death sentence for the genes.

Primarily because of our adaptiveness.  We have lived in so many different environments with so many different survival needs, it would be a surprise if we didn't have a wide range.

Not necessarily, but sure, it happens.  Some autistic people can do math up to fifty decimals in their heads.  Some ugly people are really, really smart.  Some very shy people have rich parents.

Of course the better looking a girl is, the more work it's going to take to get her.  Unless you happen to be a 10 yourself, you're towards the bottom of her list of available mates.  Mate selection is somewhat two-way in humans.  You're like a beta male trying to mate with an alpha female.  It's not impossible, but you have to make it worth her while not to select one of the 10s, who, as you've astutely pointed out, tend to have better jobs, especially if they're tall and symmetrical.

Realize, too, that mating isn't like an all you can eat buffet.  It's more like everyone rushing the kitchen and grabbing the best cut of meat they can because the cook isn't making any more.  When you're 25, you're looking for the best deal you can find in a mate, but so is every other 25 year old.  Everyone realizes they're working with a time frame, so everyone "settles" in a sense.  They take the best deal they can get right now, which is almost certainly not the best deal out of all of the mates that would have them -- if only they knew each other.

True.  Very good looking women don't have to be funny or interesting, but remember, attractiveness is not our only mating criterion.  Funny, intelligent men like funny, intelligent women very often.  Almost everyone is looking for a package deal, where they get some of at least several things they're looking for.  Most people recognize that you usually have to settle in one area to gain in another.  For men whose primary goal is a beautiful wife, no.  Intelligence is not important for hot girls.  For men who want a longtime companion, past the "pretty years" it isn't nearly as important.

(This, by the way, is another way of explaining why ugly isn't bred out.)

No, hot chicks don't have a problem.  Men who are bitter because they weren't born beautiful have a problem when they get mad at women for their own evolutionary deficiencies.

Of course it's evolution.

Natural selection spreads everything around... looks, intelligence... everything.  Some people win the lottery.  Some lose.

No.  They're good mates if they make children who live and make children of their own.  Natural selection doesn't care if you feel used, so long as your dick works.  Most attractive women do reproduce well.  (One of the main things humans find attractive is symmetry.  Symmetry is indicative of good health in the past, as well as a good chance of producing attractive children.)

How apropos.