DAVID's comment: Most junk DNA is not junk but purposeful. There are Darwinist scientists who are frightened by these findings, since in their minds a random theory of mutations should produce 'junk'. If most DNA shows purposeful activity, it is highly suggestive of design.

dhw: As I have said before, I don’t know why they should be frightened. One would expect natural selection to dispose of ”junk”.

DAVID: Again, the theory has been chance mutations produced useless DNA which was kept as evolution swept along as living proof only chance mutations apply to the theory. 'Nuff said.

I am as sceptical as you about chance mutations, but “junk DNA” does not in itself invalidate that theory, because the die-hards can still argue that natural selection will do away with unnecessary material. If they haven’t thought of that, then more fool them.