ProspectiveBuzzard270

I've been slogging through papers on non‑coding regions and the more I read, the more the whole "junk DNA" label feels like a lazy shortcut. Some groups cling to it, arguing that most of the genome has no known function, while others point to regulatory elements, transcriptional noise, and even evolutionary remnants that clearly do something. The crux of my frustration is that the term keeps being used as a catch‑all dismissal, yet we keep finding bits of activity that challenge that narrative. Are we just being lazy by lumping everything unknown into "junk"? Or is there merit in keeping the term to highlight how little we actually understand? I want solid arguments, not just buzzword tossing. What does the evidence say, and should we retire the phrase altogether?