I think it's interesting how the writers don't say exactly what they mean. It was stated in the caption below the picture: An ancient DNA study found that Ice Age artists drew horses based on their observations rather than imagination.
I would say that the study probably showed that the horses were, indeed, spotted, but the study doesn't have any data about the artist's motivation for the painting. We are only inferring that he, the artist, based his paintings on observation. My point is that a DNA study really has nothing to do with this so stating it that way is not accurate. I'm just being picky. :) Say what you mean. Mean what you say. Andy Z On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Mark Minton <[email protected]> wrote: > Scientists have determined that prehistoric cave paintings are > probably anatomically accurate: <http://www.rdmag.com/News/** > 2011/11/Life-Science-Genomics-**Cave-painters-were-realists-** > DNA-study-finds/<http://www.rdmag.com/News/2011/11/Life-Science-Genomics-Cave-painters-were-realists-DNA-study-finds/> > >. > > Mark > > Please reply to [email protected] > Permanent email address is [email protected] > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > Visit our website: http://texascavers.com > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > texascavers-unsubscribe@**texascavers.com<[email protected]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > texascavers-help@texascavers.**com<[email protected]> > >
