The Darwinians do seem to be biting back, to judge from yesterday in Nature:
The latest ENCODE report drew wide attention on Twitter. The paper didn’t provide any estimates about the proportion of the human genome that is functional; instead, it laid out the case that any accurate inventory of the functional parts of the genome must include evolutionary, genetic and biochemical data.
Given the history, some Twitter users wondered how Graur would respond. He soon ended the suspense with a series of tweets blasting ENCODE’s statistics and methodology. In one, he wrote that “the recent half-hearted recantation of #ENCODE was published without a press release.” In his blog post, he wondered why the ENCODE consortium seemed so eager to back away from its “80%” claim. Through it all, he admittedly showed very little tact. “I believe science is a search for the truth, not a lesson in manners,” he says. “I don’t do politeness.”
Kellis says that ENCODE isn’t backing away from anything. The 80% claim, he says, was misunderstood and misreported. More. (paywall)
Actually, ENCODE was neither misunderstood nor misreported. Life just wasn’t doing what Darwin’s followers said it was supposed to, and ENCODE reported that fact.
For free highlights of the junk DNA uproar, see:
Anyone remember ENCODE? Not much junk DNA? Still not much. (Paper is open access.)
Yes, Darwin’s followers did use junk DNA as an argument for their position.
Another response to Darwin’s followers’ attack on the “not-much-junk-DNA” ENCODE findings
By the time you can’t tell the difference between Darwin’s elite followers and his trolls, you know something is happening.
Follow UD News at Twitter!