After much reading of this thread, re-reading of this thread, and taking notes down...I can state with about 92% certainty that Nativeshark is troll.
Let's take this back to the very beginning of this thread: back when OP put down that the pond occurred due to either military testing or quarrying, and therefore had a sand bottom. He never fully stated which it was.
Ppoeschl then proceeded to ask very relevant questions, regarding DO levels, toxicity, etc. OP then proceeded to answer some of these questions, but ignored those questions such as disease, water quality, and clarity. OP then said that if the water went toxic, it "would be an act of God". Ok OP, please state why you wouldn't want to preserve your sharks you want to make into a different species if you aren't trolling? Additionally, if you were "doing this for the environment" as you stated before, then why would you not care about the toxicity of the water?
Afterwards, there are multiple questions, all which OP answers. One problem here though. OP wants to add shrimp, clams, anchovies, smelt, kelp, rock fish, perch, kelp bass, yellow tails, stingrays, barracudas, and eventually sharks. He claims that he wants to make it into a saltwater pond, with a similar ecosystem to freshwater ponds. Let me state here, that very few saltwater species would reproduce in such a way that would allow offspring to stay near the parents. Instead, the vast majority of the species OP states here are broadcast spawners, and whose eggs/milt would be washed out to sea. Eventually, the only fish left would be sharks, and possibly stingrays and barracuda due to predation.
OP then states that Catalina Island is corrupt, and that he can easily get a permit or will take boat to internat'l waters in order to get his fish. He also states that he will make a fence around the pond (later amending that he will have it have holes in it) that will allow water to flow in with the tides, yet keep the fish in. And yet, when he talked about how some sharks don't do well in captivity, he stated that it was due to walls. But is a fence not totally similar to a wall? Is not the side of a pond not similar to a wall? Also, smelt are very tiny fish, which would be able to bypass the holes.
OP also states that he has 0 experience in the aquarium and zoology field. But how is this possible because in the very first post, he stated that he has had a saltwater aquarium for 2 years?
Now here, we start getting a bigger picture about OP wanting to create a new species...of shark. He cites correct information about natural selection, such as "Isolating a population with different environmental conditions" "Fish with better genetics will survive" (please note here, that it is the phenotype that matters, not the genotype here. The fish with the better phenotype will survive here, not necessarily the fish with the better genotype). "If radiation leaks from the soil/stone into the water, it can cause mutation, which will increase the rate of speciation", as well as stating the the OP is "too pretty for jail".
A few comments later, OP states that he "will bypass blue shark if not feasible", and is "going to try to replicate the natural environment as much as possible, but won't be able to do so 100% due to a pond=/=ocean" He then asks which local shark will have a high reproductive rate.
More comments here...and people encouraging/discouraging OP. OP also proceeds to change his idea again by stating that he shall make it a dive/fishing site, which shall be funded by a 501c, and will get help from the Catalina Island conservation society. But wait. Why is he going to act as a local subsidiary of the conservation society...if he aims to create a new species?
*facepalm*...ok, let's go on a little lesson in genetics/evolution here: evolution does happen. There are brief periods where speciation occurs at a very fast rate(for the lay person, a time where species seem to come into being faster), and much longer periods where speciation doesn't take place as fast. DNA can be mutated by radiation, but it's not as simple as putting in a few sharks and expecting a new species, even by the time of one's grandchildren. The majority of mutations are actually harmless, and if you were hoping for a new species, you would have to make the gamete cells (the sperm and egg) have genetic mutations, not the somatic cells of the organism's body. Oh, and as for those links citing new species? Those were tiny species (fruit flies and lizards), which a)have incredibly fast generation turnover, and b)can easily be manipulated by people. Sharks have neither. Also, why would a shark change, if it's already been adapted to its environment for the past few millennia? The shark body structure is efficient. You're more likely to kill your test subjects than get a result. As for the sharks "adapting" to your pond, the best way to get a species, is to have heterogeneous, isolated environment. Your environment is neither heterogeneous (you're trying to make it similar to the ocean), and it is also not isolated due to tides.
Also, if you are Kevin O'Connor (the boy in the picture), then why would you even lie about what university you attended? The site the pictures are from, state that Technician O'Connor graduated from UC San Diego. Not Berkeley. The pictures of your "sister" are of Julie Barber, a Research Technician, like O'Connor.
Oh, and your claims about having a 75X50 oval pond on Catalina Island in Cali? I just did a very thorough Google maps search on over Catalina Island for it, looking for any large water features. The average car is about 15 ft, or 5 yards, and the GMaps shows a car very distinctly. There is no pond or even water feature on Catalina that large except for a seasonal creek bed, and a UCSF research pool.
Your idea was interesting at first, I'll give you that. A saltwater pond, amazing. But seriously? A species of shark that was only endemic to your pond?
I will very gladly retract this if you can prove me wrong about your "saltwater pond." Better yet, answer my questions, and then prove me wrong. In fact, I'm hoping that you can prove me wrong in regards to the authenticity of your entire story.
