Where are all the mutations?

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@aarceng

Umm…Yes. That IS what @glipsnort is saying.

No. @Argon restatement of my post was entirely correct – it is you that have misunderstood my statement. Discovering function for a bit of DNA means we now know one one little scrap of the functional DNA in the genome does. For most of the DNA that we can tell is functional, we have no idea what it does; the fraction of the genome that has known functions is much less than 10%.

[Argon]

@aarceng

This allows him to delay admitting that much of DNA is actually functional. It is a self serving definition

LOL. If you want to know how many grains of sand there are on a beach do you count every grain of sand there or do you count grains in representative patches of sand and calculate the total grains of sand on the beach based on the samples? @glipsnort is not making this case to underrepresent the amount of functional DNA. Here’s making the case that you’re basically trying to count every individual grain of sand on a beach, which is a task you’ll never finish and which will always under estimate the total amount.

[Argon]

@glipsnort

No. @Argon restatement of my post was entirely correct – it is you that have misunderstood my statement.

Woody Allen stuck on a movie line

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@Argon

@glipsnort is not making this case to underrepresent the amount of functional DNA. Here’s making the case that you’re basically trying to count every individual grain of sand on a beach, which is a task you’ll never finish and which will always under estimate the total amount.

Now, if it turns out that you keep finding function for bit of DNA that are not classified as likely functional based on genetic variation, then the proxy isn’t a good one. But we have no reason to think that yet.