This is what I thought about when I said it can't be that simple, in other words, the genetics not being affected by 'a single set of alleles'.

It makes more sense this way, but we'd need an expert geneticist to explain the shit, lol.

 

First, it seems a welcome is in order.

You seem to know this better than we do. I tried to remember how multiple genes worked, but wouldn't work out a theory from memory. I didn't know it could work in the way you described though, with a minimum number of coders. This is what the Mugglenet editorial has to say on the issue, it's pretty feeble in my opinion:

"The final possibility is that several different genes control magic. For example, at least three separate genes control human eye color. It is impossible to speculate how multiple genes could be working to create magic in witches and wizards with the information we have from the Harry Potter books, but what we do know is that multiple genes could work in some way to allow for the high percentages of half-bloods. Despite the improved explanation for half-bloods provided here, it makes the idea that magical families will have magical children, and the whole concept of magic inheritance, far less cut and dry than it seems to be in the Potterverse. The main problem I have with the multiple gene theory is that it seems to lead to a correlation between bloodlines and magical ability since it arises issues of partial dominance. For example, of three known eye color genes, two of them contain either brown or blue alleles, and the last contains blue or green alleles. Blue is recessive to green, which is recessive to brown. Thus green eyes occur when both blue/brown genes have only blue alleles, but the blue/green gene has at least one green allele. If any gene has a brown allele, the result is brown eyes. Blue eyes will appear only when all alleles are blue. We also know that there is more at play than science can explain thus far as these colors come in wide ranges, and can also be joined by gray or hazel. These varying levels of dominance and multiple genes at play involved in magic would actually mean that magical ability is dependent on genetics. Any such linkage is explicitly denied in Harry Potter as we see all levels of power dispersed equally among Muggle-borns, half-bloods, and purebloods."

If, as I articulated, magical intelligence is genetically independent from the magical switch, then the whole argument seems to sink.

I haven't yet figured out how you got your 40%, I'll think about it, but some people will need it explained to them, I think.

I was wondering something similar about exponential growth, and it's a very good observation about the single school. There are two things though: if you disregard the JKR comment on 25% wizards being Muggle-borns (which in the contet of exponential growth is ridiculous, and seems to be another half-cooked concept from canon), and you go for a smaller 5%, it's far easier to explain stability over 1000 years as low offspring output from wizards (Neville, Harry, Draco are only childs - let us forget the Weasleys) and Hogwarts expansion (there may have been only 4 teachers initially). There is also the fact that magic makes it easy for people to kill each other. This seems to be a very precarious stability though, on the whole. What bothers me more is that wizards that mate with Muggles seem to have wizard children, and that would really unsettle a balance.

I don't now what you mean by the large amount of muggle-borns as compared to squibs, or how that would back up the 'dominant and resilient' comment.

 

Not wandless magic, deliberately triggered accidental magic.

And there is a post somewhere on DLP where someone went into great detail into a multiple gene theory of how magic can appear. I can't remember where though.

 

...

That's just stupid. deliberate =/= accident

 

Yes, firstly, 'deliberately triggered accidental' looks awfully like an oxymoron, and secondly, feel free to eplain how 'deliberately triggered accidental magic' excludes wandless magic at all.

On another note, has no-one actually tried to ask all these stupid questions we are asking ourselves here to JKR? Some interviewers are bound to be somewhat intelligent....

 

No, it's not.

"Accidental magic" refers to the unique way in which magic occurs - triggered by emotion, with an unknown outcome. This is how it has been with Harry every single time.

Now, usually a person has no control of this, because they have no control of their emotions.

But presumably if you were able to deliberately stir up a suitable emotion, the magic would respond in the same way as accidental magic.

This, deliberately triggered accidental magic.

And it's not wandless magic because accidental magic is uncontrolled. You may be able to trigger the magic, but I can't see people being able to control the outcome. They are not casting spells, they're just triggering magic on an instinctual level.

 

No, it's not. Apparate to roof = avoid attackers. Change wig color = counter humiliation. Shrink cloth = comfort, avoid humiliation.

The only case that might suit your claim is with Marge, but I personally think Harry thought she should look like she acts - full of wind.

Sure, someone else can try and make you do accidental magic as shown with Neville, but you can't do it alone. You can't scare yourself, you can't humiliate yourself... It might be possible to make yourself angry, but I don't think it would result in accidental magic.

I think that in a subconscious way they do. Or alternatively [though it's kinda stupid] their magic does.

Edit: thought of an example: If a wizard tries to jump from a roof to see if there will be accidental magic, he will die. It's planned and deliberate. If someone else throws him, and he doesn't want to die, he might able to do wandless apparition.

 

I'll ignore the fact that I disagree with the fact that Harry apparated - seems much more like a super!jump to me.

They're still unknown outcomes. Yes, they corrected the various slights that had been done against Harry that triggered the magic in the first place, but how they went about doing this was unknown, nor was it intentional on Harry's part. He could super-jump to the roof, he could apparate, he could have gone invisible...all of these things would have succeeded in getting rid of the people chasing him. So the outcome was random (or chosen on a subconscious level).

I do, since anger was what triggered the Marge incident. I find it likely that Tom Riddle used anger. Lily probably used joy, since she had great joy in doing magic.

I'd disagree. I'd say accidental magic would save him (though for some reason accidental magic seems to disappear as you grow older, so maybe not if it was an adult wizard).

 

As cool as it sounds, there's no evidence that that thing/spell exists, and Harry doesn't say anything to make that a plausible idea.

My point exactly. He didn't make himself angry, and he wouldn't be angry if he knew she was acting. He didn't make himself angry, she did.

I don't think that this problem has a clear answer.

 

The books says that he was in the process of jumping, and then found himself on the roof. Sounds like a big jump to me. In addition, when trying to explain it away later, Harry considers that he may have been caught by a gust of wind as he jumped and thus landed on the roof. Also sounds like a big jump.

Agreed. We don't have enough info to be going on.

 

I'm sorry, but look up definitions of accidental, those I found on m-w don't include the concept of any inside control, and relies entirely on the extrinsic cause.

I call wandless any magic which is performed without a wand, and I call accidental any magic which is an accident, which means there is no conscious intent from the wizard. It stops being accidental once it is controlled, and if you control it with emotions or someting else, it doesn't really make a difference. Whether it's a spell or something else is pretty irrelevant. Call it uncontrolled magic if you want, but even that is debatable The level of control Voldemort seems to aquire is pretty conclusive.

 

Not really. He can made "bad things" happen to people if he wants to, but we don't have any confirmation as to if he gets to choose what happens, or if it's simply that he makes something bad happen, and the actual outcome is random/uncontrolled/accidental.

 

I think someone like Voldemort likes to be always in control, and if there was this 'uncontrolled magic with unknown results' he just wouldn't do it.

 

"I don't believe you," said Riddle. "She wants me looked at, doesn't she? Tell the truth!"
He spoke the last three words with a ringing force that was almost shocking. It was a command, and it sounded as though he had given it many times before.

Sure, perfectly accidental. Even if that were the case, accidental is clearly not very adequate, and random/uncontrolled isn't perfect either, because there is some relation to intent from the person.

This one is also pretty good:

"It's. . . it's magic, what I can do?"
"What is it that you can do?"
"All sorts," breathed Riddle. A flush of excitement was rising up his neck into his hollow cheeks; he looked fevered. "I can make filings move without touching them. I can make animals do what I want them to do, without training them. I can make bad things happen to people who annoy me. I can make them hurt if I want to."

 

Gentlemen, gentlemen, we all know it was in fact a force jump, since Harry has an unusual amount of midichlorians and will be transported on Coruscant to bring about the glory of the Galactic Empire.

Add in his proficiency at Quidditch, a clear sign that he knows things before they happen.

Really, I thought this much was obvious.

Sarcasm aside, I find it strange how this thread has turned from discussing the story into "All things magic." Still, it's very informative and entertaining. Do please go on.

 

I don't view that as a magical act at all. I just view it as a result of his charisma and imperious nature. Muggles can give commands too, you know.

No mention of the intent to do so beforehand. Harry can jump onto rooftops and regrow his hair. Doesn't mean he meant to do it.

Parseltongue.

As I said above, he only gets to choose that "bad things" happen. He doesn't get to decide what type of bad thing occurs.

 

Stop, you'll make me blush. But I'm serious, stop. Or not?

Anyway... gust of wind = more wind on the roof. It's apparition.

Edit: didn't notice your post.

He meant to do it, he just didn't know that he could, only his subconscious knew - so only his subconscious acted

More likely compulsion charms. He said animals, not snakes, and we know Riddle is good at it [dark marks].

Again, we can argue all day but there's no real answer. Personally, I think someone that is aware of magic and knows/saw a few charms could possibly do them under emotional stress.

 

You seem to be grabbing at a lot of straws. We know little enough that you can explain anything in the way you want, but there is more speculation involved in your explanations, and canon has no point in leading the reader on... she clearly intended to let it appear that Tom Riddle has great control. I'm pretty sure 95% of readers understand it that way. For example he can 'make filings move' the phrasing suggests that he choses to do it and determines on which object. Of course this could be understood as 'I once made filings move without meaning to', which is exatcly the sort of phrasing HP would use (and probably does in PS), but that's not what he says. The most conclusive is 'I can make them hurt if I want to.'

When Lily Evans jumps off the spring and super!jumps, as you wonderfully put, she knows perfectly what is going to happen, she has done it in exactly the same way previously.

Lily waited until Petunia was near enough to have a clear view, then held out her palm. The flower sat there, opening and closing its petals, like some bizarre, many-lipped oyster.

Of course she could be thinking 'oh joy, I'm happy' and just wait to see what happens, but it seems much more likely that she has some control (if not total control) over the opening and closing.

I agree that 'Tell the truth' could perfectly be non-magical, but the way he says it indicates that he is used to people actually obeying him in a way that simple non-magical charisma wouldn't induce. His predilection for control would make it logical that it appear in his pre-training (hehe - that was a terminology trick right there; I love pedantics sometimes) magic as well.

Another argument is that he clearly goes on to be able to do wandless spells (we have agreed on that much) and he certainly wouldn't have learnt that at Hogwarts. It could very well have started in that way, and largely evolve from there, going on to actual technical spells.

 

I still think as I do, but I'm gonna stop arguing now, because we're all just saying the same arguments over and over again, and neither can be proven right since it's entirely down to interpretation.

From my perspective it's you who's grabbing at straws.

If Tom and Lily had such control over their magic, why are they the only ones to do so? Why haven't we seen wizards doing magic like that all the time? If a 11-year-old child can do it, then a skilled adult wizard should be able to do it, no matter how much of a prodigy that 11-year old is. And yet the magic is conspicuously absent.

This seems to lend to the idea that the magic Lily and Tom were doing was a controlled aspect of their accidental magic, which disappears with age, which explains why adult wizards are unable to do so.

In addition, JKR has said that

http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/0301-bbc-rednose.htm

So it seems to me that, by the fact that they're not using a wand, its unfocused and uncontrolled by definition.

Edit: Oops, ended up carrying on the argument. Oh well.

 

Lily isn't doing very interesting feats of magic, and certainly nothing you can't do with a wand, so there is no reason for a trained wizard to try. Just because you don't see muggle adults finger-paint (or at least I don't) doesn't mean they can't do it.

Perhaps you are right, but it is still a controlled aspect of their 'accidental' magic, which actually isn't accidental. Tom does many things others can't do.

It disappears with age because wizards a trained to keep it under reign.

The point about you grasping at straws is that I'm quoting passages, and for each specific evidence you have to rummage for a plausible explanation, which is at least partially counter-intuitive to the text.

The JKR quote is partially contradicted by Voldemort in canon, and it's typically vague, for example concerning simple spells (or rather, canon Voldemort refers to exactly that omitted case).

Personnally, I've always been a bit confused about wandless magic. I've just started trying to piece it together recently with these debates, but around OotP I had decided it was basically impossible (without thinking of Quirrell), but then HBP and DH go in the other direction, and you notice there are mentions in the others as well. I think we agree on untrained magic though, even if we attribute slightly different levels of control.