#Kinesiological Conundrum

[biogenericpublishers]

Complex Kinesiological Conundrum Could Microzyman Machinations/Inhibitions Explain the Relative Tardiness of Initial Infantile Human Locomotion? Seun Ayoade* in  Open Access Journal of Biogeneric Science and Research

ABSTRACT

“The onset of walking is a fundamental milestone in motor development of humans and other mammals, yet little is known about what factors determine its timing. Hoofed animals start walking within hours after birth, rodents and small carnivores require days or weeks, and nonhuman primates take months and humans approximately a year to achieve this locomotor skill”.

Introduction

We, mankind, are the tardiest living thing in terms of the age we start walking. This is highly embarrassing. It is embarrassing to evolutionists who declare man to be the most biologically advanced and evolved species. It is equally embarrassing to creationists who insist that man was made in the Image of God. If man is the most advanced and evolved animal why do our babies take so long to learn to walk? Why are we, the “peak of God’s creation” carried around by our mothers for a year while the zebras and goats and horses are proudly walking and cavorting just hours after delivery? Creationists have a ready excuse-the fall of man and his expulsion from the Garden of Eden caused man to become genetically degraded [1]. After all, they argue, the first humans Adam and Eve walked and talked the very day they were created. Evolutionists on the other hand put forth other arguments for the very embarrassing ambulatory limitations of Homo sapiens. I hereby refute these arguments viz-Refuting the gestation argument-This argument states that humans are pregnant for 9 months unlike those other animals that are pregnant for shorter periods. However, baby elephants walk hours after birth and the gestation period in elephants is 18 to 22 months! Refuting the Life Span Relativity Argument This argument states that because horses and dogs have shorter life spans than we humans their apparent early walking is not really that early [2]. I refute this argument in the table below by showing at what age human babies would walk if we had the life span of cats and dogs etc table 1.

Refuting the Brain Development Argument

This argument states that all animals start walking when their brains reach a particular stage of development [3]. Then why do humans reach the stage so late if we are the most evolved animal?

Refuting the Bipedal Argument

This argument states that walking on two legs involves much more balance and coordination than walking on all fours and so should take longer. If this argument was true human babies would start crawling hours after birth! Human babies don’t crawl till 4 -7 months! Also studies by Francesco Lacquaniti at the University of Rome Tor Vergata, Italy have shown that despite homo sapiens’ unique gait, the motor patterns controlling walking in other animals are nearly identical to that in man!

Intelligence Argument

This argument claims that since humans are more intelligent than other animals we have to start walking later because we have so many other things to do with our minds apart from walking [4-7]. However, ravens are very intelligent birds yet raven chicks walk and fly at one month old. Monkeys are intelligent and yet start waking at 6 weeks!

MY HYPOTHESIS AND PROPOSAL

The key to cracking this mystery will be to do a comparative study of the cellular dust [8-10] of various animals. This is not likely to happen any time soon however as the mainstream scientific community continues to deny the existence of the microzymas [11].

More information regarding this Article visit: OAJBGSR

https://biogenericpublishers.com/pdf/JBGSR.MS.ID.00254.pdf https://biogenericpublishers.com/jbgsr-ms-id-00254-text/

[jwartblog]

Always a 'No' on Slavery (cont.)

"Keeps.a record like a fingerprint for every instant of short and long term audio memory, neuro-instantaneous-configuration, and also manipulation at the cochlear nerves, perhaps induced neuron degradation aided by an overly nitrogen-rich diet that allows sounds to be affected. Either neuron or nerve frequencies are altered to match incoming frequencies, pressure disturbances that create sound. That means that as fast as the speed of sound, an incoming signal is intercepted before a conscious sensation of hearing can be registered. Also communication from preparatory (internal) speech center can be altered to fit incoming signal, or to conform incoming signal to prepatory (internal) speech. Sound retrieved from temporary or long term audio memory, as well as the preparatory audio center is manipulated (enhanced or otherwise, modulated, witheld or diminished to produce effect.). Semantics, kinesiology and ephemera analysis, computational linguistics, linguistics itself, sonar, lip reading, etc. coupled with near-real-time incoming quantitaive and qualitative data stream  Can all be used to induce the feeling of a second presence, a second set of eyes with you, and this is--if we were to assume that the data stream is coming from a witting or unwitting transmitter; perhaps an surreptitious or agreed upon installation of a transciever on the person of the subject--without including the possibility for manipulation of the central nervous system, the frequency that governs or instructs, for instance, heart palpations, the perception of touch. A person could be outright impaired in various ways directly, or indirectly by for example stress, what are known as pain-points, if a cue were abusive, as in Pavlov's experiments with dogs, if a known involuntary, or voluntary made near-involuntary by conditioning were triggered to induce for instance fetal-position defensive reaction. Where perception-valleys are present, neuro-experiential displacement is allowed to flourish, that means that with the aid of 'in,' a provencial cue, regionalism in terms of perceptual-familiarity, a person could be lulled into one form of intelligence, say the idea that a person is highly efficient at guessing variousntruths about your condition based on incoming data, but when the observers'  analytical peak reaches a crescendo, possibly employing the infinitessimal, in terms of what can be gleaned and as this contrasts knowledge of, a comfort level with previous analytis-attempts, a person could incorrectly conclude the 'real' presence of another entity. Audio-psychology, or other physio-neuro sensations can be used to create stories, especially if the belief-qotient of the participant/study/victom is high. Most people are not self-critical down to their neuro makeup, the particular universe of their mind and brain. even  This is only a rough sketch synopsis...I'm working on it." Perception valleys, but for now, in as much as what's known about what it could know shows change modulated by location and some activity, for instance, a steady increase in rate of accuracy, or due to the fallibility of the senses generally but a known unreliability made increasingly more unreliable by sense-degradation, perception itself of this rate of change has to be called into question, as well as a perception valley not only instances of impressions of what's known, but also for rates of change. While  it can certainly be gleaned that some things are known (that had been, for instance, known to be unknown, in some cases unknowable particularly) and gleaned that some things are being increasingly known, there's still what's already known which is (x, unknown in quantity, quality, thus 0 to infinite, bad to extensive), and what's is increasingly being known that can't be known, that's changing at a rate that's congruent with known rates of change or not. Simultaneously, with that system there's a presentation of it, altruisticcally perhaps seeks partly, which may itself be a function of an outcome (to disinform, socially engineer some degree of.(cont.)..some degree of ambivalence, a familiarity with a signal presence to undercut the severity of what's being performed, to provide the illusion of a bevy of expected mercies, plethora of cognitive biases such as religious assurance by way of affiliation, assurance based on regionalism, etc. Mentalist tricks, and tricks such as game participation, match-maker, religion-based such as relieving you of talents buried, muscles not adequately used, which can lead to further illogical trains of thought.) steer thought away from accurately assessing the scenario in general, the general nature of the problem, the specific nature of aspects of the physical problem, to attain a specific and/or general end through whatever can be suggested, including, as stated before, involuntary or near-involuntary responses to audible stimuli, which can provide new data. Other intrusive-(faux) inner-directed sensory cues can function in the same capacity. What's problematic, obvious, but needs to be made plain is that if more is known than prepared for or conceived than more can be known based on responses to what's assumed to be known, for instance if internal functions of a subject are known, but the subject doesn't know that this is known, he will perform defense maneuvers internally, assuming that he is protecting something unknown. The information gathered from what is newly known, now that along with internal functions known the subject has unknowably provided internal defense maneuvers, can be used to subdue another similar party or subject, or disarm the subject unawares, as they say, so that subject's assumptions make him incapable of conceiving of a collapse externally orchestrated, thus attempting to solve an internal problem assuming an internal origin, not to mention, the peculiar conundrum that would arise if the subject knew what was known. Every response provides data, so nothing can be done, tactically, that wouldn't make worse the circumstances. If, what's known, had been known, for instance is thought itself, an ability that would naturally need to be kept under-wraps, and along with thoughts known, thought processes, tendencies, probability, etc., now even a common sense response (silence, repose, a stalemate) is data, itself a manuever. The continuum to some degree as much as feasible is the most appr. response. In terms of 'manuevering' around this problem, what seems to me the most pragmatic approach is to, at the least, facilitate open communication (in qualitative proportions) relative to, or as a function of a rate of degradation of value certainties such as primarily the lived life, as much as valued the vital organs, the sustainment of societal functions. I.e. What can't be openly stated that needs to be has to be increasingly openly stated in measures where the positive difference (what's preserved) between what's stated and what's prevented by openly stating is optimal. In what can possibly take place, voluntary or involuntary reaction to perception valley nadirs (closest to truth, gravity), actual knowns could make more real unknowns, exacerbate the perception of a  truth, accuracy in reflected/echoed truth, i.e. a known thought known could make more real the perception of a thought known, causing a relinquishing of a hold, a defense due to that assumption, that something is definitely known, or a certain capability of knowing is certainly known. Or in not knowing a thought is known, knowing center is known, a person could activate defenses that become newly known data, available to disarm.