I have submitted several posts to this forum which discuss the God Gametes theory. For those who have not read the earlier posts the God Gametes model does not argue for any particular religious concept but merely that “something must have kick started it.” It postulates the presence of a multiverse. The multiverse being hierarchal, parent universes above us and baby universes below. The God Gametes model then argues that our human consciousness is the male reproductive cell of a parent species on the next higher level of the multiverse.
While this concept may seem a little outlandish it is consistent with many aspects of life we know to be true. For example it provides a role for social sex (in particular homosexuality) which the traditional Darwinian model has difficulty explaining.
The following sections are taken from Chapter 6 of “God Gametes and the Planet of the Butterfly Queen” which can be downloaded free from
www.godgametes.com
God Gametes page 147
In the human species sexual activity is designed more as a contraceptive than for reproduction. Some animals produce litters and have a better than one-to-one ratio between copulations and offspring. But Robin Baker and Mark A. Bellis (Human Sperm Competition Copulation, masturbation and infidelity) in a report on a survey of 3,697 UK subjects with an estimated 2.5 million copulations that produced 800 children (3,200 copulations per child).4 Their research also shows that humans tend to copulate more in the post fertile stage of the menstrual cycle.
Sexual activity with a bias to the infertile stage of the menstrual cycle, sex between couples of the same gender, sexual activity when the female is pregnant, sexual crypsis that hides the fertile stage of the menstrual cycle, short life span of both female eggs and male sperm cells and sexual relationships formed between those either too young or too old to be fertile, tend to suggest that sexual activity has an important role to play that is unrelated to paternal support, sperm competition or the simple fertilisation of the female egg by the male sperm cell.
GG page 161
Homosexuality:
Homosexual behaviour is another non-reproductive form of sexual expression that cannot be explained by Darwinism. Desmond Morris suggests that a tendency towards homosexuality is an aberration most likely imprinted on an individual’s mind during adolescence. He suggests that a child exposed to powerful images vividly expressing their own gender might attribute a special significance to a certain type of sexual conduct.30 But it is difficult to believe that our most basic urge, our will to reproduce and a process on which our species depends for its survival, could be so easily derailed.
Many living creatures have developed complex patterns of bonding including homosexual relationships. Same-gender sexual liaisons have been observed in a diverse range of species including dragonfly, worms, birds and humans. Some insects encourage participation of other species when mating occurs and during these mating rituals it is common for males to attempt to mate with other males and for cross-species contact to take place. The traditional explanation for this seemingly pointless activity is that some insects become confused at the time of sexual ritual. But insects do not get confused when carrying out far more complex reproductive procedures.
Homosexual activity can hardly be explained away by confusion for there are many intelligent humans who spend their entire lives choosing same-sex partners and it is extremely unlikely they are confused about gender or have expectation that they will produce offspring.
Homosexuals seldom have children to inherit their genes and if natural selection were the sole determinant of our genetic composition, the gay gene would have been lost. We need to know why there is such a significant proportion of our population with a preference for same-gender lovemaking when in the entire history of our species not a single child has been produced this way.
Baker and Bellis recognise that some individuals have a powerful urge to engage sexually with their own kind. They report that homosexual stimulation in women has nearly twice the success rate at producing an orgasm as does cross-gender lovemaking.31 They note that males with a lifetime of exclusive homosexuality make up less than 1% of the population. They then argue that less than 1% is a figure that can be ignored and their justification for overlooking this statistic is that at least 1% of heterosexual couples will also fail to reproduce. More importantly, they argue that on average men who report homosexual activity inseminate just as many women and are as reproductively successful as males with a lifetime of exclusive heterosexual behaviour.32
God Gametes disagrees with the way they interpret their statistics. They isolate the 1% of population having a lifetime of exclusive homosexuality but then refer to the reproductive success of bisexuals. Homosexual activity needs to be assessed in terms of its total cost to reproductive success and this means all homosexual activity. The 1% of people having a lifetime of exclusive homosexual activity only consists of a small fraction of the total. We need to know the percentage of homosexual copulations (i.e. expressed as a percentage of total copulations). Or to put it another way we should be looking at the number of homosexual copulations, not the classification of people doing the copulating. In the ‘war’ being fought for reproductive survival, same-sex copulation is a bullet that can never hit its target. In a real war no sensible statistical analysis would simply count the number of guns. We would need to know:
· How many rounds the different types of gun can fire.
· How often they hit their target.
Any data not assessing these fundamental points is valueless.
Males have a higher sex drive than females33 and the incidence of homosexuality is 2 to 3 times higher in males than females.34 Given these trends it would be reasonable to conclude that homosexuals have on average a greater frequency of copulations than heterosexuals. Quoting numbers of individuals in these categories will almost certainly be an underestimate. To use the ‘war’ analogy again, giving percentages of homosexual individuals is like counting the number of guns without regard to rounds that different types of guns can fire.
If you were a General commanding 1% of the country’s troops you would not be happy to be told you have been allocated 1% of the guns. Your first question would be, “which guns?” The number or percentage is irrelevant information for you want to know how many rounds they can fire and how many times they can hit their target. Homosexuals are our specie’s reproductive guns with greatest firepower but in terms of reproductive success they never hit their target. Baker and Bellis have understated the significance of their reproductive loss by expressing them in terms of percentages.
The way they interpret statistics allows them to conclude that same-gender sexual activity does not have a negative impact on reproductive success. But there is a far more accurate way to analyse their data. Let us assume the overall level of sexual activity would remain the same if homosexuality did not exist. This of course is not an unreasonable suggestion if in fact sexuality is for the purpose of reproduction. All sexual activity would then be focused on opposite gender. If this were to happen, the reproductive success of our species would no doubt be significantly improved.
They also argue that homosexual activity has brought about a reproductive advantage by helping train and educate individuals to reproduce earlier. They recognise that most societies do not approve of boys and girls experimenting with sex. The argument here is that same-gender sexual experimentation will often confer an advantage to some when competing with others who, without experience, no doubt feel awkward when first making sexual advances to the opposite gender. But they have compared the reproductive success of individuals with homosexual experience to boys and girls with none. If they compared reproductive performance of boys and girls that had experimented with cross-gender relationships with those who had only engaged in homosexual experimentation, it is unlikely that same-gender sex-play would indicate a reproductive advantage.
There are other points made by Baker and Bellis equally baffling. They argue that same-gender experimentation is commonly practiced because of censure applied on sexual promiscuity of boys and girls but overlook the fact that sex between same-gender adolescents is even less socially acceptable. In other sections they recognise a higher incidence of disease, risk of physical damage and loss of paternity, closely associated with homosexuality.35 These are all factors that tend to offset any perceived reproductive benefit that an individual may gain from engaging in homosexual activity.
They report, “In nearly all human societies, some individuals at some time in their lives experience orgasm through seeking or allowing stimulation by an individual of same sex.” 36 They also state, “Genetic studies of male sexual orientation suggests strongly that individual predisposition to homosexual behaviour is genetically programmed.” 37 Most societies have between 4% and 100% of individuals engaging in homosexual activity at some stage in their lifetime. Given the significance of this, and conventional belief that important behavioural or genetic trends need be maintained by heredity, it is difficult to understand the survival of homosexuality. It is expressed in a way that renders itself infertile.
Survival of the genetic endowment of homosexuality is at variance with the principles of heredity. According to such principles even animal behaviours such as the tendency of some species to migrate for breeding, will eventually be lost if they are not supported by heredity.
In 200 million years since the evolution of the mammalian species38 it would have been impossible for any living creature in human lineage to make a generational transfer of genetic endowment of homosexuality. There does however need to be a recognition that it has survived despite being at odds with the laws of heredity.
God Gametes believes that successful reproduction requires interaction of individuals on the broadest possible basis, not just the exchange of male and female gametes. Some species have developed a reproductive system in which the chance of reproducing is not tied to a specific gender role. In gender-based animal species such as our own, an individual can only reproduce with members of the opposite sex. But there is an advantage to be gained if any individual of a species has the potential to mate with all others of that species. This provides the greatest possible mix of genotypes, an advantage many other species have exploited. God Gametes believes that EGPs (External Gene Pool) driving individual members of our species are not gender specific. Every individual has the potential to exchange bits of their external genetic endowment with all other members. Exchange of genetic information in the external gene pool is not limited to transfers between male and female.
Individuals with a lifelong preference for homosexual relationships will of course have many bisexual partners. Any preference for more adaptable body parts or change in the evolutionary direction of our species is first passed on to a same-sex lover then transferred to the opposite gender by their bisexual partners. As long as homosexuals have some partners who are bisexual, opportunities exist for regeneration of their genes.
Our reproductive system limits the transfer of DNA to cross-gender exchanges. Homosexuality has been retained by our species because it makes possible a broader exchange of genetic information. It facilitates the transfer of genes in our species’ external gene pool between all individuals regardless of gender.
This explains why all human societies have a significant proportion of their population with a preference for same-sex lovemaking and how genes that code for it are transferred from one generation to the next.
