#their wings are consistent with every other breed that has similar wings why change the way they're colored now??? months after release???

[starcatcher-psywurm]

I'm so tired of Staff retroactively changing things months after breeds have been released and aren't even technical errors. I barely notice the difference between old and new fathom wings, but my god it is so annoying not knowing if things are going to be randomly changed out of nowhere, because someone decides randomly they don't like one thing anymore. I really hope it's a bug, because doing this when it has consistently been a criticism of Staff for years does nothing, but show they'd rather stir more community drama than just fix actual issues.

From the thread:

(left is before, right is after you can tell because of the fact that striation is bugged right now too)

[creepingsharia]

Democrats’ Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act Shields Jihadists

Amazing how quickly they wrote this bill, almost as if they had it planned, pre-written and waiting in the wings in the event of a successful coup.

Keep in mind, Muslim groups have been advising DHS/FBI/DOJ for years to change focus from Islam terror to white supremacy. The DHS whistelblower who exposed that information was killed shortly after doing so.

See video at end of post.

Democrats’ Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act Shields Jihadists

By Andrew C. McCarthy

How interesting that the familiar array of Islamist-apologist and left-wing groups, notoriously opposed to U.S. counterterrorism efforts, has lined up in support of congressional Democrats’ latest push for a “Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act.” Could it be because the proposed legislation goes out of its way to shield domestic terrorists who are catalyzed by foreign jihadist organizations?

You needn’t read far into the bill to hear the alarm bells.

Section 2 provides a definition for “domestic terrorism.” Sounds sensible . . . until you remember that federal law already has a definition of domestic terrorism. The term is codified by Section 2331(5) of the criminal code. It’s been there for a long time, and it’s perfectly fine. So why would we need another one?

Obviously, Democrats are not defining but redefining. The point is not to clarify what is already clear about domestic terrorism. It is to carve out an exemption from the definition — specifically, to create a new safe haven for a very specific category of terrorist.

Under the longstanding Section 2331 definition, “domestic terrorism” means activities that occur primarily within the territorial U.S., that are “dangerous to human life,” that violate state or federal law, and that are intended to accomplish one of the following three objectives: 1) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, 2) to influence government policy by intimidation or coercion, or 3) to affect government conduct by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

Among the best things about this straightforward definition is that it has no exceptions. As long as the activities involved meet the stated criteria, the definition “domestic terrorism” applies to any terrorist, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, ideology, or any similar characteristic. It makes no difference whether a terrorist is animated by white supremacism, sharia supremacism, black separatism, communism, anarchism, or any other -ism. If the terrorists are operating in our country, and they use or threaten to use force to intimidate our citizens or coerce our government into acceding to their demands, they are engaged in domestic terrorism. Period.

Not so with the Democrats’ new proposal. After throat-clearing about how “domestic terrorism” means what Section 2331 says it means, the proposal hastens to add “except . . .”

Except what? Domestic terrorism is heinous, so why would we want to exempt from the definition any person or group who engaged in such conduct? Apparently, to insulate domestic jihadists from scrutiny — or, if you prefer, to guard against mutiny by the Democrats’ Islamist allies.

The proposed exception states that the standard definition of domestic terrorism does not include acts perpetrated by individuals associated with or inspired by (A) a foreign person or organization designated as a foreign terrorist organization … ; (B) an individual or organization designated under Executive Order 13224 [which relates to foreign terrorists and foreign entities] … ; or (C) a state sponsor of terrorism[.] [Emphasis added.]

In other words, if a Muslim in the United States commits a mass-murder attack because he has been inspired by al-Qaeda’s call for believers to attack American targets, or by the Iranian regime’s revolutionary jihadism, that attack would not be considered domestic terrorism.

You may be thinking, “Hey, McCarthy, stop getting everyone all riled up. Your hypothetical terrorist doesn’t need to be covered under domestic terrorism because he’s already covered under foreign terrorism, right?”

Wrong.

Or are you forgetting the Obama-Biden administration legerdemain? Whether it was the mass murder at Fort Hood, in San Bernardino, or at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, the administration, its Homeland Security and Justice departments, and the FBI all resisted labeling the attack as “terrorism” because, they told us, the Muslim assassins did not appear to have “operational ties” to foreign terrorist organizations. Even if an attack was obviously terrorism, it wouldn’t be called “terrorism” because it hadn’t been directed by an organization the government had designated as “terrorist” — just “inspired,” which wasn’t good enough.

Of course, such an act would have fallen under the definition of “domestic terrorism,” but that’s because the Section 2331 federal definition did not have any exceptions. Now, if the Democrats’ proposal were enacted, there would be an exception — domestic attacks inspired by overseas jihadist groups would not be considered domestic terrorism. Why do you think the groups that reliably oppose counterterrorism measures are supporting this one?

What’s the point of these definitional shenanigans? It is that the proposed legislation would mark a change in the federal approach to domestic terrorism. Up until now, Congress has merely defined domestic terrorism, it has not prescribed any domestic terrorism crimes or pushed for domestic terrorism prosecutions. Currently, terrorism crimes in federal law target foreign and international terrorism. That is because, as I’ve previously detailed, there are numerous federal and state crimes on the books that can be used to investigate and prosecute domestic terrorists. Congress focused on foreign terrorists in its statutes because they tend to operate outside U.S. jurisdiction; the federal government needs extraordinary laws to reach them — laws that enable surveillance, the interruption of funding and recruitment streams, and prosecution (which often requires coordination with foreign governments).

The Democrats’ new proposal, however, would target domestic terrorism in an unprecedented way. There would be no new domestic terrorism crimes, at least not yet; but there would be a new concentration on investigating, arresting, and prosecuting domestic terrorists. Just not all domestic terrorists. In fact, just a very specific breed of domestic terrorist: white supremacists and neo-Nazis — i.e., what Democrats consider to be right-wing terrorism or, more specifically, Trump-inspired insurrectionists in the wake of the January 6 Capitol riot.

The proposed legislation would require domestic terrorism units to be created in the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department, and the FBI, in addition to a new “Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee” made up of high-ranking federal law-enforcement officials. Besides staffing up, these agencies would be required to file semi-annual reports for the next decade, outlining the extent of the domestic terrorist threat and the efforts they are making to combat it — how many investigations, arrests, indictments, etc. There would also be a mandate to establish “Training to Combat Domestic Terrorism” so that the feds could instruct state, local, and tribal law-enforcement in how to detect domestic terrorists, keep them from infiltrating police forces, and prosecute them.

But again, Democrats are not interested in combating all domestic terrorism. Not only have they effectively excluded from coverage American-based jihadists who are associated with or inspired by foreign terrorist organizations and their state sponsors. The new proposal, again and again, is explicit in focusing on “white supremacists and neo-Nazis.”

The required reports, for example, would have to “include an assessment of the domestic terrorism threat posed by White supremacists and neo-Nazis, including White supremacist and neo-Nazi infiltration of Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.” They would itemize “any White-supremacist-related incidents or attempted incidents” that have occurred since April 19, 1995 — that would be the day Timothy McVeigh bombed the Oklahoma City courthouse. Federal agencies would also account for all their “White-supremacist” cases, from investigation through sentencing, and so on.

Here’s a thought experiment: Every time the proposed legislation invokes the term “white supremacism,” ask yourself what Democrats and their supporters would say about a bill that instead said “sharia supremacism” — the animating ideology of jihadist terrorists.

As federal law has recognized for decades, all terrorism in our country poses a threat. None of it should be exempted, and all of it should be aggressively investigated and prosecuted, consistent with the constitutional principle of equal protection under the law. The Democrats’ proposal is not about countering terrorism; it is about weaving a political narrative.

The shielding of jihadists is no surprise. The last time Joe Biden was helping run the government, the word “terrorism” was verboten and “violent extremism” was substituted. Out of this same epistemological haze came such tragi-comic terms as “man-caused disasters,” so determined were Democrats to avoid upsetting their Islamist allies by noticing the not infrequent coincidence of terrorism and Muslims. (Apparently, “white-man-caused disasters” can safely be called terrorism.)

Studiously unmentioned in the Democrats’ proposal, moreover, is the radical left — no Antifa, no Black Lives Matter militants, no communists, anarchists, or enviro-terrorists. Even as Portland, Seattle, and Denver remain under siege, the plan is to pretend that the last seven months of insurrectionist rioting never happened; or if it did, that it was the noble kind of insurrection.

The proposed Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021 would prevent terrorism about as much as President Biden’s executive order blitz will meet his inaugural vow to unite the country. Under the guise of addressing a real problem, Democrats would give a pass to jihadists and left-wing militants, appease their interest groups, and intensify the nation’s deep divisions.

---------------------------------

Interestingly, 135 so-called civil rights organizations - many are simply subversive, foreign-linked and funded, anti-American, anti-white hate groups - signed a letter to Congress opposing new domestic terror laws.

Why? Because they don’t want those laws used against “Black Activists, Muslims, Arabs, and movements for social and racial justice.” In other words, they don’t want them used against the real threats to America - the BLM’s, NFC’s, Antifa’s and other groups - likely some who signed the letter - who have been actively working to overthrow America for decades.

Instead, they want Congress to use appropriations (taxpayer money) to label anyone who opposes their views as white supremacists, shut them down and jail them if possible.

Oh, they also want to report on white supremacist crimes quarterly. Remember when Democrats took over the House, they stopped producing a monthly report on Islamic terror that focused on domestic Islamic terrorists. That was the impetus for the Creeping Sharia monthly report titled A Month of Islam in America.

[path-to-the-salaf-2]

The Myth of Darwinian Evolution (Part 2) – Natural Selection

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salātu Was Salāmu ‘alā rasoolillahi

Ammā Ba’d

The Myth of Darwinian Evolution (Part 2) – Natural Selection

We begin this section by mentioning that the issue of Natural Selection is perhaps the most  fundamental, key issue Darwin’s theory of Evolution is based upon. Darwin first proposed his theory of evolution, then sought evidence to substantiate the theory, this is important to note. It explains why Darwin and scientist believers in his theory, have struggled desperately to establish the evidence to confirm it.

In his book The origin of species Darwin presented three main arguments:

That species are not immutable (lit: Fixed, unchangeable), that is to say, new species of living beings have appeared during earths long history, through a process he named decent through modification (Random, undirected, mutations in the organisms DNA, leading to the development of an advanced version of the same creature, and this process continued until we have a completely new ‘species’ of animal that is unable to breed with its pre-species)

That this process accounts for all diversity of life

That this process was guided by Natural selection (survival of the fittest, the weaker inferior creature was surpassed by the new ‘mutant’ creature and thus it survived and the previous lifeform didn’t)

This third issue of natural selection is the topic at hand here,

As mentioned previously, Darwins theory of natural selection is based upon decent through modification. Darwin claimed that all species of animal after the first lifeform, are descended with modification from some other species. Therefore, everything in Darwin’s theory revolves around his argument that, the origin of all and any new species of animal, stem from existing species, what evolutionary biologist call speciation (spee-see-ay-shun). Proving changes within existing species are beside the point. Darwin called his book ‘on the origin of species’ since he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species to another was the most fundamental problem of his evolution theory. Thus the issue at hand is not change ‘within’ a species, but one species becoming another.

So speciation is Darwinism’s most fundamental problem, the starting point for everything else in evolutionary theory. It is not an issue for believers in intelligent design though, those who believe in an ever-living  most-knowledgeable, Most-wise creator, do not have any issues here.

Speciation is not an issue for them, since every organism that exists, points clearly and categorically towards design. The creator of those organisms has also informed, in his revelation, of how he created. Revelation tallies with everything observed, just as we concluded in our previous house parable, ��the observed house could only be the work of an architect.

‘Observed’ speciation

As a purely scientific matter however, it is reasonable to ask, has speciation, the most fundamental process in Darwinism, ever been observed.

This on-going process, that has accounted for the development of all species, of fish, reptile, amphibian and mammal should, in order to be a consistent theory, still be observed!

The argument is:  that through speciation, all kinds of animal have developed. Due to decent with modification, gradual changes through mutations, all species have developed. Due to fitness, some have survived and others have just not developed or have died out.

Mutation

Mutations are randomly occurring genetic changes, which are nearly always harmful when they produce effects within the organism large enough to be visible. The theory of evolution depends heavily upon mutations. Of course, mutations are genetic ‘errors’ that may occur within the DNA of a cell on rare occasions. While Darwin evolutionists agree that mutations are errors, they argue that those errors may occasionally improve the organisms ability to survive and reproduce. Organisms generally produce more offspring than can survive to maturity. In addition, offspring that have an advantage of this kind, can be expected to go on to produce more descendants themselves, than less advantaged members of the species.

The theory supposes that given enough time, and sufficient mutations of the right sort, enormously complex organs and patterns of adaptive behaviour, can eventually be produced in tiny cumulative steps, without the need for the existence of some pre-existing intelligence.

This is natural selection in a nutshell

Important note:

Before the selection process can begin, there has to be something to “select.” And that something is genes. If evolution can be thought of as manufacturing process whose product is increasingly complex organisms, then genes are its raw materials.

Genes are regions of DNA that consist of thousands to hundreds of thousands of base molecules arranged in a precise sequence. Needless to say, producing such a highly organized structure from a random, undirected process is a tall order. In fact, the chance of getting the correct sequence of molecules by happenstance is about one in ten to the thousandth power 101000 (that is ten with 1000 zeros!), even for the smallest gene!

Macro mutation Vs Micro mutation

Mutations are of two main types:

Macro mutations (Also known as saltation): A macro mutation is a major mutation that occurs within the gene structure of a cell, having a profound effect upon changing the nature of the cell and thus the organism itself.

Micro mutations: A micro mutation, is a minor, small-scale or highly localized mutation, one involving alteration at a single gene locus (the position of a gene within a chromosome)

Darwin argued, in essence, that evolution was based in macro evolution. That there would be major mutations that bring about major changes in an organism that would lead, in time, to the mutated organism surviving and changing. Over time it would be unable to breed with its like, but would breed with another similarly mutated organism, and they would go on to become a species.

It must also be born in mind, that DNA has amazing ‘proof reading, self repairing abilities. Chemical damage to DNA occurs naturally as well, and cells use DNA repair mechanisms to repair mismatches and breaks in DNA—nevertheless, the repair sometimes fails to return the DNA to its original sequence. So the theory therefore, is dependant upon waiting for mutations within a cell that would ordinarily repair itself, to fail to repair itself, and for resultant mutation to be ‘beneficial’!

Saltations (or systemic macromutations, as they are often called today) are believed to be theoretically impossible by most scientists, and for good reason. Living creatures are extremely intricate assemblies of interrelated parts, and the parts themselves are also complex. It is impossible to imagine how the parts could change in unison as a result of chance mutation. In a word (Darwin’s word), a saltation is equivalent to a miracle. Though he still maintained it ‘could’ happen.

Many organs require an intricate combination of complex parts to perform their functions. The eye and the wing are the most common illustrations, but it would be misleading to give the impression that either is a special case; human and animal bodies are literally packed with similar marvels.

Darwin wrote in The origin of Species:

“Natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited variations, each profitable to the preserved being”

How can such things be built up by “infinitesimally small inherited variations, each profitable to the preserved being?” The first step towards a new function- such as vision or ability to fly- would not necessarily provide any advantage unless the other parts required for the function appeared at the same time. As an analogy, imagine a medieval ironsmith producing by chance a silicon microchip; in the absence of supporting computer technology the prodigious invention would be useless and he would throw it away.

The animal that developed the first mutated wing for example would probably have an awkward time climbing or grasping long before they became useful for gliding, thus placing the hypothetical creature at a serious disadvantage. Which, by the standard set in the theory based in ’survival of the fittest’, should cause this mutant creature to die out.

The number of vertebrae has to be changed in whole units, and to accomplish this you need to do more than just ‘shove in’ an extra bone, because each vertebra has associated with it a set of nerves, blood vessels, muscles, and so on. These complicated parts would all have to appear together for the extra vertebrae to make any biological sense

Stephen Jay Gould asked himself “the excellent question, What good is 5 per cent of an eye?,” and speculated that the first eye parts might have been useful for something other than sight. Richard Dawkins responded that – “An ancient animal with 5 per cent of an eye might indeed have used it for something other than sight, but it seems to me as likely that it used it for 5 per cent vision. And actually I don’t think it is an excellent question. Vision that is 5 per cent as good as yours or mine is very much worth having in comparison with no vision at all. So is 1 per cent vision better than total blindness. And 6 per cent is better than 5, 7 per cent better than 6, and so on up the gradual, continuous series.”

The fallacy in that argument is that “5 per cent of an eye” is not the same thing as “5 per cent of normal vision.” For an animal to have any useful vision at all, many complex parts must be working together. Even a complete eye is useless unless it belongs to a creature with the mental and neural capacity to make use of the information by doing something that furthers survival or reproduction. What we have to imagine is a chance mutation that provides this complex capacity all at once, at a level of utility sufficient to give the creature an advantage in producing offspring.

(It is also worth noting that is it well known among biolologists, that animals with gene related deformities have generally been found to be sterile)

Bird and bat wings appear in the fossil records already developed, and no one has ever confirmed by experiment that the gradual evolution of wings and eyes is possible.

Thus the issue remains a conundrum for evolutionist. They will continue to defend their position by saying “examples of macro mutation and gradual change in organisms, just haven’t yet been discovered in the fossil records”

Since that is the case it is safe to say it is a theory Darwin thought up and then attempted to seek evidence for. A theory that is thus far, baseless.

Darwin could not point to impressive examples of natural selection in action, so he relied heavily upon an argument by analogy.

Douglas J Futuyma stated:

“When Darwin wrote the origin of species he could offer no good cases for natural selection because no one had looked for them. He drew instead an analogy with the artificial selection that animal and plant breeders use to improve domesticated varieties of animals and plants. By breeding only from the woolliest sheep, the most fertile chickens, and so on. Breeders have been spectacularly successful at altering almost every imaginable characteristic of our domesticated animals and plants, to the point where most of them differ from their wild ancestors, far more than related species differ from them“.

The analogy to artificial selection is misleading. Plant and animal breeders employ intelligence, and specialised knowledge to select breeding stock and to protect them from natural dangers.

The point of Darwin’s theory was to establish that senseless, purposeless, natural processes can substitute for intelligent design.

The fact that he defended his point using examples and accomplishments of intelligent designers, only proves that his audience was highly uncritical of him!

Artificial selection is not basically the same sort of thing as natural selection, but fundamentally different.

Human breeders produce variations in pigeons or chickens or sheep for purposes absent in nature.  When domesticated animals return to the wild, they revert quickly to their wild state, the most highly specialised breeds quickly perish.

Additionally breeders have created no new ‘species’. For example all dogs are of a single species because they are chemically capable of interbreeding. They are dogs. Differences in size may make mating with some breeds impractical. But they remain dogs!

The late French zoologist and evolutionist Pierre-P. Grassé concluded: “The results of artificial breeding provides powerful testimony against darwins theory, in spite of the intense pressure generated by artificial selection, eliminating any parent not answering the criteria of choice, over a whole millennia, no new species are born”

The fact is that selection gives tangible form to, and gathers together, all the varieties a genome (the genetic material of an organism consisting of DNA) is capable of producing but does not constitute and innovative evolutionary process.

In other words the reason dogs don’t become as big as elephants much less change into elephants, is not that we just haven’t been breeding them long enough, dogs do not have the genetic capacity for that degree of change. They stop getting bigger when their genetic limit is reached.

Darwinists disagree with this and they have points to make. They point with pride to laboratory experiments with fruit flies, which has not produced anything but fruit flies! though it may have changed some of their characteristics.

As far as animals are concerned darwinists return the inability to produce new species to a lack of sufficient time. The time available has to be taken into account in evaluating breeding experiments but it is also possible that the greater time available to nature is more than counterbalanced by the power of intelligent purpose, which is brought to bear in artificial selection. With respect to the fruit fly experiment for example Pierre-P. Grassé noted that the fruit fly, seems not to have changed since the remotest times. Nature has had plenty of time but it just hadn’t been doing what the experimenters have been doing.

Whether selection has ever accomplished speciation, that is, the production of a new species, is not the point. A biological species is simply a group capable of interbreeding. Success in dividing fruit flies into two or more populations that cannot inter breed, does not constitute evidence that a similar process could in time produce a fruit fly from a bacterium.

Thus if breeders where able to produce dogs that could only breed with itself and not other dogs they would have only made the tinest step towards proving darwins claims. Since only a part of his theory and definition of new species revolved around the new species being unable to breed with the pre-species.

Thus more evidence is needed.

Natural selection is a tautology (a way of saying the same thing twice)

The sum total of the concept is that the species that is strong enough to produce the most offspring…will produce the most offspring!

The famous philosopher of science karl popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) wrote:

“Darwinism is not really a scientific theory, because natural selection is an all-purpose explanation which can account for anything, and which therefore explains nothing!”

A tautology does not explain anything. When I want to know how a fish can become a man I am not enlightened by being told that the organisms that leave the most offspring…leave the most offspring.

The reality of the theory of natural selection is that we are told that the fittest beings remained in a given environment. Characteristics that give offspring an advantage differ from time and place and circumstance. That which may be an advantage in one place may not be so in another. The development of wings on a beetle may be an advantage in one place but if they are close to the sea, for example it could cause them to be light and easy to be blown away to sea, in which case it is a disadvantage. Therefore the characteristic that is considered advantageous to a creature, is that which helps him to survive. When he survives, he leaves the most offspring as a result of his survival. Therefore natural selection in actuality only states the obvious, that the organism that leaves the most offspring…will leave the most offspring!

Natural selection as a deductive argument

Natural selection may be presented in the form of a deductive argument.

For example:

All organisms must reproduce

All organisms exhibit hereditary variations

Hereditary variations differ in their effects on reproduction

Therefore variations with favourable effects on reproduction will succeed, those with unfavourable effects will fail, and organisms will change

From this stand point we see the only thing it establishes, is that some natural selection will occur and not that it is an explanation for evolution. Actually it does not even establish that organisms will change. In any population some animals will leave more offspring than others even if the population is headed for extinction.

Natural selection as a scientific hypothesis

Scientists will insist that Darwinist natural selection is a hypothesis (a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation), that has been so thoroughly and rigorously tested and confirmed by evidence that is should be accepted  by reasonable persons as a presumptively adequate explanation for the evolution of complex life forms.

Therefore natural selection in combination with mutation is an innovative revolutionary process with is capable of producing new kinds of organs and organisms.

So the critical question is: What evidence confirms that the hypothesis is true?

Where are the ‘in-between’ species?

The development of species required very ‘gradual’ steps over many, many years. So surely we must have some evidence of at least some of these many gradual developmental changes…but not one!?

In response we will inevitably hear natural selection (survival of the fittest) necessitated, that they died out!

The general hypothesis is that man (and all other creatures for that matter) began as a single cell amoeba and developed into more complex cells which then went on to become a fish, then an amphibian, then a reptilian lizard, then a tree dwelling mammal, then apes, then several stages of ape-man type creatures and then mankind. Of course this is a very general version of the proposed theory.

This presents a number of questions:

If man evolved from apes, why are the apes still here?

If lizards evolved into birds, why are lizards and birds both still here?

Evolutionists will answer this is because we have had evolution ‘cycles’ due to more than one ice age or because all species have common ancestries.

That still does not explain what we only have the presence of huge jumps from one species to another and no sign of the ‘in-between’ species. Bear in mind evolution is proposed to have taken millions of years (another issue that requires discussion). In utter desperation the evolutionist resorts to saying that the ‘missing link’ just has not yet been discovered in the fossil records. Some claim they have already found proof of the missing link, but upon investigation they have all found to be hoaxes. We will look at that under the issue of the fossil records. The reality is though that the missing link is not just one, but thousands of missing links indicative of our gradual development. That is if were looking at the missing link between monkey and man. What of the thousands of missing links between amoeba and fish? Similarly fish to amphibian, then amphibian to reptile.

All species between fish and reptiles died out? Why then did the original species for instance fish survive?

If there were many gradual steps between monkey and man, then why do we have hundreds of species of monkey, the original type, still living but none of the in-between?

The claim is that modern man has been around for 1 million years (yet another ‘claim’)which would necessitate that it would have taken some 100 million years of more for man to develop from Monkey to man. If we said (for the sake of argument) that it took only 10 million years for modern man to develop. That would mean at the rate of significant change there would be perhaps some 200 stages (probably far far more)  from ape to man. The original monkey survived, in fact various breeds of monkey and ape, but not one of the 200 variations in between?…not one!?

The question is where are all these varying developmental stages we should see on the planet, since both ends of the spectrum still exist, but not one of the many stages in between, not even a legitimate fossil!

Where are the 10% man 90% ape? Or the 20% man 80% ape etc. Likewise among the other species. Why do so many pre-species, with their varying types, exist alongside their advanced species, and none of the species in-between. Could it possibly be because we actually don’t have perpetual evolution taking place?

Another issue is, why did the evolutionary process of ape to man, stop at man? And if the argument is, it hasn’t stopped with man (i.e. man is still mutating) then why is he the only one evolving.

The point is, evolution is not the ‘easy to accept, highly logical explanation for the origin of all things it is proposed to be, except when we leave these questions out and smooth the theory over.

The language of the evolutionist

Another important issue to note is the language of the evolutionist. It is commonplace to hear (or read) an evolutionist describing how evolution ‘selected’ a species, or caused a certain species to adapt. Or perhaps that evolution ‘fixed’ a particular problem or ‘left’ something since it didn’t need fixing etc. This language points to something that has the powers of reason and design, though they will not refer to it in these terms. It is as though they perceive evolution as some sort of ‘impersonal intelligent force’ that exists, making decisions on how the species needs to evolve.

This is clearly acknowledgement of the need for intelligent design while trying to flee from it as it will be tantamount to acknowledging a ‘creator’ but of course that cannot be done since we have an inability to establish a creator through scientific process.

Not only do we have the magnificent creatures that exist on earth but the ideal food chain to support them. An ecology that is perfect to support life with the ideal gasses, such as oxygen and CO2 etc

Perfection in the seasons and temperatures and the universe. There is beauty and fragrance in the flowers, birds, butterflies etc that for practical purposes should not be here.

Wouldn’t it be fair to say that to postulate that this has come about by chance is a tad far-fetched?

In light of all of this, even atheists like Sir Fred Hoyle have admitted,

“The idea that life originated by the random shuffling of molecules is as ridiculous and improbable as proposing that a tornado blowing through a junkyard would cause the assembly of a 747!”

Hoyle is among many who now concede that the universe is neither old enough nor large enough to produce even the most elemental gene. And without genes, evolution is like a factory assembly line without anything on the conveyor belt.

Conclusion

We are able to say in summary:

That the concept of natural selection is nothing but a statement of the obvious, that is in any given circumstance, the strongest organism that has best ability to leave more offspring…will leave more offspring! and thus survive.

That Darwins intent was that random unguided mutations, were all that were needed to bring about new species of animal.

That through this process, man developed from a single cell organism to where he is today

That natural selection conjectures about survival of the fittest but does not discuss the ‘arrival’ of the fittest

That decent with modification is until now unproven, thus ironically, believers in natural selection (when we really understands the far-fetched nature of what they assert) require far more ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ in it than to have faith in an Intelligent Creator.

If this is the strongest of the evidence presented by the evolutionist and we can see its fragility, the evolutionist retorts ‘but there is clear evidence in fossil records!’ therefore will look at that next.

Wa Sallallahu ‘alā Nabiyinā Muhammad

@abuhakeembilal

[beardyallen]

Days 4 thru part-of-Day-6-because-this-takes-forever-and-I-have-to-go-teach-soon

Yikes. Turns out keeping up with this is going to take some serious time-management voodoo on my part. I’ll figure that out eventually, I guess.

Alright, so where did I leave off? *scrolling thru Day 3...* *still scrolling...* *still scrolling........* Ah! There we go. The bank.

There wasn’t a whole lot that happened on Day 4, other than my first meal in one of the main cafeterias. From what I recall, their standard chicken wing (which looked like something you would get from KFC) had a breading that probably puts it somewhere in the top 30% of the spicier wings at Buffalo Wild Wings. Not too spicy, but for sure spicier than I expected from just a lone piece of chicken in a buffet-style dining hall with no labels. I also grabbed semi-gelatinous purple thing that turned out to be lotus and honey. Not really my favorite consistency, but it was pretty yummy nonetheless. But the cucumber. Man, let me tell you about the cucumber!!!!

It tasted like a normal cucumber but with a nice vinaigrette. Nothing crazy special, but it was still my favorite part of the meal. *shrug*

If memory serves, which it might not, I think I spent the rest of the night reading Dan Brown’s Origin. The handbook for the Guest House (where I live) only has one line in it about alcohol consumption in the apartments. It is strictly forbidden to engage in alcohol abuse. That’s pretty much it. Not real specific. So I texted ML if it was okay to have beer in the apartments, she assured me that it was totally fine, and I breathed a sigh of relief as I took another sip from my second beer.

Day 5 (Friday, if you’re keeping track) was slightly more interesting. ML, her boyfriend (S), R (now NR) and I were going on an adventure the next day, so ML, S, and I had to go shopping to get snacks for the trip. Turns out one of the banks (one that doesn’t allow people staying for less than 6 months to open an account) pretty much monopolized relations with Chase. We stopped there to get some cash to deposit into our Chinese bank accounts at our actual bank, then went to our ATMs. I was first in line in our group, dropped some cash into the slot/box that counts your money, and I was only then informed that I can only deposit 100 yuan notes at the ATM. It spit out my 20′s and 50′s, and I added an extra 100 when prompted. Then things went downhill.

Unbeknownst to us, this machine was malfunctioning that day, and I had just tried to do something that it didn’t like as I deposited around $60 into my account. I checked my receipt, it didn’t indicate that any money had been deposited, so we hailed an assistant. Fortunately, S has a much better grasp on the language than ML and myself, so he communicated the issue, and (30 minutes later) we were face-to-face with a banker. ML, as she hadn’t deposited any money yet, had a seamless transaction with him. *phew*

Me, on the other hand...well, I would have to come back on Monday to see if the money made it into my account. I didn’t have a good understand of what transpired during the conversation. It may be the case that the machine worked it out, or maybe the employees had to do some stuff on their end, but as it stood, I just had to wait. *shrug* Oh well. C’est la vie.

We still went shopping, and we set up plans to get sushi that night (to see if it’s what we wanted for lunch the next day as well!), and then our plans changed abruptly. ML was invited over to a colleague’s house for drinks that night, and I was welcome to join. So naturally, I brought a bottle of wine and tried to pretend like I could socialize well with strangers.

All in all, we had a good time. I kept my mouth shut for the most part as the conversations tended to be about things necessitating multiple years of residency in China. Or any country other than the US, really. Eventually the conversation drifted over to topics about which I felt I could contribute (education, books, television shows), and I finally opened my mouth. I’m fairly certain I didn’t embarrass myself. I was, actually, invited to join their book club! (Which mostly just involves getting together to drink wine/beer and eat cheese while we haphazardly dissect the book.)

Day 6 required that I wake up at 6am, which actually had been my routine already. So it wasn’t too bad. While I was out getting the wine the previous night, I had managed to scrounge up enough food and drink to get me through what I was imagining would be a long day. The idea is that we would take a train to a bus stop, then busses to the entrance of some underground cave that has a river in it. After walking for about a mile underground, we would then climb a mountain, and then visit an ancient village that still has some residents who get by as subsistence farmers.

Now an official veteran of the subway station and bus routes, I was completely at ease. Or I would have been, if any of the three of us would have had the foresight to look up exactly where we were meeting the rest of the group! Fortunately, plans had changed with the group, which put them a bit behind schedule as well! We somehow ended up at the bus stop with 5 minutes to spare, met our guide(s), and a couple of other tourists.

I kind of had to cram myself into my seat on the bus, but eventually got comfortable and pulled out my book. I would finish on the bus ride. For Dan Brown, it was alright. I sort of predicted most of it well in advance, but I have to admit I didn’t see the twist with the Spanish King and the Bishop coming! That made me happy.

Anyway, the bus stopped once before the cave to pick up the rest of the crew (which included two more tourists I didn’t know, another tour guide, and last but certainly not least, NR). 

The bus ride was almost completely uneventful, although the other passengers might say that his driving left much to be desired. In fact, at one point, the second tour guide, while drinking some water, may have tossed her cookies... Fortunately, we were only 5 minutes from the cave, though none of us knew that except the bus driver.

Once off the bus, we were in what looked like an open square or pavilion sort of thing in small, mostly vacant village. In the distance, you could just make out what sounded like a radio. From where we stood, the mountains on our left were a stone’s throw away, and the ones on our right were not much further. Centuries ago, the sides of the mountains on our right were carved in tiers to make room for ample farmland. This was quite common in this region, apparently.

As for the cave, we had to wait 30 minutes before it opened. I distracted myself by wandering over to what looked like a series of 12 (turns out there were 12 more on the other side!) images depicting life long ago. One of them had a tiger mauling an older gentleman. Curious, I asked NR for help translating as the top right corner held three characters, two of which I knew said “24.” These were, to the best of our understanding, 24 ways to be respectful. The one with the tiger was apparently supposed to represent protecting your elders from wild animal attacks. Seemed a bit specific, but...*shrug*

I stuck pretty close to NR’s side for the rest of the day as ML and S were enjoying each others’ company, and everyone else in our group seemed to be in some sort of non-platonic pairing. This worked out as I could ask her question after question about the characters we saw, about the language, and I got to find out that, while I likened the long trek into the cave and our merry band of travelers to the 7 Dwarves heading off to work, she had apparently immediately thought of Indiana Jones.

The cave itself was fascinating, although no description I give will really convey much that you can’t glean from an American cave. Turns out rocks over here are pretty similar to rocks in the States. Who’da thought? *insert sarcastic look here* What was so interesting to me was how prominent the influence of their culture was on how they named the formations. They would describe something as looking like a dragon or a Buddha, but those were the furthest from my mind when I looked at them. I’ll post the pictures we got from the cave here later, so stay tuned for those!

As I mentioned before, there was a freshwater river in the cave, and we got to take a boat ride down and back! None of us could really articulate how strange this experience was better than, “I can’t believe I’m in a boat on a river about 1 km below the surface! How neat!” There are just some things that words fail to express.

And now that you’re away of just how far below the surface we were, you may be able to appreciate how arduous the walk back was! On the way in, we had the anticipation of impending coolness to keep us occupied around every turn. On the way out, it was more a drudge. And stairs. So many stairs. Just when you think you’re done with the stairs, you go through a doorway and there’s just as many more staring you in the face. *wordplay partially intended* After what felt roughly like the same amount of time I spent waiting patiently in the bank on Day 3, we were finally back on the surface and could enjoy our dried crab(?), crackers, dried plums, and cookies.

And there were dogs. Dogs with no collars. Dogs that just begged and begged for food. (Don’t worry, Mom, I didn’t pet them. At least not after the first one bit me...) I’m not really sure what breed they were, but I’ve definitely never seen any quite like these. They seem rather common up in the mountain villages, though. *shrug*

After our snack, we started our hike. Which had more stairs. Because of course it did! Why wouldn’t there be more stairs? A sloped path would have been one thing, but actual stairs?! The audacity!!

In actuality, it was quite nice. The fresh air was...refreshing. We didn’t have a weird sense of being slightly damp and mildly cold but also warm anymore as we were hiking in the sun. And judging by the small huts (I would learn later that they are called, or at least one is, a Phoenix Nest), we would have several opportunities for breaks!

I was somewhat mistaken. When we got the first one, everyone grabbed a spot on the benches, conversation picked up, and we munched on our snacks again. By this point, it couldn’t have been more than 30 minutes since we had last been relaxing. The view itself was outstanding, and I think everyone in the group really learned to appreciate what was almost certainly not a radio after all, but a local singing karaoke into a loudspeaker. And she only seemed to know one song. But she sang it nonstop for the entirety of the hike...

But I mentioned that I was mistaken. We could see more of the Phoenix Nests on higher and higher peaks around us, and the valley was nicely sprawled out below us. After 5 minutes of sitting there, I began to suspect that things were not what they seemed. Nobody seemed anxious to keep going. At all. In fact, everyone got rather comfortable. We probably sat up there for another 30 minutes chatting about whatever came up before the guide finally called us back to our feet. (Yes, one of the Europeans asked who I voted for in 2016; he approved of my response, and a long conversation about modern politics ensued amongst the 8 travelers, representing at least 6 different nations. It was quite fascinating. And I was the resident expert on America! Go figure!!)

Anyway, once we got our feet beneath us again, we made our way back to the trail.........and started going back down the mountain. That was it! That was the entire hike! But that was quite alright; I didn’t bring very good shoes for long walks or hikes, and I’d already been on my feet for 3+ hours.

After the uneventful descent, we got back in the van and made our way (uneventfully) to the ancient village. This village looked...very much like the one we came from. It was here that we had lunch (way more food breaks than I expected on this trip!), and we entertained ourselves with more conversation and bigger dogs. I’m guessing the tour guide wasn’t sure how to graciously convey to us that we should probably get going, because after sitting for waaaaaay too long with some of our food still unpacked, one of us had the bright idea to put it away, as a means to convey that we were maybe ready to see the village. Within seconds, our guide had us back on our feet and moving along.

The ancient village itself was something to behold. Very few of the buildings were still occupied, but there was a small restaurant in one of them with stone tablets of Chinese writing laid about. Probably 15 or 20 of them, each one giving me the impression of a Chinese-10-Commandments-Tablet.

The last stop in the village was the old farmlands, with the tiered bits of land making their way up the mountainside. We were primarily relegated into just one of these, but S managed to climb around, up onto the next one above us without the tour guide noticing. I felt his route was a bit too circuitous, so I just pulled myself straight up the wall, bracing myself with the lone tree in the area. I’m pretty sure ML and NR were concerned that I would get hurt. #lol

Eventually the guide called us to come back, to not venture too far, so S and I skulked back to the edge with our tails between our legs. Before the girls knew what I intended to do, I had already jumped the 10-or-so feet back down. S wasn’t quick enough, and he was preemptively admonished for considering it. Classic. I told him he needed to be quicker about it, and that there was a reason I jumped down when they weren’t looking.

After meandering about for a little while longer, we made our way back to the vans and began the long drive back to Beijing.

I alluded to this above, but it’s getting to be about that time that I have to go teach, and this is a somewhat-natural-stopping-point for the story. When I get back to this tomorrow morning (because I’m grabbing beers with colleagues after I teach), I’ll upload pictures into this post and finish the story!

Sláinte,

BeardyAllen

[tipsoctopus]

"Could see Tahith Chong", "Hudson-Odoi to bump up his price-tag" - Fans predict Blues vs Man Utd

Chelsea welcome Manchester United to Stamford Bridge on Monday evening for an intriguing FA Cup 5th round tie. Both sides were in action in Europe this week in starkly contrasting ties, Chelsea overcoming Malmo in Sweden with a 2-1 victory in the Europa League and United outclassed by Paris Saint-Germain in the Champions League.

The dynamic of the upcoming tie is compelling. On the one hand the FA Cup represents a huge opportunity to win silverware, but at the same time the distraction of a cup run could potentially have detrimental consequences on the pivotal battle for a place in the top four.

Here to discuss the fixture in more detail this week are TT assistant editor, George Blake, who will be praying for a Chelsea win when he takes his usual spot on the armchair on Monday evening, and TT newbie, Alex Rigby, a rare breed of Mancunian Manchester United supporter, who is still revelling in Jose Mourinho’s dismissal almost two months later…

With both managers fighting for their jobs for contrasting reasons, could winning the FA Cup be enough to keep them in charge beyond the summer or is the sole priority to finish inside the top four?

George: “I’m not sure it will necessarily be enough for either manager, but if Ole Gunnar Solskjaer manages to win the FA Cup, you’ve got to think that it will help his case. Given that he joined when United were in such disarray, winning any sort of silverware deserves credit – and you’d expect Ed Woodward to consider that. In the case of Chelsea, we’ve already seen in the past that winning a cup isn’t enough at Stamford Bridge, and given that we missed out on Champions League football last season, we can’t afford to do so again. That said, if Chelsea lose on Monday and then again in the Carabao Cup, I think that will probably be it for Maurizio Sarri.”

Alex: “You’ve got to say Solskjaer is the more comfortable of the two managers given his lead on Manchester United’s meteoric climb up the table, and Chelsea’s utter demise. Winning the FA Cup would be nice, of course, but having lost some of its potency over the years, it wouldn’t be the end of the world if we lost it. We’re always going to prioritise the Champions League over any other domestic success, and our new man knows that. Sarri, on the other hand, definitely needs some silverware to keep himself in the job. We all know how that club is run and how cutthroat Roman Abramovich can be if he doesn’t see a return on his investment.”

The footballing purists of this world will grimace with disgust at the sight of this discussion. Surely winning the FA Cup counts for something, right? Well, it only takes a quick look at the transfer market to realise that football is dominated by money, and where is the money? That’s right, you guessed it, in the Champions League.

Finishing inside the top four is slowly becoming a trophy in itself, albeit without the gloat and tangible hunk of metal to show for it. But, even with that in mind, there are only four games left to win to lift arguably the world’s most prestigious domestic trophy. Considering the size and quality of the respective squads at Solskjaer’s and Sarri’s disposal, there is no excuse for not going all out to win the competition.

Jesse Lingard and Anthony Martial have been ruled out for the game. How will this influence Solskjaer’s approach and who is most likely to come in to replace them?

Alex: “Well we’ve already seen what happens when we lose the energy of Lingard and the skill of Martial. Both have been important for our recent form and both fit our new philosophy well. We’ll likely see Lukaku start alongside either Alexis Sanchez or Mata. There’s obvious problems with Sanchez that don’t need expanding on, and with Mata he’s just too slow. Technically gifted, but takes all the sting out of our counter attacking movements when he plays on the wing and not his preferred central position.”

George: “It’s obviously going to come into play, as both players have been very important to his system over the last few weeks. Man Utd are pretty lucky, though, in that they do have players that can come in. Obviously, the immediate choices are players like Mata and Sanchez, though it must be said that neither of those two have been flawless in recent weeks. Solskjaer talked up the role of young players in his pre-match press conference, and so there’s certainly a chance that we could see Tahith Chong start instead having made it onto the bench at times this season.”

It’s certainly interesting that George mentions Chong as a potential starter. United have a strong tradition with promoting young players and Solskjaer has already installed a brand of football that aligns with the core principles of the club, but in a game of this magnitude he’s more likely to stick with the senior players at his disposal. Besides, Sanchez and Romelu Lukaku were on fire in the 4th round which preceded their clash on Monday, so it would represent a real kick in the teeth for those players if they were snubbed in favour of an unproven youth player. The absences of Martial and Lingard certainly represent a blow for United, but the visitors are well equipped to seal their place in the 6th round without them.

Does Sarri need to finally relax his stubborn philosophy and make some tactical tweaks to put an end to Chelsea’s abysmal form of late?

George: “I think it’s less about system and more about personnel. His isn’t isn’t the formation – we know that works – but it’s his stubbornness in his approach to games that has been problematic. He’s consistently banged on about his players lacking motivation, yet he’s continued to pick the same 8 or 9 individuals every single week. When you’ve got players like Ross Barkley, Jorginho, Marcos Alonso and Willian all looking poor, why do they keep getting chances? Especially given that players like Callum Hudson-Odoi and Ruben Loftus-Cheek are on the bench.”

Alex: “Probably. However, he doesn’t strike me as the kind of man who’s willing to compromise. It’s naivety on his part that Chelsea can simply adopt a new style of play in one of the toughest leagues in the world and expect it to work. He’s got a finite amount of time now to fine-tune his philosophy before the players revolt, as they have done in the past, and oust him from his position.”

His refusal to adapt his system could ultimately prove to be his downfall. The very best managers in the division have showcased a willingness to tweak formations, rotate players, to try something new when results aren’t flowing and the fact Sarri is yet to do that is a major concern for Chelsea fans. Perhaps, as George says, it is the players and not the system that are at the crux of the issue, but I’m not convinced. Something has to budge both within his selection policy and his tactical approach.

Do you regard Solskjaer as a serious contender for the long term position or do you expect United to appoint an experienced manager in the summer? 

Alex: “Solskjaer has been quality since he’s arrived and the team are playing far, far better than before. We’ve probably just passed the point now where the players are performing because of ‘new manager syndrome’ so we’ll be able to make a far more comprehensive judgement in the near future. It’s hard to say but I’d still like to see Mauricio Pochettino at the club. He’s shown this season more than ever that he’s one of the best managers in the world, and we should go all out to secure his signature. If we don’t manage it then Solskjaer is definitely the man for the job.”

George: “I didn’t think he would be when he arrived, but he’s proven his merit pretty quickly, and nobody can say they haven’t been impressed by him. That said, speaking as a Chelsea fan, appointing interim managers on a permanent basis can be a muddy path to go down, and Roberto Di Matteo felt that first hand. I’m just not sure that Solskjaer has the tactical nous to take on the job long-term, because at present he seems to be simply running off the feel-good factor at Old Trafford.”

It would be intriguing to see the shortlist that United’s hierarchy have drawn up right now. As Alex has alluded to, you would expect Pochettino to be on it, but the Argentine has built something profound at Tottenham and it seems ridiculous to think that he’d consider walking away from his project just at the moment in which the various pieces of the jigsaw are beginning to fall into place.

Aside from Pochettino, there aren’t too many standout candidates and that could work in Solskjaer’s favour. At this moment in time he’s probably a dark horse contender, but if he can win the FA Cup and lead United to a top-four finish it would take a bold decision to send him packing.

Much to his obvious displeasure, Eden Hazard has often been deployed at centre-forward in fixtures of a similar magnitude but Gonzalo Higuain’s arrival should change that. How important could the Argentine be on Monday evening?

George: “I think he’ll be crucial. We couldn’t give him the ball against Man City, and as a result we just weren’t able to get out. Hopefully we’ll have a bit more possession against Man Utd, and that should hopefully lead to a bit more action in their third. People will claim that he’s unfit and that he’s old, but we’ve already seen his natural goal-scoring instinct, and if he can get as involved as he was against Huddersfield, we’ll be in a very good position to secure a win.” 

Alex: “Higuain is a decent enough player, and he’ll probably cause a few problems, but he’ll be no way near as potent as Kylian Mbappe. Our defenders have definitely improved under Solskjaer and Lindelof looks three times the player now. The lack of pace should suit us down to the ground.”

Chelsea may have lost 6-0 against Man City but their ventures forward towards Ederson’s goal provided glimpses of what Higuain can do. He’s the type of player who can produce something in the blinking of an eye and his presence at centre-forward should certainly be giving United cause for concern.

Pertinently, the fact his presence should allow Hazard to operate in a preferred attacking midfield role will ensure the Belgian’s quality is maximised, and that could be even more important than Higuain’s contribution when leading from the front.

Finally, what are your score predictions? 

Alex: “I can see a touch of nervousness creeping in from United after their last result and losing Martial and Lingard will hurt them going forward. Chelsea don’t have enough for the win, but they’ll throw on Giroud to grab a late one. I’m going for 1-1 in normal time and without replays in the competition from this round onward, anything can happen in extra time.”

George: “Chelsea really need this one and I’m hoping United will struggle for rhythm in the final-third. I’m going for 2-0 with Callum Hudson-Odoi to bump up his price-tag with a brace.”

from FootballFanCast.com http://bit.ly/2Ef5ouD via IFTTT from Blogger http://bit.ly/2TPQuQB via IFTTT