Posted: Jul 25, 2017 9:20 pm
by Rumraket
Wortfish wrote:
Manticore wrote:How can you read it from a creationist perspective when it contains maths and words with more than three syllables?


The mutational load problem has, ironically, been used by creationists to try and show that evolution cannot work. This paper may show that a maximum limit of 25% of the genome has a bearing on the phenotype but it can't show that 75% of the genome is junk. There may be vast swathes of the genome that are functional but relatively unaffected by mutation or which is functionally redundant.

It is true some have tried to bring up so-called "spacer DNA" or "bulk DNA" hypotheses, which circumvent the mutational load argument by arguing it is the length of sequence that matters, not the sequence itself (so it can mutate all it wants, as long as there's enough of it the sequence doens't matter).

For those arguments, there are the c-value paradox and the onion test.

It is not that any particular pro-junk-DNA argument can't be rationalized away with some ad-hoc hypothesis, but it is the totality of the evidence for junk, that shows it really is junk.