[PatrickHenry]

This was an article in a lay publication, so I'm not sure exactly what tests were done on the algae. I don't have time to research that today.

The article I posted was from a university press release. I never run into copyright problems posting them. Here's the abstract of the actual article. You need a subscription to read the whole thing. From the abstract, it appears that they looked into the DNA:
Prey evolution on the time scale of predator-prey dynamics revealed by allele-specific quantitative PCR.

[ImaGraftedBranch]

I would certainly HOPE that they looked into the DNA! My point (which you so eloquently avoided) was that *IF* they were able to *cause* the evolution by simply forcing ecological conditions such that the algae "evolved" to become resistant from their supposed prior bent, which was of the fast-growth type, then they certainly should be able to END THE DEBATE once and for all!

I further stated that should they do that, they would merely discover that their initial sample population was a mixed bag, and all they did was remove those algae that were not able to live in the constructed conditions, allowing those that *were* able to handle the constructed conditions to prosper.

It is not TOO MUCH to ask them to do this, since they went so far out on a limb as to suggest that they caused evolution to occur in an observable manner. It can be done, but won't (or won't be published if the results don't meet their pre-conceived notions).

[VadeRetro]

I see that once again a scientific study on real animals in controled conditions is "chat" if the trolls don't like it.