and thank god for that because it would be kinda hard to explain why you can trade in marriages for deals with extra favors.saintdane05 said:I still prefer the Joe Quesada approach.
"It's magic, we don't have to explain it."
Time travel as a plot point. That explanation is very, very limited to the point where 'Flux capacitor' is an accurate description of how soft the science is.Saulkar said:JK has stipulated in interviews, plus going off what other people have said, hinted in the books that magic has scientific groundings and thus to a limited extent can be explained by science.Twilight_guy said:Now explain how a strand of DNA can make a set of proteins that fucking makes you magic!
Its nice to see her (name sounds female) putting work into the issue and congratulations on the essay, but it all seems rather dumb when you use science to explain magic, something that is inherently unexplainable and the opposite of science. I'd rather just say 'because flux capacitor' and realize how silly it is rather then trying to explain it and winding up with more problems.
-_-Azuaron said:NinjaDeathSlap said:...this woman really has too much time on her hands...
That was even more complicated than this, what with 3 types of dominant and recessive. At least this one I only had to re-read once or twice.snowfi6916 said:Wow, I can't believe someone delved this deep into it.
We (bronies) did the same thing regarding pony genetics. Had quite a few forum posts about how earth ponies could have pegasus and unicorn foals (the episode that inspired the debate was "Baby Cakes" if you were interested).
But sorry for the slight derail. Carry on.
you win sir, On that note, what if J.K.Rowling had directed starwars 1,2 and 3?Mumorpuger said:You mean it wasn't midichlorians?
Theres a lot of things I didnt quite get in the HP universe which seemed to be explained with the ol' "Just because".Gatx said:This is great and all, but the biggest question for me about Harry Potter magic was why they didn't have mana. Being able to shoot one hit kills without limit also seemed... yeah.
lol ok take my comment out of context and insult me without any counter-argument. When did I say that mutations are bad? You think more mutations rather than less mutations is a good thing? You do know that one of the hypotheses to ageing causing functional decline in your organ is because of the accumulation of mutations over your life time? And yes obviously there are good mutations which have helped us adapt, like heterozygosity inferring advantages to sickle cell anemia patients being immune to malaria for example. We're the result of many mutations over thousands of years. Mitochondria, moms, and all that.NoAccountNeeded said:I really don't know from which kind of medical school you got your knowledge from and which strange form of genetics they teach there but this sentence is so wrong on so many levels.Moeez said:C'mon, anyone who's done genetics on any level knows the more repeats or mutations is a bad thing.
Just saying that mutations are bad is just... urgh. Seriously. Some basic knowledge about evolutionary genetics would really, really help here.
If I were you I would not go out on a limb concerning other peoples knowledge in genetics...
But yes, the paper has some flaws. But you know what? I doesn't matter! It's fun. It's a joke. It's nothing serious. It's just a piece of nerd humor. To tinker abound with science where it doesn't make sense. Like predicting the energy output of the Death Star to see if it could destroy a planet of the size of Alderaan.
And she even makes an interesting remark on the underlying racism theme concerning wizards and muggles, or what they are called (never read a book, just forced to watched some of the movies with my niece)