[Right Wing Professor]

They've shown how highly specialized and difficult it is to get the "right" mutations.

They had 25 mutations, on average, in every base pair, far less than you'd have in any reasonabe sized population.

(Of course, "right" mutations being a subjective term, since evolution isn't driven towards any goal aside from those of humans.)

Sure. Why would thermophilic bacteria evolve to survive at high temperature, if people weren't doing the experiment?

[grey_whiskers]

They had 25 mutations, on average, in every base pair, far less than you'd have in any reasonabe sized population.

Not quite fair comparison there, RWP, since they designed things so that by FAR the largest selection pressure was for one environmental condition only. Therefore the small population size, smaller number of mutations would not necessarily be as important as "in the wild" (where there are *many* things which must be adapted to).

BTW interesting question that brings up. Were the beneficial mutations here actually *point* mutations or the results of several mutations at widely spaced locations, happening in just the right combination? I don't recall seeing.

Cheers!