>>26632056>>26632301>Is the 0.5% variation on average so significant as to prevent the use of a ball on them? Doesn't this imply an incredibly narrow genetic diversity among any given species of 'Mon, and if it does, how narrow, and how is this not impacting their viability in nature?When we're talking about aggregate genetic material, 0.5% variation is a huge number. Even a marginal error in exact sequencing would prove disastrous. Doesn't even have to be an essential piece of data to botch up the whole entire sequence.
Given the way pokemon evolve I would certainly argue that they have a more consistent composition of genetic standards - baselines, really. If not then over time they would likely evolve into many other forms besides their conventional stages. The resilience of these particular forms and paths speak to their overall lower level of intra-species diversity. Compared to all the animal kingdom's diversity mere natures and IVs would play only a tiny role in the creature's overall species-dataset. Because of that, a pokemon can be saved and reassessed easily - comparatively speaking.
In my theory, a pokeball would be circumventing this problem by creating a perfect replica of the captured creature, atom for atom by use of a ditto. This internal replica is the baseline which will function as the saved data for the creature in question. Each time you recall the creature, a new overwriting dataset is established. As far as I'm aware a ditto cannot /completely/ replicate a human since they are from totally different kingdoms. Then again the genome of a particular person could be mapped and perhaps used to reconstruct without a ditto datasave. However even if you can reconstruct the human back together the question then becomes: what happens to the original's consciousness and sense of self after entering a state of warping spacetime?
Sorry friends, I'm going to slow down with these long posts sent from my phone. Really need to get back to work.
