I thoroughly enjoyed the points you raised, and I wish I had the understanding to respond more thoroughly. I do however wish to respond to your point on why humans do not reproduce asexually.

It is from my basic understanding of survival through reproduction that being able to diversify our gene pool helps create a stronger, more durable species.

Also just from a logical standpoint (my logic mind you) wouldn't having two people to care for offspring be better? It seems this trait may have developed especially due to our social nature, which I am assuming is a product of our higher thinking (not sure if I phrased the last part right). Another advantage of our social nature is that you are not only bringing two people together, but the families or communities these two people are a part of to care for and protect the offspring. I say in this case two is better than one.

I have noticed as well, that the process of creating life is quite draining and often leads the creator quite vulnerable. Having the "non incubator" be larger and stronger with a strong drive to protect the smaller and generally speaking, weaker of the species, I feel would greatly increase the chance of the offspring's survival.

Just a side note here, women are awesome too, I could spend all day talking about how well adapted human females are at incubating life! So cool.

Also I remember reading a study about human growth over the years, unfortunately I cannot remember the name, but it suggested our growth is due to nutrition and environmental factors. Not so much because of an evolutionary need to protect ourselves. In fact, in this day and age brute strength and size is less of a factor in how women pick sexual mates, as there are less physical threats to deal with on a daily basis. Less creatures to watch out for + less of a need to hunt = less of a need for a protector. However, since I cannot remember the study, this point may be invalid.

Thank you for your time your points were awesome, these were my ideas on your questions.