Asexual to sexual reproduction? How?

An obvious explanation is that it doesn't, but what it selects for may vary over time. Some organisms routinely reproduce asexually but will reproduce sexually in response to an environmental stress.TTFN,WK

Maybe you should read through the thread first NJ. If you already have and this is what you come up with then I fear you failed to understand a lot of it.TTFN,WK

You make this sound as if it was an absolute and final decision. There are really only a small proportion of organisms which are obligately sexual and a smaller number that have 2 distinct sexes.Natural selection will favour different strategies in different environments. While a sexual strategy may be preferable in some circumstances an asexual one may be favoured in others. What on earth is this supposed to mean? In a sexual population obvioudly one offspring per 'set' of parents would give a rate below replacement and lead not to a static population but to a declining one. An asexual population could be static if every organism only had one offspring but only provided none of the offspring ever died.Your statement seems to have no connection to any population we might actually find in the real world.From this initial specious assumption you then build a whole fanciful tower of straw. Could you show where anyone on this site has given you that answer, because it is too vague to be useful. It may be true in certain circumstances but it obviously isn't in all or we would not see the vast umbers of asexually reproducing organisms that we do. You do realise that not all asexually reproducing organisms are unicellular I hope, binary fission is not the only form of asexual reproduction.TTFN,WK