Repeats are used at histone binding sites which are indirectly involved in regulation of transcription.
Look, I don't support the nonsense that that Gore3000 spouts on these threads, but he culls information from other sites which occasionally get it right. So-called "junk" DNA is an issue about which I have had my hackles raised number of times. The creationists don't want to call anything God made "junk" and the evolutionists on these threads are, somehow, tied to the view that this "junk" represents an important Darwinian history carried around in every organism. In my view, both are incorrect. The term 'junk' used to be applied to regions outside of obvious ORFs and covers an enormous amount of DNA in many species, including humans. There are tons of papers describing uses for specific sequences within these regions. Telomeres, and their effects in aging are an obvious example. Don't forget that many pseudogenes and many repeats are transcribed. nuclear RNA concentrations have an affect on transcription of other genes. It's simply naive or ludicrous to write these regions off as useless historical baggage. Genomes as a whole, but particular the protein coding regions, (because we know more about them) give an evolutionary history of the organism. Junk isn't necessary for the narrative. And some of the protein coding regions isn't even critical for survival. Organisms (like mice) with huge chromosomal deletions that include protein coding genes survive. Yet, we wouldn't call those regions junk. Rather, such redundancy in the code is feature which allows an organism to be as robust as it is.
Anyway, welcome to the forum.
Which is exactly why I wrote direct role, as in the typical transcription factor-binding element route.
If I understood Gore3000 correctly, I believe he was extrapolating the data (which has existed for 20 years) demonstrating that some enhancer elements are located intronically. These sequences are very minor in comparison and generally not what is referred to as junk.
I do believe the genome harbors a substantial amount of pseudogenes, relics from our evolutionary history that are of no value now. Studies are emerging in other speices as well are showing that even when the gene function is no longer required the gene remains and is free to mutate and in several cases it is no longer expressed. This is basically what I am referring to as genetic "garbage". Why would a creator/ID force put those sequences there de-novo?
I have been thinking about this idea here. I suppose another role for the non-processed pseudogenes (those encoding for non-functional polypeptides) could be to compete with the functional genes for the transcriptional machinery. I seem to remember (waaaay) back when I took mol.genetics that some of the POL II components are limiting? I am trying to find an analysis of what percentage of the non-processed pseudogenes are actually transcribed. Do you have any references off hand to save me a lit search?