[teilo]

Yes, it turned out to be wrong, but not for the reason you cite. Dawkins completeliy dismisses the critical role of mutational fixation of epigenetic gene expression. He admits it exists, but dismisses its relevance in speciation.

[photochemsyn]

Here's the gist of the argument's origins, from about a decade ago:

https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/student-voices/the_desi...

More recent discoveries point to the genome's 3D architecture as being critical to its function, and large chunks of non-coding DNA appear to play key roles in keeping it stable.

The point, however, is that Dawkins is not a scientist, he's just a rather fundamentalist-minded ideologue, and that's true for the whole "New Atheist" cohort.