Rather than simply answer the question, the IDiots circled the wagons then went into attack mode. Eventually, after a lot of pressure, they got around to answering the question; apparently there is no evidence to support their claim [And Finally the Hounding Duck Can Rest].
Of course by then they were so deep in their hole that the sun don't shine.
The IDiots are at it again. Paul McBride criticized their attack on junk DNA by pointing out that IDiots distort history in order to make scientists look stupid. Specifically, they say that when scientists discovered that only a few percent of our genome encoded protein they claimed that all the rest of the DNA was junk. In other words, scientists claimed that all noncoding DNA was junk.
I've also blogged extensively about this false claim, especially in Jonathan Wells' book The Myth of Junk DNA [Watch Jonathan Wells Screw Up].
A few days ago I praised Jonathan McLatchie for finally admitting that what the IDiots said was false [Intelligent Design Creationists Attempt to (re)Define Junk DNA]. McLatchie said, "As stated above, no credible scientist claims that all non-coding DNA is 'junk.'" This is about as close to admitting error as the IDiots ever get.
I suggested that Jonathan McLatchie should talk to Jonathan Wells and set him straight on the history of biochemistry and molecular biology.
On Junk DNA, Where's the Contradiction?]. Getting out his shovel, he writes,
Larry Moran thinks he's caught Discovery Institute's Jonathan Wells and ENV's Jonathan M. in an embarrassing contradiction. The topic: "junk DNA." Moran crows:You know where this is headed, don't you?
Oops! Jonathan Wells says that some biologists referred to all noncoding DNA as junk but McLatchie admits that this is not true.
Those two need to have a talk. It's what honest people do.
The IDiots must defend their icon, Jonathan Wells, and if that means tossing Jonathan McLatchis to the wolves, so be it. Remember that McLatchie had the honesty to admit, "... no credible scientist claims that all non-coding DNA is 'junk.'
Here's David Klinghoffer ...
Jonathan Wells and Jonathan M. express themselves in different terms but there's no significant disagreement that any honest reader can detect. As Wells documents in his book The Myth of Junk DNA, some well known biologists have pretty flatly equated non-protein-coding DNA with junk. Richard Dawkins is one -- in 1976 and again in 2009. U.C. Berkeley's John Avise is another (2010). Others, like Kenneth Miller (1994), imply such an equation. Jerry Coyne (2009) sets up a dichotomy between those genes that "function" by coding for proteins and those that don't function and therefore are to be dismissed as "pseudogenes." Just as evolutionary theory predicts, writes Coyne, "Our genome -- and that of other species -- are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes."We seem to have a bit of a problem here. I'm certain that David Klinghoffer would like to think of Richard Dawkins, John Avise, Ken Miller, and Jerry Coyne as "credible scientists" otherwise why bother attacking them?
Jonathan McLatchie probably thinks they are credible scientists as well. I've read lots of books and articles by these credible scientist and I can assure you that none of them think that all noncoding DNA is junk. McLatchie is correct.
In the 1950s, neo-Dawrinists equated genes with DNA sequences and assumed that their biological significance lay in the proteins they encoded. But when molecular biologists discovered in the 1970s that most of our DNA does not code for proteins, neo-Darwinists called noncoding DNA "junk" and attributed it to molecular accidents that have accumulated in the course of evolution.Here's my challenge to Jonathan McLatchie; do you think Wells is correct? Do you think that in the 1970s there were significant numbers of credible scientists who thought that all noncoding DNA was junk?
Yet by 1970 biologists already knew that much of our DNA does not encode proteins. Although some suggested that non-protein-coding DNA might help regulate the production of proteins from DNA templates, the dominant view was that non-protein-coding regions had no function.
UPDATE: Paul McBride has responded to McLatchie pointing out that McLatchie misrepresents Casey Luskin: Jonathan M gives a qualitative response on junk DNA.