Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Junk DNA fraction and mutational load
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2025 08:33:06 +1100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 56
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <vnbiej$20e6f$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vna0pk$1lk94$1@dont-email.me>
 <20250128134719.e06acfbf4215fd6442815ba7@127.0.0.1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="91959"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4KVeUbQn0ZOcsEGDjNgVur8Qi4g=
Return-Path: <news@eternal-september.org>
X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org
Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org
	id 896CD229871; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 17:42:28 -0500 (EST)
	by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56370229786
	for <talk-origins@ediacara.org>; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 17:42:26 -0500 (EST)
          by moderators.individual.net (Exim 4.98)
          for talk-origins@moderators.isc.org with esmtps (TLS1.3)
          tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
          (envelope-from <news@eternal-september.org>)
          id 1tcuHn-00000002WD0-2ZSd; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 23:42:23 +0100
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
	 key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by smtp.eternal-september.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15DAE60604
	for <talk-origins@moderators.isc.org>; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 22:42:21 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: name/15DAE60604; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com
	id D8619DC01CD; Wed, 29 Jan 2025 00:15:19 +0100 (CET)
	id B5943DC01D0; Wed, 29 Jan 2025 00:01:55 +0100 (CET)
	id F38C3DC01DE; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 23:31:09 +0100 (CET)
	id 14B62DC01D4; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 23:29:16 +0100 (CET)
	id 4689BDC01E1; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 23:23:08 +0100 (CET)
	id E66B6DC01E2; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 22:33:07 +0100 (CET)
X-Injection-Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 22:33:07 +0100 (CET)
Content-Language: en-US
X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1+kNgcUkDeL+PrNsGIyxUQhCNwx42mAsX8=
In-Reply-To: <20250128134719.e06acfbf4215fd6442815ba7@127.0.0.1>
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,
	RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED,
	SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE,USER_IN_WELCOMELIST,
	USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
	smtp.eternal-september.org
Bytes: 5604

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)"