Are evolution simulations accurate?

Is looking at inbred groups and things that are mutated by radiation a good way of simulating the way evolution would work or not? In other words, does creating a large build up of mutations suddenly yield the same result that a slow build up over time would? Why or why not?

Could you please explain why you think simulations are not realistic? For example, are there specific things that would occure in nature that cannot be reproduced in lab experiments. Thats what I am trying to uncover.

hmm, yeah, that seems to make sense...but at the same time we have to take note that many of the mutants do not have a leathal mutation. I don't really see a point in looking at "what might have been lost due to a leathal mutation" when there are so many other mutants to study that did not have a leathal mutation.

I fail to see how this addresses my question...

Good point, but here is a possible rebuttal. Let me know what you think.It is unlikely that this neutral gene when coupled with another mutation would create such a big difference as to overcome genetic drift. Unless the change causes such a big survival advantage that it survives while the rest of the community dies, both of the mutations in the combination will be subject to genetic drift (which usually maintains the status quo pretty well from what I understand).
If somewhere along the line the neutral mutation hooks up with a second mutation that it combines well with, then that second mutation still has the drift problem to deal with. In other words, assuming this "neutral" mutation is lucky enough to surive the drift, what it ends up being coupled with will also be whatever mutation happened to be lucky enough to survive the drift.This implies that lab experiments would be accurate in simulations since in both the lab and in nature the combinations in the end result are basically random. The rate of mutaiton may be unusually high in the lab, but that just means we have more possible end combinations to look at.

If I am understanding correctly you are saying that one shortcoming of lab experiments is that you cannot have as wide a variety of enviromnental conditions to test mutations in as occures naturally in the wild. Is that basically what you are saying?
Sorry but I am unfumiliar with the term IC change. What does IC stand for?Also, you sound a little self concious about the possibility of making a mistake. I am also not a biologist. Feel free to share whatever angles you come up with, and who cares whether the ideas are dead on or not. Theorizing and then testing is what science is all about!

yes, lab simulations are not reality, but rather simulations of it, so to what extent are the accuracy of simulation results to be trusted?
Can you get into some of the ways you think that they can be used to teach us more about mutation, and any specific limitations that simulations might have?