Asexual to sexual reproduction? How?

I'm just wondering how it's possible for any organism to make the change from asexual reproduction into bisexual reproduction if evolution is true? Can any evolutionist explain this to me? Heck, I'll even take a Creationists theory on how it could have happened if evolution is true. But first I'll show all the problems that must be overcome:1) there must be a genetic mutation in the gene pool. (rare)2) this mutation must be beneficial. (very rare. As a matter of fact, we've never seen it happen, and if we have, then why don't evolutionists show us beneficial mutations instead of nonbeneficial ones?)3) This mutation would have to happen to more than one organism and the organisms would have to be the same species (or at least EXTREMELY similar). (this would be more rare than both of the first two put together and multiplied by two)4) Both the organisms would have to have the same mutation. (also extremely rare, as a matter of fact, it probably never happens)5) They would have to have this mutation at the same time. (extremely rare, as a matter of fact, it probably never happens)6) They would need to have this mutation in the same place. Remember, we're talking about asexual reproductive organisms. These critters are usually one-celled little beasties. (extremely rare, as a matter of fact, it probably never happens)7) These two organisms of the same species, with the same mutation occuring at the same time, same place, and the same mutation (which, by the way, you have to have two of the same mutations, and yet allow for male and female) all need to occur, and then these previously asexual organisms need a reason to mate with their only partner on the face of the planet (sex drive). (obsolutely impossible)8) Then, this jury-rigged system must work the first time, because these little organisms lifespans are so short that they only have enough energy to mate once in their lives (I made this up, but it makes a little sense). So, if it doesn't work the first time, then all of these things must happen all over again. (Also absolutely impossible. Evolutionists will say, "Well, if there was enough time, then theoretically anything is possible." Folks, there will never be enough time for this sort of thing to happen. It is IMPOSSIBLE.)There, I've said it. Now I would like to hear if my example is flawed in any way.Have fun!Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed topic title from "Asexual to bisexual reproduction? How?" to "Asexual to sexual reproduction? How?".

Okay, I appreciate your whole page-long essay on something that even you admit has no proof and is simply an imaginative idea.Here's my point: why, pray tell, would an organism somehow think that it could "overtake" the population by empregnating others of its own species? Do we see bacteria and such attempting to dominate other bacteria with its DNA? I don't know, that's why I'm asking. Also, how does this fit with Natural Selection? If sexual reproduction is "better", then why is the most effecient reproducing organism bacterium? Don't they reproduce asexually? Why then, would you claim that this hybrid asexual-to-sexual organism survive in a world full of organisms who only asexually reproduce? And just because an organism (one which doesn't have any code for sexual reproduction) infuses another (also one without genetic info for sexual reproduction) with part of its genetic code, that doesn't mean that you have added any new genetic material to create an entire sexual reproduction system. See, the only way for a sexual reproductive system to work is for it to be completely developed in order to compete with asexual reproductive organisms. Otherwise evolution's hero (Natural Selection) will destroy any organism that is "stupid" enough to waste energy on a sexually reproductive system. As I stated in my first post, this organism(s) must survive long enough to get it right, if not, then all of this must happen several times.So, my question still remains: How can you claim that it is a gradual process, when the parts that are added (even though I highly doubt anything could be added) are going to make the organism less efficient than the asexual organisms? Don't you think it's kind of odd that an organism wasting energy on supporting a sexual reproductive system would be able to survive? And even if it could, how would it find a mate? If it simply asexually reproduces, and then mates with "itself", then you will have serious problems with the offspring, and they will not be able to sexually reproduce.Therefore, I do not feel that you have answered the question properly. You still must show how Natural Selection suddenly stops selecting, and then, continues selecting organisms further down the road. In my opinion, you have violated two very important parts of evolution, and those are: Natural Selection and Uniformitarianism.

I hope you don't think that sex was a silly thing to design, because if I'm right, then God must really have known what He was doing when He created sex. I just think it's funny how wars have been faught over something as simple as our reproductive system (sex...duh). If sex is silly design, and I'm right, then I can't wait to see what He's got in store in Heaven.P.S. I realize that this is not really related to the topic, but I figured I would just try to rebutt the comment RAZD made about Silly Design relating to this current topic.P.P.S. Thanks for the welcome. I've been in here before, but it seems as if I'm one of the few Christians on this forum who actually try to defend their beliefs and show how they feel evolution is wrong, so I got tired of being the only one responding to all you well educated evolutionists. I couldn't keep up with all of the posts, and it was interfering with work.