Ah, so that's where you get the notion that they were highly conserved. That's what I get for reading the actual abstract instead. :-)As you can see I made no comparison to coding regions, but I made this claim due to this article from "New Scientist".
Life goes on without 'vital' DNA
Virtually indistinguishable
To find out the function of some of these highly conserved non-protein-coding regions in mammals, Edward Rubin's team at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California deleted two huge regions of junk DNA from mice containing nearly 1000 highly conserved sequences shared between human and mice.
OK, so the researchers considered the two stretches that they knocked out as highly conserved, but they say in the abstract that the similarity of the sequences is only 70%, while we've seen that the overall similarity between mice & man is closer to 90%. Apparently they thought the noncoding regions should have been even less similar than they in fact are. Yes, that's interesting.
Well now... Um, what was your point again? This was supposed to prove that evolutionists used to all think that junk was junk because of evolution (even though I showed that that's not true) and now they all are trying to argue that junk has a purpose because of evolution (even though the mouse experiment proves it's not true) and this makes evolution a just-so story?
Is the God of the Nits really hiding in there somewhere?
I'll let you have the last word...
Something you completely avoid. There is no reason for them to be conserved using RMNS explanation. The scientists knew this, and that is why they gasped when they heard the results of the actual "abstract" which you "intently" read and entirely missed the significance of.(It is very hard to put the audience's reaction into the paper they react to)