Ability, gender mix, and Medelian magic...

[Tabouli]

No: HPFGUIDX 26759

Luke:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" <tabouli at u...> wrote:
> There is one piece of evidence that suggests that entry into 
> Hogwarts is predicated on ability, and that is Neville's relatives 
> being worried that he was "all muggle for ages" and wouldn't be 
> magic enough to get into Hogwarts.
>
> Well, technically, if I may be so bold and nitpicky, the Neville 
> incident (as quoted below) only indicates that if Neville were a squib 
> (all-Muggle, as he says) he would not have been accepted to Hogwarts. 
>  This has nothing really to do with intelligence, which was the 
> premise of Joywitch's comments about Stan, Ernie, etc.

Hang on, hang on, let me clarify... "entry into Hogwarts is predicated on MAGICAL ability".  I didn't say anything about academic intelligence, which is a different thing altogether.  We don't have any conclusive evidence about the relationship between academic intelligence and magical ability, except perhaps that the former (and accompanying useful abilities such as a good memory and analytical ability, etc.) seems to enhance the latter, from Hermione and Neville.

Gert:
> LOL! This is hilarious and disturbingly plausible. I don't think I'm 
ready for L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. yet, (although I will wave as you sail 
by simply out of admiration for the acronym) but can I be a 
F.L.I.R.T.I.A.C.? Please?<

(Tabouli solemnly bestows a FLIRTIAC T-shirt upon Gert and bids her wear it well)

JayKay:
> I didn't. I've always had more male friends than female friends, so it doesn't surprise that Hermione does, too. 

I tend to feel most comfortable in unisex company, either *all* male or *all* female.  My theory is that I have a different way of interacting with men and women, and being in a mixed group means I have to compromise or alternate.  Not that I'm not used to this anyway, being bicultural (I even speak in a different dialect, practically, to the three members of my family: intellectuo-English to my father, Minglish (?? Malaysian English, a relative of Singlish) to my mother, and a sort of monotone Australian drawl to my brother), but it does get stressful trying to juggle all the personas at once.

More JayKay:
> I believe whole-heartedly that there are specific reasons why Our Severus is so bitter and angry. I
don't think he was just born a jerk; events and experiences shaped him, and I've speculated that
unrequited love may very well be a significant factor in the mix. 

Ahaaaaaar, welcome aboard!  I think that makes a crew of five...

> David, who BTW thinks magic and genetics don't mix.

I'm inclined to agree.  It's like being determined to find a scientifically plausible explanation for Noah's Ark (if the kangaroos set out for Jerusalem from Australia on a raft two years before Noah embarked...).  However, for those that insist, I think your best bet is a multi-gene or Squib is a gene failure theory (vague memories of words like "allele" come to mind, but I can't be bothered looking up my Mendel at this point).  My own grasp of human genetics is hazy, so correction is welcome, but if you want a one-gene theory, here's what we know:

1.  Wizard cross Wizard gives Wizard, with the occasional Squib

2.  Wizard cross Muggle gives Wizard (no indication whether Squibs are more common in half-bloods)

3. Muggle cross Muggle gives Muggle, with the occasional Wizard

4. When Muggle cross Muggle *does* give Wizard, siblings seem to have a higher than usual but not 100% chance of being Wizard rather than Muggle (the Creeveys and Patils are both Wizards, and we don't know if they have other siblings, Petunia was Muggle/Squib and Lily was Wizard)

5. No indication whether Squibs are in fact identical to Muggles, or a sort of defunct Wizard

(Let me see, we could call the dominant gene M and the recessive one m, and all parents have 4 children:

MM + MM = 4MM; mm + mm = 4mm; MM + Mm = 3MM + 1Mm, MM + mm = 4Mm; MmMMMmmMmMaaaargh....)

Number 1 in itself is inconclusive about dominance and recessiveness.  If the Wizard gene were dominant, and the recessive Muggle gene were rare in wizard populations, our observation that Wizard cross Wizard gives almost 100% Wizard would be feasible.  If the Wizard gene were recessive, Wizard cross Wizard should give practically 100% Wizard offspring and would mean that Squibs could be a mutation or failure of the Wizard gene to express.  However...

Number 2 suggests that the Wizard gene is dominant.  If the Muggle gene were dominant, half-bloods would all be Squibs/Muggles.

Number 3 suggests that the Wizard gene is recessive.  This is reminiscent of the ol' throwback syndrome, where two invisible recessive genes suddenly team up after years of hiding unexpressed.

Number 4 is compatible with Number 3: assuming both parents have the recessive Wizard gene somewhere, their offspring would have a good but not 100% chance of being Wizards.

Number 5 poses a question which it would be very important to answer for the purposes of genetic theorising.  If Squibs are a sort of defunct Wizard, this suggests the failure of a gene to express itself.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]