Also, 23andMe has good reporting, and I’m not aware of better compilation reports like these. I do think that their penetrance estimate is too confident, particularly considering the incoherent estimates in all the literature, and that they should disclose exactly how they generated that number.

Michael: I like your definition of “junk”-DNA – “DNA with NO function period.”. When is that statement true, that’s my question. At what point do you know that a given piece of DNA has no function. My argument is that I have seen few examples where the “junk” conclusion was reached by that criterium. The label is very often put on “DNA with no KNOWN function”. Therefore, reporting that something is not “junk” anymore when a function has been ascribed to it, is not “untrue”. I also do not think one should shy away from admitting that science sometimes can be “flighty and inconsistent”, isn’t that the nature of science sometimes and also the reason we keep refining our hypothesis and theories ?

And I certainly don’t think scientists should be afraid of creationists in any way. Indeed, I think the best defense against creationism is loudly and unashamedly trumpeting everything we know about evolution. Whay I was pointing out is precisely the opposite – that there is a danger in continuing bring up ideas that we know to be untrue – even as straw men – because it makes evolutionary biology look flighty and inconsistent.