[mas cerveza por favor]

No. If an environmental change made blue eyes disadvantageous to survival and reproduction, that population would gradually “evolve” to possess DNA for brown eyes only.

[allmendream]

If having blue eyes became disadvantageous, it being recessive to brown eyes would slow its evolutionary removal from the population - not at all a case of it being recessive being an example of or conducive to its “micro” evolution.

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”?