This really relates to how the Theory of Evolution explains overall advantage of sexual reproduction in species which have separate male and female types. In such populations, only half the population bears offspring. What advantage could possibly compensate for such a drastic loss of competitive edge?

One theory is that of "promotion of genetic variation". The idea behind this is that sexual reproduction allows more combinations of alleles (not more alleles), so that two good alleles from separate individuals could end up in one individual -- the offspring of the two individuals. This supposedly improves the fitness of the species.

e.g if individual A had new positive trait 'a' from a mutation in one of its ancestors, and individual B had new positive trait 'b', their offspring C could have both 'a' and 'b'. This would not happen with an asexually reproducing individual, unless for example, it inherited one mutation and mutated, itself, to acquire the other one. The chance of stronger offspring is supposedly significantly less.

This is wrong! It is also the case that a sexually reproducing individual with trait 'a' and 'b' is more likely to pass only one or neither of the traits on, with probability 75% say, instead of both with probability 25%. So the double trait would tend to dissipate. This is not the case for the asexual individual.

So it is really a matter of hard won, well kept vs more easily won, more easily lost. In fact, they probably cancel each other out. It almost certainly wouldn't account for the competitive disadvantage of only half the population bearing offspring.

The same dubious gene variation argument is used to say that deleterious genes congregate and are more likely removed. In fact there is no obvious difference in raw probability between sexual and asexual populations.

Czech it out!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction#Promotion_of_genetic_variation

For the advantage due to genetic variation, there are three possible reasons this might happen. First, sexual reproduction can combine the effects of two beneficial mutations in the same individual (i.e. sex aids in the spread of advantageous traits). Also, the necessary mutations do not have to have occurred one after another in a single line of descendants.[40][unreliable source?] Second, sex acts to bring together currently deleterious mutations to create severely unfit individuals that are then eliminated from the population (i.e. sex aids in the removal of deleterious genes). However in organisms containing only one set of chromosomes, deleterious mutations would be eliminated immediately, and therefore removal of harmful mutations is an unlikely benefit for sexual reproduction. Lastly, sex creates new gene combinations that may be more fit than previously existing ones, or may simply lead to reduced competition among relatives

.

Op Which book did you start reading of late? It seems your are just regurgitating every proof in it against Christianity for us to see here.

By the way,your topics are getting boring,if you don't want to lose audience create a thread titled: atheists are worse than criminals

How did such stupid theories become accepted?

Are scientists so reluctant to admit that they are stumped?

Who are the scientist accepting the ridiculous theories?

And how can you not conclude that the lay public who believe are religious followers, who don't question what they read?

That is why I say that most atheists have simply stepped from one religion into the next.