[ifinnegan]

““Not really.
Yes, estimates of “junk DNA” have been reduced from maybe 90% to something less”

Oh something less.

Excellent work, quite detailed.

Lol.”

Ok.

That was snarky.

But it made the point, yes sarcastically and snarky, so sorry for that.

The point being your comment was empty. Perhaps you could reference an article that tried to define the level of “junk DNA” that said it was “reduced from maybe 90% to something less” or you reviewing their evidence here to support your assertion.

And you have to admit, “something less” deserves some snark.

[BroJoeK]

ifinnegan: "And you have to admit, “something less” deserves some snark."

So now you want a serious answer to a snarky post?

OK, here it is:

"Junk DNA" is a term left over from the 1960s, studied since 1972 and referring originally to all non-coding DNA, more than 90% of our genome.

But over the years other non-coding functions have been found for alleged "junk" such that today only 65% is thought definitely not used and 26% as "likely junk", meaning suspected of actual functions.

"The international Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project uncovered, by direct biochemical approaches, that at least 80% of human genomic DNA has biochemical activity.[2]
Though this was not necessarily unexpected due to previous decades of research discovering many functional noncoding regions,[3][4] some scientists criticized the conclusion for conflating biochemical activity with biological function.[5][6][7][8][9]
Estimates for the biologically functional fraction of our genome based on comparative genomics range between 8 and 15%.

However, others have argued against relying solely on estimates from comparative genomics due to its limited scope.
Non-coding DNA has been found to be involved in epigenetic activity and complex networks of genetic interactions, and is being explored in evolutionary developmental biology."

So, yet again depending on definitions, a certain amount of word-gaming involved here.