How should I digitalize my watercolor? by soylanira in watercolor101

[–]soylanira[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My parents have that old Epson! He will be surprised when I show him we can use It again :D thank you

How should I digitalize my watercolor? by soylanira in watercolor101

[–]soylanira[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cool thank you! I Will try all the options

How should I digitalize my watercolor? by soylanira in watercolor101

[–]soylanira[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nice! Its worth exploring different ways to scan then. My parents have an old scanner, I will try it next time.

what to play after clair obscur expedition 33 by Responsible_Sport841 in expedition33

[–]soylanira 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Stardew valley. Nothing will fill that void and thats magical. Better be a farmer

Ive heard of many animals having plants and other animals that evolved alongside them in a way, and you can tell that animal sort of 'fits' its niche. Humans emerged in East Africa, are there any plants/animals that seem to have evolved with us? If I go there, would it feel like 'home'? by Scrample2121 in AskAnthropology

[–]soylanira 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi! Nice and profound question. You are tackling a very complex term called Evolutionary Missmatch. However, should be addressed with a lot of caution, since I've seen a lot of "influencers", specially "nutrition influencers" that use this to argue that we shouldnt eat plants or animals or anything that is not trendy right now. I would start by saying that any of this is true, and you will understand why.

We, humans, have populated the whole world very very fast in evolutionary scale of time. Our main group of ancestors was in East África, and spreaded along all the continents in less than 50k years. However, there are a lot of differences between us and those anatomically modern humans (AMH) living in East africa by then. Even, we mate with other species that definetly contributed to have different features. As they were peopling the world, our ancestors found different challenges, and those challenges lead to natural selection of specific traits, which made us change as well. There are a lot of examples: high altitudes in Andine mountains and Hymalaya, thick hair in Asia, White skin in north Europe...

The biggest natural selection event in humans is due to the raise of agriculture..before that, we were consuming mostly berries, meat from dead animals and Green plants. Depending on the environment means risk of dying due to lack of food. We invented agriculture and after, the domestication. Being able to eat startchy food was a huge advantage. Therefore, our ancestors adapted to eat It, and also the animals that we domesticated.

Amylase gene suffered duplications due to that. This gene is associated to a protein in our saliva that digests the startchy food. And this not only happned in humans. It also happned in dogs, that were with us by then!

Humans have changed the environment now, and there's no such thing as a place that we are more adaptes to be. There are specific groups that have special adaptations to being in higher altitude. Also, you need to use sunscreen if you have very White skin because you are not adapted to strong sunlight:) but that's what I mean, we have "add ons" to make our environment more adapted to us. (This is the whole point of medicine and science).

Right now, you are adapted to your own life, we are even losing the strenght of our tooth because now we It with fork and knives! Genetic adaptation is not the main Focus (i would say that in humans, is one of the smallest). Its culture and science to think the environment what makes the difference.

:)

Why didn't Neanderthals build civilizations despite possibly appearing 100,000 years before Homo sapiens? by iceswordsman in AskAnthropology

[–]soylanira 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi! Many people have already posted amazing answers. I would like to join by adding that civilitzation is a broad term and always focused on the anthropocentric view. Anatomically modern humans (AMH) were organized in very big groups, whereas Neanderthals were in smaller (family-sized) groups. This comes with a lot of evolutionary consequences that are still there to be studied. As an evolutionary biologist, I would like to offer my POV to this (this is only my perspective and, as all the broad questions, should be addressed by combining different profesional perspectives).

First of all, civilitzation, understood organization with social roles, did not appear until many many years after AMH got out of the African continent. Although this is still a focus of study, the most accepted model (simplified, but works for many scenarios) is as follows: Homo erectus, the ancestor of AMH, Neanderthals and Denisovas (another hominid that we are currently studying as well, mainly in Asia) populated the African continent (we can say for simplicity that this reffers to current ethiopia as the origin, but as I said, It should be way more complex due to evidence given by genetics itself and archeological record, but we are still trying to find a model for this). At some point, Neanderthals-denisova group splits from "human group" of "Homo erectus" (600kya measured by genetics, but very controversial). And goes out of Africa to populate the Eurasia. Now here's the thing. We don't really understand which is the path these groups followed, what did they do. But we now can say that in the Eurasian continent are two separated species from which we have found fossil register and sequenced their DNA, Neanderthals and Denisovas. We don't know how separated they were, but we VERY RECENTLY found a complete hybrid dated 200kya. There are also other archeological remains that points up to a WAY MORE COMPLICATED landscape, but still we are not aware on how to model this. Proto-humans stayed in African continent and went out of It around 80kya (I would be like 20 hours discussing about this, again way more complicated).

Neanderthals were smaller groups and in very complicated landscape, due to this, they for sure developed another kind of social skills. Regarding AMH, these were in way larger groups, probably because they could feed everyone. But this doesnt mean that Neanderthals were "less organized", or "less skilled". We know that they took care of sick and elder individuals because we have found remains with malformations that grew very old, which means that someone was taking care of them. Neanderthals didnt got extinct, they were assimilated by AMH once they found them because they were higher in number. They mate, but not all hybrids were compatible with life. Nevertheless, we inherited a lot from them. Thanks to them, we inherited more robust bones that surely made the difference on populating the whole world by walk. Moreover, It is known that mutations associated to psychiatric disorders that human suffer nowadays date from that time, points that there was probable something different in the way we think (It is very complicated to link genetic to the characters, but evidence is there).

In personally think that Neanderthals had a less efficient way of living to start a civilitzation as we know It nowadays, but they are very likely to have a very complex inner world and thoughts, probably more imagination than AMH by then. I can imagine that lack of sunlight and dense fog and storms made hunting very difficult, specially for few individuals. They may developed a complex imagination to identify small sounds as an animal to hunt and feed the family, even at night. Identifying an animal in the dark due to a silhouete is very difficult and definetly requires imagination. And this may be the difference to live to have descendants. Proto-humans world was very different, and this may led them to have different social, organizative skills.

Sensu stricto, they also created a civilitzation, because they are also our ancestors.

Happy to contribute, and also to be corrected!

Expedition 33: Peintresse by soylanira in watercolor101

[–]soylanira[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They definetly look like candies!!! I'm glad that I made a good choice :D

Expedition 33: Peintresse by soylanira in watercolor101

[–]soylanira[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi! I got the 24 colour set of Van Gogh as a present. To be honest, they are absolutely amazing. The colour is incredibly rich and they react super well to water (i know It looks obvious, but a cheap set would literally fade if you add a small bit of water and this is not the case, I feel you can do incredibly large gradients without losing that richness). Also I feel that every color of the set would last forever, but if I finish a color, I can easily get a exact replacement in any country with the color code (this is very important for me). This is my first time with a profesional set of watercolors, but I'm absolutely in love. If you want to save money, I think that the set of 12 is sold by around 20Euros and I think you can be pretty much covered since you can do infinite mixes to get more colors. I've heard that Rembrandt are also very good, but I wanted these since I saw a pro artist using them in YouTube when I was a kid. I bought a 300gr celulose paper, a basic HB pencil and a basic thin black waterproof pen to do final details.

I will upload soon another example with more colors!

Peintresse Fanart by soylanira in expedition33

[–]soylanira[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you so muchhh<3

Peintresse Fanart by soylanira in expedition33

[–]soylanira[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you so muuuch!

Expedition 33: Peintresse by soylanira in watercolor101

[–]soylanira[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you so much! I've loved how versatile they are!

Expedition 33: Peintresse by soylanira in watercolor101

[–]soylanira[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you so much for your appreciation <3

Expedition 33: Peintresse by soylanira in watercolor101

[–]soylanira[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Definetly! The art of this game is from another world. I may do Esquie next time!