Noncoding DNA ≠ junk DNA! In fact, the latter is a subset of the former. Confusing the two is understandable since even scientists occasionally play fast and lo

Noncoding DNA ≠ junk DNA! In fact, the latter is a subset of the former. Confusing the two is understandable since even scientists occasionally play fast and loose with the terms but scientists nevertheless understand that they are different. To cite from the same article you’ve cited: > 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". And this is by no means a new discovery, functional noncoding DNA has been known for as long as junk DNA.