It amazes me to come across a walking billboard for the Dunning–Kruger effect:
Originally Posted by obvious Child
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to recognize their mistakes. The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is . . .
You're making all sorts of sloppy inferences, like this "By calling the processes of evolution "not directed" he just called it random." You're the one who is making that inference. I have nothing to do with your faulty thinking processes nor do I have any responsibility for your inability to fully comprehend what you're reading. The problem here is that you're picking up just enough comprehension to "kind of" understand what other people are clearly understanding, but you lack the wisdom to see your errors and you believe that you're smarter than everyone else so of course you can't be wrong, everyone else must be wrong instead, including those who tell you that they understand exactly what I've written.
Here is an example of how scientists use the phrase "directed evolution." Actually, this post is for the benefit of other commenters who are interested in the finer points of evolutionary science and I'm pretty confident that they can use their sophisticated reading skills to extract meaning from the context, that is, they will make a correct inference and you, in all probability, will stick to your guns, and double down on the basis of stubbornness, ignorance and the Dunning–Kruger Effect.
The next step is to identify the enzyme variants that have improvements in the desired properties. In this sense, directed evolution is more like breeding than like natural selection. The outcome of the experiment depends crucially on what properties are investigated. Devising screens that are sensitive to the small functional changes that are expected from single amino acid substitutions (e.g. a twofold increase in activity) can be challenging and, because the frequency of improved mutants might only be 1 in 1000, the screen must have low inherent variability . . . .
A second goal of our directed evolution experiments was to test whether it is possible to evolve enzymes that are both thermostable and highly active at low temperature. Therefore, we required that the esterase and the subtilisin protease retain significant activity at room temperature while thermostability increased. We encountered no difficulty in finding thermostable enzymes that retained, and even increased, their activities . . .
You argued that, you moron. This is an inference that you're making. I flat out stated that mutations are responsive to their environment.
Except that he further argued that the method of how genes are selected for and against is