The scientists at ENCODE are characterized as "prominent" by New Scientist.
Here's how Dan Graur came to the conclusion that ENCODE was wrong according to New Scientist:
"After 20 years of biologists arguing that most of the human genome must have some kind of function, the study calculated that in fact the vast majority of our DNA has to be useless. It came to this conclusion by calculating that, because of the way evolution works, we’d each have to have a million children, and almost all of them would need to die, if most of our DNA had a purpose.
But we each have just a few children on average, and our genetic health is mostly fine. The study therefore concludes that most of our DNA really must be junk – a suggestion that contradicts controversial claims to the contrary from a group of prominent genomics researchers in 2012".
So in other words, he just ran the numbers and the numbers do not support evolution. So he attacked the scientists instead of the theory of evolution.
At Graur's personal website here, he shows a picture of his baby grandaughter giving ENCODE the finger. Really? This loose cannon is who evolutionists are quoting?
Evolution News states:
"I realize, since this guy is a flaming left-winger, as a glance at his Twitter feed will confirm (the profile photo shows an upside-down American flag). But read what he says about Junk DNA, quoted by Jonathan Wells in his new book:
In 2013, biologist Dan Graur criticized the “evolution-free gospel of ENCODE” and accused its researchers of “playing fast and loose with the term ‘function,’ by divorcing genomic analysis from its evolutionary context.”81 In a lecture at the University of Houston, Graur argued that “if the human genome is indeed devoid of junk DNA as implied by the ENCODE project, then a long, undirected evolutionary process cannot explain the human genome.” In other words: “If ENCODE is right, then evolution is wrong.” But for Graur, evolution can’t be wrong. His solution to the problem? “Kill ENCODE.”82
