In theory it's possible to go beyond that level of inbreeding and get to a point where you reach some kind of "purity", and negative effects are reduced. But that's because to get to that point you basically get it so bad that the bad traits literally die out, and requires so many generations it's not possible outside controlled experiments with flies or something like that. Isn't science fun?
That's actually not possible in humans, because so many recessive and dominant traits are tied into negative functions on specific genes that allow those recessive or dominant traits to manifest, and there are so many genes that have to align in tandem. You would have to actually genetically engineer such a result (and that means precisely crafting every single gene), and it would quickly deviate in following generations due to simple genetic drift, let alone if you had a perfect "Adam" and "Eve". It's doable in flies and similar creatures because of how few chromosomal pairs they have, so there isn't very much that can go off or change, plus they have fairly robust telomere caps (retrotransposons), which results in fairly strong genetic stability. A lot of animals in general have fairly strong genetic stability, eg. with regenerative telomeres, or simply much longer ones. Unfortunately, we as humans have no such thing.In theory it's possible to go beyond that level of inbreeding and get to a point where you reach some kind of "purity", and negative effects are reduced. But that's because to get to that point you basically get it so bad that the bad traits literally die out, and requires so many generations it's not possible outside controlled experiments with flies or something like that. Isn't science fun?
That's what I said. "Possible in theory" means there's there's at least one chance in an infinite amount of variations. But that doesn't mean it's possible to accomplish.
unfortunately, "possible in theory" indicates the possibility of random recombination resulting as you stated, and the entire rest of my post which you did not quote was the details of why it's not possible, theoretically or otherwise, through natural means.
Just because I didn't quote it doesn't mean I didn't take it into account. Don't make fallacies like that, since it just makes me want to stop discussing anything with you.
