Here’s the Wikipedia quote:

> When there is much non-coding DNA, a large proportion appears to have no biological function, as predicted in the 1960s. Since that time, this non-functional portion has controversially been called "junk DNA".[1]

It’s not all non-coding DNA that is “junk”, just the stuff that “has no purpose”.

I’m arguing that it is much more likely that we don’t understand its purpose and should treat it as such rather than dismissing it as “junk”.

I like the use of “junk” DNA only because it reminds people how much we don’t know. It wasn’t that long ago the term was used because that’s DNA was assumed to be useless.