There's strong evidence, but there is always room for disagreement.

/looks at Lucullus.

For more details search for a thread in Fanfiction Discussion called something like "Random Thought on Werewolves".

 

The idea that magical ability has nothing to do with innate magical power and everything to do with will power is ludicrous.

You say that Neville and Dumbledore have the same amount of power but differ in will power but I believe that is one of the worst examples of your point possible.

Neville, during the fifth book had every reason imaginable to become the best of the best if the only question was will: his parents' torturers had escaped. It said in the fifth book that he worked as hard as he could and progressed well, but if it was all a question of will then he would have been able to cast a patronus easily and he would have been able to blast out more than the occasional stunner that everyone clapped at because it was such a surprise.

Dumbledore had nothing motivating him really, as we see in the seventh book. He did things with a wand that no one else could with insane ease, but nothing was pulling him forward that was nearly as strong as vengeance. If it was all a matter of will then Dumbledore should have been a Hermione. Not a new Merlin.

So I think it is pretty obvious, when you think about it, that magical ability must have a strong correlation to innate magical power.

 

This would all have made sense if the world and it's system built from scratch up instead of attaching some patchwork ad-hoc explanation after.

 

No matter how much I would like to be good enough at maths to have a honours degree in it, I'm simply not clever enough for it.

Go back to my previous posts. Read them properly rather than constucting a staw man.

You can add confidence and will power to that list, though mental focus is roughly the same as will power.

These things are the difference between Dumbledore and Neville, and the reason why Dumbledore will always be better at magic than Neville, no matter how much Neville may succeed in one of those areas (for example will power). Dumbledore has them all in abundance.

 

Taure I remember you admitting that wizards likely have different amounts of magical power...

http://forums.darklordpotter.net/showpost.php?p=77642&postcount=15

I thought that I had won that debate against you. We could have another debate if you feel like you have a better argument this time.

 

That thread was a long time ago. In the many threads on magical theory since I have revised my opinion as more evidence has come out. As I said, go look up that werewolves thread, which is the most recent one.

 

I'm still a believer in magic being genetic, so obviously by my way of thinking two pures are the best source.

 

Magic is not genetic. It would be impossible for both Muggleborns and Squibs to exist if it were.

For Muggleborns to exist, the "Magic gene" would have to be recessive, such that they can be born to two Muggles each with the recessive gene.

However, if it is recessive then all wizards would be homozygous for the magic gene, and thus all their offspring would be wizards too - no squibs.

Thus, magic cannot be genetic, despite what JKR says.

 

Your assuming that magic genetics would work like all genetics, when infact, its... magic.

 

Well then, in that case its not genetics anymore that decides who's magic, is it? It's magic.

So the argument still stands.

 

It would still be Genetics. It just wouldn't be the same genetics we have all studied for years. Magic may have different patterns when it comes to genes being dominant and recessive.

 

If you're changing the definitions of the essential terms and basic concepts of the discapline, you have effectively changed the whole discapline. It would not be genetics. It would be magical genetics.

The word "magical" in that name shows a lot. It may still have a relation to genes, but the moment you say that its magical genetics, and not normal genetics, that makes a person magical, then you have made it such that the driving force of what makes a person magical is itself magical in nature, rather than solely from your genes. Thus, even if it still involves your genes, the main component is the magic at work, not the genes themselves, so its magic that makes people magical, not genes.