Is art evolutionary.

Over the years I have been asked by teachers and educators to swallow some very hard to take material. None of them compare to the Natural History of Art article. How could it be that our preference for art is genetic, an ingrained system determined by our DNA? Sure there can be some merit to the concept. The author makes the point that there are certain markings in nature that represent danger. But these aren't something that we just automatically know. Think about snakes. There are two snakes that have a very similar color scheme, on one yellow stripes are touching black, on the other red and black stripes are touching. The differnce is the first is relatively harmless and the later will kill you. But these color patterns aren't something we know through our genetics but are instead warned by others. Thus nurture over nature. And sure, bright colors can tip us off at somethings potential threat but even then show a child a bright object and a dull one and they will most likely go for the bright one, even if that is a Poisin Dart Frog unless they have been warned against its risk. Because of this logic, I simply can not understand how ones appreciation for art is determined by out genetic code. Over all the article makes broad generaltizations about humans with little to know solid facts or data to back up their theory. The Article is also littered with passive or weasle words like "maybe" "perhaps", which in a article based in the realm of science, simply makes me cringe. But other than that it is an interesting article.