It's too easy to confuse "non-coding" with "no function", and then "no function" with "junk". Even if we do find some stretches offer no function whatsoever we may find these these stretches are actually resource "stockrooms" for DNA repair (for example).

Perhaps the scientists who work with this stuff every day can keep it sorted but for us engineers proper nomenclature avoids confusion.

(And thanks for clarifying about the coding- noncoding)

No

As I said, coding DNA refers only to that DNA which encodes an amino acid sequence. DNA that is transcribed into tRNA or rRNA is noncoding. mRNA contains coding sequence, but it is not coding in its entirety. The 3' and 5' UTR of mRNA is noncoding.

I believe what Krauze proposes it to prevent any confusion from happening- therefore no corrections required.

Simply paying attention to the existing terminology would go a long way to preventing the confusion. For instance, in his third paragraph, Krauze states that scientists use "non-coding" and "junk" interchangably. They do not. Krauze's confusion seems to proceed from that misunderstanding. See, for example, his comments about "a situation in which non-coding DNA can code for something." That situation simply does not exist, so there is no reason to generate new terminology for it.

That is true, however determining that function requires more research. And then we can properly label those stretches of non-coding DNA by the function they perform.

Or lack of function. Don't forget that possibility. The C-value paradox strongly implies that a lot of DNA in many organisms is non-functional, even if we cannot state with certainty whether a particular segment of DNA is functional or not.

So I can shorten my original to- NCF DNA Non Coding xFunctional DNA.

If you are talking about a sequence with a currently known function, then why not just call it what it is instead of a new vague category? If the function is currently unknown, then you also have to consider the possibility that there is no function. Since the "x" could refer to either function or lack of function, your new term simply reduces down to good old "non-coding DNA."

I take it you are referring to m,r,t RNA

Nick:
Since coding DNA is easily recognizable, non-coding DNA can be unambiuously be identified. The person who asked how selection could act on non-coding DNA just misunderstood the definition and could be easily corrected.

I believe what Krauze proposes it to prevent any confusion from happening- therefore no corrections required.

Nick:
Whether a particular piece of non-coding DNA is functional or nonfunctional can be inferred in a variety of ways.

That is true, however determining that function requires more research. And then we can properly label those stretches of non-coding DNA by the function they perform.

So I can shorten my original to- NCF DNA Non Coding xFunctional DNA.

I suspect that the concept of junk DNA is also derived from early observations of the C-value paradox, and that is still a pretty good reason to infer that a lot of DNA is non-functional. Either way, I don't think anyone uses "junk DNA" a simple synonym of non-coding DNA.

I really think you guys are overcomplicating the terminology. It shouldn't be confusing. In molecular genetics, "coding" simply refers to DNA that encodes an amino acid sequence, nothing more, nothing less. Since coding DNA is easily recognizable, non-coding DNA can be unambiuously be identified. The person who asked how selection could act on non-coding DNA just misunderstood the definition and could be easily corrected.

The term "non- coding" contains no implications about functionality or the lack thereof. Geneticists have known for decades that some non-coding DNA is transcribed, although that does not necessarily mean that the sequence is functional or, if functional, has a function that is beneficial to the organism. They have also known that some non-coding DNA is conserved among different species, strongly implying function. Again, I doubt that anyone other than journalists uses "non coding" and "junk" as synonyms. I don't see any particular value in coming up with yet another catchall phrase. Why not simply refer to the various types of functional non-coding DNA by their specific names?

Whether a particular piece of non-coding DNA is functional or nonfunctional can be inferred in a variety of ways.

The other class of DNA would be Regulatory DNA and comes in two types - cis and trans. Cis-regulatory DNA would be DNA sequence involved in regulating gene expression (promoters, enhancers, etc.) and trans-regulatory DNA would express RNA that further regulates expression of Coding DNA (small RNA, etc.)

OK it's only my first attempt…