Maybe it's just the fangirl in me talking, but I'm going to have to object to this comment:
While professors don't know everything (because it's the point of their occupation to go out and discover all they can about the world of pokémon), this comment seems to imply that they have very limited knowledge themselves. Likewise, while they don't know everything, a scientist in general doesn't really stop at "I don't know." It's more of a statement of, "It's a bit fuzzy, but there are theories that point to this" or "It's still a bit fuzzy, but here's the evidence we have that might lead us to a definite answer." In other words, they do do essentially what you're doing in that thread because basically, a scientist's job entails gathering the evidence and speculating an answer until they can finally get a definite "yes, that's what happens." Your thread is based on essentially the same thing: speculation using evidence (both real and canonical) that points to a possible answer. Theories, pretty much. (This is also why I'm a bit uncomfortable with the comment about knowing everything about pokémon because your thread is pretty much a speculation thread due to the fact that there's very little evidence in canon that supports or disproves your theories -- as in, canon never touches on these, so there's no yes or no as to whether or not you're in the metaphorical ballpark.)
Also, who says that one can't ask a pokémon professor any question they want about pokémon? After all, I'd trust Professor Oak to answer whatever question I might have.
Point is, I just find it a bit uncomfortable in that you seem to be underestimating the possible knowledge of a professor while implying that everything you say is fact, rather than simply speculation. I'd have no problem with your thread it if it's left as fan speculation (i.e., without that implication) because it's always interesting to see people try to apply real-world science to Pokémon.