Harry Potter genetics

[kelleyaynn]

No: HPFGUIDX 144274

Jenny wrote:
> 
> But where and how would the "magic" gene originate?  In 
> anything?  I suppose it's a little like the evolution of sight 
> question - how can you see without a fully formed eye?  How 
> can you use magic without a fully formed magical ability 
> (regardless of how weak it might be *cough*Neville*cough*.)  
> 


Kelleyaynn:

I don't think magic can be based on genetics. I think it's just - 
magic. From the evidence in the books, it doesn't follow a genetic 
pattern. For a witch or wizard to be born from two muggle parents 
would mean the gene has to be recessive. However, if the muggle 
allele of the gene were dominant, than you wouldn't get squibs from 
two magical parents - one would have to be a squib too. These two 
observations can't be reconciled by genetics easily. It is possible 
that either a muggle-born witch or wizard or a squib is the result 
of a mutation in the "magic gene", but while relatively rare, they 
are still too common for it to be the result of a random mutation in 
the magic gene, so I doubt that is the case. 

So either magic is controlled by more than one gene and has 
complicated genetics, or it is not genetic at all. Since magic is so 
mysterious, I'd go with the idea that it is not genetic, but, magic. 
Who knows why some muggle borns are magical, and while some magical 
parents will have a squib. 

Also, genes code for proteins, and magic is not a protein, so that 
is another argument against magic being genetic. So I don't think 
magic "evolved". It just is.


Kelleyaynn