I see where you like to call those that have a disagreement with you "idiots". Resorting to insults is the ultimate refuge of those that can't even stand to be challenged.
I mean what sense does that make? But I sense where you are coming from, and it doesn't seem so strange now that you prefer fantastical illogical magical mechanisms to actual science.
I mentioned "smart design" as opposed to your "natural selection". What proof do you have that says that it can't be "intelligent design" rather than "natural selection" for the way that the human defense mechanism works?
I myself came from the camp that believed that "natural selection" was the true answer to how life evolved and how "magical" it was in the "progression" of all species, from the simple to the highly complex. But, as I lived longer and became wiser and learned a lot more about how "inconceivable" it was to just believe that "natural forces" made the most complex of species, including humans.
The answers are not there yet to how life "evolved" and not even on how the human defense mechanism works. That research is itself evolving.
YOu don't have the answers and neither do the actual researches, at least, not yet.
You really have a problem reading and understanding English.
I said the mechanism you proposed was idiotic because it wouldn't work. I didn't call you an idiot. If you actually understood the subject and still insisted it would work, I might, but you obviously don't.
Intelligent design isn't a buzz word that makes natural selection go away. The formulator of the philosophy accepts natural selection, micro-evolution, even the common descent of species. He just argues it had to have a guiding hand. Do you accept natural selection but think it needs a guiding hand, or do you reject it?
Nothing in evolution requires “progression” of species from simple to complex. That is another misconception you have. Nice that you rejected something that you never really understood.
So if the DNA supposedly added to the bacteria was a detriment to its continued survival and pathogenicity in the human environment and 10% of the population had it, it is a mathematical inevitability that eventually LESS THAN 10% will have it.
Can you understand that point? If so we can move on. If not I can perhaps explain it to you in greater detail.