Evidence that you don't read the article you post.
As long as it's used in the correct context, then we are okay. However, when someone describes a particular gene as "junk" when describing a gene with no apparent function (as in broken or non-functional) - they are jumping the gun. If the context is describing a gene with a "yet to be discovered function", then I suppose it's acceptable (although you'd think that there would be a better term out there they could use).
Actually, I think he did.