> our hypotheses about the "natural" speed of evolution are wrong There's so much to unpack in that sentence! :) In general, a layman's understanding of a com

> our hypotheses about the "natural" speed of evolution are wrong There's so much to unpack in that sentence! :) In general, a layman's understanding of a complex scientific topic is going to be wrong but if we restrict "our hypotheses" to evolutionary biologists, then no. Between the (very popular) equilibrium hypothesis that a sibling linked to, microbiology, and the textbook cases of evolution during the industrial revolution [1], biologists have known for a long time that natural selection can be fast or slow. Regarding "natural" and tying back into the equilibrium hypothesis: non-cyclical rapid changes to the environment used to be much rarer before humans began building civilization, so pre-historic evolution might have looked significantly different. Nowadays, all it takes is a single ship to accidentally transport an invasive species that will wipe out an ecosystem and leave only the ones best adapted to the new reality. Last but not least, the "speed" of evolution is actually a combination of two orthogonal factors: the mutation rate and selection pressure. Natural selection can only select from the species that exist (i.e. the ones already surviving) so mutation rate is really what most people mean when they say "speed of evolution". Chernobyl is a very special case where the radioactive fallout increases the mutation rate, reduces lifespans by an average of 30% (IIRC) putting more pressure on survival to sexual maturity, and removes much of human interference from the picture. I wouldn't draw many conclusions on evolutionary biology from Chernobyl unless we plan on turning the entire planet into a fallout zone. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution