HOME | DD
Khylov — Acanthosurf
Published: 2004-05-26 18:21:21 +0000 UTC; Views: 2253; Favourites: 24; Downloads: 233
Redirect to original
Description
[Updated 2012]So several years on from having first posted this pic, and I realize that it was time to jettison the 9500+ word description.
And to keep it at 3500+.
However, besides the usual well-wishing from the normally adjusted dA crowd and paleo fans here, there were the more colorful comments that this and another paleo illustration of mine elicited from the diehard science fetishists over the years. [link]
Between bouts of laughing and cleaning up the spewed coffee after reading what these kids would write, it was difficult to try to sum up succinctly the reason for why I'd knowingly post any paleo art here - in the temple and within the veil so to speak - sans the baggage normally associated with it (namely the Darwinian interpretations), as well as having some kind of synopsis of my position on the matter. In short, why I am the heretic of the schoolyard.
...And then, like a beacon from the clouds, a herald of Asperger was drawn irresistibly to my ankles from afar, and with Shrute-like tenacity proceeded to gnaw on them with all their might...
[link]
Besides the several other comments this kid surreptitiously left for me to discover over a years' time, the linked thread above is a boilerplate summation of whatever I'd want to say on the matter, as well the fairly entertaining ineptitude of the detractors that normally try to anklebite here on these pieces. Although once the laughing subsides, it gets to be a bit tedious mopping up repeatedly after a visitors' incontinence - hence the boilerplate aspect of it.
For those of you who are adults, imagine your dayjob suddenly transported into a junior-high classroom, ad infinitum. Answering to Xanax riddled undergrads as to why the products of your profession don't contain their favorite "once upon a time" narrative isn't exactly the highlight of one's career.
I've found it helpful over the years to consider before commenting on anyone else's artwork whether what one would verbally launch into would be an appropriate room-volume conversation at an art gallery or museum, while standing in front of the artist's picture. With the artist and gallery audience right behind you.
Granted, I have no problem whatsoever with whoever disagrees with what I say, or chooses to believe what they will. Ultimately though, as in life, what one brings to the table is what one will receive in kind. It doesn't matter if the subject is about long dead chimeras, Austrian vs Neo-Keynesian economics, or why Prometheus is a misunderstood work of high art - those showing up with flexed nuts and an attitude will be summarily bitch slapped and booted. There are plenty of chat rooms and debate threads online where one can vent over the fact that not everyone agrees with their politics, interpretation of fossils, or world views.
And remember, it's just an animal on a surfboard. Try not to shoot.
Related content
Comments: 44
...And here's this undiscovered gem by Pristichamspus, just waiting to be found:
"Yeah, I'm prettu sure you're just a massive douchebag now."
Was this before or after you recanted your previous assertion that HOX genes don't have anything to do with polydactyly.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
If I may ask, what are your qualifications? You seem to be a professional illustrator/Artist, I assume, based on your style of writing etc. I have 2 degrees, one in fine art, one in illuatration, so technically I am no more qualified to answer evolution questions than you are, I assume. Nevertheless, I (perhaps prematurely) assume that you are NOT a qualified biologist. It's funny how 2 people that have similar careers can be so vastly different in beliefs.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Given that the shiny, sexy utopia that most science fetishists have been predicting for the past century or so hasn't come to pass yet, it shouldn't be too surprising that you'll find differing opinions or conclusions when two or more people are in the room.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, I'm prettu sure you're just a massive douchebag now.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
So, if not evolution, then what? How? Who?
Creation would've required intervention from a deity, and we all know how much evidence there is of a specific, active deity in this world.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know I marvel everytime a new novel comes out from several dozen chimps hitting keys randomly on bolted-down Selectrics.
Of course, given what passes as literature and cinema these days, there may actually be evidence for the above.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Nice one. I guess he would be hanging in the double digits. (*drumroll*)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Right, interpreted documentation, via one's believe system. My mistake...
BTW, you use graphite or crayon?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Graphite for writing on paper. Why you ask?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Some corrections, in that, hoatzins can and do fly, but, not very well compared to other birds, and that a platypus' "beak" and a duck's beak are very different, in that the former is an electro-sensitive organ that is covered in soft, leathery skin, and the other is a horny bill that has a tongue that aids in sifting through mud, or seizing fish (if we're talking about mergansers).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
True. Nonetheless, in regards to the playpii/fowl analogy, if we are going by superficial appearances (i.e., how something looks, and therefore how we can place it in a cladogram), and the two simply look similar in some isolated feature (such as how many vertebrates contain a radius and an ulna, despite some of the drastic differences in biochemical developmental pathways between certain Classes, biomechanical structure and usage amongst even the same Class, etc) then why not overlook the obvious differences? What's more, if only fossils existed for these two organisms, we have considerably less to inform us of the design differences between platypii and fowl beaks; all the more room to classify them as deriving from some similar stock. That is, of course, if we desire to have them derive from one another.
Good to see you're still around.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
You know what's interesting, I came across a biology book a few days ago that listed what they considered homological structures - specific physical structures - in the platypus. Quite a few of them too - and they believe that these features are, by homology's standards, in common with marsupials, mammals, *and* reptiles. And even what are considered rudimentary teeth during the juvenile stage in platypii (and which later flatten out into plates of sort within the bill) are considered homologous in structure with either mammals or marsupials - which given the superficial look of a duck's bill (hence the common name), is all the more surprising. Convergence with a vengeance!
And I guess that's the whole point: The entire practice of homology and phylogeny is ultimately a subjective venture, regardless of the techniques used to come up with maximum parsimony. If it looks the same, then it's related; but if we decide that similarity in structure doesn't necessarily mean similarity in descent, then we can just as easily chalk it up to happenstance evolutionary convergence (in rather specifically shaped morphologies of specific bauplan elements, mind you).
It's interesting that the method now to determine platypus homologies isn't so much with homological interpretations of soft tissue or even skeletal structure, but with molecular studies - the position of genes and the structure of chromosomes in relation to, etc. A cursory reading of a google search is almost nothing but molecular studies on the platypus. And really, it's the same "eyeballing" with new toys: "Looks like this, therefore it must be related to..."
I know I discussed this with you at length on another page some time ago, and I remember covering even the computer program argument you brought up there. In fact, what you stated here is pretty much the same argument there as well. We seem to be covering old ground here. But thanks for the wiki suggestion; will take it under advisement.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And again, we seem to be using homological eyeballing as the end-all, be-all for determining the origin of bauplans. "The teeth *look* the same as a completely different order of organisms at some point during their development, therefore..."
And of course, using human constructs to determine class of an organism. Taxonomy is basically Pokemon for grownups: Linnaeus started it as a method of classifiying analogies in bauplans and - to a limited extent - homologies and natural relationships. It's since been used to homologically link every creature under the sun to create hypothesized family trees that, ultimately, attempt to lead back to a prebiotic pond... That's an interpretation of hypothesized past phylogenies, friend; that's not experimental evidence, no matter how many times you feed the computer trait-by-trait characteristics.
And of course, the other features in platypii which homologically are interpreted (or were interpreted at one point by biologists) as linking it as readily to reptilia as to marsupials...
Well, when you can show experimentally, in real time, how copying errors in DNA (mutation and natural selection) can fortuitously bioengineer the reproductive intricacies and novelties in marsupials *and* monotremes (which ornithorhynchus is, btw) from a placental stock - and that from ultimately a reptilian stock - where a good deal of those features didn't exist beforehand, then I'd be happy to place my faith in Vegas-style macro evolution. The biochemistry too, btw, not just homological look-alike gross morphologies, presented in isolation from the rest of the system.
Hmm, so I apparently don't understand that natural selection and mutation, working on what's already present to begin with genetically, can't de novo bioengineer the interrelated and irreducibly complex aspects of biochemistry which didn't exist previously - of which said complexity regulates and codes for biological features such as dentary regulation and growth, lactation (which is actually quite different chemically in monotremes than mammals), reproductive systems, novelties such as thermoregulation, counter current heat exchange systems, auditory or visual systems, etc. Well, thanks for letting me know, mate.
I didn't mean the "covering old ground" thing to come off as an insult, but let's face it: This is old ground covered, by both of us and to eachother. So, I don't know what you hope to get out of this, or what benefit there is in your attempts to insult when we don't agree with one another or when the obvious is stated.
So... it's up to you: Civility, or end up in the spam box. Your choice. I hope I don't have to do the latter, since you've been up to now one of the more civil commentators here. In any case... your call.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"It is for instance ludicrously unlikely that teeth will have evolved independently multiple times in a group of organisms that all seem to be very closely related. Rather they will have appeared once, and then been separately modified later."
Well, tell that to researchers who have decided that mesonychid dental morphology, which was once used as evidence of shared ancestry with archaeocetes, is now "convergent" with archaeocetes - due to artiodactyl ankle morphology "looking like" it should be related to archaeocetes (Genetic studies followed this same line of thought, and lo and behold...). Apparently, what was once used to link mesonychids and archaeocetes for 30 plus years before, is now "overstated and evidently represents evolutionary convergence."
-Gingerich; Science Vol 293, Sept 2001, p. 2241
Further: "Such thinking constitutes a revolution of sorts in mammalian paleontology. Prior to the recent turn of events, teeth had been used for construction of mammalian phylogenies, more or less uncritically, for over a century. All this time, dental features had been generally considered too detailed to be capable of being duplicated independently via convergent evolution."
-[link]
And, once again: "And the biochemistries are what ultimately reveal whether something is homologous or just really, really, convergent."
You mean, if it looks similar on a genetic level? And we assume historic natural relationships between distal commensurate groupings of organisms? Great, that's what I've been saying all along. Glad you agree, after we've been saying the same thing for... how long now?
The rest of the post is still the same thing you've said. Time and again..... Old ground? Shyte, this is shotgunning a dead horse into hamburger.
"If you want to stick me in the spam box for pointing out that you don't know what you're talking about then go ahead."
If this is an apology, it's pretty piss poor my son.
"We're all ignorant of something. I (for instance) know nothing about motorcycles and woodwork,..."
Don't forget to add diplomacy to that list.
Perhaps during this short commercial break, we should pause to ask ourselves: What good is you coming here and proselytizing doing either of us? What do you care what I think? Is this for me to learn from your eminent wisdom on the subject? Or for you to tell (and comfort) yourself that your viewpoint is correct by continually forcing the same statements and subject, uninvited, time and again? Anyhow...
"... you don't know about taxonomy."
Well, can't say I didn't give you plenty of chances to be civil. Oh well, the spambox was getting lonely anyhow...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"You're obviously itching for a fight by making these public posts..."
What's funny is that you're all educated enough to fall for it and comment here, if that's truly what I'm doing. And, ah.. that's right, we're not allowed to post what we want on our own account (such as Darwin fish or the like); my mistake.
And again, another comment/diatribe which hopefully took the author 20 minutes to write goes in the trash, unseen. Right on.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
One more thing, apparently, the platypus has ten sex chromosomes.
[link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well, I don't know about fossil ducks, aside from a blurb about a specimen found in Eocene-aged rocks from Colorado, but I do know that we have fossil platypii/platypods(?) from both New South Wales, and in Argentina, and that, these ancient platypoda had molars as adults. While I have seen pictures of platypus skulls, I can't say that I'm as intimately familiar with the bones of the platypus as I am with ducks (yes, I've eaten duck brains: I'm part Chinese: sue me).
(If the species wasn't endangered, I'd put it on my list of things to taste)
And speaking of fowl, I'm always confused about the hoatzin's taxonomic standing. Every time I read a book on ornithology, it says something different. One camp says that the Stinking Hannah should be placed with the pheasants and phriends, some say that it should be in its own order, and other people say that it's actually a weird cuckoo, despite the fact that its feet are disimilar.
(Fortunately, I don't plan on putting hoatzin on my list anytime soon)
And yes, yes it is good to see you're around, too.
We need to get together again for that project, soon.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Nice drawing. You need to look into phylogeneic nomenclature to address some of your concerns about taxonomy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Love the Acanthostega - they are very cool animals
Your ideas on points of evolution are, however, interesting, and flawed in a number of ways. I'm not sure whether you're just seeing old references that contain old ideas, or whether you are just deciding these things from your own ideas. I don't want to write a huge thing here about current ideas in such things as gene duplication in evolutionary processes and acanthostegid limb development, but if you're interested, I'd gladly talk further to you about anything evolution-y. I've got a PhD in the evolution of basal actinopterygians, and have worked with Acanthostega in the past - even climbed up mountains finding the fossils!
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
And...ahem...should have spelled it "ichthyostegid". Typos, typos....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And again...ahem,.... I mean that I should have spelled it as so and such..... Sorry for the continual typo marathon here. :]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Aha, and after all of this time, I respond! Thank you again for your comments and your insights. I'm still surprised that I am getting detailed commentary on this piece after a year or so.
I am impressed with your knowledge of the situation, and indeed, I congratulate you on your accomplishments and on your adventures. These little critters have a way with inspiring that sense of adventure, of being in a fog-covered forest or bog. I can see myself holding a lantern, with mysterious creatures lurching on land, throwing themselves in the water, swimming around, brushing past my feet. Definitely, in many ways, another world. It is strange to think that this was here at one time. Almost a fantasia of sorts, one that we all, at times, would like to catch a glimpse of; the world that then was. :]
I too had thought about whether or not Hox gene malfunction is a plausible explanation for acanthostegid/ichyostegid polydactyly. I now that other researchers had come to the same tenative conclusion some time before it hit my own tired brain, and their hypotheses on said tetrapods is usually with these polydactyl explanations in mind. So... with that said, I do think it is a plausible explanation for how these little imps got their extra digits. This is assuming of course that they weren't originally designed with the polydactyl form as an intended biomechanical end, in terms of a baramin creationist context. It could just as easily have been due to mutation as well, as you suggested (and which I also suspect to some degree).
With that, however, polydactyl mutational results are just as readily embraced in a baramin model. Allow me to explain: The digits themselves are complex biomechanical features, we could agree (even without the soft tissue present to inform us of the details). And we have, what we assume, is a doubling or repeating of said complex feature via Hox gene malfunction or mutation. Ok, fine and good. And there are or were complex biochemical interactions already present beforehand (i.e., Hox gene mechanism, for one) to facilitate said biomechanical end result of multiple digits. Good too. But.... here's the point that sticks in me about this:
All of this was complexity had to have been reasonably present before stipulated polydactyl mutational events happened.
In other words, a series of complex machine-like specifics had to have been present well before any stipulated mutational event happened. And with that, the complexities, specifically in the biochemical realm, are rather specific for proper function to happen, almost as we would say in almost every observable case, irreducible. Now, in this particular case, we have a strange specific example of how possibly the irreducible became in some way reduced, while at the same time seeming to add something; i.e., extra digits. This is almost paradoxical at first, like two opposites becoming complementaries.
But, lest we forget: the doubling of an already complex feature (if we assume of polydactyly was not original created physiology) by a complex means which seems to have malfunctioned (Hox gene mutation) is not the same as what macroevolution espouses. I say this for this reason:
-Already present features doubling due to mutation do not explain the arrival of the preexistent system. In order for the Hox gene malfunction to take place, an already complex set of working parameters had to have been in place for the mutation to be housed within. In the case of the biochemical, Hox gene placement of said features in embryonic form is a complex set of cascading reactions; one thing out of place can lead to effects that may be benign, detrimental, or fatal to the recipient later in development. In this case, we seem to have a malfunction which was given just enough room to be facilitated.
But this seems to me more to validate that complexity is the norm, and when it is altered, it may have degrees of facilitating errors (as does any good complex machine which is efficient even under duress). But, in the end, the results of such repeated errors/mutational events is information failure.
In this case, we have a complex organism (acanthostega) which has presummably a doubling of an already complex feature, by complex biochemical means which have presummably malfunctioned within survivable parameters. But, as the quote above from the Devonian Times states: "Early tetrapods apparently lost the {lepidotrichia}, but evolved a more elaborate array of distal endochondral (internal) bones that formed paddle-like structures {the numerous digits on acanthostega}." And from Laurin: "...The homology (origin) of more distal limb elements (fingers) is uncertain, and no digits were present.” So, more than just the doubling of digits, we have (if I have interpreted the macroevolutionary explanations here correctly) the loss of one set of features, and the de novo arrival of a more complex (or more elaborate) set of non-homologous features in the acanthostegid limb.
How or where this complex state of affairs came into being has to be believed in ultimately; has to be taken on faith. As is exampled above, macroevolutionary scenarios tend to take the complex whole of parameters in an organism as a given, as assumed, without explaining by those same mechanistic means where all of this complexity came from. A complex entity is present, but the Darwinian model gives no hint as to where it came into being by strict scientific means; it just states that it was there to begin with, and that's it. The hypothesis can take the modest ends and give reasonable explanations for such things as how loss or doubling of features may have happened (as what we both have done, I think). But given the all out intent of the Darwinian model to purport to explain how the biological realm (and all of reality for that matter) came into being without a Divine foot in the door, I find this ommision of a scientific explanation here worthy of some attention.
So, to recap (phew!): In this specific case, macroevolutionary models state that the complexity of both the entire physiological being, as well as the process which facilitates its growth and sustenance, came ultimately from a de novo state, on its own by mechanistic means, the further back one goes in time. The doubling of a feature is one thing, but to state that the complexity which gave rise to the doubling came about by nothing but chance exclusively, against what known chemistry and biology tell us, seems a bit difficult to take at face value when the details are present.
And so, these reasons in and of themselves are why I cannot accept the macro evolutionary hypothesis for such things as the origin of acanthostegids as a whole. As I said, I think the polydactyl explanation is plausible; but that alone cannot tell us more than "Mutations happen, they may double an already existent feature, and if it doesn't kill off the recipient right away, nor impede upon it's survivability significantly, then it stays". Edward Blythe, a creationist researcher, said the same thing 25 years pre-Darwin. In fact, Blythe formulated natural selection and speciation on the grounds that it is a stabilizing and/or reducing mechanism. That's what we have seen reasonably thus far, even (presummably) in the case of acanthostegids.
But, we really will never know with the kind of finality that operational scientific testing could give us just whether polydactyly in acanthostegids (or any extinct tetrapod) is what we would purport it to be. And I guess that is the whole point: Whenever origins research is delved into, it is going to encompass certain aspects of past, unobservable, and now non-repeatable events that we just cannot probe into with operational scientific means. No amount of knowing what fossil forms may look like, nor of how genetic markers and such look at present, can tell us with operational scientific observability just how they came into being in the first place. We have to inevitably interpret the evidence via a belief system or origins model (The two are synonymous for all intents and purposes; both need to be believed in ultimately). Which is fine. The whole of the evidence, however, needs to be addressed, and I do not mean solely the paleontological or genetic evidence as such. Since we are dealing with historical aspects, there are many more elements that go into determining what one believes about the past, and the events that happened therein. In the end, origins research is really about much more than just knowing about past physiological realities; it determines how we see the world, history, and ultimately, ourselves in the midst of all of that.
And, I encourage you to take those aspects that seem distal to this subject, and search them carefully with as careful an eye to attention as you have for natural history. And I say the same to myself as well. If this was long, well... it is a complex subject at times, and definitely, with this example, there is a bit of explanation needed. I hope that I have placed all of this out evenly, clearly, and that, even if we don't see eye to eye on this, that I was able to at least present you with something that deviates a little from what you might have expected. Thank you again for stoking me to think on these things, and to analyze the details carefully once more. And definitely, your expertise in the area of actinopterygii is a definite treasure trove for me; I just can't think of anything at the moment to ask you about that. If you are "on call" so to speak to answer questions or to pass notes, I will definitely hit you up. Thank you kindly again! :]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hmmm...
Your argument is quite weak and seems fairly uninformed, but it's a nice attempt nonetheless. Your picture is quite good, too, but I am sure you are quite aware of that already.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think that if you look at the arguments evolutionists use, such as invoking reversals or convergence to explain why the fossil record does not add up to their expectations, you might reconsider what I presented here. If their mainstay argument is 1. genetically dubious at best (never been observed), and 2. unfalsifiable, then we need to assess whether or not macro evolution is a logical model to apply to the natural world.
Let us consider the two above examples I cited: Since reversals "mask" phylogeny, while convergence somehow, by accident, brings forth a complex biomechanical feature in two non-related organisms, the researcher can make any sort of family tree that he wants.
For instance, if he wants organism B to be plugged somewhere between A and C, but if B has some traits that don't match up with C, he can call that non-conforming trait in B a "reversal". Somehow, after millions of years of mutational events that transformed organism A into C, the feature which was lost in B somehow, by chance, is rearranged and brought forth from the ashes in organism C. Genetically, this has never been obeserved, and is a very shaky proposition.
Convergence cuts the other way. If we want organism A and C to be related, but want to exclude organism B (even if B has similarities), I can call those similarities in B the result of "convergence". This, again, is a very dubious genetic proposal, and is just about as likely as a reversal taking place: nihil. In either case, the researcher can explain away inconsistencies, make phylogenies that he/she wants, etc. And, considering that cladograms aren't supposed to show direct ancestor/descendent relationships, the researcher can pigeonhole any inconsistent organism into a side branch away from the main line of phylogeny. One needs not the unilinear line, while at the same time he can perpetuate the illusion that such a "continuity of life" exists in the Darwinian sense.
Unfortunately, in order for all of this to be scientific, it also has to be falsifiable. The above practice protects itself from falsification.
I think hopefully from this little bit of info, it can elucidate that the evolutionist position is in itself a seemingly technical attempt to explain the world from a materialists POV, but is at its core bankrupt as far as being a legitimate, falsifiable scientific proposition. It is a low grade speculateive hypothesis at best, one of which is motivated by many other factors besides scientific inquiry.
Thanks again for the comments.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Phylogenic reconstruction presupposes evolution from a common ancestor, but that does not mean that evolution itself is unfalsifiable, or indeed that any given phylogeny is unfalsifiable. Evolution is an eminently falsifiable hypothesis, as you yourself must admit from your attempt to falsify it with the trilobite eye example. Evolution makes many, many claims about what is and isn't possible, given that everything must be reducibly complex. It may be very difficult to predict exactly where those boundaries are, given that we do not often know how likely certain things are, and sometime we are not as inventive in a explaining as the evolutionary process (though we give ourselves much less time), but that doesn't equal unfalsifiabilty.
On a broader note, science is an attempt to explain the world through natural causes. Once you fail at that, you're outside the realms of science. Is your intelligent designer a natural cause? How does the falsifiabilty of Intelligent Design compare to evolution? What exactly does ID preclude?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
thanks for the insights and thoughts on the phylogenetic question. The prob being that any given phylogeny is not verifiable by *operational* scientific means until we can see the process of interfertility, or the actual speciation process taking place. Until then, it is highly speculative, and should honestly not be graduated past the hypothetical. Given that we have no mechanism for which to account for, say, the complexity of the trilobite eye arising from a previously de novo state, we are left with a belief in how that complexity arose, the same as ID for instance.
I just think that, given the operational evidence of biological complexity, as well as the lack of a verifiable mechanism for which to give rise to such complexity *naturalistically*, ID or special creation seems a much more reasonable conclusion. You seem to believe otherwise, which I accept. But I do not hold out the same hope for finding that elusive Darwinian power in natural selection (or in an as-yet unidentified mechanism) which can increase complex functional genetic information (with attendant biochemical and biomechanical complexity). Trilobite eyes still seem to be, by all logical constraints, the product of a rather unnaturalistic cause; i.e., not by chance or mechanism.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
whoo! an acanthostega enjoying himself! And if he's surfing, I wonder if the platypus has taken up base jumping...
Beutiful perspective work!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
wahah! this. is. probably the most kickass cool thing I've seen in your gallery. This kicks ass so hard, uh... it's awesome!
You'll excuse me if I skip the description text in its entirety: I have 400 deviations to go through on my messages page.
I see you've tried a defferent coloring technique here. Almost... black-based. The shapes therefore have a very... beveled effect, a great sense of depth.
And that lil fellow is enjoying his time! I love the badass pose on him.
The wirly waves, striped tail.... all marvelous!
Sorry for a low-grade comment this time... I'm in a hurry, kind of.... =/
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
wow that's really great, wish I had those digital coloring skills
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Actually, their ankle construction was as such that they were more than likely aquatic full time, with limited time on the surface of the water for air. I took liberties with that, however.
Here's a good read on acanthostegids and such: [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
heh, i know that stuffs. paleontology is my biggest interest :3
i also study paleobiology, zoology, taxonomy, biochemistry, and all that good life stuff xD. i know about the acanthrosurf critter
only 17 too >.>
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah, I see...... Ist goot fur sie intellekt, ja? Und ist fur Sie sehr interesant Wissenwertschaft studierten, or something......
Yeah, sorry for the long responses on the subject. Your comment sparked alot of thoughts in me, and therefore seemed to call for a more in-depth analysis of said acanthostega.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
wow, that's incredible. What was basakward talking about coloring from the darks - up? sounds like an interesting technique. My photoshop skills are sub-par, I'm still learning decent ways to color/shade.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks. Yeah, we've been discussing the technique of starting with an initially dark tone for the overall canvas, and then working your way up the color ladder to the highlights. The advantage of this is that you already have your core shadows laid down, and the secondary light sources can be easily added (In fact, working with a dark hue has led me to make the secondary light sources some other more dynamic rich color, as opposed to simply having it be the same hue as the inital highlights/light source). This has led to making many of my pictures more solid looking, as opposed to if I had worked from a midtone out, or even if I had an initially white starting point (For instance, see the other pieces of mine where it is purely Prismacolor on a white canvas. I had to in the opposite direction, and work from the lightest to the darkest values).
What's nice is that you can set your opacity up to 30% or more, and still get a nice gradient (although it will be more like oils if anything). It can be sloppy, and still come out alright. Working the other way, from light to dark, requires much more work to make the piece seem more solid, as well as making the gradient come out evenly matched.
Of course, taking a step back and seeing how dark your work is, this is the draw back. This newest piece had the problem initially, but was caught by an observant viewer well ahead of my posting it here. I had to be careful as to which colors I used and blended in order to lighten up the body of the acanthostega.
If it's a scanned drawing, duplicate the layer, erase the inital locked layer, and then set the scanned layer option to "multiply" (You prbably already know this). Add other new layers underneath the scanned work, or (like I did here) use a brush over the scan to create the ink lines, and then work the layers underneath for the color.
Phew, hope that helps.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Awesome. Awesome info. The coloring info, and the animal's background info. Its good you express sll, or 2 of your interests together in your life. Art and umm, paleontology I think it was. You know what I mean. I love nature, and I'd like to see that whats left of earth's valuable resourses will still be available in the future. What's art without nature. What's humans's without nature. Anyway, I only go so far as to studying animals and things. I like Politilcs,a nd philosophy behind that.
Speaking of which, I'm taking it you already spoke out about your scanner problem about Calarts to their faculty. You give a persuasive point for changes. You got your shit goin on man, and I'm sure It'll pay off in the end where you'll get paid to do what you love, and study more and be more in touch with it all. our mind is in all the right places. With that, chances are, you cant lose. I feel your anger though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
oh.. and thank you much for not cheesing it with a solar flare.. ^_^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh yeah, gotta love that lens flare.......... I should have lens flared his butt. Yeah, butt flare.......
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hahhaaa! Way cool! I can totally see what you mean now about starting with the darks and working up.. You kind of achieved a sort of "clay" feeling with this one.. Especially with the water below him.. My only crit is that the sky's color seems a little muted.. If that's what you were going for, then great.. I'm just used to seeing really bright sky colors with these types of pieces..
👍: 0 ⏩: 0