Evolution

I do not understand what you mean. Please clarify. Of course we could be able to tell how many bacteria"s are resistant, and many other sites said only a minuscule amount are resistant. I fully understand the topic, it seems you don't. Allow me to summarize and clarify the points. 1. Single cell organisms reproduce in a 'sexual' manner in order to preform homologous recombination which would repair the next generation's DNA to the norm. [1] 2. A fern originally reproduces asexually 3. Some ferns have parts of DNA damaged. 4. A mutation allowed for a primitive gamete cell(s) to be created. 5. A gamete cell would reach another fern without damaged DNA (Chances are there are some nearby), where it would preform homologous recombination in order to restore DNA. 6. With this newly repaired DNA, the cell creates another fern, with this 'homologous recombination' mutation. 7. This trait evolves into sexual reproduction as we know it today, as it has many benefits such as genetic diversity and faster creation of offspring. (Fern Info Used: [2][3]) I hope I have made it easy enough for you to comprehend. Ok, I went through this before, it is very simple for a bacteria to accept other material, a fern does not work in the same way as it would have to affect all cells, otherwise the unaffected cells would reject the mutated ones, this is easy with a single cell because then you only have to affect one cell, you are yet to rebut this, instead you presented the same old theory that I already proved wrong. I do not believe there are any cases of biological 'adaptive evolution' in the manner in which you are speaking of. I maybe wrong, but please provide a source. I have also proved why it is not impossible for 'random' evolution to occur with the ferns. Well you see this is where the debate stops progressing, adaptive evolution happens all the time, such as developing an antibody to a virus you were exposed to, or the virus becoming resistant to your antibody if it survives, this is a small example obcourse, so we move back to random evolution, according to the theory of evolution, random evolution is due to mutations, (technically so is adaptive evolution but those mutations are designed by the organism for a specific purpose) they commonly happen slowly by many mutations from generation to generation, or one big one, asexual organisms cannot spread genetic material, so they would "evolve" individually, since sexual reproduction requires there to be more than one creature, these ferns (assuming they somehow had a big enough mutation that is perfect enough to create a flower, which is too complicated to be random, and is unnecessary and would not help reproduction in any way even so.) would die out, so all our plants would reproduce asexually, this is not the case, again, you fail to combat this. As I said before, you misunderstand evolution. I will repeat again, I do not believe there are any cases of biological 'adaptive evolution' in the manner in which you are speaking of. I maybe wrong, but please provide a source. And once more in this point you misunderstand me. Chimps do not evolve into human, but they share a common ancestor. [4] No I understand evolution perfectly, enough to know why it is ridiculous, your only combat to my reply is my saying that chimps could not evolve into humans, I knew this, I was stating that one species cannot be said to evolve into another just because their genetics were similar, then I pointed out that Newton and Leibniz developed the same calculus, so logically we have no reason to believe that chimps would not develop similar traits/ genetics to humans because they are both adapting to the same environment, likewise is Newton and Leibniz assessing and transferring into an equation the same reality. Well that was fun, interestingly enough most everyone defending evolution is an atheist, why aren't there any Hindus, Buddhists, or some other religion? Strange, I though that "Being an atheist demands no qualifications but that you do not believe in god." yet every atheist I've seen on this site defends evolution, but you won't find any Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Taoists, Shintoists, deists, agnostics, how many religions are there that wont defend evolution, every one of hem but atheists, and yet I hear so much about "logic" and "not forming a conclusion without evidence", those guys remind me of Richard Nixon who said "Homosexuals are communists who are trying to destroy America", but then he was cheating on his wife--- WITH A MAN, anyway I think I disproved evolution here, I don't want to be beating a dead horse so to speak, good luck "disproving" my statements though.