It caught my attention because my name was mentioned. Apparently some "ID opponent" read my take-down of Jonathan Wells' book The Myth of Junk DNA. This prompted the following response from "news" (lawyer, Barry Arrington).
"The Myth of Junk DNA" is actually quite easy to read. We’ve excerpted a number of passages here at UD. The interesting part is that Darwinists thought that the presence of huge amounts of junk DNA was evidence for their position.If Barry Arrington had bothered to read my review of Wells' book he would know that this is a lie. You can read the entire series of posts at: The Myth of Junk DNA by Jonathan Wells but I want to draw your attention specifically to my comments on the history of the controversy: Junk & Jonathan: Part 1—Getting the History Correct] [Junk & Jonathan: Part 2— What Did Biologists Really Say About Junk DNA?].
In those posts I specifically addressed the claim by Jonathan Wells that Darwinists believed in junk DNA back in the early 1970s. This claim is totally wrong (i.e. a lie) in several respects.
First, "Darwinists" are evolutionary biologists who think that natural selection is the only significant force in evolution (adaptationists). Junk DNA has no function and this is anathema to real Darwinists. They opposed the concept of junk DNA, preferring to think that eventually we would find functions for this DNA.
The truth is that the concept of junk DNA was put forth by a minority scientists who were pluralists in the sense that they understood the importance of neutral alleles and random genetic drift. Some of the best evidence (genetic load) came from population geneticists at a time when most evolutionary biologists had no time for that subject.
The vast majority of evolutionary biologists thought that junk DNA was a problem for evolutionary biology—the exact opposite of what Wells claims. Barry Arrington would know this if he had bothered to read any serious reviews of The Myth of Junk DNA but it's quite obvious that he has no intention of exposing his beliefs to critical analysis.
I don't fault Barry Arrington for not understanding genomes and junk DNA; after all, he's a lawyer, not a scientist. However, I do fault him for parroting the opinion of Jonathan Wells and for not making the attempt to find out for himself whether Wells is correct. It wouldn't take much for Arrington to check his facts (Google is your friend.)
In my opinion, the evidence for massive amounts of junk DNA in our genome is overwhelming but I struggle to convince other scientists of this. It's not surprising that creationists aren't convinced.
What is surprising is that they (creationists) don't recognize that this is a scientific controversy that still hasn't been settled. That's why Arrington can say ...
Now that it turns out that much, probably most, of it isn’t junk, is that evidence against the Darwinist’s position?Creationists think the issue has been settled by scientists and the intelligent design creationist position has been confirmed—your genome really has been designed by God. Not only that, they believe this refutes the idea that natural selection is responsible for junk DNA. They believe this in spite of all the evidence in the scientific literature showing that the debate is still raging and natural selection has nothing to do with the presence of junk DNA.
Isn't that strange?