The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection

The bacteria did not evolve to become resistant because there were studies done on bacteria with no exposure to antibiotics yet they still had the resistance.

Thank You for the clarification.

Aside from drug resistance, I don't understand why this forum does not believe that anything is possible with these single celled organisms. I read many articles from science that explain the many ways in which these organisms adapt and some were noted to prepare for a future change in their environment in advance, that they do appear to use collective intelligence and have many ways to communicate with one another and to other different species of microbes. The enormous data of how they are responsible for maintaining life in our own bodies as well as the entire planet is amazing. They are miniature biochemists and the earth appears to be their laboratory and we are their lab rats. Single celled organisms do not even belong under the term evolution because they are in a class that is way above our human abilities to fully comprehend it let alone try to translate their biochemical language .

This is interesting in that these particular bacteria hit the "panic button" when put into an environment that they have never been exposed to before. It is the same reaction that occurs in our immune system when exposed to a new virus or bacteria by using everything it has and in every combination to kill it, usually resulting in killing the host in the process.Both situations may not be the best response but apparently evolution needs more time to come up with a better strategy in dealing with the "unexpected and sudden" environmental stresses that rarely occurs in nature.

Science has not proven that any mutations over time will produce a new species or life form. The mutations that do not have a protein assigned to it are unknown as what affect it has now or what it will do in the future. The only mutations that we are aware of is the ones that cause diseases and that is still speculative. Science makes the assumption that mutations over a long period of time will produce new characteristics that it no longer appears what it looks like today.Will science give the sea slug a new phyla group once chloroplasts becomes a permanent member of its DNA? This one is definitely a case of evolution since it is being transformed right now. It also didn't need require millions of years in its changeover to obtain this valuable new trait. Each generation as it consumes more and more chloroplasts, the DNA of chloroplasts is moving segments at a time into the sea slugs until eventually it will no longer require it to eat algae anymore.

The words chosen to describe the process "natural selection" provokes the debate of being directed or undirected. Couldn't science have been more careful of choosing its words to describe undirected processes?This is the problem for the general public to fully understand science because science is always implying direction when they explain how cells cooperate, cell signaling, DNA processes, bacteria behavior, species interaction, organization factors, and on and on. What bothers me is that when you read many of the scientific discoveries is that the entire paper is written in details that indicates direction explaining the entire process. Many will end it by stating this an undirected process. When I come across these great explanations to describe life's processes that you can only conclude that it is directed until you read the last statement that says it is undirected, it makes me think that the person who wrote this scientific discovery is completely insane. Right here is where people that are not scientists have trouble in understanding it. I would like nothing better if science can prove without a shadow of a doubt that life is not a directed process.
I see life, from bacteria and all the way up the food chain are all driven by the will to survive and is obviously the directed part. However, bacteria are not restricted and for the most part make up a great deal of the cells living in every life form that are the food web. The mechanism for RM and NS is not yet fully understood especially when microbes have mostly been ignored and excluded when describing the process of evolution in relationship that we are a community of many beings of life in one body.The story of evolution through RM and NS takes on a different meaning when there is no such thing as an individual being of life. Experimentation done in a science lab using one cell to based its findings on does not produce the same results in the natural world. You are never going to find one cell by itself on the planet.Making the assumption of what bacteria can and cannot do that is the foundation of which the current theory of evolution is based on is proving to be more incorrect everyday. Directed or undirected is what people really want to know. The problem is if we do get the answer, what kind of impact will it have on mankind's future to survive?