It’s not clear apparently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA.
Although OP seems to confuse non-coding DNA (the ~98%) and junk DNA. Some non-coding DNA has clearly identified roles, so it should be well below 98% of junk, and there’s a lot left to explore.
My brother in Christ, the joke is life wouldn’t work without this “junk” DNA. And if Arch users were to get rid of this “bloat”, they would literally dissolve.
It’s not clear apparently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA.
Although OP seems to confuse non-coding DNA (the ~98%) and junk DNA. Some non-coding DNA has clearly identified roles, so it should be well below 98% of junk, and there’s a lot left to explore.
My brother in Christ, the joke is life wouldn’t work without this “junk” DNA. And if Arch users were to get rid of this “bloat”, they would literally dissolve.
My cousin in Darwin, OP also means original post, I got the joke. The comment was about the science behind, so that’s what I replied about.