Main ideas (you can think of these as predictions):
[list][*]Part of the variation within a population is within the junk DNA of organisms that are part of the population. Since the junk DNA is non-coding, this largely protects the variations from the effects of natural selection which might otherwise cause that DNA to be lost to the population.

ID predicts that there is very little if any 'junk DNA'. When you say that these segments of DNA do not code for anything, do you mean 'proteins'?

This quaternary digital code is alien in complexity. Why can't much of the non-coding (for protein) DNA be a more complex and as yet not understood code for gene expression timing or code for regulating cell division and the like?

T. Ryan Gregory summarizes:[44]

In fact, quite a lengthy list of proposed functions for non-coding DNA could be compiled (for an early version, see Bostock 1971[45]). Examples include buffering against mutations (e.g., Comings 1972[46]; Patrushev and Minkevich 2006[47]) or retroviruses (e.g., Bremmerman 1987[48]) or fluctuations in intracellular solute concentrations (Vinogradov 1998[49]), serving as binding sites for regulatory molecules (Zuckerkandl 1981[50]), facilitating recombination (e.g., Comings 1972[51]; Gall 1981[52]; Comeron 2001[53]), inhibiting recombination (Zuckerkandl and Hennig 1995[54]), influencing gene expression (Britten and Davidson 1969; Georgiev 1969; Nowak 1994; Zuckerkandl and Hennig 1995; Zuckerkandl 1997), increasing evolutionary flexibility (e.g., Britten and Davidson 1969[55], 1971[56]; Jain 1980[57]; reviewed critically in Doolittle 1982), maintaining chromosome structure and behaviour (e.g., Walker et al. 1969[58]; Yunis and Yasmineh 1971[59]; Bennett 1982[60]; Zuckerkandl and Hennig 1995[61]), coordinating genome function (Shapiro and von Sternberg 2005[62]), and providing multiple copies of genes to be recruited when needed (Roels 1966[63]).

Saying "ID predicts is like saying "The unknown fairy said...", it is a comment that has no meaning or content whatsoever.
a rigorous definition of ID including bring in the designer and placing it on exhibit for examination

We don't require placing the author of an ancient text on exhibit. And we have many texts in which we do not have empirical evidence of the author (or even know who the author is). Your argument just doesn't hold up unless it can be shown that there is a natural explanation for DNA.

ID predicts that there is very little if any 'junk DNA'.

For the record, this thread was created by jar. I was answering your OP in another thread. There is no mythos leading to the idea of intelligent design other than pure observation of known data.

It is not mythos to find a book (of which there are many) or manuscript when there is no direct evidence of a designer. The book (information) is the evidence that the author existed.

It's no more complicated than that.

You need to understand that "junk DNA" is a technical term, not a description of the importance of parts of DNA.

The earliest use of the term "Junk DNA" in the biological literature appears to be by Dr. Susumu Ohno in his 1972 paper titled, "So much "junk" DNA in our genome."[1] Ohno focused "mainly on the fossilized genes, called pseudo genes, that are strewn like tombstones throughout our DNA." Ohno laments that it was difficult to perceive the role repetitive DNA played, and expected much of DNA to be non-functional, due to his evolutionary presuppositions.

Francis Crick[2] and Sydney Brenner[3] have also been proposed as the originators of the phrase. (However, explicit citations are not given when either of these are claimed as originators.) When challenged by someone with the argument that God would not have created us with 97 per cent of redundant or useless DNA, Brenner is said to have retorted, "I said it was 'junk' DNA, not 'trash'. Everyone knows that you throw away trash. But junk we keep in the attic until there may be some need for it."

[Added: Who is the you Brenner eludes to??? which in itself shows thoughtful and designed purpose]

In addition to Ohno’s paper, another interesting paper in the same 1972 Brookhaven proceedings collection is by R.J. Britten, which offers an overview of early 70's perspectives on the origin/purpose of the repetitive DNA.[4] Britten reveals that, "Whether the repeated DNA in its now widely interspersed state is simply spacer between genes or carries out an active role is the subject of intensive current investigation."

But finding a book is not unexpected. We know that humans are a record keeping critter, and so there is ample reason that when we find a book we can assume with a high degree of confidence that a human created it.

The question is "What is it that drives some humans to then take the known instance of a human trait and try to apply it to other areas where there is no evidence either of design or designer?"

Because humans are natural (as you like to say) or at least partly natural... and nature tends to follow repetative patterns.

That is unless you want to believe in some totally unknown process as yet undiscovered or having simmilarity in any known nature.

For the record, this thread was created by jar.

It is not mythos to find a book (of which there are many) or manuscript when there is no direct evidence of a designer.

I don't agree that it is a technical term.

If it is the "Book of Mormon", then it surely is mythos. Or perhaps you meant to say "author" instead of "designer."

by now usage has changed in that it is still called "junk DNA" while at the same time there is widespread recognition that it is not actually junk. That makes it a technical term.

When challenged by someone with the argument that God would not have created us with 97 per cent of redundant or useless DNA, Brenner is said to have retorted, "I said it was 'junk' DNA, not 'trash'. Everyone knows that you throw away trash. But junk we keep in the attic until there may be some need for it."