And everything in the HP world follows the rules of science, amirite?

The following seems to be a perfectly feasible in-universe explanation: the magic gene follows alternative rules of genetics which would take account of magical factors of which traditional genetics is unaware and unaffected by.

 

Personally I support the genetic point of view. However, when trying to explain the accessibility of magic to people, it seems to me that the Occam's Razor isn't working. Clearly one 'magic/muggle' gene can not regulate the distribution of 'The Gift of Magic' as we see it in the Potterverse.

Therefore, let's go advanced.

Consider, for example, that a 'magic gene' is in fact a series of genes, not very long to avoid magic's elimination due to statistical reasons, but not very short for it to be impossible to link the magical attributes to certain phenotypical traits. Even if the genes themselves are binary switches, the whole system has a lot of possible states, one -or more- of which enable access to magic. And, of course, the series doesn't have to be continuous. One gene here, a couple there, interspersed among countless others... As we don't know the true nature of the so-called 'magical core' of a wisard, we can't rule out the possibility of several generic genes creating a magical combination. Placed in the right loci, they can gain the trait of heredity, all the while allowing for squibs to be born.

And, while we are at that, multiple untraceable genes may subtly control the finer aspects of how a person uses magic. As there are (at least, 'must be', since I do not remember for sure) some... conditions to which people are predisposed due to their genome, and by conditions I do not necessarily mean illnesses, it is also definitely not out of the realm of possibility that the predisposition to a certain field of magic, e.g. Transfiguration of Charms, -which is, by the way, also affecting the wand most compatible with a wisard, which in turn has to be touched when checking for compatibility (sampling the DNA?)- is also regulated by the 'magic' genes.

Oh, and yes, about the original question... I think that at first, Tom, soon to be self-proclaimed Lord, was merely using the pureblood superiority idea to gain supporters in his quest for the dish best served cold. Later, to create the image of wand-happy muggle-hating maniac, he would have had to learn to act convincingly- there was little to learn, actually. And then... well, we all know how a man can convince himself. However, having split his soul, he could easily have gained an altered mental status which, coupled with extensive exposure to Dark magic with ill intent, could actually make him a wand-happy muggle-hating Maniac-Whose-Name-Is-So-Feared.

 

I can only second this. You'll realize things about these books you've never thought of, like how the twins suck.

Also, you'll hear a lot about comic books. And Wrestling. -.-

 

It less that he feels that purebloods are superior than the fact that he hates Muggles. A muggle abandoned his mother turning her into a wretch of a woman who couldn't even stay alive, and to top it all off, named him after his absentee father.

Sure it was very convinient to use the Pureblood's hate for his own purpose but I think he always hated 'Mudbloods', weaklings that they were.

 

Meh. Frenched up version of saying "Hey, it's magic". Care to elaborate on these 'alternative rules' and 'magical factors'?

Lol. Classifying magic as a multiple-gene inherited trait sounds even more ludicrous. What are the odds of the genes lining up to provide the 'right' combination every time? And this is without even considering any instances of random segregation or crossing overs that might take place during meiotic division.

It's not your reasoning that's flawed. You're simply backing the wrong horse, mate. Your predilection for the 'magic gene' theory is prompting you to inject whatever genetic-related knowledge you possess into your arguments, no matter how ridiculous they sound.

 

I think Magic is just like SW's "Force" you have people who are born 'force sensitive', they have a degree of control of the force depending upon how much flows through them.

What governs that is usually fate, like in Harry's case, who is gifted with above average magical prowess because of his 'destiny'. It isn't genetic, whatever Rowling claims, it's simply a matter that is governed by universal laws not acknowledged.

I mean it's not the first time an author totally ruined their own story logic (lol in bf midichlorians) with some half-assed explanation.

 

http://fc05.devianta******/fs16/f/2007/205/8/d/if_you_hated_harry_potter____by_StrawberryNunChild.jpg

 

Er, no, actually. I find "it's magic" a completely satisfactory explanation as to why it breaks the rules of genetics, as, you know, it's magic.

But such rules, whatever they are, would have to enable it such that both Muggleborns and squibs could exist, and squibs be much rarer than Muggleborns.

 

I don't know enough about genetics to comment on the magic inheritance debate, so I'll just pass on that one.

As for Voldemort, I used to lean more toward the second option, but DH can be interpreted to contradict that very easily. Especially the sequence after Voldemort thought he'd finally gotten rid of Harry Potter.

After putting everything into consideration, I say that Voldemort was a Mud-Blood and Muggle hater who never made his stance on Half-Bloods public, in order to keep fanatical Pure-Blood supremacists on his side.

 

Even magic follows a set of guidelines - you can't create food or bring people back to life, for example. However, if we take JKR's word for it that magic is a gene, and we pretty much have to, then there has to be a different set of genetic rules that magic follows. Obviously, our genetics doesn't explain the existance of squibs, muggleborns, and the rest.

 

Okay. I'm set in my ways and am not willing to part with them without fight. I'm also thoroughly uneducated in genetics, my knowledge of the subject limited by the basic school course. (But that course was a good one. I think.) I, however, am wondering as to the exact extent of your understanding of the subject. My reasoning for the doubt is this: first of all, as far as I understand it, 'instances of random segregation' happen in EVERY meiotic division, being the act of separating alleles that go to different gametes, and 'not even considering' them is... strange. Secondly, the crossing overs, while theoretically being able to screw everything when we are talking about multiple genes, are known to leave certain pieces of chromosome intact in almost all cases. I do not remember the exact term, but there are places which seem to be 'protected' from such meddling. That is exactly what I was referring to when speaking about the genes being placed 'in the right loci'. I admit, it sounded unclear.

On the other hand, your earlier reply to Tinn Tam had an effect of convincing the audience that you know what you're talking about. Maybe the way I read your words to me is another instance of miscommunication. So please tell us, what is the extent of your involvement in genetic research? Because if, for example, you are a renowned geneticist, or at least are studying it in a university/college, I will publicly acknowledge your superiority in the subject and will humbly request a thorough explanation of why, exactly, you are claiming the chances of my severely underexplained and underdeveloped system to work to be critically low.

And I have a backup plan to support my theory in case you prove that, from the point of view of serious genetics, it sucks. It will involve a compromise between Taure's and rocket_runner's opinions, and I hope I won't have to resort to that, but...

PS. If, per chance, the debate over genetics continues, shouldn't we start another thread for it? It seems awfully like offtopic here...

 

Ditto. I'm 18. Were you expecting a PhD? As to what I've said in my earlier posts, I admit I might have come off as a little arrogant. Nah scratch that ... very arrogant sounds about right. For that, you have my humblest apologies.

Rest assured, everything I have stated concerning genetics is indeed factual. You should atleast do me the courtesy of looking them up in google or a certified textbook before you start casting aspersions on said statements.

Again, you misunderstand me. I was merely noting how everyone arguing in favour of the 'magic' gene conveniently forgot to mention these issues; because as you yourself said, they have the potential to screw everything when we are talking about multiple genes.

Well Tinn did sort of bring this up, but then again, she presumed that the magic gene would not be affected by 'crossing overs' -> consequently making this a purely hypothetical assumption of no consequence.

The way I see it, you're basing your arguments on something you cannot fully recall. This is not acceptable. In any case, I felt obligated to look this up on google -- to no effect. Perhaps my google skills aren't up to par. Would you mind linking me to a reliable source?

However, I did come across an interesting tidbit that you might be alluding to ...

Hmm ... food for thought. Perhaps, the 'magic' gene would not be subjected to crossing overs if placed 'in the right loci'? But then again, that's still assuming a lot, since we are talking about a series of genes.

I --

Touché.

Agreed. Perhaps you should do the honours?

 

Here it is: On the origins of Magic

And my answer to you, e1, will be there.

 

I think this settles all arguments. Let's be honest JKR's world does not account for modern day (or rather muggle) science or logic. The genetics of magic, if there is such a thing, is designed to make absolutely no sense. That is the essence of magic. It mucks everything up.

Simply put, if there were such thing as logic in the wizarding world of course we could try to explain just how Voldemort views himself as far as the whole pureblood supremacy thing. But honestly who knows? Even with all our science in reality we still have a race of people that claim to be better than everyone else with no real genetic proof. And that is without magic.

I think we are all taking this poorly written universe a bit too seriously right now

 

Correction: all I did was slap together a few genetic phenomena to prove that genetics were more complicated than Mendel's laws. This is why, in fact, I started my post with "there is more to genetics than just Mendel" -- as opposed to, hey, random example: "magic is actually transmissible through genetics and I'm going to tell you why" -- and then gave examples. Just to be absolutely clear this time, these examples therefore show that there is more to genetics than Mendel's laws. Maybe I should have added this conclusion in a separate paragraph.

As for my 'hypothesis', and I never meant to use the word in its full scientific sense (it's in fact the same mistake I made when talking about 'sexual' chromosome -- directly translating from French a word that, while close in meaning, doesn't cover the same reality), it was a vague idea derived exclusively from the last example I gave; you'll also notice (... or not) I never suggested magic was a sex-linked gene. My imagination suggested something else, very not-scientific but very magical, which I'll not detail for fear of offending your purist eyes.

tl;dr: Miscommunication indeed.