Sounds familiar. While this is an intriguing find it does not mean that life outside our solar system is anymore possible than it was before.

This is similar to the buzz around finding possible water on Saturn's moon:
Saturn's Moon--Does Water Equal Life?

Here's a hypothetical story to illustrate a point.

"A recent report came out stating that as many as 1 in 4 people have sunpox. But is the world at risk? A simple bit of math based on some decent assumptions shows that there may be billions of people potentially infected. '... astronomers studied 166 people within 80 miles of New York, and did a survey of the people they found. What they found is that about 1.5% of the people have a terminal virus, 6% have a virus, and about 12% have people think they have a virus. This sample isn’t complete, and they cannot yet detect the sunpox virus as it is still being studied in the one reported case of it globally. But using some statistics, they can estimate from the trend that as many as 25% of the people have the sunpox virus!' Proving this directly has proven to be an issue..."

For those that may need me to connect the dots for you, how likely would you say that the world needs to be in fear, based on the story above, of the sunpox virus? Now read the headline and synopsis again. How likely are you to believe that there are habitable planets out there just because we live on one? I'm not saying there aren't any out there, though I doubt there are any that have developed with intelligence, but with this kind of thinking it makes science look like a young child trying to jam a piece of the puzzle into a hole that it doesn't fit into.

Love this idea. Wish there was a website that offered it that shipped to Canada by default.

... besides planet Earth.

I thought I did. E. Coli still remainds E. Coli. Perhaps I should have said I don't see anything significant about this study. I have no problem accepting that genetic mutations occur. However, it seems that this study is inferring that this is the first witnessed proof for evolution. I would be interested at the lead researchers definition of evolution.

It's a fair request that you ask. I looked it up. Good ol' Google:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

I looked at other pages as well but it seems the most standard definition I could find was on the above page and read:

Also reading further into other articles about this study it would seem that Richard Lenski and many other evolutionists hold this study as a holy grail (in comparison to other studies before it) in the debate of creation vs. evolution. If all evolution is defined as being is the heritable change in a population spread over many generations then why would there be any debate at all?

Perhaps the debate is mearly by what process did life evolve. If this study holds any significance in that debate I am not seeing one. If this study is of significance in the study of mutation then I suggest there are more clear and abundant examples elsewhere.

20 years of study for what?

I digress a bit from the original request of a definition but I believe you should now understand the point I am making.