Recent paper on genetic load and the functional fraction of the human genome: Mutational Load and the Functional Fraction of the Human Genome
Conclusion: mutational load is unlikely to impose a low limit on the functional fraction of the genome. In other words, Dan Graur’s statement ( “If ENCODE is right, then evolution is wrong”) was wrong. (Note: Graur says he was one of the two reviewers for this paper, and approved it without revision.)
[moderator added tweet from Grauer]
There are of course other reasons to put a low value, if not a limit, on the functional fraction of the genome.
Quite true.
That seems to be a position shared by the authors of the paper:
It would be nice if this study shut down the argument that ENCODE showed that most of the genome is functional, therefore evolution is wrong. Of course, I’d also like an effective treatment for covid-19, as long as I’m wishing. And a pony.
בקיצור- דן גראור טעה 
It was a silly thing to say, hyperbolic in Graur’s patented style. Better: “if ENCODE is right, my model of selection is wrong.” Of course ENCODE isn’t right, and it isn’t yet clear that Graur’s model of selection is wrong either.
Can you document this?
Translation:
In short, Dan Graur was wrong
“I don’t tend to fall in love with my own papers.”–Dan Graur
An admirable quality for a scientist to have, and one that isn’t universal in the scientific community.