Questions on those with the Spark

[Plato]

Why do we think that if the Seanchan took over the world, the spark would die out? Because they aren't allowed to breed, and therefore the spark would die out? Who said the spark had anything to do with genetics?

 

They have controlled the continent of Seanchan for the better part of 1000 years and STILL have damane. And still catch them with regularity if Tuon is skilled at and enjoys breaking new damane.

 

There is also the White Tower for the past 3000 years, taking women away to live in the white tower and hardly ever have kids, if ever. Wasn't Elayne pregnant like the first time in 100 years that an Aes Sedai was pregnant? Also the Oath Rod really shortens a woman's life, meaning over 3000 years, instead of 5-6 generations of Aes Sedai that lived in the White Tower (assuming they lived 500-600 years in the AoL) we have closer to 25-30 generations of Aes Sedai that lived in the White Tower (assuming they live 100-150 years, Cadsuene Sedais not included). So if they were constantly taking girls, and accepting girls sent to them with the spark, and only a couple ever had kids, and then died off prematurely from the Oath Rod, than wouldn't the spark have died off LONG ago.

 

And based on the Black Tower, we can see the Red Ajah's efforts to get rid of men who can channel was all pointless from a "culling over the years, weeding them out" perspective. If the spark was actually genetic than men channeling would be super rare indeed...

 

Therefore, the spark doesn't seem genetic at all, but something of the pattern, randomly selecting anybody to have the spark, much like a bubble of evil floats along the pattern, going off at random (or where ta'veren are involved). Entering any sort of Age without channelers would be an Age outside of the WoT universe completely... Further convincing me that Avi's vision was not anything real, but a warning and a lesson to learn.

 

~~~~~~

On a completely seperate train of thought, if it IS genetic, from what we do see of the spark it is a hidden gene in virtually every single person. I mean, in the WoT, we have examples of people channeling from families that have never known to have channeler's. We have Aes Sedai coming from every part of the world all the time, from different families, seeming at random. Same with male channeler's coming from all over, whether their parents did or not.

 

So, because its hidden, and from the arguments about Aes Sedai not having kids I used previously, it is totally irrelevant if channeler's have kids or not. It doesn't effect Aes Sedai finding new recruits, nor Ash'amen finding new soldiers, nor Seanchen finding new Damane. (once Egwene took over the White Tower, we get just as many novices as the Tower used to get. I blame the lack of novices over the last 200-500 years from the Aes Sedai just getting lazier at seeking them out).

 

So any future Age would STILL have channeler's, even if they were all collared, new damane would still pop up.

 

Edit: Thankyou for moving this here

[Lynchgrinch]

yeah, i dont realy "get it" either.......something to do with channeling fading into obscurity and being regarded as magic more than just a cool thing that only a few people can do......i mean ittl be more like a weird crazy thing that like 1 out of 10,000,000 people can do...or sumthing...dunno....

[Demiandre]

Where did you see that if Seanchan took over Randland, chanelling will disappear??

 

Chanelling is linked to the soul. Sparker and learner are determined by the body IIRC, but a soul having the ability in one live will have it in the next incarnation. So it is not only genetical, but also something to do with the Pattern.

 

There are more chances that a kid born from parents who both chanels will chanel, but a kid with parent that can't can be a chaneller.

 

I think there is something from RJ somewhere on this topic...

 

And perhaps a little spoiler on the Opening Post...

[Majsju]

The ability to channel is both a matter of the soul, and genetics.

 

Thing is, those with the ability to channel can be divided into two groups, those with the spark, and those who can learn. And learners outnumber sparkers by far, which we can see by the number of channelers both Egwene and the BT managed to pick up once they started to actively recruit. We can also see it in the Seanchan, where we hear complaints that the Sul'dam (who have the ability to learn) outnumber the damane (sparkers). So the lands are full of people who are potential channelers.

[Plato]

Where did you see that if Seanchan took over Randland, chanelling will disappear??

 

Chanelling is linked to the soul. Sparker and learner are determined by the body IIRC, but a soul having the ability in one live will have it in the next incarnation. So it is not only genetical, but also something to do with the Pattern.

 

There are more chances that a kid born from parents who both chanels will chanel, but a kid with parent that can't can be a chaneller.

 

I think there is something from RJ somewhere on this topic...

 

And perhaps a little spoiler on the Opening Post...

 

Ah, forgot about the spoilers... Yes there are many, I edited.

 

**MORE SPOILERS**

But about half the people who read Avi's vision of the future seem to think channeling goes extinct because every single channeler is collared and can no longer reproduce. Tenchology like steam engine and guns can go hand in hand with the One Power, ie the Age of Legends.

 

I was supplying arguments that channeling could never go extinct. And so have you

[Tiinker]

Well the Pattern weaves out what it needs. Maybe if the Seanchen take over Randland there will be little use for the damane who are used for their battle skills, and so the Pattern will stop spinning out people who can channel till it needs them again. Sorta like evolution :p .. something like that. That's the closest I can get to a reason why.

[Agitel]

....

 

I believe that there is a topic pinned to the top of the board that says ABSOLUTELY NO TOWERS OF MIDNIGHT SPOILERS ON THIS BOARD.

 

That means none, not even if they're marked.

 

That's not to say I don't have anything to say to this topic, I do, but this belongs on the other board.

[Plato]

....

 

I believe that there is a topic pinned to the top of the board that says ABSOLUTELY NO TOWERS OF MIDNIGHT SPOILERS ON THIS BOARD.

 

That means none, not even if they're marked.

 

That's not to say I don't have anything to say to this topic, I do, but this belongs on the other board.

 

Doh!

[smileyman]

The ability to channel is both a matter of the soul, and genetics.

 

Thing is, those with the ability to channel can be divided into two groups, those with the spark, and those who can learn. And learners outnumber sparkers by far, which we can see by the number of channelers both Egwene and the BT managed to pick up once they started to actively recruit. We can also see it in the Seanchan, where we hear complaints that the Sul'dam (who have the ability to learn) outnumber the damane (sparkers). So the lands are full of people who are potential channelers.

 

Here's my thinking on the learners vs the sparkers.

 

I think those that have the spark inborn are those who's ability to channel is tied to their soul. Every incarnation they'll live they'll have that ability. Those who can learn to channel are those for whom it's a genetic thing. Genetics is much easier to predict than is the rebirth of the souls, so it makes sense to me that most channelers will have the ability due to genetics and not their reborn soul.

[Guest reagan007]

1st post!

 

Well, let me think back to my Physical Anthropology class... Jordan said that around 3-4% of the world knew how to channel ( I can't remember specifically). That means even if the Seanchan have been breeding out the ability to channel, that would leave probably 1-2% of the population able to channel (Jordan cited this number as the probably percentage of channelers in the current age, due largely to eugenics). The problem with your theory is that, according to Hardy-Weinberg, mutation (spontaneous acquisition of a random allele) can account for up to 1% of the gene pool. The second misunderstanding is that you assume that once an allele is eliminated from one person's pool, it automatically dissipates. The reality is, however, that even if humans attempt to "breed" out an allele, every human has potential for every allele sequence. Just because we can't see or detect a phenotype of genotype does not mean that that person can't have children who code for it. This is especially true for recessive traits.

 

Sorry if I'm a little inaccurate, it's been awhile.

[chuckievi]

Basically the reason channeling and more specifically sparking hasn't disappeared is because as mentioned above channelers have two parts. The first is the genetic part which I believe RJ stated is a recessive gene required to be able to channel. In genetics terms that means that both your parents need to have a copy of the gene for you to have a chance at being able to channel, and if both of your parents can channel, you will have the channeling gene. Now there is also a second part, the soul portion. From what I remember from RJ interviews, the soul portion is what decides whether someone is a sparker or a learner.

 

So, to use Seanchan as an example, they can cull the sparkers out of the gene pool by making them damane and not letting them procreate, but as long as the learners (suldam) ARE allowed to procreate, the ability to channel will continue to show up in subsequent generations. Now the real issue in Seanchan would be the male half of the equation, in that if male learners have the same reaction to putting on an a'dam as male sparkers (and I think they do), they would be significantly reducing the chances of passing on the recessive channeling gene from the male side.

[Sharaman]

RJ said around 2% of AoL-ites had channeling ability. According to him, that has since dropped to 1%.

He was never very clear about how people get the ability.

It is a recessive gene, but it is also a matter of the soul.

When the Pattern needs to (or GLoD wants to), it pops the right soul into the right body and viola, channeling ability.

Sparker - learner is again, as much a question of soul and the Pattern's needs, as genetics

RJ also said there are Ages when the channeling ability is absolutely forgotten.

All the relevant quotes are available at the theoryland database http://www.theoryland.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=372

[willsambrooks]

RJ said around 2% of AoL-ites had channeling ability. According to him, that has since dropped to 1%.

He was never very clear about how people get the ability.

It is a recessive gene, but it is also a matter of the soul.

When the Pattern needs to (or GLoD wants to), it pops the right soul into the right body and viola, channeling ability.

Sparker - learner is again, as much a question of soul and the Pattern's needs, as genetics

RJ also said there are Ages when the channeling ability is absolutely forgotten.

All the relevant quotes are available at the theoryland database http://www.theoryland.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=372

 

Here is a look at channeling from a Geneticist's perspective. (I being a geneticist.) If we assume that there are three categories of people in Randland 1) those with no ability to channel 2) those who may learn to channel and 3) those born with the spark, we can fit this into a genetic model. Those with no ability to channel could be thought of as having a cc phenotype (homozygous recessive), the learners as Cc (heterozygotes), and sparkers as CC (homozygous dominant). The reason that the channeling allele would be dominant is because even the heterozygote learners can channel. Applying this model to a Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (p² + 2pq +q² = 1) and assuming that 2% of the population can channel, we end up with 98% of population are non-channelers, 1.98% are learners, and 0.01-0.02% are sparkers (with rounding error). If you assume 1% can channel, the numbers change slightly. This model would mimic an incomplete dominance mode of inheritance.

We can also assume that being able to channel is a sex-limited trait since it affects each gender differently (males only channel saidin, while females only channel saidar). Furthermore, we can assume that it is also a quantitative trait meaning that there is phenotypic variation (ie, people having differing levels of power both in sheer volume of power one can handle and in power for specific threads - fire, spirit, water, etc.) Since the channeling the One Power seems to be both sex-limited and quantitative, there are certainly going to be other genetic factors (background genetic traits) and environmental factors (mabe even the pattern) that modifies this one "channeling allele." This then would make the ability to channel a multifactorial trait, one having multiple factors involved both genetic and environmental.

There you have it. Of course, this is all dependent on the notion that we can explain this fantasy idea with real genetics.

[chuckievi]

Close, but it isn't sex chromsome related, which is how Halima was able to channel Saidin instead of Saidar. That is where the weird soul aspect comes into play, it is only partially genetic.

[willsambrooks]

I would have to argue that Halima is a special case being as though she was a man put into a female's body by the Dark One - so yeah, soul would play a role there. If you discount Halima, then every man only channels saidin and females only channel saidar which means that gender genetics likely determines in part which half of the Source you can sense/channel. Otherwise, sex-influenced traits have nothing directly to do with the actual sex chromosome but rather gender in general. Consider souls that are spun out into the pattern repeatedly, a good question would be to ask if a man is always spun out as a man or if a soul can be spun out as a male or female in future generations. We know that the DR is always a man and Heros like Birgette are the same gender but perhaps not for other less prominent souls. If a male soul is spun out in the future as a female and both were channelers, then it would be genetics and not the soul that determined which half of the true source they channeled.

Just some thoughts.

[Sharaman]

I would have to argue that Halima is a special case being as though she was a man put into a female's body by the Dark One - so yeah, soul would play a role there. If you discount Halima, then every man only channels saidin and females only channel saidar which means that gender genetics likely determines in part which half of the Source you can sense/channel. Otherwise, sex-influenced traits have nothing directly to do with the actual sex chromosome but rather gender in general. Consider souls that are spun out into the pattern repeatedly, a good question would be to ask if a man is always spun out as a man or if a soul can be spun out as a male or female in future generations. We know that the DR is always a man and Heros like Birgette are the same gender but perhaps not for other less prominent souls. If a male soul is spun out in the future as a female and both were channelers, then it would be genetics and not the soul that determined which half of the true source they channeled.

Just some thoughts.

Again RJ confirmed that a soul is always gender-specific. The dragon is always male for instance. GLoD was indulging his sense of humour by switching Aran'gar.

.

[Frostmuse]

If we assume that there are three categories of people in Randland 1) those with no ability to channel 2) those who may learn to channel and 3) those born with the spark

 

Awesome write-up, although I wonder, would it be possible to have 4 groups? 1) no channel genes at all, 2) (some) channel genes, unable to channel themselves but can pass it on, 3) learners, 4) sparkers. Group 2 wouldn't be found with the a'dam, keeps the total number of channel-capable people down, but still ensures the genes stay around. Possibly ending up like a place like Two Rivers where sparkers (the ones that live), learners and passers-on all stay around.