Evolution

The only thing close to: " it stumps their reproduction, so the 0.000001% which are resistant remains at 0.000001%" in the article was "Most bacteria and other microbes cannot grow or reproduce in honey i.e. they are dormant and this is due to antibacterial activity of honey." [1] This does NOT mean 0.000001%, for all we know, it can be 50.000001%. I do not think that we are as un-advanced as to not be able to record such numbers. Of course I did know that. Evolution is beneficial to the species, not just for the individual. When the primitive gamete cell of the fern is transferred to the other fern to perform homogeneously recombination, surely you didn't think that the 'fixed' cell would go back the fern that it was from, did you? Chances are it would produce another fern with the fixed DNA, while the other fern would die off due to said genetic defects. Ok I think I need to go through this again with you, so the fern will have to develop combine genetic material on its own as it has no contact with other organisms, since it develops this as an individual it is incapable of reproducing due to the lack of another fern (It reproduces by cloning remember), so these genetics would never pass on, you attempted to combat this by saying that by a straw strand of DNA traveling through dirt (what?) to a fern bulb, and the majority of the fern bulbs cells being affected (enough to fight off the rest and still have enough left over to survive), and that this impossible incident occurred to more than one fern, this is impossible, so you write this paragraph, what is that paragraph supposed to mean, I got the part of you not knowing something, after that it"s un-understandable. It appears that you do not understand the meaning of 'adaptation'. "In biology, an adaptation, also called an adaptive trait, is a trait with a current functional role in the life history of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection." [2] Adaptation IS evolution. Anyways, in the previous arguments I have already explained the evolution and functional reason for such evolution which makes such adaptation possible. I used the word adaptation to define the phenomenon where creatures develop traits as a result of recognizing the need for it, the other case is where these traits are random, I explained why adaptive evolution cannot cause a fern to develop flowers, then explained why random evolution could not either. Actually, evolution requires many variables to be true in order to consider a certain trait to be considers 'favorable'. Climate, predators, availability of food are just some examples. Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz have somewhat similar reasons for developing calculus as and tool, and additionally it is still disputed who actually created, or if they did it at the same time. [3] Yes, we know that humans originated in Africa, and that chimpanzees live in similar environment as the original humans did, so it would be more than reasonable for them to develop traits to said climate, this is not evolution, well it"s not evolution where a species can transform into another species, they can however adapt to situations, like what I am explaining, Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz live in the same world, with the same natural laws, so they will observe those same laws and come to the same conclusion, like the chimp developing traits similar to a human because they both live in similar climates, but to say that the chimp will "evolve into a human is ridiculous, just a chimp with slightly different traits than other chimps.