Of course there is. A genome does not function outside a very limited range of designs. A random assignment of AGTC would produce noise, no butterflies, every time.
You know you can assert this forever and still be wrong.
I notice you didn't respond to my point about lactose tolerance in humans. Is it because it's an actual example of a clearly beneficial trait arising by mutation? :dizzy:
Here's an educational video that explains it, for those interested.
For example:
"Barbarian explains: Actually, cheetahs likely don't have any greater 'load' than humans do. The real problem is a severe lack of genetic diversity. They are so alike that apparently, they can all serve as tissue donors for each other."
That is what you believe, right?
No, you could have a population with a very large amount of accumulated deleterious mutations, though that problem is exacerbated when said mutations are all the same (small population with low diversity). You can have a large population with lots of deleterious mutations (e.g. humans) but they are widely distributed enough that the odds of them meeting and actually causing disease are low (also humans).
Lack of genetic diversity alone in the abstract isn't necessarily harmful, assuming deleterious alleles were absent. But the minute the environment changes, a new parasite, disease or climatic change etc.. A challenge to the population appears, lack of diversity becomes devastating.
A species with a "perfect" genome and no diversity would go extinct with small changes in the environment because there would be nothing for selection to act on.
Example from Botany:
Castanea americana, the American Chestnut. Billions of trees spread across the Appalachian mountains. Very successful and dominant species on the landscape. Chestnut blight, a fungal disease, is accidentally brought over from China by humans around 1910. C. americana has little genetic diversity and was virtually wiped out by the disease. A related species, Ozark chinquapin, C. ozarakana has more genetic diversity, some of those trees survive the same blight. That species is now able to recover from the disease and slowly recolonize where the other trees died (currently being aided by humans).
Also question for recent de-novo creationists, why did this disease have such a devastating impact on North American Chestnut species, and no impact on Chinese chestnut, Castanea mollisima?