Evolution

The bacteria does not need to know that the honey is harming them, but it is likely that at least one would mutate and gain traits that help it survive the honey. And therefore while the rest of the bacteria are dying off, these bacteria would be able to reproduce and make many 'clones' of itself. This was not my point, yes a small fraction may develop a defense, but this remains at a minuscule percent because honey does not actually kill the bacteria"s, it stumps their reproduction, so the 0.000001% which are resistant remains at 0.000001%. Theoretically, sexual reproduction originated because Eukaryote cells would sometimes have damaged DNA. However, if it were to be a diploid organism, it would be able to repair the damaged DNA through what is called 'homologous recombination.' A haploid however, would not be able to as the DNA repair would not know the original DNA code. The first 'sexual' reproduction would be a cell with damaged DNA replicating an undamaged strand from a similar organism in order to repair itself, meaning it was already a naturally implemented process. This primitive version of 'sexual' evolution would, in time evolve to how we know it today. Hmm, "Theoretically", I thought we were going off facts here, not some random guys "theory", now I also want to point out that Eukaryote bacteria work a little differently than ferns, a bacteria could evolve, a multi celled organism cannot, how you may ask, because a cell is one cell, it"s easy to absorb something and screw with its genetics, a fern has many cells per bulb, so it is IMPOSIBLE to directly, and instantaneously affect every cells genetics in the exact same way, the chance is exactly 0, a primitive cell still going off of RNA finding a stray piece of carbon and absorbing it is feasible, with a fern it is not that simple, it would have to find the genetic material to make an entire flower, every cell to absorb this same strand even though they would not accept foreign material anyway, then for this design to allow for combine genetic reproduction, and for more than one fern to do the exact same thing (If it reproduces sexually it goes extinct if there is only one), the chances of this are as I said before; exactly ZERO. This is wrong. There is actually something in evolution called co-operation, which is defined as an evolutionary trait where a group of living things work together for common benefits. For example, animals in herds are more likely to survive in a herd than living alone, and so this is the case a lot of the times. This co-operation would lead to an eventual creation of a society, like the one we live in today. Without people caring and working together, humanity would not have made it this far. But said creatures would not recognize the benefit. You seem to not know what you are talking about. Evolution defines the origin of species, not how life started. (There's abiogenesis for that). Because of this, I will only address your last point, which is untrue; this can be proven by fossil records and etc. Well this is a very peculiar way of "proving" something, pawning it off to "fossil records, I think I already explained how this is not credible, you cannot "prove" an organism s descended from another group, you could say that it is "similar" but that hardly makes it an ancestor.