Harry Potter - wizard breeding

[ray245]

Ray, nobody cares what a bunch of HP fans think. Just because you're too stupid to see the difference between 'author changing facts in books' and 'author musing about shit happening after the end of the series' doesn't mean we have to explain it to you. You don't even seem to have read the posts you're responding to, as you clearly don't appreciate the position of many of the posters.

Frankly, this 'go with fan consensus' idea of yours is absolutely fucking retarded. I know you're full of your own self-importance when it comes to stupid children's fantasy, but nobody cares what you think. You're honestly just whinging.

NOBODY? Not even a sinlge soul on this planet?

Even your view is accepted by someone. Sure, everyone can have thier own view, although you don't need to force your own view onto the entire board.

Really Stark? Are you 100 percent sure that ALL of JK Rowling's word is non-canon?

If not, that means it is possible that muggle-borns HAVE a wizard or squib member somewhere in their family tree.

Any by the way, can you kindly tell me how many times did JK Rowling's comments contradicts the novels?

And please, don't use to sentence no one cares what the HP fans thinks. If so, that means no one should cared what this sites thinks of Harry Potter right?

If no one cares about what is the other side of argument, then kindly tell me how come there is more than one person saying that JK Rowling's comments can be accepted to a CERTAIN extend.


If you can, please show that you have read my points CAREFULLY and answer to every one of them.



All I am saying that is you are neither correct nor wrong at this point. You don't have enough evidence to say that ALL(not some) of JK Rowling's words are not canon. And also, telling others that most of her comments does NOT include stuff that is contradictory to the the novels.

Clearly, your own views is more important than anyone else.

Let's ask you this question stark, and I HOPE you can answer it. Can you accept the POSSIBILITY that JK Rowling's word MAY be canon?

Just a simple answer yes or no will do.

If yes, then that means my argument that JK Rowling's interviews can be accepted to a extend is right.

If no, that means you may be wrong in the future when JK Rowling said all her interviews are 'canon' .

Don't give the excuse HP fans does not matter.

Am I wrong to say that JK Rowling's word can be accepted?

[Lost Soal]

As far as I know every half-blood we've seen so far has inherited the magic of their wizarding parent. This of course might be selection bias (we just don't see the others), but that seems unlikely.

First, we have seen a half blood with no magic. Patunia.
Second, how is a selection bias unlikely. After Harry, Ron and Hermiony, the focus of the books is Hogwarts, so obviously their wouldn't be any half blood muggles there.

[Big Phil]

As far as I know every half-blood we've seen so far has inherited the magic of their wizarding parent. This of course might be selection bias (we just don't see the others), but that seems unlikely.

First, we have seen a half blood with no magic. Patunia.

Petunia Dursley you mean? The sister of the muggle-born Lily Evans? How is she a half blood?

Second, how is a selection bias unlikely. After Harry, Ron and Hermiony, the focus of the books is Hogwarts, so obviously their wouldn't be any half blood muggles there.

Did you mean to refer to half blood muggles? I'm unclear exactly what you meant here.

[Stark]

NOBODY? Not even a sinlge soul on this planet?

Even your view is accepted by someone. Sure, everyone can have thier own view, although you don't need to force your own view onto the entire board.

Yeah, I'm 'forcing' my view by saying 'you and your kiddie friends are not an authority'. You established that so well, right?

And yes, nobody. You and your fanboy friends can't say 'there is no canon policy ergo fan consensus wins', idiot.

Really Stark? Are you 100 percent sure that ALL of JK Rowling's word is non-canon?

Stop lying, strawman. I never said this, and if you weren't so CATACLYSMICALLY RETARDED, you'd probably notice I've been busily NOT saying that every post. Indeed, even Batman hasn't said this. Are you seven?

And please, don't use to sentence no one cares what the HP fans thinks. If so, that means no one should cared what this sites thinks of Harry Potter right?

If no one cares about what is the other side of argument, then kindly tell me how come there is more than one person saying that JK Rowling's comments can be accepted to a CERTAIN extend.

I'm going to respond to these two points, because frankly you repeat yourself and don't make a lot of sense. You continue to use the idea that fan consensus ('more than one person saying'...) is in some way a replacement for official canon policy. It isn't. You ALSO continue in your strawman that I believe nothing Rowling says can be accepted, despite my statements that she can't -override her own published novels-. I even ridicule you for expecting anyone to want to throw out her statements about the post-DH world, statements not contradicted by anything... and you don't notice. Too busy being a screaming fanboy.

Amusingly, nobody SHOULD care what this site says about HP canon. Your bizarre idea that non-licence holders can determine canon policy through consensus is utterly broken and stupid. People can agree on such a policy as part of a framework for discussion, but it's laughable that anyone would attempt to hold others to their personal, baseless 'canon policy'.

If you can, please show that you have read my points CAREFULLY and answer to every one of them.

I had to include this, as it's clear you've never read any of my posts or understood them properly. Unless those strawmen are deliberate distortions? I find it more likely you're just stupid.

To reiterate for retards like Ray, nobody disputes Rowling's ability to add to the world through interview statements etc. The idea that everything she says is instantly 'canon' (an amusing term without a canon policy) when it may contradict the existing novels is in dispute.

[Eris]

As far as I know every half-blood we've seen so far has inherited the magic of their wizarding parent. This of course might be selection bias (we just don't see the others), but that seems unlikely.

First, we have seen a half blood with no magic. Patunia.

As Sanchez pointed out, Petunia Dursley is a garden variety muggle.

Second, how is a selection bias unlikely. After Harry, Ron and Hermiony, the focus of the books is Hogwarts, so obviously their wouldn't be any half blood muggles there.

We have directly seen or heard of a healthy portion of the total wizarding population of the UK and Ireland. There are under 10,000 even by Rowling's generous estimates and independant population calcs, and we've seen several score characters at least. Of these we're told a quarter are pure blood, a quarter are muggleborn, and a half are of mixed blood, a statement which seems reasonable enough. We have seen at least two squibs that I can recall. Their parentage is not made explicit to be fair. However, I assume Argus Filch is a pureblood under the circumstantial evidence that someone with a muggle parent would not be quite that bitter about it. Not very strong evidence to be sure, but it's the only thing to go on. Further, no one has so much as said, "Well, his mum was a muggle - that might be the reason." They might not just be saying it, but in the face of the overwhelming lack of evidence otherwise, it's all we've got.

In any case, squibs are rare (1 in 50ish, given our sample size and general population level), and at least don't seem to be more common amongst half-bloods. If they were, you can bet the Malfoys et alia would be screaming non-stop about it. The implication is, tentatively, that whatever genetic structure that governs magical ability would have to produce roughly same population distributions for inheritance under mixe and pure parentage. As I've said, I don't know enough about genetics to conclude whether or not this is even possible statistically.

[Lost Soal]

As far as I know every half-blood we've seen so far has inherited the magic of their wizarding parent. This of course might be selection bias (we just don't see the others), but that seems unlikely.

First, we have seen a half blood with no magic. Patunia.

As Sanchez pointed out, Petunia Dursley is a garden variety muggle.

Wizards born from two muggle parents are stated as having had a wizard in the family at some point, this made a Lilly a less-than-half blood witch. The same ancestry would also apply to Petunia making her a less-than-half blood as well, only she didn't inherit the magic gene. Hell the very fact that you can have wizard ancestry in muggle families should make it rather obvious that wizard-muggle couplings can produce non-magic children who would still carry the gene for future generations.

Second, how is a selection bias unlikely. After Harry, Ron and Hermiony, the focus of the books is Hogwarts, so obviously their wouldn't be any half blood muggles there.

We have directly seen or heard of a healthy portion of the total wizarding population of the UK and Ireland. There are under 10,000 even by Rowling's generous estimates and independant population calcs, and we've seen several score characters at least. Of these we're told a quarter are pure blood, a quarter are muggleborn, and a half are of mixed blood, a statement which seems reasonable enough. We have seen at least two squibs that I can recall. Their parentage is not made explicit to be fair. However, I assume Argus Filch is a pureblood under the circumstantial evidence that someone with a muggle parent would not be quite that bitter about it. Not very strong evidence to be sure, but it's the only thing to go on. Further, no one has so much as said, "Well, his mum was a muggle - that might be the reason." They might not just be saying it, but in the face of the overwhelming lack of evidence otherwise, it's all we've got.

In any case, squibs are rare (1 in 50ish, given our sample size and general population level), and at least don't seem to be more common amongst half-bloods. If they were, you can bet the Malfoys et alia would be screaming non-stop about it. The implication is, tentatively, that whatever genetic structure that governs magical ability would have to produce roughly same population distributions for inheritance under mixe and pure parentage. As I've said, I don't know enough about genetics to conclude whether or not this is even possible statistically.

Squibs from what I can tell seem to be applied to non-magic children of two wizard parents, and a child of a muggle-wizard family born with no magic would just be considered a muggle.
Additionally I think the wizarding population numbers are an indication, i'm just trying to figure out how to work it and show it. Basically the wizard population should be larger than it is unless muggle-wizard couples were producing non-magical children and the early families compensated by having multiple children.
Lastly, while statistics may seem to demand certain numbers they are still just chances rather than certain percentages, and is ably demonstrated by Martin Sheen. Martin was one of ten siblings of which only one was a girl, when statistics say that it should have been approximately 50% boys and 50% girls.

[Eris]

As Sanchez pointed out, Petunia Dursley is a garden variety muggle.

Wizards born from two muggle parents are stated as having had a wizard in the family at some point, this made a Lilly a less-than-half blood witch. The same ancestry would also apply to Petunia making her a less-than-half blood as well, only she didn't inherit the magic gene. Hell the very fact that you can have wizard ancestry in muggle families should make it rather obvious that wizard-muggle couplings can produce non-magic children who would still carry the gene for future generations.

Stop strawmanning; the question is not that mixed parents can have non-magical children. Non-magical parents can have non-magical children, and magical parents can have non-magical children. There's no reason therefor to think that mixed parentage would be unable to do so.

The question is whether genetics are the causal factor in determining magical aptitude. I'm contesting that it's at least unlikely. Stop making arguments based on the tacit or explicit assumption that genetics are the cause, and give an argument for the position that it's genetics to begin with.

Squibs from what I can tell seem to be applied to non-magic children of two wizard parents, and a child of a muggle-wizard family born with no magic would just be considered a muggle.

Your evidence for this?

Additionally I think the wizarding population numbers are an indication, i'm just trying to figure out how to work it and show it.

It'll be hard, considering that when I'm talking about population figures I'm talking about proportions, not absolute values. But by all means, if you have some argument from populations, spell it out for us.

Basically the wizard population should be larger than it is unless muggle-wizard couples were producing non-magical children and the early families compensated by having multiple children.

Your evidence for this? Seeing as you'd need to know the actual wizarding population (we only have sketchy figures for this) and the birthrate (we have even less information on this) and the average life span (another thing we don't know - estimates run from 90-150), I'm sceptical your argument as strong as you think it is.

Lastly, while statistics may seem to demand certain numbers they are still just chances rather than certain percentages, and is ably demonstrated by Martin Sheen. Martin was one of ten siblings of which only one was a girl, when statistics say that it should have been approximately 50% boys and 50% girls.

Are you familiar with probability theory? Statistis seem to demand certain numbers because they in fact do demand certain numbers. It is correct that they don't demand certain numbers in particular instances, but in the aggregate (which is what we're interested in) if a good statistic says a trait appears x% of the time, it will appear x% of the time given a large enough sample size.

We've seen at least 50 or 60 wizards through the course of the seven novels, and met two squibs that I know of (feel free to correct me if I'm missing a third). With a population of under 10,000, this is a perfectly reasonable sample size. Our claims based on this population aren't going to be perfect, but they won't be random chance either.

(Incidentally, you misunderstand the statistics of sex determination, too. They don't say there's an approximate 50-50 chance for any given person, only for the general population. In fact, once a certain couple has a baby of a given sex, there's an increased chance that subsequent children will be of that sex. But that's an orthogonal nit-pick.)

Perhaps it would help if I clearly laid out my argument.

1. Wizarding capability is not determined by a dominant gene. If it were, there could not be squibs born to two magical parents.

2. Wizarding capability is not determined by a recessive gene. If it were, then wizard-muggle couples would have significantly higher rates of non-magical children than two wizarding parents.

2a. This is not the case for two reasons. First, we don't see enough squibs to account for it. We've seen two squibs for all the wizards introduced. Second, if there were higher rates of squibiness, the Malfoys and their ilk would be impossible to shut up about how intermarriage was destroying wizarding kind by wiping out magical capability.

2b. Even if 2a fails, a recessive trait would rule out two magical parents having a squib for a kid anyhow, since both would need to have the recessive to express it, and would pass down the recessive from both sides of the lineage.

3. Wizarding capability is probably not determined by a complex trait. While I have no advanced training in genetics, this seems like it would fall into many of the same problems as recessive traits would. And beyond that, even if it didn't, it would still be hard-pressed to explain the similarities and differences between all the possible permutations of possible parents.

4. To be genetically determined, a characteristic must depend on recessive, dominant, or complex multiple genes.

5. Ergo, wizarding capability is probably not genetic.

Premiss 3 is the most uncertain, because I don't know if that sort of genetic determination is possible. I'm sceptical, but if someone can come up with an analogous gene already known, or otherwise an even mildly plausible way in which it might happen, I'm willing to consider it. So far, no one has.

I find an in utero magical exposure theory or something like that to be much more plausible at the moment.

[Guardsman Bass]

5. Ergo, wizarding capability is probably not genetic.

You've said it yourself that you don't know much about complex genetics, and your explanation (or at least one of them; in utero magical exposure) doesn't account for the muggle-borns.

One other thing; while I wouldn't suggest counting Rowling over her books, keep in mind that she has said that before she started writing them, she made a framework on the world, including things like what the magic can't do, etc. Obviously, it's far from perfect (particularly in terms of exact numbers), but it's not like she's making this stuff up on the fly for the most part. Hopefully the expected encyclopedia will clear things up.

[Eris]

You've said it yourself that you don't know much about complex genetics, and your explanation (or at least one of them; in utero magical exposure) doesn't account for the muggle-borns.

Certainly so I'm not an expert on genetics, which is why I'm qualifying with the probably. If we have someone who can correct me, I'm more than willing to listen.

And actually I do account for muggleborns in that particular line of thought. Muggles do get exposed to magic, just not frequently. After all, a non-trivial amount of what Arthur Weasley did early on was fix wizarding pranks on muggles, that besides living in the proximity of wizards, or just accidentally stumbling into something you oughtn't. All of this would probably only account for a very few magical births amongst muggles, but that I think is a strength. There are after all at most a few thousand muggleborns in a geographic region inhabited by ~65,000,000 people. It'd have to be relatively rare, otherwise we'd quickly see the wizarding world swamped in muggleborns.

One other thing; while I wouldn't suggest counting Rowling over her books, keep in mind that she has said that before she started writing them, she made a framework on the world, including things like what the magic can't do, etc. Obviously, it's far from perfect (particularly in terms of exact numbers), but it's not like she's making this stuff up on the fly for the most part. Hopefully the expected encyclopedia will clear things up.

True, although at the same time she also is a very different person than when she started it, with noticeably different style and ideas about what her books should be like. She's also always been at best a fair world-builder, and while she's an excellent story teller, the secondary world in which those stories take place are in many ways rather a fairy-tale world.

I should stress, however, that I'm not trying to argue that we should discount what she says - a number of my own claims are derived largely from interview or otherwise not-in-a-novel comments she's made - but only to be healthily sceptical of her claims when they start to discohere, and in particular when they begin to contradict our primary source material, as I think in this case there's some evidence that they might.

As you say, with luck the encyclopaedia will shed more light on the secondary world. I'm rather looking forward to it - I'm a compulsive world builder, so it'll be interesting if nothing else.

[Batman]

Regarding the population of wizards, JK Rowling did admit she make a mistakes with it, and corrected it.
So unless the stuff DIRECTLY contradicts what the books said, the fansites will usually ask questions again to JK Rowling.
AND if I remember correctly, batman and stark, when I posted a link to her interview regarding post-DH stuff, no one here has voiced any rejection to it.

Because Deathly Hallows was the LAST book of the series and thus it was idle speculation anyway until and unless she decides to write a sequel?

Either you can make up your version of canon regarding the source, or you can do a poll to see what the general view on HP canon is.
Or you can simply go along with most of the fandom.

Or I could do the sensible thing and disregard EVERYTHING except the actual written material until somebody with the authority to do so (you know, like JKR) explicitly says anything else is.

I know that one member wrote a non-fanfic story, TBO. So let's say we went to ask the author about some stuff we don't understand, doesn't that means we should not take his word at all?

Not unless he SAYS you should and definitely not when his word contradicts what happened in the story.

The closest comparison to Harry Potter canon would be like star wars canon. All of her books are a higher canon; her comments are a secondary canon like star wars EU.

No they aren't. Because, you see, Wars HAS an official canon policy that DOES say those are canon unless overridden. The Potterverse DOESN'T.

UNLESS her comments contradict the novels and other books, it is USUALLY accepted as canon. In the end, most of the regular HP fandom will view us the same way we view sites like ST-Vs-SW.com

How, exactly, is that relevant?

Sure you can reject it batman, although that DOES not mean your views are right. It can BE either wrong or right.

Define right, please, what with there not BEING an official canon policy.

Let's say George Lucas DON'T give a damn about an OFFICAL canon statement, I wonder how the fan debate will end up.

I couldn't possibly care less. Until and unless he makes LFL change the official canon policy, it STANDS.

Secondly, I doubt JK Rowling would care about what this sites wants as compared to the more famous HP fansites. If anyone wants this board to be different from the generally agreed view...

Again, this is relevant because of...?

And stark, don't think that ONLY your view matters and some

random kids

views does not matter. I think a

random kids

view would matter more to JK Rowling than you.

So?

Anyway, I will ask my HP forums (the top two most active forums) to touch up on the issue, and to ask them if anyone can bring up the 'canon' policies to JK Rowling in the next interview.
Unless you are going to ignore what she said in an interview regarding 'canon' source because it is an interview.

After me explicitly saying I wouldn't and would welcome a clarification on that point. Nice touch.
Sorry to interrupt the genetics discussion.

[Guardsman Bass]

And actually I do account for muggleborns in that particular line of thought. Muggles do get exposed to magic, just not frequently. After all, a non-trivial amount of what Arthur Weasley did early on was fix wizarding pranks on muggles, that besides living in the proximity of wizards, or just accidentally stumbling into something you oughtn't. All of this would probably only account for a very few magical births amongst muggles, but that I think is a strength. There are after all at most a few thousand muggleborns in a geographic region inhabited by ~65,000,000 people. It'd have to be relatively rare, otherwise we'd quickly see the wizarding world swamped in muggleborns.

Mr. Weasely was actually in charge of the "Mis-Use of Muggle Artifacts" Department; the people who fixed the small stuff and cleansed memories were the Obliviators.

In any case, one of the weaknesses of that is that muggles having magical encounters aren't improbably uncommon; Hagrid describes the Wizarding Community having to constantly bewitch muggles when they come across dragons, and any muggle walking past the entry to Diagon Alley would have magic working on them (turning their eyes and attention away, I believe). Not only that, but this is the modern world; in the time before the wizarding world set up the Statute of Secrecy, wizards were in the open, and magical encouters were probably much more common.

Maybe you could make a case for a hybrid theory, with certain people having a genetic tendency towards developing the magical ability when exposed to it, but I still think it's questionable.

[Plekhanov]

I find an in utero magical exposure theory or something like that to be much more plausible at the moment.

Wizards in the HP verse use magic all the time for all manner of trivial uses, it's just everywhere in their world to the extent that even their newspaper is magical. If 'magical exposure' created magical ability it's very hard to see how there would be any squibs whatsoever in wizarding families.

[ray245]

To reiterate for retards like Ray, nobody disputes Rowling's ability to add to the world through interview statements etc. The idea that everything she says is instantly 'canon' (an amusing term without a canon policy) when it may contradict the existing novels is in dispute.

Stark, please. Did I ever support the view that we should accept JK Rowling's word that contradicts the novels? I did say the books are considered higher canon in that regards.

Just because you hate me does not mean you need to argue with me on every point. I never have said that EVERYTHING needs to be canon.

This means, there isn’t any point in arguing really. I'm just saying we can take JK Rowling's word UNLESS it is contradicted.

Which is what some people is trying to do. Stark, if you may, please go back on topic and discuss about Genetics.

If you want to argue and prove me wrong IN REGARDS to this topic, then maybe we can shift the debate. See if we can take JK Rowling's comments (Which is regarding muggle-borns do have someone who has magical blood in their family tree) into ACCOUNT .

And Batman, you have NO sense of humor at all.

[Darth Holbytlan]

We've seen at least 50 or 60 wizards through the course of the seven novels, and met two squibs that I know of (feel free to correct me if I'm missing a third). With a population of under 10,000, this is a perfectly reasonable sample size. Our claims based on this population aren't going to be perfect, but they won't be random chance either.

Several problems here.

First, 50-60 wizards is not a large sample size. Those figures won't nail down the frequency of squibs to much lower than 10%. The rule of thumb is that the population size doesn't matter unless you sample a large chunk of it, and only then because we've directly determined the frequency for that chunk.

Worse, the sample is biased because the books' focus on Hogwarts—neither students nor faculty can be squibs and the parents will, thanks to squib discrimination, be either wizards or muggles. Also, the books make it clear that squibs are regularly hidden away and written off of family rolls. Thus we know that squibs are being systematically underrepresented. If we're only seeing 1/4 of the squibs—and I think that's a conservative estimate—it's enough to make 25% a viable upper estimate from your figures.

2a. This is not the case for two reasons. First, we don't see enough squibs to account for it. We've seen two squibs for all the wizards introduced. Second, if there were higher rates of squibiness, the Malfoys and their ilk would be impossible to shut up about how intermarriage was destroying wizarding kind by wiping out magical capability.

You're assuming they know enough about genetics ("muggle science") to understand this. And given how much as they hype blood purity, I'd say that they don't shut up about it.

3. Wizarding capability is probably not determined by a complex trait. While I have no advanced training in genetics, this seems like it would fall into many of the same problems as recessive traits would. And beyond that, even if it didn't, it would still be hard-pressed to explain the similarities and differences between all the possible permutations of possible parents.

Argument from ignorance.

I'm sceptical, but if someone can come up with an analogous gene already known, or otherwise an even mildly plausible way in which it might happen, I'm willing to consider it. So far, no one has.

OK, consider one locus with three alleles: m, w, and W. m is the recessive muggle gene, w is a recessive wizard gene, and W is a dominant wizard gene. You're a wizard if you have a W or two ws. The lack of full dominance allows the occasional squib while the dominant gene keeps their numbers down. The presence of ws in the muggle population produces the occasional muggle-born.

This scheme would probably over-produce muggle-borns, but that's easy enough to fix by throwing in w-variants that only produce wizards when matched with themselves.

[Batman]

And Batman, you have NO sense of humor at all.

Canonically so.

[Stark]

Stark, please. Did I ever support the view that we should accept JK Rowling's word that contradicts the novels? I did say the books are considered higher canon in that regards.

Just because you hate me does not mean you need to argue with me on every point. I never have said that EVERYTHING needs to be canon.

This means, there isn’t any point in arguing really. I'm just saying we can take JK Rowling's word UNLESS it is contradicted.

Which is what some people is trying to do. Stark, if you may, please go back on topic and discuss about Genetics.

If you want to argue and prove me wrong IN REGARDS to this topic, then maybe we can shift the debate. See if we can take JK Rowling's comments (Which is regarding muggle-borns do have someone who has magical blood in their family tree) into ACCOUNT .

And Batman, you have NO sense of humor at all.

No Ray, fuck you. You can't respond to my posts OR Batman's posts. That you have the fucking gall to accuse anyone else of misrepresenting their position after your strawman bullshit is stunning. The fact you're such a smarmy wanker you turn 'oh then we agree' into such a pile of posturing bullshit is quite fascinating. Let's not forget that I've consistently argued - from my very first post in this thread - exactly what you NOW say is your position. You just couldn't let go of the idea that what a few kids think is best is a replacement for an official canon policy, which it isn't.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Why, oh why, am I now picturing deformed Chicobos and dueling Banjos...

[ray245]

Stark, please. Did I ever support the view that we should accept JK Rowling's word that contradicts the novels? I did say the books are considered higher canon in that regards.

Just because you hate me does not mean you need to argue with me on every point. I never have said that EVERYTHING needs to be canon.

This means, there isn’t any point in arguing really. I'm just saying we can take JK Rowling's word UNLESS it is contradicted.

Which is what some people is trying to do. Stark, if you may, please go back on topic and discuss about Genetics.

If you want to argue and prove me wrong IN REGARDS to this topic, then maybe we can shift the debate. See if we can take JK Rowling's comments (Which is regarding muggle-borns do have someone who has magical blood in their family tree) into ACCOUNT .

And Batman, you have NO sense of humor at all.

No Ray, fuck you. You can't respond to my posts OR Batman's posts. That you have the fucking gall to accuse anyone else of misrepresenting their position after your strawman bullshit is stunning. The fact you're such a smarmy wanker you turn 'oh then we agree' into such a pile of posturing bullshit is quite fascinating. Let's not forget that I've consistently argued - from my very first post in this thread - exactly what you NOW say is your position. You just couldn't let go of the idea that what a few kids think is best is a replacement for an official canon policy, which it isn't.

Bullshit, I would not be surprised if this site is the only one adopting a different canon policy. Oh well. Did I ever say that ALL of JK Rowling's comments should be accepted in my post at all? If yes, then bring up my comments saying them. If I did say that, then I would admit my mistakes.

Stark, you have yet to get back on the main topic though. All you seem to do in this thread is to target me instead of talking about the main topic, which is about wizards breeding.

If you want to debate with me on canon policy, KINDLY create a new thread, so that all 3 of us can debate without distracting anyone else.

[Ghost Rider]

Stark, please. Did I ever support the view that we should accept JK Rowling's word that contradicts the novels? I did say the books are considered higher canon in that regards.

Just because you hate me does not mean you need to argue with me on every point. I never have said that EVERYTHING needs to be canon.

This means, there isn’t any point in arguing really. I'm just saying we can take JK Rowling's word UNLESS it is contradicted.

Which is what some people is trying to do. Stark, if you may, please go back on topic and discuss about Genetics.

If you want to argue and prove me wrong IN REGARDS to this topic, then maybe we can shift the debate. See if we can take JK Rowling's comments (Which is regarding muggle-borns do have someone who has magical blood in their family tree) into ACCOUNT .

And Batman, you have NO sense of humor at all.

No Ray, fuck you. You can't respond to my posts OR Batman's posts. That you have the fucking gall to accuse anyone else of misrepresenting their position after your strawman bullshit is stunning. The fact you're such a smarmy wanker you turn 'oh then we agree' into such a pile of posturing bullshit is quite fascinating. Let's not forget that I've consistently argued - from my very first post in this thread - exactly what you NOW say is your position. You just couldn't let go of the idea that what a few kids think is best is a replacement for an official canon policy, which it isn't.

Bullshit, I would not be surprised if this site is the only one adopting a different canon policy. Oh well. Did I ever say that ALL of JK Rowling's comments should be accepted in my post at all? If yes, then bring up my comments saying them. If I did say that, then I would admit my mistakes.

Stark, you have yet to get back on the main topic though. All you seem to do in this thread is to target me instead of talking about the main topic, which is about wizards breeding.

If you want to debate with me on canon policy, KINDLY create a new thread, so that all 3 of us can debate without distracting anyone else.

1. Don't backseat mod. If said poster is not hijacking, don't tell them what they can fucking do in a topic.

2.

Because she is the sole author of the world and no one else, and the comments are not meant to be a passing remark at times.

Is what Stark is refering to as your statement of canon.

Now as a mod, literally either refute the points or drop it, because you are literally disobeying a few cardinal rules just to think you have something.

[Stark]

I'm sorry Ray, I have zero interest in debating anything about Harry Potter. Your belief that fan consensus is a replacement for a canon policy - which you still maintain, with your meaningless 'I bet every other board agrees' - is stupid. That's all I'm saying. and what you appear to be arguing about.

Going back over the thread, on page one you said that you didn't think author comments should be able to override published content (something I missed as I wasn't breaking your posts down at that point). Why did you continue to argue with me on that point, even going to far as to strawman me into saying I disagreed with this, or thought that all author comments should be ignored - something nobody suggested? I think it's clear - you didn't like the idea that what a bunch of HP fans cooked up by themselves was basically meaningless.

[Junghalli]

If being a wizard is genetically determined, it must be dominant, recessive, or really really weird.

You forgot codominant. Though that doesn't seem to be the case here (if it was half-bloods would have less magical ability than full-bloods).

[Big Phil]

I'm sorry Ray, I have zero interest in debating anything about Harry Potter.

If you aren't interested in debating Harry Potter, then what the fuck are you doing posting in this thread? Just trolling, hmm?

[Eris]

*crosses her fingers this doesn't count as a necro yet*

Several problems here.

First, 50-60 wizards is not a large sample size. Those figures won't nail down the frequency of squibs to much lower than 10%. The rule of thumb is that the population size doesn't matter unless you sample a large chunk of it, and only then because we've directly determined the frequency for that chunk.

Not quite. Since we're dealing with a population well under 10,000 in general. 50-60 as a low end estimate is a perfectly fine sample size. Granted, there are worries about sample bias, but this is entirely a very general guestimate due to lack of good numbers, so I'm willing to accept that risk.

2a. This is not the case for two reasons. First, we don't see enough squibs to account for it. We've seen two squibs for all the wizards introduced. Second, if there were higher rates of squibiness, the Malfoys and their ilk would be impossible to shut up about how intermarriage was destroying wizarding kind by wiping out magical capability.

You're assuming they know enough about genetics ("muggle science") to understand this. And given how much as they hype blood purity, I'd say that they don't shut up about it.

No, I'm not. I'm assuming they're not dumb enough to miss that mixed blood couples lead to more squibs. Nothing to do with understanding the underlying theory, and just noticing the empirical correlation. If there was even just a non-trivial percentage of the mixed blood couples having squibs, they'd probably yell about it anyway, even if it weren't greater than otherwise would have been, just because that's how bigotry works. Look at what the KKK said about mixed races, and you'll get the idea, yet we hear nothing at all about htis.

3. Wizarding capability is probably not determined by a complex trait. While I have no advanced training in genetics, this seems like it would fall into many of the same problems as recessive traits would. And beyond that, even if it didn't, it would still be hard-pressed to explain the similarities and differences between all the possible permutations of possible parents.

Argument from ignorance.

Hardly. If I claimed it were definitely the case, then it would be, but I set falsification conditions, and qualified the argument.

Which leads to...

OK, consider one locus with three alleles: m, w, and W. m is the recessive muggle gene, w is a recessive wizard gene, and W is a dominant wizard gene. You're a wizard if you have a W or two ws. The lack of full dominance allows the occasional squib while the dominant gene keeps their numbers down. The presence of ws in the muggle population produces the occasional muggle-born.

This scheme would probably over-produce muggle-borns, but that's easy enough to fix by throwing in w-variants that only produce wizards when matched with themselves.

...this. Which would be those falsification conditions sort of satisfied. You've got a proof of concept at least, which is all I was looking for. Now, I think that if you fully fleshed out a theory that gave the right probabilities, it may be much more clunky than some other explanations, but seeing as we don't have the actual probabilities, any further argument I would suspect would just go endlessly in circles for lack of evidence.

As far as the entire in utero exposure goes, I'd like to point out I was only trying to give an example of another possible theory that could be more plausible depending on circumstances - a proof of concept counterexample to the idea that the only way to go is genetics. It may fail, although I don't think the objections posed so far are damning. Guardsman Bass has the best criticisms, and I find that at the moment any fixing up I do would have to speculate too far beyond our observations. The whole "it would lead to there being no squibs" is silly though. Environmental factors rely on statistics as well - not everyone who smokes gets cancer after all. And in any case, it's that there are ways to explain this that aren't genetic that's the important part.

[Darth Holbytlan]

First, 50-60 wizards is not a large sample size. Those figures won't nail down the frequency of squibs to much lower than 10%. The rule of thumb is that the population size doesn't matter unless you sample a large chunk of it, and only then because we've directly determined the frequency for that chunk.

Not quite. Since we're dealing with a population well under 10,000 in general. 50-60 as a low end estimate is a perfectly fine sample size.

Wrong. It's a common statistical mistake to think that reducing the population size lets you reduce the sample size similarly, but it doesn't. As I said, the population size is almost always irrelevant. You still only have a sample of maybe 1% of the population, and that is tiny—It creates only a 1% reduction in the size of the error from a theoritical infinite sample. With the nearly 10% wide error bar I calculated, this only subtracts a measly 0.1%.

In any case, the real population isn't the number of actual wizards. The purpose here isn't to calculate the actual number of squibs in existence, but the chances of a squib being born. In other words, real population is of potential babies of wizards, which is a far larger sample.

Granted, there are worries about sample bias, but this is entirely a very general guestimate due to lack of good numbers, so I'm willing to accept that risk.

It's not just a worry. As I pointed out, the sample bias is so huge as to render statistics from the data almost completely meaningless.

I'm assuming they're not dumb enough to miss that mixed blood couples lead to more squibs. Nothing to do with understanding the underlying theory, and just noticing the empirical correlation.

Except, of course, for the fact that this empirical evidence is being hidden by their births being frequently covered up and by the fact that the "pure"-bloods are having them too.

If there was even just a non-trivial percentage of the mixed blood couples having squibs, they'd probably yell about it anyway, even if it weren't greater than otherwise would have been, just because that's how bigotry works. Look at what the KKK said about mixed races, and you'll get the idea, yet we hear nothing at all about htis.

Bigots love to latch on to all sorts of justifications for their bigotry, but I think you're overestimating how likely they are to pick up on any particular justification. Squibs seem to be somewhat taboo in Wizarding society. Their births are covered up and they aren't much talked about. That's more than enough to explain them not noticing, much less mentioning it.

Really, most bigots are so blinded that they can't distinguish between real effects and their made-up nonsense.

3. Wizarding capability is probably not determined by a complex trait. While I have no advanced training in genetics, this seems like it would fall into many of the same problems as recessive traits would. And beyond that, even if it didn't, it would still be hard-pressed to explain the similarities and differences between all the possible permutations of possible parents.

Argument from ignorance.

Hardly. If I claimed it were definitely the case, then it would be, but I set falsification conditions, and qualified the argument.

You took your lack of knowledge of the capabilities of complex traits to draw the conclusion that it couldn't do what we see in the books. At best, you were attempting to draw an unwarranted analogy from the behavior of simple dominant and recessive genes, even though that behavior derives directly from their simplicity. The fact that you qualified it doesn't alter that you weren't justified in making the claim in the first place.

Now, I think that if you fully fleshed out a theory that gave the right probabilities, it may be much more clunky than some other explanations, but seeing as we don't have the actual probabilities, any further argument I would suspect would just go endlessly in circles for lack of evidence.

Probably. It was only a toy counterexample I cooked up in a couple of minutes.

[ray245]

This just came to my mind. Did the wizarding popluation use any birth control?

I mean, to ensure that the magical popluation can hide from muggles, they can't be too big.

Yet on the other hand, it seems that the wizard population should be increasing by the end of voldermort's defeat. A baby bloom.

So basically, is there a need for controlling the number of births in the wizarding world?