Two points:

1. "Magic, at the deepest life-or death level, is essentially unscientific."

This does not at all require that all magic is unscientific. In fact, if it was unscientific, it would be by definition a pointless subject of instruction, because that which cannot be predicted cannot be taught. The way I see it, the statement simply means that magic on a very large scale, such as that capable of reflecting the killing curse, is subject to so many variables that it becomes chaotic. This is analogous to the way that the exact location of each strand of lint fuzz protruding from my shirt is partly determined by the genetics of the original cotton plant and what the factory workers ate for breakfast the day the shirt was made, but predicting the first from knowledge of the second is comically impossible.

2. The Magic Gene

Rowling's one-gene theory is entirely plausible. It's just a strange case. Consider the following:

Let's say the protein the magic gene codes for (henceforth referred to as magicase) has quaternary conformation, with two subunits. That is, for the non-biologists out there, instead of being one long chain of amino acids folded up into a shape, it's two separate chains of amino acids folded into two shapes, then attached together. For magicase to work, both subunits must be functional.

Furthermore, the two subunits are identical, at least their amino acid sequences are (they could fold differently). The important thing, however, is that the same DNA sequence codes for both subunits, so the two alleles of the "magic gene" both produce the same product. This does not necessarily mean that a complete protein will have one subunit made from daddy's allele and one from mom, but if one of the alleles produces a polypeptide that is very similar to the proper shape, enough to bond with the other type of subunit (perhaps even more readily than the normal one does), but not enough to create a functional protein, competitive inhibition will occur. This creates a situation called "negative dominance," in which the dominant phenotype is actually the inactive one.

How does this apply to wizards? If the above were true, the wizarding phenotype would be effectively recessive, which explains what we see in the inheritence of magic. A singly mutation in only one allele could result in nonfunctional magicase, even if both parents were wizards. In such a case, the offspring would be a squib. Because of the prejudice in wizarding society, most squibs would either be exiled, or voluntarily join muggle society. In this way, there could be carriers of the magic gene that would be phenotypically muggle. If two such people procreated, or one procreated with a wizard, the offspring would have a chance of being magical (25% for two carriers, 50% for a carrier with a wizard).

This explains cases such as the Creevey brothers: if a couple have had one muggleborn child, it is far more likely that they will do so again than any random mating from the general population. Also, the purebloods have justification for their separatist attitudes: If wizards began mating mostly with muggles, the children, more likely than not, would be muggle, because a wizard breeding with a carrier muggle has a 50% chance of producing a magical child, and most muggles are probably not carriers.

 

I think you all might be taking this a little seriously.

 

Well, yes.
We are, after all, trying to have an actual discussion about an imaginary ability that has been (poorly) described in a book meant for children.

It's fun.

 

Magic could just be what was left over after god exploded. Which he did.

 

My theory is that humans got magic from experiments (of various kinds) conducted by angels and demons. And that the more magically powerful humans are also the ones who show the influence most strongly.

 

Am I the only one who got a mental image of a bunch of winged people working in a genetics lab there?

"Hey Jesus, c'mere and look at this sample; somebody fucked this Riddle one up royally - he looks like a bloody snake."

 

Umm...
I didn't actually SAY "scientific" experiments. My theory does encompass deliberate genetic manipulation with an eye to permanently inducing a new trait into the species, but also carelessness with powerful items inducing random changes, rape, even infatuation or love.
Let's face it - the ones who were cast out of heaven could have the kind of grudge that demands retribution.

 

True, but since the thread was on magical genetics just before that, my mind instantly jumped there and created the appropriate imagery. I'm not sure what that says about my sanity, but, hey, nothing I can do about it.

Its probably a bad idea for me to hazard a guess as to the origins of magic, but I'll go for it anyway. There are enough different kinds of energy in the universe - known and unknown - that it would seem logical to me that magic would be just another form thereof. Maybe the magical 'gene' allows for interaction with some higher dimension composed of an otherwise unknown form of energy, or maybe it simply allows for the interaction with and direct manipulation of some known form. Either way, I'd much rather have a physical explanation for magic.
Unfortunately, taking canon into account, angelic/demonic experimentation actually makes more sense given the impact of emotion on magic. I suppose it could be psychological effects on a physical ability, but even that's stretching things. Well, I probably shouldn't be too surprised by this; its pretty inevitably futile trying to find a logical, realistic reason for the existence of a nonexistent, fictional force.

 

I disagree. I take JKRs statement to mean that magic is unscientific at its deepest, most raw and fundamental level - that the essence of magic is unscientific. That more everyday magic has the appearance of regularity is irrelevant to how magic-in-itself is.

For once I am going to draw a comparison between science and magic.

I would compare magic to physics. Physics has the appearance of science - Newton's laws are scientific and produce good results, as do many other of the scientific theories. However, Quantum physics has revealed to us that these laws only create the appearance of regularity in the universe - the universe at its deepest, most raw and fundamental level is a universe of chaos and randomness.

As for the magic gene theory proposed by Vegemeister: it's interesting, but it means that all Muggleborns would be the result of Squib lines. I'm not sure if this is possible statistically, since we know that about 25% of wizards are Muggleborns, but that Squibs are very rare indeed. Only a couple a generation it seems to be.

 

Actually, considering the Pureblood agenda and ruthlessness, it's within the realm of possibility that most muggleborns don't actually make it to Hogwarts. As a member of the Board of Governors, I expect that Lucius Malfoy would have access to the Hogwarts register of accidental magic. What if he routinely passed that information on to some friends who share his views on purity?
Moreover, it isn't unreasonable in the least to suppose that a lot of muggleborns' accidental magic might result in lethal accidents. Suppose a preschooler throws a tantrum in the car, causing electrical failure, or summons his bottle, and the surprised driver causes a major pileup? Perhaps a night terror sets the bed on fire. A magical home might have some sort of provision for suppression of dangerous accidental magic. A muggle home Would Not.
Alternatively, a terrified parent might do their best to suppress the tendency.
If a family line carries the tendency, but only produces active magic users rarely, then there could be provision for arranging for the squib parents of a wand-wizard to leave the country if the tendency shows up. Let's face it, a muggleborn has a pretty low survival rate in the British Isles. Emmigration wouldn't be an extreme reaction, if staying put your child's life at serious risk.

The only canon examples of accidental magic that I can remember are:
Harry turning a teacher's hair blue
Harry somehow putting himself on the roof of the school
Neville bouncing when dropped out a window
Does anyone remember any other examples?

Edited to add:
vanishing the glass front off the snake cage at the zoo

 

Which is greatly exaggerated within fanon. There were only ~30 Death Eaters.

At the very most that's 1% of the wizarding population.

 

~30 MARKED Death Eaters.
Edgecombe and the Umbitch are evidence of exactly HOW deep the agenda and policies had penetrated. Frankly I can see their point - not against muggleborns as being "lesser" than pureblood, but how every muggleborn was a major hole in the security of the Wizarding world. Tom Riddle and his allies' methods were abhominable, but some of their goals were perfectly reasonable, and even could be called self-defence.
The anti-werewolf attitudes demonstrated a fear that isn't just lip service, and what we know of goblin-wizard relations isn't the kind of injury that's easy to heal.

 

Edgecombe and Umbridge - we've seen nothing to say that they support the Pureblood agenda. To me it seems they are more of the Ministry-knows-best type who don't think for themselves and just do whatever the Ministry says.

On the topic of marked Death Eaters: are there any other type? Voldemort even marks his undercover agents. It seems that every Death Eater is marked. There may be sympathisers and those who are willing to turn a blind eye, but if they didn't join in fully even when Voldemort was at the height of his power, then they're not going to be going about preventing Muggleborns from entering Hogwarts when there's no powerful Dark wizard to back them.

 

I don't remember the number of DE, but Riddle had enough sympathizers to scare the hell out of the general population and even intimidate the Ministry. Moreover, HE thought he had enough support to seriously try to destabilize the government.


Granted that I don't remember the books well, but Umbridge was All About wizarding supremacy. She hated centaurs and werewolves, and she called them both "half-breeds." She certainly didn't support Ministry policies that displeased her. Turning Dementors loose in a muggle town, let alone trying to use them as assassins was Emphatically Not lawful. The almost casual way she used veritaserum was actually illegal, and I Really Doubt that she was authorized to use Blood Quills on minor children.

How many curse scars did Harry end up with, anyway?
Riddle's soul fragment
Pettigrew's knife (I've always assumed that it was more than just an ordinary table knife)
Umbridge's quill

The basilisk fang - not a curse, but possibly Dark

 

Precisely. She disliked magical creatures, most likely due to fear of them. Muggleborns, however, do not fall within that purview.

For instance...?

It wasn't technically lawful, but in OotP it appeared that what was lawful was the will of the Minister, and Umbrdige felt that what she was doing was what Fudge would have wanted. Ergo, by Fudge = The Ministry, what Fudge wants = what the Ministry wants, therefore setting the Dementors on Harry was the will of the Ministry. That's Umbridge's reasoning at least.

I don't recall any laws on veritaserum being mentioned. We've seen vertiaserum - and indeed many powerful potions - being viewed with a rather casual regard in canon.

P.S. What's with all the random capital letters?

 

Fenrir was not marked but certainly affiliated

 

He was marked, since he was able to get passed the barrier to the Astronomy tower in HBP.

 

I use the Random Caps for emphasis - I'm writing too fast to put in the time to really work my vocabulary. I actually have a decent grasp of the English language, but I never feel that I've found just the right word unless I've spent literally days working on it.

@ Taure, I'm so glad you're back - you're such a fun Antagonist.

I'd never noticed about Greyback being Marked. He's such a psycho, I wouldn't have thought Riddle (or Voldemort) would have wanted to claim him.

 

Plot hole, I direct you to Chapter 23 of the Deathly Hallows.

 

Hmm...maybe Voldemort removed the mark after Fenrir had served his purpose.

In any case, snatchers =/= Death Eaters. I'd put them down with the same group as sympathisers/people who turn a blind eye/people too scared to fight the system. Perhaps with a bit more of a mean streak than the usual person.

When Voldemort took over the Ministry, it seems that most carried on working there and just did whatever they were told to out of fear, and a deliberate self-delusion in which they managed to convince themselves that Voldemort hadn't taken over.

This indicates that they're not fanatical - and so, to bring the topic back to the purpose of this particular tangent, they aren't the type of people to risk going to Azkaban just to prevent a couple of Muggleborns from going to Hogwarts.