After the initial controversy:
It is no secret among biologists that the ENCODE II pronouncements in 2012 were controversial. International scientists in the ENCODE consortium made statements about how 80% of the human genetic material was “functional”1 But the term functional, for the past couple of decades, had become associated with evolutionary concepts. The prevailing idea was that the DNA sequences in the cell were mostly not functional but rather made up of “junk DNA” which testified to the evolutionary origin of the cell’s genetic material. So, the ENCODE II team found themselves very unpopular with a lot of fellow biologists for suggesting a high level of functionality in the genome. Now, however in 2020, a third ENCODE project was published. Would it build on the conclusions of the ENCODE II team, or would it revise its estimates of functionality drastically downward?Margaret Helder, “Celebrate ENCODE III and the demise of ‘Junk DNA’” at Creation-Evolution Headlines
We hope we are not spoiling the story by saying “not downward”:
The ENCODE III teams did not retreat in the face of pressure from doctrinaire evolutionists. They continued to make their observations and to let the evidence speak for itself. In general, they took a pragmatic approach to the whole issue in the hope that “Collectively, the ENCODE data and registry provide an expansive resource for the scientific community to build a better understanding of the organization and function of the human and mouse genomes.”26 They felt no obligation to trot out irrelevant evolutionary theories on junk DNA, especially since these have been already falsified by the ENCODE results.Margaret Helder, “Celebrate ENCODE III and the demise of ‘Junk DNA’” at Creation-Evolution Headlines
Remember that anti-ENCODE guy, Dan Graur, who wasn’t doing “politeness” any more on this subject? He might want to talk to Miss Manners (just the free three-lesson introductory course). Not a huge time sink.