Skip to main content

When I studied biology at my medical school, we used to learn things abouttopics around a century old: the famous Darwin's voyage on "Beagle" to the Galapagos Islands, the classical triad of his Theory of Evolution, etc.

At the same time we were told that there is no any evidence found in nature for many of these statemetnsstatements of his evolutional theory. For example, people studied wildlife around Chernobyl and found that no new species emerged due to much higher mutation rate due toas a consequence of radiation. On the contrary, there were no significant differences between the species living under elevated radiation level and those living in "normal" conditions.

Do these facts somehow influeceinfluence our understanding of the theory of evolution? Are there any breaking finding happendedbreakthrough findings which happened in the last 20 years that prove or disprove it?

When I studied biology at my medical school we used to learn things about a century old: the famous Darwin's voyage on "Beagle" to the Galapagos Islands, the classical triad of his Theory of Evolution, etc.

At the same time we were told that there is no any evidence found in nature for many of these statemetns of his evolutional theory. For example people studied wildlife around Chernobyl and found that no new species emerged due to much higher mutation rate due to radiation. On the contrary, there were no significant differences between the species living under elevated radiation level and those living in "normal" conditions.

Do these facts somehow influece our understanding of the theory of evolution? Are there any breaking finding happended in the last 20 years that prove or disprove it?

When I studied biology at my medical school, we used to learn topics around a century old: the famous Darwin's voyage on "Beagle" to the Galapagos Islands, the classical triad of his Theory of Evolution, etc.

At the same time we were told that there is no evidence found in nature for many of these statements of his evolutional theory. For example, people studied wildlife around Chernobyl and found that no new species emerged due to much higher mutation rate as a consequence of radiation. On the contrary, there were no significant differences between the species living under elevated radiation level and those living in "normal" conditions.

Do these facts somehow influence our understanding of the theory of evolution? Are there any breakthrough findings which happened in the last 20 years that prove or disprove it?

Question Protected by Chris
Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackBiology/status/155018922364649472

When I studied biology at my medical school we used to learn things about a century old: the famous Darwin's voyage on "Beagle" to the Galapagos Islands, the classical triadetriad of his Theory of Evolution, etc.

SameAt the same time we were told that there is no any evidence found in nature for many of these statemtnsstatemetns of his evolutionevolutional theory. For example people studied wildlife around Chernobyl and found that no new species emerged due to much higher mutation rate due to rationradiation. On the contrary, there were no significant differences between the species living under elevated radiation level and those living in "normal" conditions.

Do these facts somehow influece our understanding of the theory of evolution? Are there any breaking finding happended in the last 20 years that prove or disprove it?

When I studied biology at my medical school we used to learn things about a century old: the famous Darwin's voyage on "Beagle" to Galapagos Islands, the classical triade of his Theory of Evolution etc.

Same time we were told that there is no any evidence found in nature for many of these statemtns of his evolution theory. For example people studied wildlife around Chernobyl and found no new species emerged due to much higher mutation rate due to ration. On the contrary, there were no significant differences between the species living under elevated radiation level and those living in "normal" conditions.

Do these facts somehow influece our understanding of the theory of evolution? Are there any breaking finding happended in the last 20 years that prove or disprove it?

When I studied biology at my medical school we used to learn things about a century old: the famous Darwin's voyage on "Beagle" to the Galapagos Islands, the classical triad of his Theory of Evolution, etc.

At the same time we were told that there is no any evidence found in nature for many of these statemetns of his evolutional theory. For example people studied wildlife around Chernobyl and found that no new species emerged due to much higher mutation rate due to radiation. On the contrary, there were no significant differences between the species living under elevated radiation level and those living in "normal" conditions.

Do these facts somehow influece our understanding of the theory of evolution? Are there any breaking finding happended in the last 20 years that prove or disprove it?

added 2 characters in body
Source Link
Alexander Galkin
  • 5.7k
  • 1
  • 32
  • 38

When I studied biology at my medical school we used to learn things about a century old: the famous Darwin's voyage on "Beagle" to Galapagos Islands, the classical triade of his Theory of Evolution etc.

Same time we were told that there is no any evidence found in nature for many of these statemtns of his evolution theory. For example people studied wildlife around Chernobyl and found no new species emerged due to much higher mutation rate due to ration. On the contrary, there were no significant differences amongbetween the species living under elevated radiation level and those living in "normal" conditions.

Do these facts somehow influece our understanding of the theory of evolution? Are there any breaking finding happended in the last 20 years that prove or disprove it?

When I studied biology at my medical school we used to learn things about a century old: the famous Darwin's voyage on "Beagle" to Galapagos Islands, the classical triade of his Theory of Evolution etc.

Same time we were told that there is no any evidence found in nature for many of these statemtns of his evolution theory. For example people studied wildlife around Chernobyl and found no new species emerged due to much higher mutation rate due to ration. On the contrary, there were no significant differences among the species living under elevated radiation level and those living in "normal" conditions.

Do these facts somehow influece our understanding of the theory of evolution? Are there any breaking finding happended in the last 20 years that prove or disprove it?

When I studied biology at my medical school we used to learn things about a century old: the famous Darwin's voyage on "Beagle" to Galapagos Islands, the classical triade of his Theory of Evolution etc.

Same time we were told that there is no any evidence found in nature for many of these statemtns of his evolution theory. For example people studied wildlife around Chernobyl and found no new species emerged due to much higher mutation rate due to ration. On the contrary, there were no significant differences between the species living under elevated radiation level and those living in "normal" conditions.

Do these facts somehow influece our understanding of the theory of evolution? Are there any breaking finding happended in the last 20 years that prove or disprove it?

Source Link
Alexander Galkin
  • 5.7k
  • 1
  • 32
  • 38
Loading