well, since some math-funners seem actually to know something about this, maybe you can answer these questions: 1. if 75% of your genome is "used" in the sense of transcribed into RNA occasionally... so what? Maybe that RNA is simply discarded, so it is not only "junk" is it "a waste" too? How do they know that RNA actually does anything important (and how do they know what percentage of it does something important)? 2. how do the "it isn't junk" advocates explain the fact that closely related species have vastly different amounts of junk? Like 10 or maybe even 100 times as much for frog A versus frog B? 3. Re that experiment with ASCII strings in your programs, a better analogy might be this. The "important" bits in your programs are those such that, if you change that bit, then your program when run, becomes greatly dysfunctional. In THAT sense, is it not still the case, that the vast majority of your DNA is unimportant? For example I think it was estimated you have about 60 point mutations versus your parental DNA, but you are fine, suggesting the important stuff is fraction 1/60 or so (or less). And if so, how do the "it isn't junk" advocates defend themselves?