Quote:Sexual reproduction reduces the rate of reproduction by 50%. Therefore it must have some other quality that makes it extremely beneficial; it must serve the interests of the species more than it serves the interests of the individual...
A species to reproduces asexually is more vulnerable to parasites, or to environment changes. Sexual reproduction combines alleles and produces individuals who can adapt more easily, and therefore possibly survive longer and have more offsprings.
The rate of reproduction is not important if a slight change in the environment kills all the individuals of the species before they can reproduce.
And as I told you, there's no reason to talk about "interests". What is important is simply survival until reproduction.
Natural selection is simply a process of elimination of the genes of the individuals who don't live long enough to have offsprings.
Talking about "interests" is a biased way to approach evolution: it's an implicitly theleological approach. You implicitly assume that evolution has a purpose and from that you infer that it has a design.
Quote:Everything you don't understand is a "mysterious force"?
Every hypothesis that introduces an unnecessary element, like your hypothesis of a "design" behind evolution, can be labeled as "msyterious force".
Quote:Well it's the only universe, that itself makes it pretty special right there.
I'm sorry, but your argument is incoherent. You tried to prove that our universe is special because it sustains carbon-based life. When I showed you that this is a biased, groundless assumption, you backtrack and say the universe is special because it's the only one that exists (another biased assumption).
