Anyone here interested in speculative evolution/biology? Kno

>>8242198
The one thing I don't like about spec evo is how all the post-humans look ugly as sin, while our early ancestors are recognizably human looking (if a bit rough around the edges)

Anyone have any aesthetically pleasing post-humans that don't look like a xenophile's wet dream.

What's this animal ?

>>8242215
You are wired to like humans

>>8242219
Yes, and? Our earlier ancestors aren't humans either, and yet I find them aesthetically pleasing.

Same with a whole bunch of contemporary animals, they look right and good.

Same with a good portion of past animals, they look right and good as well.

But any speculative animal or human that I see invariably looks "wrong", "off", and generally just not pleasing to look at.

File: 6a00d83451aec269e201b7c7af1ad5970b.jpg (116KB, 900x653px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 900x653px

>>8242236
They look "off" due to how are brains are configured. The human ancestors that we often depict in fascinating detail are considered separate from us, lower than us. Our brains register them as animals due to their facial and cranial configuration. When one makes a posthuman, he deviating from that norm. He is not making animals into people, but people into animals.

>>8242265

What the FUCK am I looking at

File: posthuman_size_comparison_by_agentlemanscientist-d8dp8d4.png (498KB, 1024x745px)

498KB, 1024x745px

>>8242269
A brilliant menagerie of posthumans large and small.

>>8242265
>>8242274
Can't they have been made post-human and alien looking, but not in a completely unaesthetic manner?

Of them, only 4 from the first pic and 12 from the second look vaguely aesthetic.

File: posthuman_size_comparison_2_by_juniorwoodchuck-d5ynngn.jpg (115KB, 1024x700px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1024x700px

>>8242278
How about these?

>>8242337
1, 8, 9, 10, and 13 look pretty good.

>>8242358
I thought you might like those.