Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Junk DNA fraction and mutational load
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2025 17:59:33 +0530
Organization: University of Ediacara
Lines: 35
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <n4udnYMkQeazNjn6nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
References: <vna0pk$1lk94$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="13780"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vna0pk$1lk94$1@dont-email.me>

On 1/27/25 11:25 PM, MarkE 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."
> 
Yes, the mutational load argument for junk DNA is now generally 
rejected. The remaining arguments, however, are conclusive. 90% of your 
genome is junk.