The way the author describes UTRs in the article, he makes no distinction between the 5’ and 3’ UTRs and introns. Both were known even before introns. It was known that there had to be regions 5’ (upstream) where the translation machinery (ribosomes and associated proteins) had to bind to start synthesizing proteins. More recently it was found that the 3’ end contains sequence motifs (not necessarily specific bases) to tell the cell to stop transcription . These are likely the 3D structure the mRNA makes and not specifically the sequence. You have this idea that this “ancient” history is somehow new. None of this repudiattes evolution at all.
Wrong again. Williams’ paper is covering recent and groundbreaking discoveries by project ENCODE. Next time you say you have read something, you might want to consider actually reading it. The “ancient history” (the only part you apparently read) is covered at the beginning of the paper. Williams then goes on to demonstrate how our antiquated notions with respect to the genome have been RADICALLY changed by project ENCODE.
PS Way to NOT admit your error.
PSS What do you suppose the discovery that the genome is 93%+ functional will do to all those phylogenetic trees that the Darwinists have constructed based on a neutral rate of mutation?