Are evolution simulations accurate?

No, in my opinion (as a non-biologist) the simulations are not realistic.I don't see this as a problem. Lab experiments are typically done to isolate a few variables and test just those. Non-realistic experiments are common throughout science. A cosmologist might do some experiments using an earth-bound particle accelerator to test theories about the nuclear synthesis that occurs in stars.We learn more, not less, from unrealistic lab simulations that are designed to test just a few variables.

The most obvious problem is that radiation results in an unnaturally high mutation rate. In nature, mutations can form that are relatively neutral, and these can be passed from generation to generation. A particular mutation might be advantages in the presence of some genes, while disadvantageous in the presence of others. The presence of that mutated gene in multiple generations allows a thorough testing of its viability in various combinations. In a lab experiment with a forced high mutation rate, there is little opportunity for this kind of thoroughness in testing.That my opinion, but please keep in mind that I am not a biologist.

I tend to agree. But apparently I did not explain myself clearly enough.In the real environment, mutations can occur which are relatively neutral. The mutated genes can become part of the gene pool, where they are subject to thorough testing in combination with various other genes (at different loci). Thus a species can build up variability that has been well tested in the original environment.At some later time, there might be a change in environment. What resulted from neutral mutations in the original environment might now become beneficial in the altered environment. Moreover, the gene pool might contain several well tested variants that were all near neutral in the original environment. It is possible that these, in combination, could result in a so-called IC change within the altered environment.If we look at lab tests under radiation, at least as I understand those experiments, the resulting mutation occurs at the same time as the changed environment (i.e. the artificially applied selection), so there is no time for the thorough testing that would occur in real life situations. I would expect the lab conditions to produce evolutionary changes that are less robust than occurs in real life. And I would expect there to be less creativity (less opportunity for so-called IC changes).Again, I'll remind you that I am not a biologist. I suppose I am a bit of a theoretician, and I am giving my theoretical analysis. But it is not informed by any detailed knowledge of the lab experiments with drosophila. I had hoped that somebody familiar with that lab work would comment.

That's part of it.My father used to say "the wheels of time grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine." What we do in our labs won't "grind" as finely. Sorry about that. It's short for "irreducible complexity", a term that Behe used, and has since been picked up by creationists and ID proponents. (ID = Intelligent Design; just playing it safe and defining my acronyms). According to Behe, evolution cannot create irreducible complexity. Not really self-conscious. I sometimes write with what seems to be an authoritative tone, and I didn't want to mislead people into thinking I had any expertise.