Tell me about evolution again Veeky Forums

BAHAHAHAHA

Do we have to have this thread every day? Just say you hate niggers and be done with it.

jesus. first off primates == apes. second off, humans are apes. third off, humans did not evolve from apes, humans (and other apes) evolved from a common ape-like ancestor.

Do you hate niggers yet?

Irrelevant. You are literally getting replaced by niggers and muslims. Your whining will matter nothing when you get finally extinct'd, subhuman.

It's called "pseudoscience"

If you think it's irrelevant you probably don't understand the question. Get mad more, shitskin.

I don't. Thanks for asking. See you tomorrow.

So you think whining will change the result?

You are literally being replaced and your race is dying out. Get extinct'd, subhuman.

>I'll show those white racists by repeating myself for the third time
Get angry more, shitskin

What was the original skin colour? Something similar to hairless chimpanzees?

So you admit it's irrelevant?

America belongs to the Amerindians. Prepare your luggage, subhuman.

I'm not American. By all means please make each other extinct, Jaquan-Jesus Washington.

So you agree with America belonging to Amerindians? Great for you.

No, since injuns didn't live in "America", they took up space in a vast land as tribes living in tipis. However I don't care about America's races in a political sense either way.

Literally the definition of populating a land.

America belongs to the Amerindians. Face it, united statians have to get the hell out of this land.

>belonging=populating

It's simple. They lived and had territories all over the land. Then europeans genocided 90% of the natives and then proceeded to steal the land.

As I said before, America belongs to the Amerindians.

It wasn't stealing if it didn't "belong" to them. By what legal system was their "property" defined? By a fabric of moral feefees ordained by the great Manitu?

If they stole it then it doesn't belong to the Amerindians.

>legal system
A social construct that is irrelevant to the people that isn't treathened by the state impossition.

America belongs to the Amerindians.

So you agree that might makes right?

>So you agree that might makes right?
How did you get that implication?

>belongs
Another irrelevant social construct.

Simple, you implied that stealing changes its former owner. Do you agree with "might makes right"?

Let me explain this to you. America belongs to the Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans. Don't you agree?

No. Europe was constructed in every possible meaning of the word by Europeans. America was also constructed by Europeans.

>Do you agree with "might makes right"?
What's the relevance? Theft is theft regardless of whether it's 'right' or not, that's a moral/ethical question

After genociding the Amerindians and displacing them. The same will happen to europeans. It's your turn to get replaced.

America belongs to the Amerindians.

It's simple. America still is Amerindian land.
The point is that all POVs lead to the same conclusion, America isn't european land. You have to get replaced. It's your turn to get mongrelized, then extinct'd.

>America still is Amerindian land.
Didn't you say Europeans stole it?

>It's your turn to get replaced.
You keep repeating something that you wish for based on your pent-up subhuman rage. It's not something that anyone would consider an argument in a discussion, especially when you keep falling back to it whenever you can't respond to an on-topic reply by someone else.

Both points lead to the same conclusion. America is Amerindian land. You are already getting replaced.
So you agree with european replacement?
America was a land populated by Amerindians the same as europeans is a land populated by europeans. Then europeans genocided the amerindians and put a social construct between the accepted individuals for centuries, then the european subhumans will get replaced and get extinct'd, and the mongrel that survive will get told this: "America is a continent, USA was a country AKA a social construct made by foreifners that genocided the native populations".

Don't you agree?

>Both points lead to the same conclusion.
What points are you talking about?

Didn't you justify the Amerindian genocide by the definition of "stealing"?

>Don't you agree?
No, since the circumstances are completely different in many ways which I have explained in my previous posts and also you're too optimistic about the replacement of Europeans by shitskins.

>Didn't you justify the Amerindian genocide by the definition of "stealing"?
Which post did I do that in?

You agreed with might makes right, do you prefer another way of replacement? That's irrelevant, the result will be the same, as you will get mongrelized, then extinct'd.

Simple, you implied that stealing something, changes its owner. Isn't that what you said?

>Simple, you implied that stealing something, changes its owner. Isn't that what you said?
Yes, theft is theft by definition. What does that have to do with justifying genocide?

refer to

The same will be done to europeans. Isn't it fair?
Refer to

>The same will be done to europeans. Isn't it fair?
Why do you keep bringing up these irrelevant moral/ethical questions? What does theft have to do with justifying genocide?

Ask white people, they killed natives and stole their land. Isn't it fair that europeans get the same treatment?

>Ask white people, they killed natives and stole their land.
I'm asking you because you're the one linking the two but not explaining why

1. apes are a type of primate.
2. Yes humans are apes.
3. Humans did evolve from apes, though you are correct that that ape ancestor is now extinct.

Aren't you a white person that talked about "might makes right" when I mentioned the Amerindian land being stolen?

Do you want flat Earth theories or Bible verses?

Pick your poison.

>Aren't you a white person that talked about "might makes right" when I mentioned the Amerindian land being stolen?
No, you're the one who brought up might makes right in this post:

It's important to remember that there are multiple ways for organisms to evolve. Natural selection is the most well known method, but others exist such as gene flow and genetic drift.

And if you had any doubts, it's not a fake idea, or "just a theory". In science theories are based on a multitude of individual facts and are used to explain relationships. It's not "just an idea" or some untested hypothesis. It's the single most studied scientific idea and in over a century it still has not been proven wrong.

As stealing "changes the owner", then it resembles the "might makes right" argument. So you don't agree with "might makes right"?

>As stealing "changes the owner", then it resembles the "might makes right" argument.
In what way? The first is a statement about ownership, the second is a moral/ethical statement

>So you don't agree with "might makes right"?
It doesn't matter whether I agree or not, it's still not clear why it's relevant to any of this

It's simple. From all POVs the conclusion is the same, let it be a moral one, "might makes right" one, another social construct one, America belongs to Amerindians the same as europe belongs to the europeans.

>America belongs to Amerindians
Didn't the Europeans steal it though?

Does it change the conclusion?

>Does it change the conclusion?
Yes because if the Europeans stole America than it doesn't belong to the Amerindians anymore, if it does belong to the Amerindians than the Europeans couldn't have stolen it

The land was stolen as the population was replaced and the natives killed. If the "real" owner of the land are europeans, then you agree that might makes right changes the owner. It's simple. As white people get replaced the real owners, not the thiefs, will get the land back.

As I said before, America belongs to the Amerindians.

>If the "real" owner of the land are europeans, then you agree that might makes right changes the owner.
What is theft other than non-consensual change in ownership? I don't see where an ethical 'right' or 'wrong' enters the equation

>change of ownership
False. The prime dictator of ownership is the native ancestry as the state will be irrelevant agains the ones who don't get threatened by the state impositions.

America belongs to the Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans.

>False.
Then what is theft?

All interpretations of theft have been about returning the robbed item by the autority of the community, to the real owner. Paleolithic, prehistoric, even modern communities principles share this value.

America belongs to the Amerindians.

>All interpretations of theft have been about returning the robbed item by the autority of the community, to the real owner.
Did you misread my post? I asked what theft was, I don't think the definition of theft involves returning stolen items

The definition of theft doesn't involve the change of the ownership. As I said before, all POVs lead to the same conclusion.

America belongs to the Amerindians. Don't you agree?

>The definition of theft doesn't involve the change of the ownership.
Then what does it involve? And doesn't this contradict
>All interpretations of theft have been about returning the robbed item

Simple. Ownership doesn't change when theft happens. Don't you agree?

>Don't you agree?
Obviously not because I said theft was non-consensual change in ownership. Since you disagree, what do you think theft is?

It's simple. Europeans stole the land that wasn't theirs. Amerindians will get what they were stealed, as all cultures agree with.

If theft change the ownership, then you must agree that europeans should get "their" land, stolen, right?

>If theft change the ownership, then you must agree that europeans should get "their" land, stolen
No because theft is non-consensual change in ownership, not non-consensual change in ownership that requires the stolen thing to be stolen back at some point.

But getting stolend back is what european people deserve right? Isn't it fair? As they stealed the land from Amerindians. Don't you agree?

Maybe you don't neither disagree nor agree with that statement. So you don't mind the land getting stolen back?

>But getting stolend back is what european people deserve right?
Why do they deserve it?

>Isn't it fair?
Why would it be?

>Don't you agree?
I'm not convinced either way.

>So you don't mind the land getting stolen back?
It's not my land so I don't have any skin in the game, you should ask the people who would be having their land stolen

>unironically believing a religion of death

Simple. Stolen land should be returned to the original owners, that's the reason.

As I said before, America belongs to the Amerindians.

>Stolen land should be returned to the original owners
But the original owners are dead

The ethnic groups are still there on Mexico and some zones in USA and Canada. The natives should get the land back, don't you agree?

>The natives should get the land back, don't you agree?
What claim do they have to the land? They're not the original owners after all

But the Amerindians immigrated here as well. Aside from Africans in sub-saharan Africa, everyone everywhere is descended from immigrants.

As I said before, America belongs to the Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans. Don't you agree with this statement?

>Don't you agree with this statement?
No because didn't we agree the Europeans stole it from the Amerindians?

So you agree with white replacement on America and europe?

Actually all cultures share the same principles of real ownership and giving it back the stolen object.

If we use your POV of change of ownership, you don't mind europeans of America getting stealed back, right?

>Actually all cultures share the same principles of real ownership and giving it back the stolen object.
Then why don't the Amerindians have their land?

Rome belongs to the Etruscans

That's where the difference of real ownership and stolen possesion, shows up. Did you grasp it?

So, if you reject this statement, do you support europeans getting stealed back "their" land?

So you support "might makes right"?

>That's where the difference of real ownership and stolen possesion, shows up. Did you grasp it?
Not really, if it's part of their culture why aren't they giving it back?

>why aren't they giving it back?
I wonder why thiefs don't give stolen items back...

As I said before, America belongs to the Amerindians.

>I wonder why thiefs don't give stolen items back...
I'm wondering this as well since you said all cultures share the same principles of real ownership and giving it back the stolen object.

I'm saying Amerindians have no more claim to America than Caucasians do.

Oh yeah. The thiefs don't return the items so someone has to return the items back to the original owner. Isn't it obvious?

As I said before, America belongs to the Amerindians.

>Oh yeah. The thiefs don't return the items so someone has to return the items back to the original owner. Isn't it obvious?

How far back does the ownership go though? Should the Amerindians give back the land they stole from the animals living there before they got there?

It's simple. America belongs to Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans. Don't you agree?

America is Amerindian land.

why isn't america the land of the earliest animals that lived there?

Why? Amerindians immigrated there as well.

For the most part, they weren't even doing anything with it. The plains tribes were still hunter-gatherer nomads. The tribes on the east coast only recently had agriculture. The only Amerindians with any real metalworking were the Incas, who had some bronze weaponry. The Aztecs had some gold jewelry, but no metal tools. Same situation with the Amerindians of the Pacific Northwest; they had some metal trinkets.