Very true, very true indeed and I have often played around with pondering what would happen should a family member be disinherited or what would happen should two families merge. I've explored all sorts of different concepts, probably every single one I've ever come across, not just genetics. However, genetic involvement was one that I've always been able to make work, in my mind.

Though, magic being attached to the person's very name isn't one that I've ever looked into and is new for me. I definitely don't buy into that magical core crap, so the idea of magic being attached to a name rather than the physical body is intriguing. I'll have to think on that one a bit.

 

I wouldn't say that it 'takes a while' to get to that mindset. It's not something that is an advancement upon another, lesser idea, such that time will lead one to it eventually. It's just different, though, in my mind, it's tons more fun.

Magic is pure potential. It's not something with quantity, like midichlorians became in Star Wars. And there are no solid foundations for causation in magic. A spell doesn't work because of the incantation or the wand movement. Magic is too personal and formless for that.

A name doesn't hold magic. It CAN hold magic. Being kicked from your house wouldn't mean anything unless it meant something already. Thinking about something like magic is inherently circular, and that's what's so fun about it. Cause and effect aren't relevant. Time isn't relevant. Space isn't relevant. Energy, Mass, Thoughts.... None of these hold magic back. They can be structured in magic's use- part of the potential, but they aren't necessary.

So, when we fit magic into something like genetics, I am of two minds. It's not that genetics wouldn't work to pass on magic. Magic and science aren't split in some sort of meta-physical God debate. It's more that genetics wouldn't ever define or truly limit magic. Random is magic's nature, such that dichotomies or structures are illusion.

tl;dr: Me jizzing over magic's potential. So much more fun than guns and katanas and bullshit.

 

I've always held a similar idea about magic being limitless. I imagine wand movements, incantations, or any sort of bodily gesture wouldn't really effect magic. A wizard or witch's ability to preform magic is only limited by the strength of their mind and imagination, not magic itself. However, it has always been the origin of magic that makes me fall back on reasoning and science, which is why genetics has always appealed to me.

As I have such a large sand box to play with once a wizard or witch is capable of magic, I like to imagine a clean cut definition of how one comes into the ability to wield magic, like a Law of Chaos or something like that. It just makes it easier for me to wrap my head around it, if I can define at least the origin principle. Beyond that principle, anything can happen.

 

:awesome The Law of Chaos: Clean Cut :awesome

If something as *cough* chaotic as the Law of Chaos is what you need to help you wrap your head around magic... well, that's like using Quantum Mechanics to help you understand the Relativity of light.

 

Exactly! Which is what make attempting to find one so much fun.

EDIT: You'd be amazed what sort of chaos I can wrap my head around to define another form of chaos. It's like they say, even within what appears to be chaos there eventually forms a pattern or a clearly defined law that allows the disorder to become a higher order of the universe. It's truly a beautiful thing.

 

I showed in a post long ago that given the magical population's size, the gene would have to be recessive. However, I allowed for Rowling's claim that the magical gene (magically) imposes itself onto the genetic code of the child of a true muggle (who has no magical genes at all) and a wizard, thus always producing a wizard child of a wizard and a muggle. I also posited that anyone who carries any magic genes at all but is not magical themselves is not a muggle, but a squib: essentially, you could have generation upon generation of squibs living in the muggle world who are just squibs who have no magic and no knowledge of the magical world.

You can find that post HERE.

Except that Rowling herself stated on her FAQ that (1) magic is related to genetics; and, on a webchat cited on the HP Wiki, (2) that muggle-borns are descended from, at the vary least, one squib ancestor (though, I would posit that there needs to be at least two; see above).

That site could have been seen HERE, but sadly, that page is no longer available (anyone know where a cached copy might exist?).

Also, magic has everything to do with the laws of physics: specifically, it takes them and bends them over and makes them its bitch.

Anyway, you can say you don't believe in a genetic explanation for magicalness, and that's fine. Read and write all the fanfiction you want that contradicts magic being genetic. Just don't call it fanon. It's word-of-god.

EDIT: Google at least let me find a place where someone quoted Rowling's now defunct FAQ:

 

I think that if Rowling knew anything significant about genetics, she wouldn't have dared put magical lineage questions in genetic terms, not even in her little FAQ. It's a lot more elegant to say that it's magic, and it simply "rubs off" on the next generation. Except when it doesn't.

On an unrelated note, my favorite oddball "magic is in the DNA" explanation traced magic to more than just a single activating gene. The idea was that it was chromosomal - an entire extra chromosome. I suppose that's not likely to work on purely scientific grounds, but perhaps if the chromosome itself was magical...

 

By that logic: Also, magic has everything to do with genetics: specifically, it takes it, bends it over, and makes it its bitch.

Which, I think, contradicts the major point in your post that genetics makes sense with the inheritance of magic. It doesn't make sense, and your post, along with my own, proves that.

You said magic needs to be recessive. Yet, in order for that to work, a single muggle without a squib ancestor would immediately make a squib child- which changes some canon facts: thus, I thought it would have to be multi-alleled to make sense.

Surrounding all this, we have Rowling who said that magic is a 'dominant and resilient gene,' yet she also says that there has to be a squib in a muggle-born's ancestry.

Together, that's just a jumbled mass of nothing. Magical inheritance makes no sense when explained by modern genetics. Thus, we should just leave it out of the equation completely and use the wonderful magical stand-by: magic itself.

 

Eh...chromosomal...I'm not too certain about that. I prefer genes, whether it is a single gene or a multitude of genes within different chromosomes. In fact, there is the argument that magic could be dominant. However, the ability to use magic requires the presence of a multitude of different genes. If the person has 9/10 genes they're incapable of magic, if they have 10/10 then they're magical. Although, that just gets into a different brand of complicated. The recessive model concerning one gene is much simpler to make an argument from, though, probably, not entirely accurate.

Then again, I suppose one could always just say fuck it to it all and use the concept that magic just 'rubs off' on the next generation, if they wanted. Though, I do believe that so far we all agree that magic isn't completely random in how it is passed on. There is some determining factor at work.

 

The problem with using genetics to explain magic is eventually you have to answer the question how does a gene give a person magical powers. How does something that is essentially a code for the production of a protein allow some people to turn a chair into a chimpanzee? That is where this, and all other attempts to use science to explain magic break down, eventually it just can't be explained.

tl:dr It's fucking magic.

 

I'm not arguing that genes within our DNA allow someone to turn a chair into a chimpanzee. For me, no wizard 'possesses' the power to turn a chair into a chimpanzee. Instead, I argue that a wizard must learn to utilize their ability so that magic will turn the chair into a chimpanzee for them. Magic is beyond us. Genetics is just a way to isolate a determining factor for how one might come into the ability to utilize magic to their will.

Ultimately, most people find it reasonable to argue that intelligence is contributed to genetics, when it is, in fact, true that genetics and intelligence are interlinked. If two intelligent people get together, they will produce a child of similar intelligence...to a point. The child will have to learn to utilize the capacity of their brain to its full potential - not to mention environmental factors and all the shit.

Here's a website, if you want a more in depth look at what I'm saying: http://www.scq.ubc.ca/the-genetic-basis-of-intelligence/

To me, magic is comparable to intelligence. While something within the genetic code can enable a higher degree of intelligence, so can it enable the ability to utilize magic. Like I said, it is likely that the one gene model isn't accurate, but it is a start point to make such an argument.

 

Unfortunately, that analogy breaks down, because ALL humans have intelligence, and not all humans can do magic. The ability to manipulate and use magic, is in fact an ability inherent to the person capable of performing it, and no amount of attempting to use it or teach it will allow a muggle to use magic, while you can teach any human to use their intelligence to a fuller extent.

So yes, if you attempt to explain magic via genetics you ARE arguing that genes within their DNA give a wizard the power to turn a chair into a chimpanzee.

 

While it is true that humans are by nature intelligent, not all them actually possess 'intelligence'. In fact, there are some people out there who are stupid to an extreme degree and a majority of others that are only relatively smart - and really genetics are a determining factor. You take two idiots (lacking in intelligence within their genetics) and let them procreate, the child isn't going to stand a chance. You could sit down an try and teach it all you want, but the kid born to the two parents of a higher intelligence will always be smart. It's fucking fact of life and fucking fact of evolution.

So I suppose it is then reasonable to argue that perhaps all beings (by nature) could possess the ability to utilize magic, however, only some possess a high enough ability to truly utilize it to a significant degree.

And again, I'm saying that magic is beyond us. The magic is never limited, the witch or wizard, squib, or muggle is what is limited. A witch isn't what turns the chair into a chimpanzee. It is the magic the causes the change.

 

It's really not. IQ is largely believed to be polygenic. Social environment, birthing environment, and nourishment also play huge factors in a child's 'level of intelligence'. Then there's the inheritable diseases that affect IQ, which can be carried by those of seemingly intelligent parents. For example: my second cousin, son of a criminal lawyer and a physicist, has several learning disabilities.

 

Ah, but I'm not talking about anomalies. :facepalm

What I'm am talking about is that if you took two completely health kids, one born to two people with low intelligence (as defined by their genetics) and one born to two people of high intelligence (as defined by their genetics), and raised them in the same environment and taught them under similar conditions; the child born to the two people of high intelligence would have a greater potential to not only learn and understand more than the one born to the two people of low intelligence, but to learn and understand it quicker. That is a fucking fact of life and a fact of evolution. Some people are simply born without the capacity to understand complex shit, while others are born prodigies and can do rocket science in their heads as if they were doing a simple addition problem. Whether people chose or are allowed to reach their full potential is another matter entirely.

Personally, I think it would be fair to associate the prodigies and genius as being the equivalent of witches and wizards in accordance to the needed genetic makeup for one to possess the ability to manipulate magic. Squibs would be the anomalies and muggleborns would be a byproduct of evolution or possibly anomalies themselves. The small number of witches and wizards, muggleborns, and squibs would work quite nicely with such a model.

But, hey, if you really want to toss genetics out the window, go right ahead. I'm just presenting a legitimate argument for why the ability to utilize magic could be contributed to genetics.

 

I just told you IQ was polygenic. Google it, try to understand the implications, and you'll realize why your argument is invalid.

 

Read the article that I located in my above posts and see why my argument is valid. I already googled, thanks.

 

You clearly haven't been formally educated in the basics of genetic inheritance. Let me dumb it down for you.

Height is also believed to be polygenic. By your simplistic reasoning, a child of two tall parents will be tall and a child of two short parents will be short.

This is undeniably false. Humans have many genes for both 'tallness' and 'shortness,' that work together to create the phenotype.

Here is most simplistic explanation I can give with all the complex details removed:

If a child with tall parents inherits more short genes than tall, it will be shorter than its parents. If a child with short parents inherits mare tall genes than short, it will be taller than its parents.

Now apply this premise to IQ.

Do you see now? I hope so, because I'd need quite a bit of patience to explain it again.

 

I get it just fine and have gotten it just fine. Clearly, you are failing to understand what I'm saying. I talking about fucking midgets and giants alright. I talking about the kid that can barely add two plus two and the kid that has completed college by the time he is ten. I'm not talking about the average Joes in between (and even if I were to consider the average Joes, an average Joe rarely ever produced a giant or a midget - again, those are cases of anomalies).