Far from the fact that it is recessive being an example of evolution - only a change in the frequency of its occurrence within a population can be said to be an example of evolution.
So why do mutational defects map to either genetic regions or regulatory regions if “junk” DNA is doing so much? What is it doing such that mutations don't tend to change the organism?
Why would we observe junk DNA being highly different (low conservation) between very similar species if mutations did not freely accumulate within such DNA sequences?
What purpose is the most commonly recognized sequence in the human genome - a degraded gene for reverse transcriptase - put to in the human body? If it has no purpose could it be said to be “junk”?
Clipped from "The Human Genome: RNA Machine:"
The evidence for large numbers of ncRNAs and for the central importance of ncRNAs as regulators of important developmental, physiological, and neural processes is compelling.14 If all these ncRNAs are functional, as the evidence increasingly suggests they may be, then much and perhaps most of the human genome is functional. If so, the genetic programming of the higher organisms has been fundamentally misunderstood for the past 50 years, because of the presumption - largely true in prokaryotes, but not in complex eukaryotes - that most genetic information is expressed as, and transacted by, proteins.