(...) one case where two labs performed the same experiment and got similar results, pointing to the fact that this was more than likely not random, but the organisms adaptability to specific conditions
As Wounded King pointed out when the experiment was first mentioned in this thread (message 263 - sorry, but I've forgotten how to link to it), the experiments did not find the same mutations, they found mutations with similar effect.
To quote some specifics from the second paper (here):
quote:The two mutations (ACP-1 and ACP-2) had similar effects on pH optimum and overall activity with respect to beta-glycerophosphate, and they effected similar shifts in substrate specificity. The particular mutational shift in this experiment, however, resulted in an enzyme with greater maximum activity than in the first experiment. In fact, ACP-2 effected a maximum activity at pH 6 that is approximately equal to the activity of the wild type enzyme at its pH optimum. pH4
So the same mutations didn't arise. The environment selected for mutations that had a particular effect, but the two different strains acheived this effect in a different way.
I also wish you'd stop referring to them as bacteria. This was an experiment in yeast.
As I said before, the odds of two separate experiments getting 2,374,484, would be extremely unlikely. Unless the experiment was repeated millions of times, you should not see the SAME RANDOM mutation take place, since the odds are extremely against this.
And, yet again, this is wholly irrelevant, because the same random mutation did not occur in both experiments. Rather, different mutations occured which had similar (but not identical) phenotypic effects.
The papers are here, here and here. You're asking for us to link to 15 examples of mutations producing new information, but first it might be an idea for you to read the ones people have already linked to.
Edited by caffeine, : Typo, and that's a much better title