Mutation is random, but natural selection is not, which is what this study was about.
That's not what I got from the summary, but then again that's a VERY badly written summary (which is why I want to see the journal article, if they'd bothered to actually put down the names of the researchers *sigh*).
If the study honestly concluded that "natural selection is not random," then I'd like to award the authors the Captain Obvious Prize for 2008. That's the fundamental premise of natural selection, hence the "selection" part. If you read On the Origin of Species, Darwin himself states that natural selection isn't random. It can't be random for eveolutionary theory to make any sense.
Again... bad summary. I suspect this isn't what the researchers found at all. If it is, they need to be properly ridiculed for it.
So they bred worms and a majority started to developed certain advantages changes to their environment? What changes to what environment. Also isn't there also things called environmental genes that only "kick in" when the organism is under certain environments. Testing was done on twins that grew up in different environments.
I'm putting this as politely as I can.... pleeeeeaaaase don't talk about genetics if you don't actually know what you're talking about. It'll confuse people.
I don't know what you're getting at with your first two sentences, but your third is, I suspect, referring to environmental triggers? Gene cascades are frequently activated by external stimuli, ranging from touch, to temperature, to pressure, to salinity, etc etc ad nauseum. That in itself has little to do with natural selection wherein an organism with mutations that promote survival in certain conditions will reproduce successfully while those without will die.