Chinonso 🐺

Playing this thing called life on elite difficulty and winning is some dope stuff. I do not take any of this for granted

@TheBlueDodger He just opens his mouth “waaaaaaahhh!!”

🚨 Liam Rossnior: "We're playing against a team in massive form who are pushing for the title. But the club demands that, we need to win games like this. "That's why I've come to the club, to help it grow and improve. At the moment, we're not taking advantage of the moments. "The first goal was very, very difficult to stop. They do it very well. The second goal we miss a tackle on the edge of the box, the third is an individual mistake. When you make those mistakes, the flow of the game changes and we have to make sure we do better in those moments if we want to win the games of football." (@SkySportsPL) #CFC

@holiverCFC O’Neil is far better than Rosenior but Chelsea will be too big for him. Only marcelo gallardo can save this club

@kivraw That's very unrealistic. He's barely been at Strasbourg for 5 months.

Not even sacking Rosenior will make me happy because our next coach will be Gary O'Neil

@princesirdik @Babajiide GOAT manager undisputedly

If Pep wins this league, he would have won it with 3 different set of players

Rosenior loves the sound of his voice. Why was he giving an interview at half time

Bakugan Brawl and Dragon Balls

@GPhilcz Subjected that kid to be doing on-call duty from 1-5AM and still want him to write a postmortem and submit before 7. A cruel father if you ask me

What kind of a father allows their kid to be a Site Reliability Engineer?

الله لا يوفق تشيلسي اليوم

@_fels1 🤣🤣🤣

Arsenal when it is time to win a trophy

@Oli_Ekun It’s solomon. A real lover he dedicated 8 songs for a woman who loved her shepherd boy despite his many wives. I get him tbh

I wonder who the realest lover in the Bible is.

@OOCarefreeLG @CarefreeLewisG 🤝my man!

CarefreeLewisG COOKS Troopz & Arsenal After Losing 2-1 To Bournemouth!

@JasonNjoku @m8arteta Mazi you think the boys can get it over the line?

Test of faith. In @m8arteta we trust

@SirLeoBDasilva Lol 😂

Arsenal will win. We will just leave it late.

I never thought I’d be writing this tweet. I was laid off. For most people that’s a scary moment. For me, it’s a countdown. I’m on a visa. No job means out of status. Out of status means leaving. Leaving means saying goodbye to years of my life, the friends I’ve made, the work I’ve poured myself into, the future I came here to build. And right now, with everything happening around immigration, that goodbye feels closer than ever. I have a CS PhD and have spent years working on AI, ML, deep learning, and computer vision. I’m open to full-time roles, internships, PhD positions, or postdocs. I’ve never asked the internet for help before. I’m asking now. If you can share this, tag a lab or team, or just know someone who’s hiring, please do. A retweet could genuinely change my life. abdollahzakeri.github.io #USCISPause #LiftTheHold #DigitalBlackOutIran‌

@justcfc Rosenior out irregardless of anything

Rosenoir out if we win tommorow

I will miss myself

I don’t dispute that selective breeding works or that it demonstrates biological variation under selection pressure. My issue is with the claim that this automatically validates the full explanatory jump being made. Dogs are still dogs. We’ve exaggerated traits like size, fur, or face shape, but we haven’t turned wolves into a fundamentally different kind of animal with new organs or systems. That small change is observable. The big claim that the same blind process built everything from bacteria to complex animals over deep time, is where the leap feels much bigger.

@jackhoudini__ @TheIgboWolf @GodsgreatG If evolution wasn’t real, selective breeding wouldn’t work. It’s the same principles but guided by humans rather than the environment. Dogs still show how a species can evolve over time. In nature, the process is the same, just slower and natural.

I have a genuine question. Many scientists say humans evolved from apes and other primates. So why don’t we see that kind of evolution happening today? Why does it seem like it stopped?

Oh, I totally agree with the observations, variation, divergence, and even convergence are real, no dispute there. My real question is about the big conclusion we’re drawing from them. Why does genetic similarity automatically mean a single shared ancestor for all life, rather than shared biological constraints that lead to similar solutions? Why does adaptability within populations automatically scale up to one continuous branching chain from bacteria to everything else? At what point does the inference stop being pure observation and turn into interpretation of the same data? I’m not rejecting change itself im just asking whether this particular explanation is the only one that actually fits

@jackhoudini__ Poor example using machines imo Shared ancestry with broad changes shows biological divergence is possible and selective breeding gives clear evidence of genetic adaptability. Convergent evolution is the argument you are looking for, fruit trees would be a better example

I get your point about shared genes and progressive change but I just don’t think similarity automatically proves common ancestry. Different systems can share core components because they serve similar functions, not necessarily because one came from the other. Look at bikes and cars, they both have engines. That doesn’t mean one evolved from the other, the bike came first and the car came later. However, they use similar principles to solve similar problems which is transportation. So for me, shared traits show patterns and constraints, but I’m not convinced they fully explain the leap to universal common ancestry.

@jackhoudini__ @TheIgboWolf @GodsgreatG But it is proof of progressive change over time that develop into different groups with shared genes that have common ancestors

Fairs. I like that distinction and I agree, adaptation is something we see everyday like different strain of covid, bacteria developing antibiotic resistance like you pointed out. My issue is the jump from those short-term, reversible changes to the claim that entirely new, complex forms arise over long periods. That part isn’t directly observable in the same way. It’s inferred. So the question isn’t whether evolution happens at a small scale, it’s whether the mechanism we observe is sufficient to account for the scale being claimed.

Ok ok ok ok, two valid points. You are right that selective breeding is not the same as natural evolution, I used it as an analogy for how one species can branch into different forms not as a direct equivalent where one is intention and that other is natural selection. On your second point we actually do observe evolution happening in real time in the wild like bacteria developing antibiotic resistance. The changes we cannot see are the macro ones that require millions of years but evolution is observable and documented constantly.

Dog breeding doesn’t prove the point. Isn’t selective breeding something controlled intentionally by using one breed of dog over another? It’s not the same thing as evolution where species change their genetic makeup on their own over time as Darwin described it? Also if big evolutionary changes are constant, why don’t we catch more obvious, ongoing changes happening right now in the wild? Saying “it’s happening but too slow to notice” explains the absence, but it also makes the claim hard to verify.

It's happening. You are not watching evolution because you are inside it. It works across thousands of generations not one lifetime. Your great great great grandchildren will be slightly different from you and they won’t notice either. Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. We both evolved from the same ancestor that no longer exists. Chimps went one way, we went another. Both branches survived. It's like the selective breeding that separated dogs from wolf