Blog 1: DNA as a "ghostly puppet master"

Question: Is our DNA "a sort of ghostly puppet master" (96) determining our aesthetical preferences?
In Conniff’s article, he makes an interesting claim; that evolution, and in turn, our DNA, determines what we, as humans, find attractive. His statement made sense, to an extent, but in my opinion, there is more influencing our human appreciation of, for example, nature scenes and art. Also, he utilized rather narrow examples to back up his argument.
It makes sense to me that we as humans, since we are all very genetically similar, would have innate qualities that are not learned, and we do, such as reflexes and the desire (for the most part) to be involved in social relationships with others. However, although Conniff was relatively careful to keep his argument about art appreciation to the realm of nature (which is limiting in itself), there was one mistake. He mentioned that we appreciate ballet, a performing art, and particularly, wrote about the fact that women are able to perform so well in ballet because of their flexible ankles that evolved from their role of foraging for food in the trees. This claim allows me to point out a flaw in his discussion. He makes the point that ballerinas can do things that “few men can manage.” What about the ones that can? Also, ballet does not qualify as one of the peace-inducing, natural-scenery art pieces that Conniff argued that humans enjoy because of our common DNA qualities. I would have to argue that enjoying ballet has been influenced greatly through our society; the environment, not an innate, quality. I consider ballet an acquired taste; hence all of those sit-com shows (such as “Home Improvement”) where the man in the family is portrayed as hating ballet and other “cultured” events. If this appreciation were innate, all humans should have this appreciation. Once again, Conniff’s argument almost makes sense if he is only discussing humans’ appreciation for the natural environment, but he also brings it into the “culture” realm, where I believe that the “nurture” part of the “nature vs. nurture” debate is victorious.