As if they had any sort of coherent ammunition anyway!
Here’s a bit of commentary regarding the growth of scientific knowledge with respect to so-called “junk-DNA.” It’s becoming increasingly apparent that it isn’t junk. Ancient alien theorists, as readers know, have tried to argue that junk DNA is foreign to the human genome, thereby showing alien tampering with our genetic code. Consider it their version of creationism, and so an important religious tenet for them. Too bad it’s bunk, like all their other proofs.
Oh, and in case one of them says “er…okay…so junk DNA is purposeful…that just shows our alien creators were really good designers…they were really smart” — thanks for making the intelligent design argument, for starters. But guess what? The standard ancient alien hypothesis isn’t the same as Christian (or Jewish) intelligent design ideas. Why? Because the fundamentalist Sitchinite ancient alien view requires a designer who was part of the fabric of the material world (i.e., a biological organism) who either took from his own DNA to pr0-actively evolve humans (that is Sitchin’s textually indefensible reading of Sumerian-Mesopotamian epics). This view is ruled out by the fact that the “junk DNA” is human.
Now, other ancient alien theorists could (pardon the pun) junk Sitchin, which would show intelligence (and courage in that sub-culture). He or she could opt for a designer with tinkering skill, sharing no part of his own DNA in the process of modifying humans. But this is nothing more than a faith statement (akin to Judeo-Christian intelligent design). That means the ancient alien idea shows itself once again to be simply a religion — a UFO religion. But there is at least one significant difference between this faith statement and Judeo-Christian intelligent design. The former must assume an ET creator that is part of the material world. That means ETs existence falls into the category of being scientifically testable — in other words, one can apply scientific inquiry and methods to the question of the existence of that creator. And scientists have been doing that. With no success. Therefore, on a scientific basis, the alien view is shown to be invalid to this point. God, on the other hand, is not considered to be part of the material world, but outside it. He is therefore not subject to scientific discovery or invalidation.
The second alien creator view has other problems along these lines, but I don’t care to digress at this point.