Old commission from back in the day! Inks by Bob Almond and owned by Jerry Livengood.
It came out pretty good.
On anothger note the History Channel is doing a new series on evolution called.....Evolve! Catchy! Here's the basic info, more when I get it:
SERIES PREMIERE!
EVOLVE:
EYESEyes are one of evolution's most useful and prevalent inventions, equipping approximately 95 percent of living species. They exist in many different forms across nature, having evolved convergently across different species. Learn how the ancestors of jellyfish may have been the first to evolve light-sensitive cells. In the pre-Cambrian era, insects, in particular the dragonfly, would take the compound eye to new heights. Find out how dinosaurs adapted their eyes to become such successful hunters of prey. And while dinosaurs remained at the top of the food chain for 150 million years, tiny early mammals developed night vision to populate the night as a survival technique. Finally, learn how primates underwent several adaptations to their eyes to better exploit their new habitat, and how the ability to see colors helped them find food.
Throughout eons of evolution, the natural world has played host to a never-ending competition. Since the dawn of time roughly 99% of all species have become extinct. In order to survive, all creatures, including man, must treat life as a battlefield and master the natural weapons and defenses that have evolved: Tyrannosaurus Rex's 13-inch canines; the gecko's Velcro-like toe pads; the bald eagle's telescopic vision that is capable of spotting a hare a mile away. What is the history of these evolutions and how did they come about? They didn't just appear arbitrarily, they evolved for a common reason - to give these animals a critical edge in interspecies warfare. To evolve is to conquer!
The new series EVOLVE traces the history of the key innovations that have driven nature's evolutionary arms race from the dawn of life to today, from the anatomical (eyes, jaws, and body armor) to the behavioral (movement, communication, and sex). This 13-part series will deftly blend spectacular live-action natural history sequences, CGI, epic docudrama, and experimental science to illustrate our and our fellow species' eternal struggle for survival on earth.
PREMIERE: Tuesday, June 17 at 10pm/2am ET/PT
LENGTH: 2 hours
REPEATS: Sunday, June 22 at 11pm/3am ET/PT
PRODUCED BY: Optomen Productions, Inc.
Once again thanks to Pharyngula!
I know I'm supposed to be working but I only have 5 pages to do by Friday and I'm partway through one:) Plus the script for #4 isn't ready yet;P
Best,
Brett
It's an awesome piece Brett, it's fun to see a piece of you "slumming it" with superheroes, lol. ;) I just wish I hadn't waited so long to get it inked. I'll send you another pic of it when it's colored.
ReplyDeletei remember when wizard did a article on who they would want working on certain characters. You did a cool nightwing piece for the article. i remeber i cut it out and put on my bulliten board at work. seems like so long ago. awesome job on this oldie but goodie.
ReplyDeletefrank
Very cool, two of my favs. Thanks on the heads up with Half.com for the Bones DVD sets. got a good deal on seasons 1 and 2.
ReplyDeleteHope all else is well.
I can not wait to see this. Finally they will explain where these magical light sensitive pits came from. Science has always started with these photo cells and tried to explain how eyes evolved from their, Cheaters! You got to first show how the pits could natually occur and then explain how they could evolve into eyes. Neither pits or eyes have ever been explained before using evolutionary facts. It is always assumed that somehow nature found a way. It is about time they came up with an explanation of how rather than just explaining what they believe happened. Should be cool watching. Of course with limited cable I'll have to wait for the dvds. :(
ReplyDelete-Steve
evolved from there! (I really need to learn how to spell)
ReplyDelete-S
All is well Nestor:)3 pages left!
ReplyDeleteSteve,
You know you never told me were you got your 'Dawkin's lied' info. The ONLY stuff I found was all on creationists sites.
As for the eyes, they started with light sensitive cells. The 'pits' came later to help show direction. In fact the human embryo shows the progression from light sensitive patches to eyes.
I guess your idea of magic and mine are different too. And for my next trick, the king cheetah, see he has stripes instead of spots! OoooooH! Ignore the scientists behind the curtain who says it's just a recessive gene, Ignore them I say!
Brett
Steve wrote:
ReplyDeleteSorry, I forget which post it was under, but I did post the relevant Dawkins lied info. In his book River Out of Eden he claimed Nilsson and Pelger had created a computer model of eye evolution. It is complete bunk. Nilsson and Pelger denied creating such a computer model. They did work out a mathematic equation which they felt would allow for eye evolution, but mathematical models are miles away from applied science as most biologists will tell you. I don't think it is any surprise that Dawkin's supporters are slow to admit the fib and those opposed to his views, like creationists, are quick to point them out. Truth is truth and fact is fact. You can't blindly accept what one website says and discount another. If it comes from a Christian, creationist, id, or evolutionist website it must all be viewed as suspect and investigated.
Light sensitive cells are no better than starting with pits. I'm sure you are aware of the mountatains of evidence against eyes evolving. This is why it is always in the forefront of the argument of id vs. evolution. IDists feel like this is a knockout punch because if the whole truth was presented in textbooks no one would accept evolutionists' theories on eye development. Evolutionists consistantly insist they have it all figured out and it isn't a problem for them.
Q:Why did eyes appear in several completely different species at the same time? A:Well because eyes evolve easily.
Q:So how do they evolve? A:Well, they do because they have to to make eyes.
Q;Where are the fossilized occipital bone supporting structures? A:They aren't their because the eye evolved quickly.
Q:Any proof for rapid evolution? A: Sure! we can't find occipital bone fossils.
Q:Isn't this highly unusual considering how supposed transitional forms work slowly over millions of years? A: Well it has to work real fast to to make eyes.
Oh.
Q:How can a shift in wavelength response transform an infrared-sensitive spot to a light sensitive spot, because the responses are completely different? Infrared rays cause transitions in molecular vibrational quantum states, which is why it is ‘heat radiation’. Visible light causes transitions in electronic quantum states. So what causes the change? A:"You silly Christians, you don't understand how science works and all your arguments are religous based not fact based."
Oh.
OK, check this out:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.talkreason.org/articles/blurred.cfm#perakh
Looks like you guys have manufactured a 'controversy' were none exists...again. I can dismiss your sites after looking into them, they are fricken unbelievable and anyone with half a brain can see the lies. I look for 3 independent sources for almost everything. I even read your favorite sites and I keep finding all these outright lies over and over again. How can I take anything they say seriously?
Once again there is no evidence against eye evolution, except what you creationists make up. You do know you have light sensetive cells all over your body right? Called melonin. You know that stuff that make your skin colored. You would need this if living in the shallows so you could navigate in 3 dimensions. You cup that a bit and you get directional light viewing it's all in the video.
Here' a simplified video explaining how they evolved:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/ncse_explains_eye_evolution.php
I'm sure you'll ignore it like you always do.
I try to be as transparent as possible about all this which is why I don't delete it, but if your just going to keep shoveling this DI stuff I'm just going to get tired of it. EVERYTHING you say about this is lies based off deceptions that you have bough into. You check no 3rd parties and I'm tired of stating the same things over an over again.
Occipital bones are on the top of the head. Also called the occipital crest. your dogs have it check it out. Ocular bones/fossils have been found all over the animal kingdom.
they are called something specific that I can't remember that begins with a S ends with ring.
500 million years is not rapid. Whales evolved in 10. Your completely diluted if you think this is a slam dunk. Sure if you lie about it and ignore evidence... I sent you papers on it which I'm sure you didn't read you just read the DI stuff and quote it.
Brett
Sorry, your link isn't working for me.
ReplyDeleteI found this on talkorigins:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html
Where they repeat the exact same misinformation, which calls into question the validity of their fact checking.
They also try to explain the misinformation away with this excuse in a another article where they try to dismiss Ann Coulter pointing out the blunder:
"Readers of Talk Reason will be familiar with the background of this story, and can only smile at how diligently Coulter has reported what other people claimed about Nilsson's work without actually bothering to check out the actual paper. As noted in my discussion of David Berlinski's escapades in "A Tale of Two Citations," the fact missed by the Coulter/Bethell/Berlinski daisy chain was that Nilsson & Pelger (1994) contained an entirely valid mathematical analysis of eye evolution basing each stage of the process on biologically known intermediaries. The upshot of their study was to show how surprisingly few 1% incremental wiggles (less than 2000 iterations) could nudge an active patch of cells into a focusing eye.
True, a "computer" wasn't involved in these calculations, so let's all slap Richie Dawkins for being a bad student. But the study still existed, and when I burrowed back to the source (in a way Coulter/Bethell failed to) I confirmed with Nilsson that Berlinski had never even bothered to request the original data summary, let alone establish that there was anything biologically unjustifiable about it. Hence Berlinski (2001) -- where he had initially fielded his claims, only repeated more stridently in Berlinksi (2003) Coulter drew on -- could not have in principle evaluated its correctness. Hence Bethell could have had no means by which he could have confirmed that Berlinski was right in his criticism. Hence Coulter couldn't have had a clue about how reliable Berlinski's "tour de force" piece had been in the first place."
As you see, they created a mathematical program for eye evolution which they ran on a computer. Not a computer model and the mathematical model has been highly criticisized for the same basic mistake made so often by evolutionists: it does not provide the catalyst for the steps to take place. It assumes the eye or appendage WANTS to evolve. The steps to an eye would not make an animal incrementally more fit, each step in and of itself would not contribute to a more fit organism, it would most likely create a less fit organism. A developing eye is a hindrance not an asset. The video still is little more than saying light sensitive pits turned into an eye, they haven't addressed how the nerve connectors could change to carry images rather than sensing light-two totally different processes. It again is not a picture of a gradually developing organ-it is a story devoid of facts. Describing how it might have happened is miles away from proof.
For the same reason sited in the Einstein discussion mathematicians are not experts on biological evolution. So Dawkins use of a mathematical equasion to prove eye evolution must be discarded.
-Steve
Dawkin's is a BIOLOGIST and you can use math to study stress and movement. They do it ll the time. But you need to understand the biology behind it first.
ReplyDeleteThe only one who disagree with this study are the fundies and the IDer's, we know how truthful they are.
Sorry I'll have to side with the actual biologists on this.
Brett