Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I can recall several instances having arguments in my head when someone totally oversteps the probabilistic nature of evol

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I can recall several instances having arguments in my head when someone totally oversteps the probabilistic nature of evolution - those people were my professors. As to antifragile behaviors, I don't know that I agree completely. For instance there's a pretty considerable difference in strategies we observe with r (antifragile) and K (fragile) selection. But also hyper-specific species, for instance the famed Darwin's Hawkmoth: a moth previously unknown but predicted to exist by Darwin who posited that the pitcher flower with a narrow neck necessarily had some animal evolved to correspond to its adaptive strategies. That to me reads as the precise opposite of antifragility, an exclusive dependence would be fragile, and yet monophagy (very fragile)/oligophagy (fragile) is fairly common, and omnivorism (antifragile) is not. Though I suppose you could point to, in some instance, antifragile outcomes over the long run the sum risk for some of these organisms I intuit, outweigh the benefits of antifragile strategies. There are some interesting and definitively antifragile, some of the niche partitioning strategies are really quite ingenious. I would indicate the most antifragile creature is the human (literally real-time evolution), our wont towards ecosystem engineering may actually be our downfall. I've actually thought for some while a golden mean exists in antifragility, and too much investment in that direction leads to insensitivity to critical structural weaknesses through a couple of different pathways.