2005-07-15T09:26:00.000-07:00

Proximity Gestation

In Relation To The Beginnings
Of
Species

I don't believe that we were ever monkeys/apes. It just
doesn't make sense to me.

Evolution in that sense? My answer is no. There are far too many other things that don't fit about it, and far too many other explanations as you soon shall see….. and from observations and research I have raised good
questions with myself.... enough of a question to forward this work.

....one of which is "Why would Humans be the only thing
to have such an extreme path of 'evolution' if it were that we began as apes?" Why would it only be our species with that much of a change?

I feel that we are much the same, save for small
developments, as we were from our beginnings.
Look for a moment to insects. Bees, for instance...
many have remained unchanged as far back as have been found. Look to their activities? All of their species are very consistent.... though different types of the same thing.

That "influence" on them (and us) comes from
somewhere. I believe that it is a higher, more powerful
existence/entity…..an “Eternal Source” of that which gives animation/life. A “Body of Frequency” for the sake of illustration. We as creatures are nothing more than a
resonation… a reaction to an action…. Still in motion.
Look to creatures of the oceans/lakes/seas. Look at
how they move with one another within their groupings....nearly instantly they communicate subtleties in movement and other information.....

I feel that much of it all, has allot to do with a form of “frequencies” (for the purpose of illustration)..... those
“frequencies,” consistent over the centuries, have molded everything including our perception of reality, within those consistencies.

Creatures under the sea, have all been effected in the
same manner, but below an opaque filter of these
frequencies-being the bodies of water....and have adjusted
in their existence according to the consistent body of
frequency that they have been exposed to at their depth,
over time.

We have just found that creatures from the very
depths of the ocean have no eyes. I don't think they failed to develop them... I think that they didn't get the
information upon their gestation.... that instills the
development of eyes..... the "opaque" filter of their
environment "censored" that information in my opinion.
Think of it. Our differences as people/species of
humans.... even as far as personality.... In my belief is
dictated from that higher existence..... that working of
consistent ‘frequency’... with/and through the effect and
process of Proximity Gestation….and from where it
emits...( I don't believe it to be the sun... I see the sun as
simply a singular part of a whole).

Since our planet was "formed"(which I have beliefs
about as well), we have been in a consistent pattern of
movement... through other consistent patterns of
frequency. Many of which we have yet to even experience as a planet.

The formations in the sky at night, that we see as stars and constellations... are consistent sources of various different frequencies that have been effecting us since "day one" much in the same given pattern as they are today, as has the sun and other celestial bodies through "the broadcast/translation" of those frequencies...continuing them on their way from where they come.....and/or the "reflecting" of those frequencies..... the reflecting causing cross cancellation and "overtones" of false harmonies mixed within the "harmonies" of those frequencies that we already perceive (consciously or not).

This has been happening "for ever" in our perspective,
consistently.

We know from science that ALL things are made up of vibration.

It is my belief that the differences in humans/species
of humans.... isn't from evolution... but more from
development.... exposure to different "harmony groups" of those frequencies over long periods of time... much in the same way that sea creatures developed differently at
different depths and exposures. Differences being due to different proximity within that larger field in placement and as well from other physical influences on
developmental stages. Different levels of different
elements becoming present in various different degrees
within initial gestation areas.

Given the origin of one land mass that has
subsequently divided (the movement being scientific
"truth" as well as fabled- the fact that it was fabled long
before it was scientifically known, raises question with me about the popular time line and record), and in that
division and movement has then seen different "frequency exposure" for those various different parts.... "migrating" through and into different areas of that consistent and constant pattern of frequencies......
... it very much stands to reason that creatures (and
organisms) on those different pieces of "moving land,"
would begin to "develop" subtle differences based on the
type of, and consistent body of frequency that they then
found themselves in the "receiving area" of.... especially
for long periods of time... which is very much the case. It
would stand to the same reasoning that those differences would become more pronounced the farther from one another that they were moved… then becoming more susceptible and influenced from their immediate area/influences and newer proximity.

Those along the equator...... will show those traits more along and in line with the frequencies of the more
dominant sun..... with lesser traits from the less dominant night frequencies (though frequencies from stars are still there in the day time, they are just absorbed more and over influenced/cross cancelled from those of the sun)...... and they will also show more pronounced traits of the non human primate species due to the process of Proximity Gestation and subsequently their proximity to the areas most populated with those non human primate species (please see graph 1, diagram 2 and a map of
natural non human primate range- old world and new
world). This process occurs is all areas of the world, is
perpetual and I believe began in the early stages of earth’s formation… during the time of a singular land mass… or very near land masses.

....those farther away from the equator will show more
traits in line with the patterns of the night "frequency"
movements..... and traits more conducive to those non
human creatures relative to their natural proximity. It is
also found that there non-human primates more in tune
with the “night patterns” than are other variations of
‘non-human primates.’ I do believe that day or night have little to do with similarity to humans in appearance, action. These things I feel are due to the ‘elemental properties’ of the given specimens physical make up, firstly… then as influence from those more subtle areas as ‘sun/moon’ qualities.

In a recent study from the ‘Biological Reviews of the
Cambridge Philosophical Society’ it is stated that the
Malagasy mouse and dwarf lemurs and the Afro-Asian
bushbabies and lorises, all display what is referred to as a “disbursed harem” system in their pattern of social
organization. I believe that these traits in these various
different specimen are because of the reasons I have
stated. Proximity and ‘elemental percentage’ influences –
the various amount of given influences within their
gestation proximity, and the amounts/percentage of the
present ‘elements’ respectively (see graph 1- combined
with diagram 3). This type of movement in social pattern
is itself an emulation of that consistent
process/movement within the process of Proximity
Gestation and their given susceptibility as I have
described.

Both of these types of influence vary in some degree
given the season (and position in reference to the sun
effect on our planet)...... as winter months are more
dominated by the "night frequencies"...... while earth is in the path of the suns orbit...... and summer months are
more dominated by the radiation of the sun.... while earth is in the suns orbital tail. It is also subject to subtle differences in considering the climate changes over the centuries and eons…. Which were very much due to a combination of shelf plate movement and proximity of
the earth’s early orbit, in the early stages of our sun’s
orbital path….

I believe that it is the "night Frequency" patterns, that
lend us our more subtle traits..... more flowing
traits.....because of the greater variety and movement
within those patterned frequencies and the more subtle
presence of them. The “social traits” of the given
examples within the Cambridge study are fairly good
examples of the subtleties I am referring to. There is
another abstract I would like to cite, which supports these subtle movements at a much smaller level. It is titled; The distribution of pol containing human endogenous retroviruses in non-human primates Written by; Greenwood, AD - Stengel, A -Erfle, V - Seifarth, W -Leib- Mosch, C … and another (un related) titled ; Long-term reinfection of the human genome by endogenous
retroviruses Written by; Belshaw, R - Pereira, V -
Katzourakis, A - Talbot, G - Paces, J - Burt, A - Tristem, M
…and yet another unrelated abstract titled; A HERV-K
provirus in chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas, but not
humans Written by; Barbulescu, M - Turner, G - Su, M -
Kim, R - Jensen-Seaman, MI - Deinard, AS - Kidd, KK - Lenz, J……. and yet another titled; Many human endogenous retrovirus K (HERV-K) proviruses are unique to humans Written by; Barbulescu, M - Turner, G - Seaman, MI - Deinard, AS - Kidd, KK - Lenz, J …… Though it is that the subject matters of these abstracts are fairly unrelated to one another… in specifics… it is that they serve to illustrate the more subtle (and even larger motion of the mechanism that I propose) movements and consistencies within the larger process. They are some very telling examples of the process of Proximity Gestation... the movement of the process itself.... many of these examples are very much similar to the illustration of diagram 3.

Though it is that I do not believe these
movements and integrations are what promote “change”
per say, I do believe that they illustrate quite effectively
the type of pattern movement within the process itself..... again, these consistencies are simply another level of emulation.... continued resonance. These findings within
these abstracts are related in the sense of being indicative of the “ongoing” process of Proximity Gestation….if nothing more. Entirely different viruses, acting and moving in largely a similar manner… the subtle differences being due to their “personal” proximity and elemental make-up as per the result of the given “fringe area” combination that yielded them.

Note that many of these examples are still being
examined from a "linear" perspective, as opposed to that
flowing motion of the process itself.... as if to "gather" and separate the "differences" within the examples to then rearrange in a “linear” manner, instead of examining them in the positions and "proximity" that they occur. The percentage "change" that is cited in a linear sense, may very well be relevant in a "proximity," breadth, peripheral, manner. The tendency seems still to
be an attempt at connecting things/species in a linear
fashion, instead of addressing their relations at a
molecular level in an ‘atmospheric’ sense. "Width" of
various related elements between species, not linear
“change” from one species into another.

I would also like to cite the findings of the abstract
titled ; Many human endogenous retrovirus K (HERV-K)
proviruses are unique to humans … This very much supports what I have been describing in relation to the effects of the process of Proximity Gestation. If it were that humans stemmed from ape in the manner as is the common belief, then it is that there would be no “uniqueness” in the way that this abstract addresses. These findings alone, serve very much as nearly undisputable evidence corroborating the process of Proximity Gestation. The support of an “event”
similar to what I have depicted in regard to “elemental
exchange” and “fringe area” influences is very nearly
overwhelming, simply in the title of this abstract. It
further supports the idea that life for different species
began very much in a “parallel” sense….. very nearly
simultaneously.

"Evolve" suggest extreme's.... so many connotations
attached to that word... when there are many ( whoa! ‘way lots’) of example's where almost nothing has changed in
some creatures.... "Evolved" suggests a "progress." Where
what I am trying to describe is a matter of living....a
process….. being effected from the same "pattern" over
and over again.... like the sea on stones.... they aren't
evolving, they are being subtly molded........

Why would we be expected to believe that a given
creature would have such drastic changes (as are
suggested in popular theories), and other's don't? From a recent study of the Salmon Population in the Pacific
Northwest of the United States of America, as per the
Washington State University- Department of Natural
Resources/Science and more particularly in reference to a recent abstract titled; Maximum temperature limits for
chinook, coho, and chum salmon, and steelhead trout in
the Pacific Northwest – submitted to isiknowledge.com by Richter, A and Kolmes, SA. – The abstract cites the
changing water temperatures as a main reason for
endangering of these species. If it were that creatures
possessed some form of ability to “morph” and adapt to
their surroundings….this abstract might be entirely
different. Perhaps to the tune of tracking the changes
which would supposedly occur within these species to
accommodate their changing habitat. The sad part is, is
that they are becoming extinct. Dieing off… not changing.

This is a very good example of the effect of proximity.

For all intent and purpose, they are being exposed to a new (different) proximity atmosphere than that which
their elemental make up was devised within. They are no
longer in a “harmonious relationship” with their
surroundings. The lack of any attempt at adaptation is
empirical at least, in regard to what I have stated
pertaining to linear development being illusion.

Yes, I believe that I have found at least a good
explanation and response to many questions.... especially many of those in the recent scientific direction of “evo-devo” as have been put forward in an abstract written by Arthur, W. titled; The emerging conceptual framework of evolutionary developmental biology

I must say again, It seems that the misdirection is in approaching the subject
from a linear perspective. Though it is that I am
addressing an entire process which is much larger than
any "evolution" aspect.... the appearance of "evolution," in my belief, is simply illusion from our perspective.... this illusion is as much because of our concept of time, as it is because of the concept of "linear development."

There is no linear relationship of man and ape... only a "parallel" due to “cross pollination”- "elemental exchange" and only in certain strains of the species, within both species and sub-groups, in my opinion. The same "elemental exchange" in other ways, from different sources, can be seen in the human and ape,
as well.... again, in varying degrees. This is due to
proximity.... and the process of Proximity Gestation.

My personal opinion, is that Darwin missed a bit with
the Finch thing and I also believe that Darwin failed to
consider time as a human concept within his writing. I
don't think the Finches "developed" those differences per say, as much as I think that those differences were there upon the conception of those different types of birds..... a combination of that "consistent frequencies" subtle differences, and the difference between the inseminating factors upon their creation..... Proximity Gestation. (Diagram 1, Graph 1)

In short, I think that most, if not ALL living creatures
are from the "Egg." One form or another.
In an abstract written by Schmitt, S. from the
International Journal of Developmental Biology, titled;
From eggs to fossils: epigenesis and transformation of
species in Pander's biology… he references the earlier
studies of a Russian/German scientist named Christian
Heinrich Pander (1794-1865), he addresses the importance of embryology…..and speculates upon the presence of “germ layers” which influence “evolution”….I propose that it is the process of Proximity Gestation itself, which would influence those supposed germ layers……. and further in related abstracts "abnormal regenerations" are addressed.

This aspect cites an example of the process of Proximity Gestation from a different perspective. In the same manner that these "abnormalities" occur, so go the
influences of the process of Proximity Gestation.
"Abnormalities" being purely subjective...especially
regarding the "environment/proximity" of the given
example. Factually, those specimen, variations of species
that met demise, can be classified as "abnormalities" in
the same respect (as can now the Salmon Species in the
Pacific Northwest)…. simply on a larger time frame.
"schmitt-homeosis "

In applying this to the situation with
the problems concerning the salmon species…. A person
could say, from that same perspective, that they are now
nothing more than an “abnormality.” Because of the
change in environment, their physical existence is now
equal to an abnormality. The only difference being
perspective….. the atmosphere in which they existed,
changed (is changing)- rendering them incompatible with
the new atmosphere. This is really no different than
something being placed into an atmosphere with
“abnormalities” pertaining to the standard/normality
conducive to the situation.

I feel that I should also point out, that it seems to be a standard in the more popular understanding of
“evolution,” to forgo addressing the lack of “adaptation”
within examples such as these various salmon species
going extinct. Especially since it is that the main reason is a change in climate. The very thing that many cite as
reason for change in species. This is too great a
contradiction for me to ignore. If it is that species have
“evolved” in a manner that was at least partly for the
purpose of “adaptation,” then it is that there would be
some reaction and change in the specimen regarding
situations such as the given example. There isn’t, that I
can find or have heard of (other than dieing off). What’s
more, is that in regard to “extinction,” it is so easily
justified and ignored as it happens in our very midst….
But then is addressed as some mystery when in regard to historical findings… placement….reasons…. AND is then usually tried to be united in some linear manner with some other species/occurrence. As if there was some
“change” in the given creature/species that had gone
extinct indicating it’s continuance in another form. I
don’t understand the mystery in examining those
situations.

We are witnessing the extinction of species
now. The reasons for it are not very relevant to the end
result, therefore the process of extinction wouldn’t be
that much different now. I seriously doubt that the
occurrence was much different in ancient history.
Because the Salmon species are dieing out, does not mean that all others will as well. It does not mean that they will be suddenly related to any of the other species that continue on.

I would like to cite the recent discovery (1999) of
Neanderthal co-existing with “modern humans” in Central Europe to illustrate this point more clearly. They coexisted for around 1000 years according to the abstract and article. This means that “modern humans” came from somewhere other than some “change” of another creature– perhaps relative variation of the primate species (I should mention that in many ways we are again, witnessing the same type of situation in our very midst as the co-existence is said to have been). This entirely supports the idea of the process of Proximity Gestation. It entirely debunks the claims of life (human species) originating in Africa from a single specimen. It entirely debunks the claims and popular belief of some linear relationship between the variations of the primate
species. It supports greatly as well, my opinion that life
for species actually began in several places. If not
simultaneously, then very near it…. And in very similar
manners, much of which have to do with that larger,
ongoing process… and the result of it through emulation resulting in the various different species and the sub groups of them. This process I can find no other suitable title for than that of Proximity Gestation. This distinct possibility is further illustrated in a recent study
performed in Antarctica. The findings were published in
an abstract written by; Shivaji, S -Reddy, GSN -Aduri, RP -
Kutty, R -Ravenschlag, K - titled; Bacterial diversity of a
soil sample from Schirmacher Oasis, Antarctica. This
abstract focuses on the diversity of bacteria’s present in
the soil…. It also notes the similarities between the
varieties present and those present in many other areas
around the world. It is cited that the bacteria diversity of
this study is unique in that none of the examples
belonged to the “uncultured Y, O, G, A and B groups
common to all soil samples.”

While it is that I am no molecular biologist, this indicates to me, within the
diversity and subtle differences found to be consistent
and consistent in difference… that even at the molecular
level the indications of that larger process are very
evident. It is this same type of diversity that I feel acts
most within the “creation aspects” of the process of
Proximity Gestation (as illustrated in diagrams 1-3)
yielding in some cases the different types of species that
we know of as living creatures… and in other cases having
yielded those types of species we have found to have gone
extinct… and even in other cases… yielding “natural
attempts at existence” that didn’t ‘take’ in that respect.
In a study conducted pertaining to the “Dalmation Wall
Lizard” and “Organisms, Diversity and Evolution”-
abstract titled; Mitochondrial phylogeography of the
Dalmatian wall lizard, Podarcis melisellensis (Lacertidae) –
Written by; Podnar, M- Mayer, W- and Tvrtkovic, N – It
found that the diversity of this species and it’s “subspecies”
began in the “earliest Pleistocene” and I might
add, is described in such a manner as to be conducive to
the process I have described. I also have to note that
there may be something more than coincidence in relation
to the co-existence of “modern humans” and
“Neanderthal” in this same time period- roughly. This
study shows that there was some form of “divergence” of
this given example of species in that time frame. It is also
shown in other studies, that “modern humans” and
“Neanderthal” existed together for around 1000 years…
this as well can be seen as a “divergence” of sorts. I do
not mean to suggest that one begat the other… what I am
drawing attention to here is the fact that these apparent
“changes”- developments as they are seen from our
perspective in the modern day…. are in the relatively
same time period. From one perspective, it would appear
that something quite drastic had happened unilaterally to
inspire this “change.” Though it is that I do not believe
something so drastic was solely responsible for this
movement…. I do believe that it was of a “unilateral
influence” in the form of that ongoing process. It is more
than coincidence when viewing the consistency of so
many “changes” in a consistent time frame. In that, where
can be seen any inspiration for an “adaptive” change to
take place? Neanderthal gave way to a much less “hairy”
and “animal like” creature… being the “modern human.”

The attitude regarding “evolution” because of
“adaptation” states that the change there-in would have
been in a different direction than in “losing natural
protective elements of the body,” and “losing superior
size and strength.” In my opinion, what we consider
“survival of the fittest” had nothing to do with these
changes. Survival of the fittest suggests “adaptation,”
adaptation suggests maintaining a “superiority” in the
wilderness environment. Shorter and considerably more
hairless versions of human, does not to me make for
“superior survival elements” in a wild environment.
Again, I find my answer in that larger process.

The fact that so many “changes” seem to have occurred in the
same time space supports this. The “wall lizards” didn’t
necessarily “diversify” or “change.” More that elements
from their make-up contributed to the process of other
“fringe area” developments within gestation areas and
proximity which proved to be conducive to producing
other variations. This convergence of “changes” is really
quite consistent in appearance throughout known history.
It is definitely cyclical…. Ongoing…… re-occurring. And
judging from my observations of the over all consistency,
the time between these “births” will become consistently
less and less. Essentially, those periods between such
changes could be viewed as a type of “gestation” period.

Eventually finding ourselves in a more immediate
“response time” to our very influence upon the process of
Proximity Gestation” through our existence. That is, we
will, as will all other living creatures, have less “leeway” in
what is contributed from our existence into that
“gestation” and there-in upon that apparent “change,”
“birth.” It could eventually become quite immediate given
that the time between these “births” has consistently
become smaller. This, I admit is a blend of metaphysical
aspects as well as physical influence.

Even now, there are new strains of microbiological
elements being discovered in vicinities which have been
inhabited by other strains, traditionally. For example of
this, I will cite a recent abstract on a microbiological study
in China. It is titled; Streptosporangium yunnanense sp
nov and Streptosporangium purpuratum sp
nov., from soil in China It was written by; Zhang, LPJiang,
CL- and Chen, WX The two new strains discovered
in this study are different than those of the same genus.
It is stated that the study was conducted in a region with
specific geographical conditions which contributes greatly
to it’s microbiological diversity. Again, I claim to be no
micro biologist…. But to see this kind of “development”
being of something larger in it’s workings and
consistency… doesn’t take a doctorate. This illustrates a
portion of the process I have been referring to…..
Multitudes of different influences have existed in the
same general proximity for much longer than we know of.
I contend that within the “fringe areas” of their cohabitation,
could be found just as many (if not more)
“failed” (“abnormalities”), of examples pertaining to
different or “new” strains.

Some of these “new” strains surviving a considerable amount of time less than others within very similar “strains” to those that manage to
continue. Some of the pre-existing strains, dieing off at
similar points in time that others are just beginning… this
without any “linear” relation to one another other than
perhaps a slight contribution of “element” simply through
their proximity, if that at all. Their “similarities” between
“strains” being because of the elements within that given
proximity and the effects of that larger process, and not
due to any relationship with one another, linear or
otherwise.

I believe that upon the creation of our planet (at it's
molten stage and periodically since), it was "penetrated"
from another/other objects (that I believe to be from a
larger, broken up source- as are we).... those objects
deposited elemental properties which combine in various
ways through the process of Proximity Gestation with the
make up of our "planet" at those points, even down to the
micro-biological/molecular level..... these “elements”
culminate and incubate, and gestate life in very
rudimentary "egg" type of formations....... from the most
rudimentary materials.... through the process of Proximity
Gestation and that larger influence of an “Eternal Source.”
As this occurs amid living creatures… it inspires subtle
divergence of them according to their proximity within
the “disbursement radius” of those other influences. This
isn’t to say, that an impact must be necessary for this
process to transpire…. As I have stated, I believe it to be
an on going event….. there is really no “stop” or “start” to
it.

This view stems from observation, study and knowing
from experience that you don't even need a chicken to
hatch eggs (I've done it and raised them),......... all that you
need is simply warmth.... once the act of fertilization-insemination
occurs (which we now know is possible in
various manners)....... IT is simply a reaction which I feel
could have happened upon those different impacts from
other objects.... simultaneously cooling the molten area...
and even catching some of that reaction in those
rudimentary "Egg Shells."

This has been achieved several times in a laboratory…. And artificial insemination occurs quite frequently…. It isn’t a hard thing to envision and
even less hard to believe once you have witnessed life
emerging from a molded piece of calcium that has been
kept warm for a considerably short amount of time (some
twenty days) in regard to the value of the pay load of its
purpose; being a living, breathing thing.
This could also account for the depiction of "God"
making man from mud. But such is pure speculation…
however entertaining the thought may be…. It is in a
certain respect, possible insight into the metaphysical
influences on the mind and knowledge….
It really isn't that far fetched..... The human/mammal
gestation is simply an egg... a flesh and blood egg.... from
the egg within having been fertilized. I should state that
this occurrence (mammals) are living proof of the
consistency of that larger process and our involuntary
emulation of it. The fact of “egg” within “egg” if you can
relate. This larger process I see as layered in similar
manners.

Consider the remnants of a much larger thing, planet
like.... breaking up... a thing that had it’s own orbital path
and place within a larger consistency…. Something so big,
that we as we are now, would be hard pressed even to
locate and see it outside of our universe (which is in my
opinion, the remnants of that larger thing)…….ourselves
(planet earth) being a part of that debris... even in it's
molten form...(as I believe, is the sun as well- and
consequently other stars)..... smashing into the molten
form of all of the planets in our solar system (which is
simply the formed/cooled debris from the larger object...
and perhaps early flare(s) from the sun)....
Consider that the "larger object" had some form of
what we would call life..... even if it were just microscopic,
at the time that it "broke apart." Then further consider
that such debris still maintained some amount of those
“spores” as it crashed into the cooling blob of our planet.
If you consider these things, and are familiar with just
how basic the "egg gestation" really is.... it makes allot of
sense.

"A confetti storm" of germinating materials,
innumerable, simultaneously mixing with like wise
innumerable variations of "host cells (egg cells),"
inseminating and cooling to some degree, the area in
which land was formed and "life began" on Earth......
creating germinated, "egg like" areas (on many levels)
upon impact/exchange. This happening in several
different areas…. But all very much in the same process of
Proximity Gestation.

I have boiled eggs, in styrofoam cups, on open
flames/beds of coals..... as long as there is water in the
cup with the egg, the cup will sustain the direct heat and
effect of Hot Coals and flames.

I have cooked with molded clay materials. I am sure
that a clay "container" could withstand even more extreme
temperatures than can a styrofoam cup......

I think the idea that those "finch's" evolved differently,
is again......just a small miss....( I don't mean that in a
snooty, I'm smart way... it is only my opinion).... I think
they have simply responded to that consistent frequency
and their predisposed "combination" of the result of that
"confetti storm" of molecular/make up... insemination…..
“Proximity Gestation” and the effects of that process.
I don't believe that we all are really related in the sense
of coming from the exact same set of creatures, at any
given time....

I think that there were various/varieties of creatures of
many different types.... some that you couldn't even
recognize as creatures.... and some that were very similar
to ourselves, today....

In a simple over view. I do not hold to the popular
opinion that we have evolved in a linear manner from
primates. With all of the consistencies in the world (and
beyond), it just doesn't hold true. I believe that we began
very similar to the way that we are now....with some rather
subtle changes (most due to domestication and the
development of technology), but in no way did we ever
stem from monkey's/”other” primates.

My theory of Proximity Gestation makes allot more
sense to me and even works well with some of Darwin’s
findings, though in a different manner than was his intent
when he wrote those observations.

For instance I will again site the Galapagos
Finches....(please see Proximity Gestation Diagram 1), and
such I believe to be similar in regard to all creatures and
species;

Again, I feel all species are of such a "Proximity
Gestation" area...though as anyone can understand, there
most assuredly were many different types of patterns...
here (please see Proximity Gestation Diagrams 1-3) yet is
another illustration.
I'll note that any who believe in creation OR evolution
MUST admit that at some point there must have been
"gestation" of some sort. Empirical evidence for this is
everywhere and quite a normal aspect of existence.
Question; Where did these living organisms come
from?

Could they have "developed" from a lifeless, molten
substance? No is my answer to that.

What then does that leave us? We know that such organisms did actually come into existence, as we can see the result even in our own
existence... we would not be here if they hadn't. We know
that this planet has been repeatedly bombarded
with material's from other places (within our universe).
Such is my immediate explanation for these organisms
and their presence on this planet, that according to
science began as a ball of molten material. In my belief it was these
bombardments that actually began to cool that molten
goop and brought such organisms to it. Continuing a
much larger process while beginning it here on Earth.

The next question then is, "where" did these embryos
gestate?

Could it be possible that they simply formed and
gestated in a "sludge?"

I don't believe so.

I believe that during such bombardments, many of
these organisms were disbursed. Some into areas that
proved to be sufficient to incubate during such a cooling
process, and some intermingled within that disbursement
and with one another- hence "Proximity Gestation." Some
areas even proving to be sufficient to store such
organisms in a suspended animation, a slower
developmental/gestation period…. being exposed over
time to other influences- then germinating them and
beginning that process of gestation into existence in
another form.

I believe that in most cases in the very early stages of
this cyclical occurrence, that the cooling substance and
essentially, forms of mud (and in my opinion giving us the
impression metaphysically of being made from mud in
some instances), acted as containers for gestation. Science
has proven that this is a distinct possibility through
gestating embryos in artificial environments, and has even
provided evidence that such intermingled organisms can
actually develop....become fertile and achieve a form of
insemination…. and really if you think about it, an egg
shell is simply an arrangement of calcium. I know that it
is a real fact that such gestation can occur without a host
(someone/something tending the "egg"). All that is really
needed is the temperature.

I believe that this "exchange" has occurred more than
once here on earth. And as science tells us, such
"bombardments" have, quite factually. One of which being
cited as the reason for the death of "dinosaurs." I believe
that there are even various combinations of substance
gestating in a similar manner now, within a larger area of
the process of Proximity Gestation, at a rate that we do
not readily perceive though is demonstrated in the
activity within the micro-biological realm as is illustrated
within the studies I have cited. In accordance with the
overall consistencies I have observed. I believe that our
existence (and all that we know of it from the past) is
quite factually part of that “larger gestation” on that
much larger level.

In my belief, from study and deduction, those species
that actually continued to exist from these gestating
periods... did so and developed, again in conjunction with
proximity... but in this fold and meaning of proximity, due
to a larger consistent influence on our planet (and all
else). I liken that influence to an infinite body of
frequency for the purpose of illustration. Omni-present.

The various degrees of elemental make up within each
emerging example/variation (creature) of any given
gestation area, being the deciding factor as to the
longevity of it’s existence. That is to say, survival rate
based on it’s harmonious alignment and make up with the
larger movement of existence. This accounting for the
various examples of different elemental combinations
within various different types of fossil findings, being
found at the “time area” in which they were ‘deposited.’
Meaning that such would explain the dramatic differences
between the different fossil findings of apparently related
creatures, such as the ‘Homosapien – Hominid -
Sahelanthropus tchadensis’ for example. None really
being relative to another except in the respect that their
given element/substance combinations respectively,
mortally failed to correlate with the larger environment
and movement in a manner to insure their continuation.
All being products of different “fringe area” combinations
and result.

Here are some things that I feel serve as living
(modern) examples of Empirical evidence substantiating
the existence of the effect of Proximity Gestation;

• The Platypus ( monotremes )
• Marsupials
• The Bull Roarer (a common tool/instrument in
North American Natives, as well as Australian Natives)

o This is quite a curiosity to me as it points to a great
inaccuracy in the established “time lines” as well as the
established estimations of the Tectonic Plate
movements. It also supports the idea of “interactive
connectivity,” mostly because of how unique the “tool”
itself is, and it’s use. It isn’t the type of tool that can
easily be said to have been coincidentally developed. It
serves a unique purpose in communication as well as
entertainment. Such a coincidence as two different
cultures so far away from one another in distance AND
physical similarities as well as ceremony developing
the same type of communication devise is rather
uncanny. For different primitive civilizations to have
developed something like the tool used to extend the
volume of thrust on a projectile (spear) is readily
explained from developmental “need.” To explain the
existence of the Bull Roarer on two very distinctly
different continents being of the same type of
coincidental need, is akin to the hypothetical situation
of someone finding a “pre-historic banjo” in India. The
percentage possibility of a “coincidental developmental
need” producing the Bull Roarer in such an extreme
situation, is very slight.

• The Pyramids
• Egypt and Central America

• Again… Proximity? Interactive Connectivity? Can the
existence of such similar structures so far from each
other in such vastly different cultures, be written off as
coincidence? A person may immediately say that the
“pyramid” is a basic shape discovered to be a suitable,
early design for rudimentary construction…. Then I
say, where in is the larger consistency in regard to that
opinion? Why then only those two very extreme and
different examples of such a “basic” and common
means for architecture? I then will point out the areas
of proximity in respect to both examples.

• The Finches

• The Polynesians/Easter Island

The Platypus, Finches and Polynesians are wonderful
examples....and as if it weren't obvious, I don't need to
assign certain species per representation within my
illustrations....

From the recently issued abstract pertaining to the
Sahelanthropus tchadensis (Toumai), Centre National De
La Recherche Scientific;

The amazing fossil material discovered by the M.P.F.T. (1) (a nearly
complete cranium, two lower jaw fragments and three isolated teeth), and
described by Michel Brunet and his colleagues in the last issue of the journal
Nature (2), is assigned to a new hominid, new genus new species,
nicknamed Toumaï (3).
The new hominid, recovered from the late Miocene of Toros-Menalla (Djurab
desert, northern Chad), is associated with a fauna the evolutionary level of
which indicates a biochronological age close to 7 million years ago (4). The
fauna is composed of aquatic and amphibious vertebrates, and also species
inhabiting gallery forest, wooded savanna and grassland. Sedimentological
data are in agreement with this mosaic of environments, showing a
vegetated perilacustrine belt between lake and desert (4).
The new hominid displays a unique combination of primitive and derived
characters suggesting a close relationship to the last common ancestor
between Humans and Chimpanzees suggesting him as a likely ancestor of
all later hominids. The geographic location of Toumaï, 2500 km west of the
Rift Valley, and his great antiquity suggest an early pan African distribution of
hominids (at least from 6 million years ago) and an earlier chimpanzeehuman
divergence (at least as early as 7 million years ago) than previously
indicated by most of the molecular studies.

(1) The Mission Paléoanthropologique Franco Tchadienne (Professor Michel Brunet, Dr.), a scientific collaboration between the University of Poitiers, the University of N'Djamena and the Centre National d'Appui à la Recherche (C.N.A.R., N'Djamena) includes forty scientists from ten countries. The M.P.F.T. leads an international and interdisciplinary research program on "early hominid origin and
environments".
(2) Michel Brunet and M.P.F.T. (2002) A new hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad, Central Africa. Nature.
(3) In the Djurab desert, babies born before the dry season are named Toumaï. This name has been suggested as a vernacular name for the new hominid by the highest Chadian authorities, it means "hope of life" in Goran language.
(4) Patrick Vignaud et al (2002) Geology and Palaeontology of the Upper Miocene Toros-Menalla hominid locality, Djurab Desert, Northern Chad. Nature.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the New York Times, July 11, 2002;
July 11, 2002
A Fossil Unearthed in Africa
Pushes Back Human Origins
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD

French scientists digging in Central Africa have
uncovered a skull, virtually complete and almost seven
million years old, that belonged to an individual about
the size of a chimpanzee. It is, they say, the earliest
known member of the human family, by perhaps as
much as a million years.

The discovery, described in today's issue of the journal
Nature, is being hailed as the most important fossil
discovery in decades. Surprised by the age, complexity
and geography of the fossils, paleoanthropologists
spoke of the find as a critical and perhaps revolutionary
turning point in the study of human origins.
The scientists said it was too early to know whether the
skull represented a species on a direct ancestral line to
humans. In fact, the fossils — a cranium, two lower
jaw fragments and several teeth — suggest an
evolutionary complexity and diversity in human origins
that seem to defy description by the simplified family
trees of the past.

What is especially striking, and puzzling, is the skull's
mixture of primitive and advanced characteristics. The
braincase is apelike, but the face and teeth are more
like those of a human. The cranial capacity is similar to
that of living chimps.

The skull is of an age, scientists said, that it could be
expected to provide telling evidence of life at the time
the human and chimpanzee lineages diverged. Some of
its characteristics suggest that the skull is closely
related to the last common ancestor of humans and
chimps and may yield an understanding of what those
apelike creatures were like.

In the journal report, the discoverers called the skull
"the oldest and most primitive known member of the
hominid" family, close to the split of hominids and
chimps. As such, they predicted, the find promised "to
illuminate the earliest chapter in human evolutionary
history."

At any rate, the specimen is sufficiently distinct from
apes and other human precursors, or hominids, to be
given a new genus and species name by the discovery
team, headed by Dr. Michel Brunet of the University of
Poitiers in France.

Its formal name is Sahelanthropus tchadensis,
recognizing that all the specimens were found in the
harsh desert region known as the Sahel in Central
Africa south of the Sahara. More commonly, the
hominid is being called Toumai, a name often given to
children born close to the dry season.

"Toumai is arguably the most important fossil
discovery in living memory, rivaling the discovery of
the first `ape man' 77 years ago — the find which
effectively founded the modern science of
paleoanthropology," said Dr. Henry Gee, Nature's
paleontology editor.

"This is really an extraordinary find," said Dr. Ian
Tattersall, an expert on fossil hominids at the American
Museum of Natural History. "It broadens our
perspective in two directions — in time and in
geography."

The absence of volcanic ash layers at the fossil site
prevented the discoverers from dating the specimens in
absolute terms and with the usual scientific methods.
But a comparison of other fossils found at the site with
similar ones from well-dated sites in East Africa
yielded an estimate of six million to seven million
years for the Chad fossils.

"It's seven million years old, so the divergence between
chimp and human must be even older than we thought
before," Dr. Brunet said.

Molecular biological studies have indicated that the
divergence occurred five million to seven or eight
million years ago. Although the research is
controversial, Orrorin tugenensis, a specimen reported
in Kenya two years ago, had until now claimed the title
of earliest hominid, at about six million years. An
Ardipithecus ramidus, which lived about 5.8 million
years ago in Ethiopia, was a close competitor.

So the Chad discovery opens a window on a fateful
period in evolutionary history about which the fossil
record has been so sparse that the remains could fit in a
shoebox.

Also, none of the other early specimens include almost
complete skulls, which are considered more revealing
of a fossil species' place in the hominid family. Toumai
is about three million years older than the next-oldest
hominid skull.

The discovery site, in the Djurab Desert in Chad, is
more than 1,500 miles west of the more familiar fossil
beds of East Africa, in Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania.
As Dr. Daniel E. Lieberman, a Harvard paleontologist,
said: "We've been looking exclusively in East Africa
and South Africa and basing our evolutionary tree on
what we find there. Brunet has reminded us that we
must find out what was going on in Central Africa and
West Africa, and that's going to be harder to do
because of more difficult environmental conditions."
In studying the skull, Dr. Lieberman recognized a third
reason, besides the specimen's age and location, for
scientists to be excited and challenged by the
discovery. That is the skull's mosaic of primitive and
advanced characteristics.

"You expect something that age to be very chimplike,"
Dr. Lieberman said. "But this one's face is the face
essentially of a Homo habilis, at two million years ago,
and yet this face is almost seven million years old."
This is all the more puzzling because Australopithecus
afarensis, the Lucy species that lived 3.2 million years
ago, has a decidedly chimp like face. What's
happening? Reversing evolutionary patterns and trends,
Dr. Lieberman said, is "extremely rare, if not
impossible."

Several scientists said the discovery thus seemed to
undermine the simplest linear models of hominid
evolution. If the earliest hominids like Toumai were
directly ancestral to australopithecines like Lucy, Dr.
Lieberman pointed out, there would have had to have
been two reversals to reach the advanced
characteristics of the Homo lineage.

Otherwise, he added, Toumai is ancestral to some other
hominids that then gave rise to the Homo species, in
which case australopithecines are a side branch outside
the human ancestral line.

In an appraisal accompanying the journal report, Dr.
Bernard Wood, a paleoanthropologist at George
Washington University, favored a "bushy" model of
hominid evolution over a simple linear model. The
many branches reflect evolutionary diversity in
response to new or changed circumstances.
So Dr. Wood said the bushy, or untidy, model "would
predict that at six to seven million years ago we are
likely to find evidence of creatures with hitherto
unknown combinations of hominid, chimp and even
more novel features."

Dr. Wood further predicted that Toumai was "just the
tip of an iceberg of taxonomic diversity during hominid
evolution five to seven million years ago."

One important question is whether the newfound fossil
species stood upright and regularly walked on two legs,
which has been a defining aspect of hominid behavior.
The discovery team has yet to find any skeletal bones
associated with Toumai.

Dr. Brunet, the team leader, said the position where the
spine entered the head "doesn't prove that he is bipedal,
but it shows he could be."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Firstly, in regard to these findings, I must state that I
see no “fossil gap.” I don’t believe that there is a “fossil
gap.” I see this more as a type of that “gestation period,”
a time between the cyclical occurrence of that process. I
think the illusion of such a thing, is due entirely to the pre
conceived idea of a linear development, morphing of
species in general, one into another. As I have stated, I do
not find this to be the case in regard to human
development especially. I believe that the illusion of the
“fossil gap” is further due to the effect and result of
Proximity Gestation and the lack of recognizing it’s effect
and process until now.
In regard to the questions posed within the newspaper
article;

Please refer to the area in which “Toumai” existed/was
discovered, in comparison to the known “Primate Areas”
in regard to proximity of ‘old world’ and ‘new world’
primate development. Then refer please to the series of
diagrams I have created in regard to the idea of Proximity
Gestation; Diagrams 1, 2, and 3. Then please refer to the
graph that I have created titled Graph 1. Then consider
what I have proposed in regard to the process of
Proximity Gestation in relation to the physical aspects of
such findings as “Toumai (Sahelanthropus tchadensis)”
and that which I have presented in regard to
consideration of ‘simultaneous development’ in several
areas.

I present an idea that is supported through
overwhelming findings throughout the scientific
community in many areas. As well as through
overwhelming consistencies one may simply observe.
This idea which I have titled “Proximity Gestation” is in
regard to all species and the physical process of their
beginnings, and it extends into the realm of metaphysical
properties as well. It is a term that describes a process
that I find in an incredible amount of consistency
throughout our existence (and beyond it), the results of
which can be seen in creatures both alive today, and in the
remains of creatures that have lived in the past.

I believe that the “chimpanzee like” size of “Toumai” is
due to the fact that it’s larger influence in regard to
Proximity Gestation, was the ‘other’ primate side of the
proposed “Fringe Area.” (please refer to ‘Graph 1’)
I hold that the idea of any perceived linear
development is an illusion created mostly from a lack of
different perspective. This illusion was fortified with the
early observations of man in regard to the origins of
humans, other creatures and existence through following
what may have seemed to be the obvious direction in
research and perspective. This began with Aristotle, I
believe. This isn’t to say that some creatures are different
today than similar creatures were in the past… it is only
to say that there is no specific linear relation in the course
of development there-in. I propose that within the
considerations of the effects and result of Proximity
Gestation, that all known different examples of
human/primate relation are not as is commonly perceived
(being some linear relationship), but are in fact only
separate examples of the varying results within the effect
and process of Proximity Gestation. Please refer to
diagrams 1-3.

I will also cite that the effects and process of Proximity
Gestation are readily seen in the various different types of
‘other’ primates as well, much in a similar manner as in
regard to “Darwin’s Finches.” Please refer to diagrams 1-
3.

It is quite simple to see the similarities of humans and
other primates, even in our modern day. Such is the
perception I am referring to. I hold that it is not through
any linear relation of humans and other primates that is
the reason for these similarities as is continuously
suggested in statements such as “chimpanzee-human
divergence.” I hold that these similarities are due entirely
to the effect and result of the process of Proximity
Gestation between two (or more) entirely different fertile
elements. This given the effect in appearance of some
linear connection. I hold that the present state of all
other creatures is due entirely to the effect and result of
Proximity Gestation as well.

The human “strain” and the “other primate” strain
were gestated in a close proximity at given times, “Fringe
Areas (see the shaded areas in diagrams 1-3)… thus
yielding the result and illusion of some linear relation.
From my perspective, again I must state that I find such
leanings as to the “linear” connection, to be false (at least
in the “developmental change respect). I support this
through the knowledge of other “Fringe Areas” of
Proximity Gestation in relation to the human and other
creatures as well as other creatures in relation to other
different creatures (as is supported in recent molecular
studies), though it is that such may not seem as
pronounced as was/is the Proximity Gestation area(s)
between the Human and the Primate, it is that such a
disposition is due again to the lack of acknowledging the
process itself.

I contend that the reason for a lack of further
developed fossil finds, is due much to the areas in which
are being explored. In my opinion, I believe that similar
fossils to “Toumai” (and other examples) are yet to be
discovered in the South American continent… and even
further, I believe that more advanced fossils of similar age
are yet to be discovered in other areas of the world. This I
support through the knowledge of the movement of
Earths Tectonic plates and through the knowledge of
incredibly similar traits in cultures continents apart,
separated with vast oceans in the time that it is
speculated in which they supposedly ‘traveled.’ I also
attribute the lack of more advanced fossil findings, to the
fact that the creatures remains which are sought,
themselves were “more advanced.” This meaning that
they had already developed ‘post mortem’ ceremony and
proceedings. For instance we know of some cultures that
have employed cremation as far back as is recorded in
their culture….. some even interring the remains into the
oceans.

In addressing the idea of some sort of “migration,” I
would think that much more would be found in the
respect to fossil remains of these “migrating people”
along the path(s) that allegedly were their course if it were
that “migration” were the means of disbursement of
humans.

I surmise, that it is very much a possibility that the
different variations of the human species, “hit the scene”
very near simultaneously in various different places. This
would explain to me the obvious difference in “change”
between many of the living examples of human species
today. Due entirely to their given proximity of existence
and relation to various different deposits of other
elemental influence on those initial gestation periods.
This concept is supported through recent findings of
different molecular “presence” in different races of
humans. Granted, it is widely known that there is a very
large percentage relationship between humans and other
primates. I have to stress that in my belief, again, this is
due to the human elemental influence in that initial
disbursement of “elemental” influences… this is
supported in those findings… through the fact that there
are other “relationships” within various examples of the
human strain, with other living creatures. I believe that
the largest misconception within the popular belief
pertaining to “evolution,” is in having assumed that the
high percentage of relation with other primates meant
that humans had stemmed from “other primates” in some
manner. This assumption and line of “logic” would mean
that the presence of other molecular, genetic elements
having relation to other creatures within various human
gene structures….meant that somewhere along the line, a
creature which then went on to mate with some form of
primate, is also a considerable place to attempt to trace
our “evolution” in a linear sense. I may be a bit eccentric
at times, but never have I even dreamt that a “pig,” or
“fish” or “lizard” or even a “plant” or any of the other
prominent examples of elemental presence within various
human strains, mated with a chimp or better yet, a great
ape….… and further still, begat a living, functional creature that then went on to do some similar thing in continuing our “development.”

It isn’t possible, obviously. In that, the logic of all
humans having stemmed from one primate/source, is not
possible. In that popular opinion there is no explanation
for the presence of so many other properties within the
human make-up. To continue such belief on a grand scale
is really not even within the spirit of science to begin
with… much less within the spirit of philosophy, on which
and from whence science came.

In regard to different races of humans and their
existence. It is that we are all humans. Cognitive thought
is that which separates us from the animal kingdom,
regardless of race. Within that existence of being human,
there are, as I have established, different levels of
influence from what appears to be (in our perspective)
other creatures/animals. This isn’t necessarily true, as
those other creatures are not entirely of “themselves”
either. They are very much of and a product of that
process of Proximity Gestation. At the best/worst, it is
that all humans/variations of that species have a lesser or
greater percentage relation to a given animal example
within our existence and manifestation of being human.

This scientific fact supports my opinion that it is very
much backwards thinking to insist that the large
percentage of similarity with other primates is because of
primates. Suggesting that it is some how because we
developed from them. I feel that I must again state, that
those similarities are because of the human element
influence on the other elemental properties that comprise
the various different species of primate. And again, I feel
I must re-state that within those greater/lesser
percentages of influence are the examples (some of which
can still be seen in living humans) of a closer or farther
proximity from the given “fringe area” in the process of
Proximity Gestation… pertaining to a greater or lesser
elemental presence within the given human/animal
example. An animal (such as primates) which were closer
to the “fringe area” of influences such as the human
element, will and do display great similarities – to a
greater or lesser degree. The same holds true for those
human strains which progressed, having been closer to
“fringe areas” of other elemental influences during those
gestation periods (please see graph 1). This has happened
between other species as well. Hence the similarities in
different species of birds (and consequently their more
subtle differences).

This exemplifies the variation within any grouping of
"proximity" of 'activity,' reaction/motion within that larger
process. The interaction of these specific elements... and
the apparent change within the structures themselves
stems from that larger movement within the process I
have described. The illusion of "progression" is just that....
it is more in the likes of "gestation." As per a fetus in the
womb for instance... isn't "evolving" in the popular
definition of the word.... it is gestating.... forming...
progressing through an ongoing process.... responding as
a whole, very much to the same body of "frequencies" at
an entirely different level. Where the "single" example of
cell movement can be seen as a 'violin,' the development
of the fetus (as example), is the entire orchestra in
tandem. No "linear" change from one type to another. Just
a progression of the elemental ingredients present. This
holds true within the overall consistency, throughout
physical existence. When a person "blows up a balloon" it
expands and fills uniformly according to the "elemental
properties" of it's given form before it is filled. It doesn't
change into a Mercedes when it is inflated. It remains as a
collection of the present elemental components within it's
initial area of influence. It remains a "balloon" though is
now much different in appearance from the pre-gestation
version of it. We as an physical existence, are very much
in a perpetual (seemingly) process of gestation, in relation
to something much larger... within the larger workings of
the process of Proximity Gestation.
I would like to attempt to place another proximity in
regard to flying squirrel populations of Japan, Alaska, and
the Pacific Northwest of the United States of America (the
Pacific Rim). In research, I have found studies (non
related) which serve to illustrate what appears to be the
“un-observed” fact which I am putting forward at this
moment. In an abstract titled; Evolutionary diversity and
ecology of endemic small mammals of southeastern
Alaska with implications for land management planning-
Written by Smith, WP in regard to maintaining forest
habitat in Alaska….

The genetic differences between
several different “mammalian taxa” were cited as: “some
reputed endemics showed nominal levels of genetic
divergence from other conspecific populations, but more
divergence existed among several taxa than was reflected
in the current taxonomy. Furthermore, the mammal fauna
of southeastern Alaska has a nested structure with complex
phylogeographic patterns suggesting multiple colonization
events. Of eight taxa examined through phylogeographic
analyses. five species showed acute genetic variation and
divergence in mitochondrial sequences. Four species were
comprised of coastal and continental clades. Conversely.
the northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) and
southern red-backed vole, (Clethrionomys gapperi) were
represented by relatively shallow divergent lineages. Still,
G. sabrinus showed a distinct mitochondrial lineage on
11 islands (Prince of Wales Island complex), which exhibited
severely reduced genetic variation. Moreover, flying
squirrels in southeasternAlaska are genetically distinct
from populations in the Pacific Northwest; as different as
each is from the southern flying squirrel.

This shows a very distinct pattern of “formation” and
existence….. “sub-groupings” that are really quite similar
to one another in the respect to their formation and
dynamic. With the patterned genetic differences falling
within these larger consistencies, a person almost has to
begin to consider a larger mechanism being of primary
influence.

To this I then add the results of another recent study
on similar types of mammals in Japan. This abstract is
titled; Phylogeography of the Japanese giant flying
squirrel, Petaurista leucogenys, based on mitochondrial
DNA control region sequences and was written by ;
Oshida, T - Ikeda, K - Yamada, K - Masuda, R Note that
each of these studies were conducted for different
reasons, using similar types of information…. And
yielding very similar results on a certain level… there is
an over all consistency in the results of both of these unrelated
studies. Here are some of the pertinent results in
this regard, from the Japanese study ; Phylogenetic
relationships reconstructed using neighbor-joining and
maximum parsimony methods indicated that P.
leucogenys is essentially separated into three major
lineages: Group A consisting of a single haplotype from
Kyushu, Group B consisting of some haplotypes from
Kyushu and one haplotype from Honshu, and Group C
consisting mostly of haplotypes from Honshu and Shikoku.
Animals with the Kyushu haplotypes were split into two
lineages (Groups A and B), suggesting that Group A
diverged at an earlier point from the other groups. Genetic
distances in Group C were not related to geographic
distances between sampling localities, indicating that
ancestral populations of this group recently expanded their
distribution in a short time, possibly after the last glacial
stage.

It isn’t hard to see the overall consistency here. I
contend that such consistency continues hyperbolically in
either direction – “in ward (molecularly)” or “outward
(exponentially larger).” I do not think that this pattern is
due to any “adaptability” or any “linear movement” in
“evolution.” I think it is entirely because of the reasons I
have put forward in relation to that larger body of
influence and the process we absorb it through, being the
process of Proximity Gestation. These two very different
studies, find the same consistencies within respect of
their proximity. I could speculate that the assumption of
time frame being the “last glacial stage” could be
inaccurate given the proximity of the Alaskan variations
of “small mammals.” And noting that there “divergence”
has been very similar. I can cite the difference of the
molecular make-ups between the given examples as due
to their proximity and area’s of other “elemental
influence.”

The particular differences in their biochemical
strains and “divergence” patterns… being due to
proximity… the larger influence in regard to their
placement within it and perhaps movement through it in
the more subtle shifts of the Tectonic plates.

The larger point that I am making here, is that if there
were no effect from what it is that I claim, being the
process of Proximity Gestation…. Then it is especially
given the overall similarities of the creatures, that none
would have had any type of “divergence” without the
presence of such a larger influence. Without the concept
of Proximity Gestation, all of these creatures would be
nearly precisely the same in just about every way. This
stands as empirical in regard to the existence of such an
influence.

A person cannot deny the differences within
these “sub-species”… and similarly a person cannot deny
the similarities. If a process such as what I have
described were not a substantial influence upon the
organisms of these creatures, they would all be precisely
as are the others in regard to “divergence,”
“disbursement” and biological make-up. This is easily
applied to the human creature and even to its’ supposed
relationship with other primate species, as well as all
other living varieties of organisms within our world.

Again, I contend that approaching this from the
perspective of some “linear movement” is mistaken.
Linear suggests a time frame. Time is a human concept
involuntarily derived from emulation of that larger
influence and process…. It simply doesn’t apply.

It doesn’t apply even more-so given the manner in which it
is perceived. In a metaphor, the emulation in which time
is of that larger process… that process of Proximity
Gestation.. is very similar to the components of a clock.

The process itself is similar in that manner. Each small
wheel… each large wheel… each little spring…. Rocker
arm…. All contribute to the perceived result to a greater
or lesser extent…. As fleeting as that momentary
combination of “elements” is, which yield that perceived
result… ever changing. The tendency of humans is to
look at and follow the motion of the “topical” result… the
obvious motion of the clocks “hands” and workings as
opposed to looking “into” that movement even at the
molecular level. Evaluating the given contribution per
element present in the topical/obvious structure…. Not
recognizing the depth and breadth particulars as well as
the immediate implications. None of the wheels and
sprockets of any given clock are necessarily related.

Factually they are very much of their own existence… and
even origin…. Very much of their own and as result of
their own exposure and existence within that larger
process… the process of Proximity Gestation.

If you choose to look at it from a certain perspective, it
can be said that each individual, each species, sub-species,
organism…. And even processes, are as such. Very much
comprised of elements that have combined to yield the
perceived results…. Consistent in their motion and
illusion of change… that perceived change being as
contained as is the change of and on the face of a clock.

No more relevant really, than the process of aging. Simply
misunderstood and viewed from an improper perspective.

It is the consistency, however inconsistent are the
components in appearance, which all things we know of
are made of/through and to serve as a part of. It is the
resonation and reverberation of the consistency and
component/elemental “wheels” that comprise that
“Eternal Influence.” It is infinite. Exponentially larger
than anything we could ever imagine. Infinitely smaller
than anything we can ever discover. We, as creatures can
only hope to understand the workings of it in my
opinion… we can never hope to actually map and/or
control it… as our existence is already “behind the pitch”
in that sense.

ANYTHING we could hope to examine, is
already so far from the initial “wheels and sprockets”
which contributed to it’s manifestation as nothing more
really, than another element within it. In that, all that we
could ever hope to attain, is again, the understanding of
it’s consistent inconsistency. Even that, being that it is a
process itself, will not be possible to attain in full. It’s
“components” are subject to the very same consistent,
elemental exchange.

However consistent the appearance of any given
example is… within that example are components which
have their own consistency…. Within that example those
components are consistently changing in respect to their
own reaction to that larger process, as do the positions of
“wheels and sprockets” within a clock. Within that, the
components of those wheels and sprockets are again
subject to their own result as per the very same “process”
from which they were derived. And further, each of those
components has it’s area within it’s own situation within
that process of Proximity Gestation…. And so on…. None
of this necessarily in a linear manner. None of the
resulting effects from a given isolated example within a
noted “specimen (such as a clock)” necessarily having any
effect or relation to anything else in that degree. None of
the moments in life are exactly the same… though it is
that the cycle of the topical elements of a clock remain
“apparently” repetitive in their motion.

The fact that no two moments are precisely the same, is living, empirical
evidence that regardless of how consistent a clocks
motion is (example of that process motion within
Proximity Gestation), the elements that truly influence
and contribute to each moment/second/split second, have changed to a given degree….even though it is that
topically they seem to remain the same….even seem to
remain in the very same cycle, predictably.

This example of the illusion of predictability serves, in my mind to illustrate the misunderstanding and
misinterpretation in regard to findings concerning the
idea of “evolution.” It is that illusion of “predictability”
which leads us to topical results in our observations of
that perceived movement. The influence of our everyday
perception (the conditioning to it), transferring into our
perception of these types of subject matter. This isn’t to
say that I believe all the existing research and findings are useless or inaccurate….and it isn’t to say that there is no amount of predictability…..only that they have been
misinterpreted pertaining to the amount and depth of
information that they could very well yield from a
different perspective. This being due to perception….and the apparent progress of topical results (that “predictability”).

The clocks movement is consistent. Our every
moment(s) is quite different, yet very consistent.... each
and every one of them. This means that each of those
consistent wheels and sprockets can be seen as
representing an entirely (and infinite) different
combination of “elemental make-up” each and every
measurable amount of perceived time. Each and every
one of them contributing to that specific moment of
example, in every measurable amount of time. That
contribution however large or small of each
wheel/sprocket, resulting in a reaction which is manifest
as only a part of that difference we can perceive.

Each of those areas of contact being representative of “Fringe Areas.” Each of those “Fringe Areas” (even as they change constantly), contributing to the motion of that larger process…. Each result, becoming a percentage part of the result of another “Fringe Area,” so on and such…. Our perception of that “topical consistency” which is the representation of a given moment in time, is only a given point within the process itself. Subjected to our perspective of understanding, ONLY through and from our own perception. Our existence (as all else) is only a changing wheel/sprocket within the changing working of that larger process. Resulting, as in our perception… a similar perception of result, somewhere after our contribution to that larger process…. And then further on, and on, such and so forth. In very little of a linear sense.

As a musing, envision those “sprockets and wheels” as “spherical” in shape….. with the ability of universal
movement within that placement (however long or short
in “time”)… the envision the movement of the “clock”
face, itself, as spherical…. The hands each bisecting the
sphere of the “clock face body.” It’s an interesting visual.

I happened upon another very interesting visual just
today. To view the workings of this “mechanism”
(Proximity Gestation) a bit more clearly….in a “time lapse” manner…. all a person need do is watch a pool or puddle of water during a rain storm. What it is that I see in this process, is very similar to the infinite combinations and placement of rain droplets as they enter the pool/puddle, ripple and dissipate. Each establishing “fringe areas” with other “points of entry” during that cycle…. And within the larger changing cycle…… To then attempt to apply this
visual to the larger scheme all a person need do is
envision this process in a three dimensional sense…. And then again layered upon itself over and again….
Exponentially larger, and infinitely smaller each
manifestation of this containing it’s own capacity in the
same respect… that is, the process itself continuing in the
same manner and consistency/inconsistency… within
each instant…. And again within those … and so forth…..

From my own perspective and opinion, I would say
that it is as though the scientific community consistently regards results of experimentation as do we all, as the face of a clock. No matter how intricate, involved are the findings… they seem always regarded with the same perspective as does a time piece. This applies to the idea of “evolution” and findings pertaining to existence, as well. Flat. Topical… regardless of the amount of complicated information gathered.

With that, I suppose it is that I have sufficiently
illustrated my observations and sufficiently have provided corroborating evidence in support of my findings. I got very easily continue to cite example after example… but such would be entirely redundant and without use. I feel that it is overly obvious, in regard to the stability of what it is that I have presented. I also feel that it is a rather unique perspective and one that I know I will find just as
useful in my future “explorations of existence.”

Again, I feel that I should stress the fact that this
concept is “a process.” An ongoing process. It is in no
way linear in dominance…. It is very much unilateral,
universal in movement. It can’t be purchased. It can’t be
contained. It can’t be avoided or ‘escaped.” It is omni
present. It is of our every nuance. It is consistent.

So…….Do you like rubber chickens?

How do you like those rubber chickens?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Diagrams and Graph;

Proximity Gestation Diagram 1

Proximity Gestation Diagram 2

Proximity Gestation Diagram 3

Proximity Gestation Elemental Properties Graph 1

Ensemble Illustration

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Other Photographs and Maps
Links to Website

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Proximity Gestation;
A Basic Math Illustration

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Proximity Gestation;
Electromagnatism and The Human Mind

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Proximity Gestation; Part II, In Relation to the Beginnings of Species