And despite what jennyp is now saying, in 2001 she was saying something quite different.
You'll have to show me the post, 'cuz I don't remember making a definitive statement that evolution predicts overwhelming amounts of junk in our DNA. I certainly don't remember ever thinking so, although it always made sense that there should be some amount of total junk, since random mutations would tend to create unusable sequences. But for humans to have 95% (or whatever) junk? I'd be very surprised if I ever said that would be expected - except in light of my gene duplication bufferzone hypothesis.
But regardless, is your complaint that I am using evolution as an unfalsifiable assumption WRT junk DNA or that mainstream biology as a whole is?
The deletions in the mouse genome when announced brought gasps from biologists, not because it was something expected, but something quite different than expected.
But... but... your own argument is that mainstream evolutionary biologists assumed that junk is junk in the first place! No, you're the only one who should be truly surprised by the mice!!!
All of these findings are significant, not because they are run of the mill, but because they are different than what the expectation was.
Your own link showed that there never was "the expectation" WRT introns. Your link shows there always had been several different live hypotheses out there. That there always had been. Right from the start.
Of course, but apparently not everyone here thinks so, that is why Dr. James Shapiro is belittled here.(I know he is not the author of the link on the introns, but you can read his article which I linked and see he is one of those who don't consider "junk" in the genome.)