Genetics in the wizarding world. Is wizarding a genetic or recessive trait?

[greatelderone]

No: HPFGUIDX 100430

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bookworm857158367" 
<bookworm857158367 at y...> wrote:
> First of all, this is really a neat forum. It's nice to find other 
> adults who've read the books. I've been re-reading the Order of 
the 
> Phoenix after seeing the latest movie. While all of the references 
> to "pure-blood" and "half-blood" and "mudblood" wizards and Squibs 
> is distressingly reminscent of Nazi Germany, it does make me 
wonder 
> how the genes are passed down.
> 
> If Filch is a Squib who can't do magic, for instance, as noted in 
> the book, how can he talk to his magical cat Mrs. Norris? Did I 
miss 
> some reference in the book? Is he just a very weak wizard who 
didn't 
> have enough talent to be trained at Hogwarts?
> 
> My working theory is that wizarding must be a recessive gene and 
the 
> non-magic gene is dominant. The so called "pure blood" families, 
> like the Weasleys or the Blacks, all have members who carry only 
> wizarding genes. There's no taint of Muggle blood.

It's magic, the exact opposite of science. Why are we trying to use 
the laws of science to quantify it? How do we even know that it's 
genes that determine this stuff for wizards seeing how the wizards 
are capable of violating quite a few laws of physics. I mean how do 
you know that it isn't the soul that determines if they're going to 
have magical powers or not?

It's not physics, it's metaphysics.- Joss Whedon