Replies

What is predictable is that if I subject a population of bacteria to ten different stresses, the genome of the population will change such that the stressful conditions become optimal or normal conditions.

Trivial counterexample, but nonetheless instructive.

Subject a petri dish of bacteria to several moles of elemental Fluorine.

Let me know how that hopey-changey adaptation works out for you, mmmkay?

You are taking for granted four *key* elements.

1) The efficacy of the change in killing the target population.

2) The amount of time required / allowed to adapt (special case: something which is uniformly fatal, allowing *no* survivors) 3) 2nd special case: something which is not uniformly fatal, but for which there exists no successful evolutionary adaptation within relevant time scales)

4) The presence of multiple stressors -- lungfish may survive drought, but not backhoes digging in the mud.

And the fact that most individuals do not survive infanthood without being snarfed up for lunch by a predator, also influences the efficiency of how much a beneficial mutation actually *spreads* once it occurs.

Cheers!

"You are taking for granted four *key* elements."

The greatest assumption is the one which assumes that the systems and mechanisms which produce what we observe necessarily 'evolved'.

Apply the fallacy of affirming the consequent to that bit of begging the question and voila, evolution.