[drtom]

Not so.

There are enough "kritters", as you call them, that exist in both sexual and asexual reproductive forms and thus can easily represent transitional stages. This occurs in many taxonomies, from the simplest single cells (look up "conjugation") to relatively complex lifeforms (look up "caenorhabditis").

In an evolutionary context, sexual reproduction will generally win out despite the need for a mate. This can be proven by means of statistics, or through experiments.

[chrisser]

In an evolutionary context, sexual reproduction will generally win out despite the need for a mate. This can be proven by means of statistics, or through experiments

Why are there any asexually reproducing organisms left? Shouldn't they all have evolved by now?

[editor-surveyor]

Wow, that’s quite an imagination you’ve got there!

Not much substance, but you do have faith.

[GourmetDan]

"There are enough "kritters", as you call them, that exist in both sexual and asexual reproductive forms and thus can easily represent transitional stages. This occurs in many taxonomies, from the simplest single cells (look up "conjugation") to relatively complex lifeforms (look up "caenorhabditis")."

This is the fallacy of 'begging the question' for assuming that what exists has 'evolved' and can be organized into 'transitional stages'.

"In an evolutionary context, sexual reproduction will generally win out despite the need for a mate. This can be proven by

This is the fallacy of 'affirming the consequent' for assuming that because P 'predicts' Q and Q is observed that P is therefore 'supported'.

The fact that evolutionary 'arguments' are firmly based in logical fallacy shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the naturalistic philosophy that underlies belief in 'evolution'.