Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite

[Huggy Bear]

As usual, you selectively quote from something you cite without apparently having read or understood it.

It's not like I didn't post a link to the full article or anything.

What does your article say will inevitably happen to genetic diversity/the effects of inbreeeding of that wolf population if novel genes aren’t eventually introduced by outsiders?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...074654.htm

Even if selection is favouring the wolves that are genetically diverse, genetic variation will inevitably be lost over time in such a small population as this one. But it will take much longer than previously thought.

If we go back to my previous question

why are you so sure that a low gene pool many years ago would affect a population the same as it does currently?

That would seem to agree with the point I was making does it not?

Further more the coefficient of inbreeding among this population of wolves is extremely high with an average of .25 which is the equivalent of mating siblings.

Inbreeding negatively impacts the survival rate.

I’ve owned several purebred dogs (German Shorthaird Pointers, all). One had regularly occurring seizures until she was fixed (seemed to be a severe hormonal imbalance). A couple others had frequent UTIs. These were not animals that would’ve been able to survive in the wild, domestication or not.

*emphasis mine*