I don't think setting up a narrative to just imply an answer is very useful but no, I didn't miss the implication. However, stating that bacteria can't adapt to alcohol just as we can't adapt to an explosion, neither answers the question of what happens to what's left, nor makes the point I think you expect it to. We're talking about the bacteria that is somehow blocked from the alcohol (or the person blocked from the explosion). If someone hides behind a wall and escapes an explosion, he or she will likely adapt and avoid explody situations in future but say they couldn't, to make it more like the bacteria. Say a bunch of people happen to be behind a wall, some of them are there because they naturally seek out safety and some just out of dumb luck. The dumb luck survivors might be more likely to be on the wrong side of the wall next time, further increasing the percentage of the naturally safe. saying that bacteria can no more adapt to alcohol than we can explosions firstly, implies that bacteria can adapt, because humans can, and secondly, things don't change their DNA to suit their environment, things change randomly and the environment kills what's not suited so talking about the adaptability of the exploded is irrelevant.

It just feels like you panicked on an essay question. If I were your teacher, I'd ask you to resubmit and consider what the question is actually asking, make a decision on whether you think the answer is yes or no (you've argued both) and think a bit harder about how to illustrate your point. It doesn't make sense to discuss the post explosion adaptability of an individual. That individual is out of the picture. Perhaps a group of people or a parking lot would help.