Report on Climate Change and the Non-Adaptability of Species

I read a New York Times article, written by Carl Zimmer, posted/published this week, about the report of a study carried out by scientists in Australia which tested the survivability of Drosophila birchii (I think that is the common fruit fly, which is often used in experiments requiring many generations to be bred and studied) under drier climatic conditions than that to which the species had, over time, become adapted.  The conclusion they reached, which surprised neither Peter nor I, was that, after 50 generations, the flies were no better in surviving the drier climatic conditions than their predecessors, even after the experimenters "relaxed" the conditions to reduce the humidity to 35% instead of the original 10% (I think either level of humidity is a drastic change from the rainforest conditions that the flies were adapted to).


There is one big flaw in their study that Peter and I spotted immediately:  why breed individuals who would eventually be unable to survive?  Because, eventually, all the flies died (or would have, had the conditions persisted), so those who happened to survive longer, did so, but eventually would have succumbed to the change in conditions.  Is it not fair of me to ask that the scientists resist putting such a limited time scale to the experimental conditions?  I suppose the reasoning is that once the flies survive to breeding age, they represent a certain percentage that can survive to breed and therefore will.  However, the flies are only surviving a temporary condition, from what I was able to glean from the article.  So perhaps, like the flies, humans can survive to breeding age, but will, in fact, not live very long afterward.  That would lead to a backward move in evolution, would it not?
Their final conclusion supports Richard Dawkins' assertion (and Peter forgot which book it is in which Dawkins describes this phenomenon) that species end up forming evolutionary "islands."  A parent species may give rise to multiple species, each of which continues to evolve, adapting specifically to their living specific conditions.  After some number of generations, it is no longer possible for one of the daughter species to survive under the same conditions as one of the other daughter species.  In other words, the daughter species become distinct from one another to the point where none can adapt to fit into the others' ecological niche(s).  This has been documented in studies of species, closely related but exist on different land masses, which have become such specialists in their niches that they are unable to survive under the conditions to which they were never adapted in the first place.  Well, no f*cking kidding!
And so will humans will give rise to other species that will be adapted to the hotter, more humid planet that they are themselves creating?  Not likely, in my opinion.  I think we'll end up a dead-end species, which will put its evolutionary ancestors to shame.  I am under the distinct impression that we are, as of yet, the only species to have caused its own demise, after already having decimated the earth of its rich tapestry of species.