Asexual to sexual reproduction? How?

Lets suppose that the earliest components for life did arrive by chance and that explaining how they got their was inconsequential. The prevailing theory about evolution asserts that simple organisms first proliferated by asexual reproduction -- a self-replicator. Why then would nature select new organisms that had to mate, one male, and one female in order to do that which is much more difficult to achieve, as far as survival is concerned, if nature, in fact, selects the most optimal organism?Let's think of it on the individual basis first.The organism that first evolved sex organs must have had those glands in place in order to produce offspring. What does that organism also need in order for it to pass on its genetic material? It needs a suitor of the opposite sex. A host of organisms from a certain population had to basically devolve from asexual reproduction but had to now evolve both a male and a female, virtually simultaneously, with all of their sexual organs intact just to proliferate sexual reproduction, much less, to have the population survive. That's inconcievable!What kind of staggering odds would it be for a population of asexual organisms to evolve two separate, but compatible sexes, simultaneously in order to create the sex glands perfectly operable in a male, and also simultaneously evolve a female partner for the male with all of her sex organs in perfect operation? And again, why would nature select this over asexual reproduction? Its inconcievable.You can call that an argument of incredulity, but I call it an argument from sensibility. These are the finer aspects of what evolution would have to have entailed in order to propagate. It just doesn't seem to add up. Am I missing some critical information?

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

But this is what were trying to ascertain. We surmise that if a Designer has no role in the universe that certainly, at some point, there would have to have been some evolution from asexual to sexual. Its being realistic. Its a perfectly good question. I have asked the question why nature would have selected sex over asexual reproduction. The answer that I usually get back, is, "Its too costly." Well, lets look at it from both perspectives. Surely there are some draw backs of sexual reproduction. In a static population there is usually only one offspring per set of parents survives to adulthood. But surely, then, asexual reproduction is twice as fast as sexual reproduction, requires less energy to expend, and would obviously be more efficient at passing on genes to the next generation. How much easier is binary fission than developing two separate sex organs that has to go through alot of things just to mate. Then you have long periods of gestation, added to that that only 50% of each parent will pass on their genes. How, then, is sexual reproduction less costly than asexual propagation?

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers