"junk DNA" a useful term or not?

'Junk' DNA is mis-leading to say the least.I read a New Scientist article a few months back concerning
research that had found that a segment of 'junk' DNA was
actually used as a kind of place-holder for intermediate
products along the synthesis route.Just because we do not know what it's for doesn't make it
'junk'.

I read that too.Not sure how that follows, since someone else (Mr Hambre I think)
suggested that one would expect an evolutionary process to elliminate
'junk' over time.Not sure I agree with either.The term IS mis-leading though.If we have a segment that exists between encoding regions that looks
like a part of a similar gene in another genome, but there's a
'stop' extra ... I'd call that residual rather than junk.If we have a segment that is just there and we don't know what
it's for we should be able to say so ... there's nothing wrong
with not knowing (try telling THAT to an 8 year-old!!)

In the spirit of the forum guidelines, and so as not to
avoid a direct question I'd go for fish.

With bacteria is that likely becuase they have
more compact genomes to start with, so any disruption
has a higher probability of being unviable?