Re: Junk DNA fraction and mutational load

On 29/01/2025 12:47 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 18:25:40 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
 

Dan Graur has argued that for purifying selection to prevent mutational
load runaway, the functional fraction of the genome must be constrained
(to 10-15%?).
>
If the mutation rate was halved, would the allowable functional fraction
double? Or is it not that simple?
>
I posted a comment on Sandwalk criticising the latest Long Story Short
video's treatment of the c-value paradox:
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2025/01/intelligent-design-creationists-launch.html
>
I also posted a query on this paper which argues against Graur's
conclusion: "Mutational Load and the Functional Fraction of the Human
Genome"
https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/12/4/273/5762616?login=false
>
Larry Moran responded with "Graur refereed that paper and he now agrees
with the general conclusion that the mutation load argument does not put
a severe constraint on the fraction of functional DNA in the human genome."
>
Is this now generally accepted?
>
Note though the paper referenced has this conclusion: "We stress that
we, in this work, take no position on the actual proportion of the human
genome that is likely to be functional. It may indeed be quite low, as
the contemporary evidence from species divergence and intraspecies
polymorphism data suggests. Many of the criticisms of the ENCODE claim
of 80% functionality (e.g., Doolittle 2013; Graur 2013) strike us as
well founded. Our conclusion is simply that an argument from mutational
load does not appear to be particularly limiting on f."
>

  How does this help god the designer - he's preloaded DNA with junk,
maybe more, maybe less. Not a very good design is it?
 

I should have been clearer: just a genuine query on this topic, not making a point either way.
I've even highlighted my criticism of the DI video: "I'm an old earth creationist, and have generally agreed with this series of videos on origin of life by Long Story Short. However, in this case, I posted this critical comment on YouTube: 'Appreciate this series, but giving the impression that the c-value paradox is explained by polyploidy is misleading: “Some organisms with large genomes are not polyploid. For example, lungfish and salamanders have enormous genome sizes but are not consistently polyploid. Their large genomes are attributed more to the accumulation of repetitive elements and other non-coding sequences.' (Oddly, the comment is not visible when I'm not logged to a specific Google account)"