Here's the problem. Jonathan Wells wrote an entire book on The Myth of Junk DNA. Wells says that back in the early 1970s a substantial number of scientists—he calls them Darwinists—said 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 toregulate theproduction of proteins from DNA templates, the dominant view was that non-protein-coding regions had no function (page 19-20).Wells then goes on to demonstrate that lots of noncoding DNA has a function; therefore Darwinists were wrong (and stupid).
Recently Wells has gone even further by saying that the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology stipulated that the only functional DNA was the part that made proteins. Therefore noncoding DNA was junk. You can see him make this claim in the video below from October 2010 and you can read my analysis at: Watch Jonathan Wells Screw Up =.
Here's the money quote from one of his slides at about 4 minutes into the talk.
... biologists discovered that most human DNA does not code for proteins. Based on the Central Dogma that "DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us," this non-protein-coding DNA was dubbed "junk."
Is this important? No, not as far as scientists are concerned because we know that Wells is misrepresenting the history of the field. However, it's important for creationists because it portrays scientists (Darwinists) as very stupid people who didn't know about regulatory sequences, origins of replication, RNA genes, telomeres, centromeres, and terminators back in 1970. Wells portrays them as adherents of a false Central Dogma of Molecular Biology.
If this were true then all Wells has to do is show some functions for noncoding DNA to prove that the Darwinsts were wrong. He gloatingly does this.
Many of us have pointed out the stupidity of this creationist view of history but most IDiots refuse to admit that Wells was wrong. I don't know why since it wouldn't change any of their other arguments to admit that junk DNA is controversial and to admit that there were never any scientists—and certainly no Darwinists—claiming that all noncoding DNA was junk.
Jonathan McLatchie seemed to understand this so I was happy when he admitted that. "... no credible scientist claims that all non-coding DNA is "junk" [see: Intelligent Design Creationists Attempt to (re)Define Junk DNA].
Alas, it's too difficult for Jonathan McLatchie to confess that his fellow IDiot Jonathan Wells made a mistake. He keeps digging at: "Junk DNA," "Non-Coding DNA," and Larry Moran's Hyper-Pedantry.
On this, Moran and I are agreed -- scientists like Richard Dawkins, John Avise, Ken Miller and Jerry Coyne certainly don't think that all non-protein-coding DNA is without function (although they do claim that most of it is). I think Moran is being a touch overly pedantic here, however. Promoters, enhancers, operators and transcription factors are all non-protein-coding DNA: Is Larry Moran seriously suggesting that Jonathan Wells doesn't think that those biologists have heard of those?No, that's not exactly what I'm suggesting. Those scientists came later. Wells is slandering other scientists from the early 1970s. He clearly states that those scientists thought noncoding DNA was junk so he must think that in 1970 they were completely unaware of regulatory DNA (and other functional noncoding DNA).
Jonathan McLathie, watch the video. Do you agree with the Jonathan Wells version of the history? A simple "yes" or "no" will establish your credibility.
Now it's time to turn off your irony meter because Jonathan McLatchie says,
It seems that we have yet another case where the words of ID proponents have been twisted and misrepresented. But, sadly, this is something that we have come to expect.Did your Mark IV irony meter just blow up? Don't say I didn't warn you.