[HPforGrownups] Re: Magical Genetics

[ksnidget at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 44361

catlady at wicca.net writes:

<<Excuse me, I think it is more likely that if magic were one gene-
pair, that magic would be the RECESSIVE allele. Thus, any magic 
person must be double-recessive, thus any child of two magical 
parents would be magic (mm * mm = mm, as you know). The exception, 
non-magic child of two magic parents, Squibs, are extremely rare; to 
me, extremely rare MIGHT mean once in a generation. Rare enough that 
they could all be the result of a birth defect or mistaken paternity. >>

However this idea is contradicted by cannon.

We have any number of 1/2 and 1/2's  that are magical.
Actually all the kids we know that are 1/2 and 1/2 are
magical.  And to date we haven't heard of any 1/2 and 1/2
that is non-magical, and we haven't heard that 1/2 and 1/2's
have non-magical siblings.

Also a population of recessive gene phenotype that cross
breeds with the dominate gene population tends to find
itself dying out.  Rather than "if we hadn't married muggles
we would have died out"  I would think if it were recessive
then crossbreeding with the non-magicals would have them
die out much faster if the gene is recessive.

That usually indicates a dominate gene.

There is a lot more to genetics than JUST mendalian
inheritance.

Everyone ignores me, but in molecular genetics it is
widely known that certain types of genes mutate 
to the dominate form quite regularly.  TONS of people
are born every single year that have two totally normal
parents that end up with a DOMINATE genetic disease.

Huntington's, some forms of dwarfism, several forms
of mental retardation like fragile X.

So it is well within the realm of possibility that the gene
for magic is dominate.  This also may explain the rare
squib as the process  that mutates most of these genes
to the dominate form can be reversed, but this happens
rarely.  And there should this happen in the numerous
heterozygous people (after all there is lots of cross breeding
with non-magical people) so that a squib occurs every
so often.

Now I concur that some magic may be going on with the
inheritance, but I don't know that we have to come up with
very complicated systems to explain the genetics.

Genetics is weird enough to come up with very simple
explanations for the observed pattern.  Jumping genes,
transposons, could be another explanation for it, but
we don't have as many examples of genes changing from
one generation to the next with that as we have for the
type of genes I have been discussing which have long
sections of repeats that are unstable between generations.
Once the gene becomes long enough the phenotype changes,
and once it becomes long enough it is difficult for the gene
to become short again.

What I like about this is many of these genes effect the brain
and magic seems to have a mental aspect to it.  

Ksnidget, Ph.D. Genetics.







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