False. Junk DNA was never a core or essential part of evolutionary theory. I was even surprised by it when I first learned of it.<quoted text>failed observations about DNA, such that their Darwinian evolution paradigm has collapsed. Not that long ago, junk DNA was being defended as an important element of the Darwinian evolution "yea right"
Its just that if it exists, evolution can accommodate it, and ID cannot.
And as for there being no junk DNA, that is rubbish too. Even the most optimistic researchers still only expect about 20% of DNA to show useful function. There are big chunks that endlessly transcribe useless RNA which is then immediately broken down by the cell, but that is not "function" in the useful sense, merely "not totally inert".
There are still pseudogenes and ERVs that are clearly broken or useless. And the pattern of their insertion and breakdown not only supports the junk DNA case, it independently supports common ancestry for different reasons.