I guess we'll have to disagree since our arguments have conflicting premises.
1) You are still not giving up your definition of "functional" which I still contend is circular reasoning.
2) You've characterized my argument as an anthropomorphization of nature which is not my intent at all. I am merely refusing to accept a dubious categorization. The burden of proof is on those who would make this categorization, and I find their arguments very unconvincing.
3) You've discounted my point regarding the B&N Nobel Prize by saying they created a valid theory to explain their empirical results - this is not true. The prize was for "their important breakthrough in the discovery of superconductivity in ceramic materials" (direct quote) which was not adequately explained by any theory at that time. According to Wikipedia, there's still no scientific consensus on why it works.
My hypotheses is that "there is no such thing as nonfunctional DNA, every byte of it functions to some purpose" and mainstream science is already testing this idea (by continuing to find additional functions). The fact that we have not uncovered every purpose in the brief period we've even known about DNA is expected; humans do not normally exhaust the interesting characteristics of even simple elemental substances (like lead, for example, or carbon) when they've been known for centuries. You're aware of carbon nanotubules and buckyballs? Aerosolized lead influence on crime rates? These are new discoveries of properties of substances we've known of for a thousand years or more.
To believe we know enough about DNA to categorize any part as "nonfunctional" is hubris. As you mentioned, the concept of "junk DNA" has already been partially disproven over the last ten years, and I'm fairly confident that more remains to be discovered.
âoe...the scientific community will need to rethink some long-held views about what genes are and what they do, as well as how the genomeâ(TM)s functional elements have evolved." -- Francis S. Collins, 2007