What conspiracy theories do you believe in? - Put your tinfoil hats on

[Dr Cruel]

Stop trying to lie to whitey!

Yeah. Sure. Don't lie to these gullible morons.



Why take quick money and real estate from easy marks.

I listen to this elder Navajo who talks about his culture, experiences, stories, ect and at one point he mentions that a great calamity hit the Anasazi as sent by the Holy People as punishment for their evil predation on other tribes.

Yeah. They were bad so something happened, Now they live with the stars. They sleep with the fishes.

 

[Meriasek]

Apparently, Peri Reis copied his map from a much, much older map and the stories of ancient civilisations living on Antartica pre-date any conventional wisdom of the movement of humans, to the point where Africa may not have been the birth place of humanity, merely a recharging station after travelling from Antartica - to avoid the changing conditions, and/or Australia.
Personally I believe we start in Australia, thrived and then spread to Africa and Asia, resulting in two distinct races; niggers and chinks.

Conventional wisdom dates the freezing over of Antarctica to like 45 million years ago, but it's definitely fascinating. Where did you get that from?

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

Conventional wisdom dates the freezing over of Antarctica to like 45 million years ago, but it's definitely fascinating. Where did you get that from?

It's been a theory knocking about for a long time. For a more concise explanation, check out The Why Files on youtube. They do an Antarctica special and references it in other episodes.
That and Mystery History, are the only two youtube channels I watch. Both are fantastic.

Mystery History, with lots of evidence, questions the conventional wisdom of dates in our history. There are structures shown on that channel that I never knew existed and now that I know, I know for sure our history isn't what we believe.
There's a temple in asia built by chiselling down into a mountain and it surpasses the pyramids for complexity. It's unreal.

 

[Mullet Man]

The issue with finding the missing link, is that when you do, you now have 2 new missing links to look for.

What’s funny about this is that whenever some supposed prehistoric proto-human fossil like Lucy is found, it always ends being some random baboon or gibbon parts and modern human bones mixed together. Sometimes, they even take non-human bones and put it in there and say they found an extinct species of human.

Evolution will never be observed in the wild because it doesn’t exist. Breeding dogs is not evolution, and neither is the survival of the fittest principle (which may or may not even exist, considering how easily genetic diseases are passed down through several generations, and also after seeing dysgenic retards like chrischan being able to breed).
Adaptations to certain environmental pieces of crap isn’t evolution either, an animal doesn’t turn into a whole different species simply because its beak grew smaller so it can eat seeds better or it grew 2 penises after being exposed to radiation.

My conspiracy theory is that whenever this thread is diverted onto topics that aren't conspiracies, it's done by cia niggers. It can't possibly be the case that some people are dumb/interested in topics that I'm not/sharing genuine conspiracies that I'm too dumb to understand.

https://kiwifarms.st/threads/the-schizo-conspiracy-thread.214907

 

[JustSomeDong]

My conspiracy theory is that whenever this thread is diverted onto topics that aren't conspiracies, it's done by cia niggers. It can't possibly be the case that some people are dumb/interested in topics that I'm not/sharing genuine conspiracies that I'm too dumb to understand.

I think the parking lots at Trader Joes were made too small, intentionally, to make Trader Joes look more popular than it is.

WE ARE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS, PEOPLE!!!

I couldn't help myself.

 

[Trump's Chosen]

https://kiwifarms.st/threads/the-schizo-conspiracy-thread.214907

This website can be hard to navigate if you don't recognize when people are joking, like I was.

Evolution will never be observed in the wild because it doesn’t exist. Breeding dogs is not evolution

What's the point of differentiating anthropogenic evolution and non-anthropogenic evolution if you're going to handwave both of them away?

Also not sure why you think chrischan, a genetic dead-end would be proof against evolution/survival of the fittest. Does he have children that I am unaware of?

Not that it makes much sense to look at the individual level like that for a process that is generally easiest to observe in large populations and time frames. Though with some things like drosophila or dogs or seed crossing and selection in plants it's quite easy to observe even in fairly small populations. I feel pretty dumb for even engaging with you, because I know there's no real discussion to be had, it's unlikely that you truly have a working concept of what the theory of evolution is, so we'll be talking past each other most likely in the first place.

 

[NoReturn]

Apparently, Peri Reis copied his map from a much, much older map and the stories of ancient civilisations living on Antartica pre-date any conventional wisdom of the movement of humans, to the point where Africa may not have been the birth place of humanity, merely a recharging station after travelling from Antartica - to avoid the changing conditions, and/or Australia.
Personally I believe we start in Australia, thrived and then spread to Africa and Asia, resulting in two distinct races; niggers and chinks.

He replied: "At the head of the Egyptian Delta, where the river Nile divides, there is a certain district which is called the district of Sais, and the great city of the district is also called Sais, and is the city from which Amasis the king was sprung. And the citizens have a deity who is their foundress: she is called in the Egyptian tongue Neith, which is asserted by them to be the same whom the Hellenes called Athene. Now, the citizens of this city are great lovers of the Athenians, and say that they are in some way related to them. Thither came Solon, who was received by them with great honor; and be asked the priests, who were most skillful in such matters, about antiquity, and made the discovery that neither he nor any other Hellene knew anything worth mentioning about the times of old.

On one occasion, when he was drawing them on to speak of antiquity, he began to tell about the most ancient things in our part of the world--about Phoroneus, who is called 'the first,' and about Niobe; and, after the Deluge, to tell of the lives of Deucalion and Pyrrha; and he traced the genealogy of their descendants, and attempted to reckon bow many years old were the events of which he was speaking, and to give the dates. Thereupon, one of the priests, who was of very great age; said, 'O Solon, Solon, you Hellenes are but children, and there is never an old man who is an Hellene.' Solon, bearing this, said, 'What do you mean?' 'I mean to say,' he replied, 'that in mind you are all young; there is no old opinion handed down among you by ancient tradition, nor any science which is hoary with age. And I will tell you the reason of this: there have been, and there will be again, many destructions of mankind arising out of many causes. There is a story which even you have preserved, that once upon a time Phaëthon, the son of Helios, having yoked the steeds in his father's chariot, because he was not able to drive them in the path of his father, burnt up all that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt. Now, this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving around the earth and in the heavens, and a great conflagration of things upon the earth recurring at long intervals of time: when this happens, those who live upon the mountains and in dry and lofty places are more liable to destruction than those who dwell by rivers or on the sea-shore; and from this calamity the Nile, who is our never-failing savior, saves and delivers us. When, on the other hand, the gods purge the earth with a deluge of water, among you herdsmen and shepherds on the mountains are the survivors, whereas those of you who live in cities are carried by the rivers into the sea; but in this country neither at that time nor at any other does the water come from above on the fields, having always a tendency to come up from below, for which reason the things preserved here are said to be the oldest.

The fact is, that wherever the extremity of winter frost or of summer sun does not prevent, the human race is always increasing at times, and at other times diminishing in numbers. And whatever happened either in your country or in ours, or in any other region of which we are informed--if any action which is noble or great, or in any other way remarkable has taken place, all that has been written down of old, and is preserved in our temples; whereas you and other nations are just being provided with letters and the other things which States require; and then, at the usual period, the stream from heaven descends like a pestilence, and leaves only those of you who are destitute of letters and education; and thus you have to begin all over again as children, and know nothing of what happened in ancient times, either among us or among yourselves. As for those genealogies of yours which you have recounted to us, Solon, they are no better than the tales of children; for, in the first place, you remember one deluge only, whereas there were many of them; and, in the next place, you do not know that there dwelt in your land the fairest and noblest race of men which ever lived, of whom you and your whole city are but a seed or remnant. And this was unknown to you, because for many generations the survivors of that destruction died and made no sign. For there was a time, Solon, before that great deluge of all, when the city which now is Athens was first in war, and was preeminent for the excellence of her laws, and is said to have performed the noblest deeds, and to have had the fairest constitution of any of which tradition tells, under the face of heaven.' Solon marveled at this, and earnestly requested the priest to inform him exactly and in order about these former citizens. 'You are welcome to hear about them, Solon,' said the priest, 'both for your own sake and for that of the city; and, above all, for the sake of the goddess who is the common patron and protector and educator of both our cities. She founded your city a thousand years before ours, receiving from the Earth and Hephæstus the seed of your race, and then she founded ours, the constitution of which is set down in our sacred registers as 8000 years old. As touching the citizens of 9000 years ago, I will briefly inform you of their laws and of the noblest of their actions; and the exact particulars of the whole we will hereafter go through at our leisure in the sacred registers themselves. ​

​

- Plato​

 

[Mullet Man]

This website can be hard to navigate if you don't recognize when people are joking, like I was.

Your statement about the 2 new missing links was objectively correct, since we would have to prove which species bridge the newly discovered creature between the ape and the man.

What's the point of differentiating anthropogenic evolution and non-anthropogenic evolution if you're going to handwave both of them away?

Because it’s the same concept, hello? How are we to prove that humankind came from monkeys when we can’t even prove it anywhere else in the biosphere? The rules don’t change between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic evolution.

Also not sure why you think chrischan, a genetic dead-end would be proof against evolution/survival of the fittest. Does he have children that I am unaware of?

He got a girlfriend in Finland, so I made a joke about how if someone like him can be able to reproduce, than the concept is not as omnipotent as is claimed.

Not that it makes much sense to look at the individual level like that for a process that is generally easiest to observe in large populations and time frames.

How else are we to observe it other than that? Evolution supposedly starts in a few specimens and then those specimens become the dominant group. If we can’t find proof that a species can transition to another, then the argument of evolution flops.

I feel pretty dumb for even engaging with you, because I know there's no real discussion to be had, it's unlikely that you truly have a working concept of what the theory of evolution is, so we'll be talking past each other most likely in the first place.

Scared that I’m right? The redpill is hard to swallow, the individual feels discomfort after being exposed to the truth.

 

[Trump's Chosen]

He got a girlfriend in Finland, so I made a joke about how if someone like him can be able to reproduce, than the concept is not as omnipotent as is claimed.

I didn't know that he has a girlfriend. Thanks for keeping me up on the chris chan lore without me needing to watch 8 hour video breakdowns.

Scared that I’m right? The redpill is hard to swallow, the individual feels discomfort after being exposed to the truth.

Since you are intent to engage despite that comment of mine, I'll wade with you into the weeds for a bit. Why not?

Because it’s the same concept, hello? How are we to prove that humankind came from monkeys when we can’t even prove it anywhere else in the biosphere? The rules don’t change between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic evolution.

Technically humans didn't come from monkeys according to the theory of evolution, but monkeys and humans came from a common ancestor. Bonobo's, chimps, even monkeys are as evolved as humans are.

What is your reasoning for the neotenous diversity in dogs, especially when compared with wolves? You seem to be using the word "species" and using that categorization as a kind of barometer, where the shift from one species to another would be taken as a proof of evolution from you? Am I understanding that correctly, or would you like to specify better what kind of evidence could convince you of the existence of evolution?

 

[I'm a Silly]

WE ARE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS, PEOPLE!!!

 

[Mullet Man]

Technically humans didn't come from monkeys according to the theory of evolution, but monkeys and humans came from a common ancestor.

Yes but the common ancestor of all these monkeys would probably just be another monkey so that’s why I said it.

neotenous diversity

I’ve got no clue what this means brother.

You seem to be using the word "species" and using that categorization as a kind of barometer, where the shift from one species to another would be taken as a proof of evolution from you? Am I understanding that correctly, or would you like to specify better what kind of evidence could convince you of the existence of evolution?

Yes, the idea of one species evolving into a new one is my understanding of evolution. If we could find proof of a species “evolving” and becoming a brand new species in the wild, then I would consider that proof of evolution.

 

[Trump's Chosen]

Yes but the common ancestor of all these monkeys would probably just be another monkey so that’s why I said it.

Why do you say "monkeys" plural? That's referring to different species? If they have a common monkey ancestor doesn't that in itself prove different species coming from a single ancestor?

I’ve got no clue what this means brother.

Read up on neoteny. One of the quickest forms of evolution is neoteny. It's basicly where a very small number of mutations cause a delay in adulthood, or even never developing as far into adulthood as the previous versions did. For example, dogs are very neotenous. Their traits are more like wolf pups than adult wolfs. Typical behavioral mammalian traits of youth are curiosity, playfulness, lower territoriality, dependance.

Humans are also neotenous compared to apes (and europeans/asians more so than sub saharan africans). In apes, less hair, lighter hair, flatter face, shorter arms are typical youthful traits.

Dogs have an unusual diversity of traits as well compared to a lot of other species. You can have very different dogs, while they're still dogs.

Yes, the idea of one species evolving into a new one is my understanding of evolution

One of the difficulties is that the definition of "species" itself is not an easy concept to convey or even agree on. For example, above you seem to have used different monkeys having a common ancestor, but that ancestor is still "a monkey" as an argument, but "monkey" isn't a species. Strictly speaking bonobo's and chimps aren't monkeys, they're apes (a most of the time true rule of thumb is that monkeys have tails, and apes don't).

So you seemed to have broadened the concept just to go with the intuitive point of the fact that monkeys were still monkeys. But one type of monkey diverting sufficiently from another that they speciate, in other words, become 2 different species, would be sufficient proof of evolution, right? Because that's one species becoming 2, or in other words, one becoming a new one.

 

[Meriasek]

Yes but the common ancestor of all these monkeys would probably just be another monkey so that’s why I said it.

I’ve got no clue what this means brother.

Yes, the idea of one species evolving into a new one is my understanding of evolution. If we could find proof of a species “evolving” and becoming a brand new species in the wild, then I would consider that proof of evolution.

Evolution takes place over very long times, kinda hard to directly observe it. But aren't there like snakes that still have tiny tiny legs? Exactly what you'd expect for a species evolving slowly.

 

[Cuntspiracy Man]

Evolution will never be observed in the wild

it was

 

[12345]

So what does everyone think about whatever is supposedly under the big Pyramid? Since we probably won't be able to investigate it until after that guy who controls everything doesn't any more. Seems to fit in nicely with the ancient civilizations talk.

 

[I'm a Silly]

So what does everyone think about whatever is supposedly under the big Pyramid? Since we probably won't be able to investigate it until after that guy who controls everything doesn't any more. Seems to fit in nicely with the ancient civilizations talk.

Here's a non-crazy answer:

preservetube

 

[Meriasek]

The reason why it supposedly takes place over long periods of time is because animals move into different areas of the planet slowly over time, and adapt to the new region’s climate. Like these supposed snakes for example, they lose an insignificant body part because they don’t need them anymore, but it’s still a snake, it doesn’t become a whole new thing.

Isn't this slow adaptation to external pressures precisely what evolution is? Change enough and it's considered a new species.
Like, look at skinks. Some of the ground-living skinks have tiny useless legs, others have none. You can see the adaptation to a new mode of movement. They're not snakes, though.

 

[Trump's Chosen]

Adaptation to an environment is not evolution. Evolution is a species evolving into a new species

Adaptation to an environment is a new species. Why wouldn't it be?

 

[cactus]

Evolution takes place over very long times, kinda hard to directly observe it. But aren't there like snakes that still have tiny tiny legs? Exactly what you'd expect for a species evolving slowly.

Even whales still have bones indicating they used to have legs.

 

[Trump's Chosen]

Because it’s the same animal with a different body part. It can probably reproduce with its former non-adapted species as well, therefore it’s not a new species.

That's an old definition of species. Tigers and lions produce ligers, and the female ligers can produce fertile offspring when coupled with male lions. Wolf - Coyote hybrids are fertile. Wolf - Dog hybrids are fertile. Mules have reduced fertility but aren't fully infertile.

This is how your perspective doesn't align with observed reality.