anatomically accurate, hmmm? I can just imagine that in the far future some cave exploring species will find some of our more recently created cave sculptures and a debate will begin as to their annatomical accuracy.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Andy Zenker <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> >> >> >
