"The biggest question the research raises is that of how these sections of DNA came to be perfectly preserved, if they are not vital to the viability of the animal? The researchers are not entirely sure."
Not being vital to viability ***is not*** the criteria for natural selection. Being beneficial (conversely, detrimental) to reproduction ***is*** the criteria for natural selection. These are two different things.
Evolution says that heritable mutations that make successful reproduction more likely will tend to be preserved. It is easy to see that heritable mutations that are detrimental to successful reproduction will tend to be eliminated.
Irrelevant DNA has no reproductive effect and therefore may or may not be eliminated over time. *Whether* some irrelevant DNA persists is not governed by natural selection, is not an evolutionary process - it is just dumb chance without selection.
The DNA described has no effect... there's no reason for it to be preserved *or* for it to be bred out.
The opening quote merely demonstrates wooly-headed thinking: the common mistake that evolution has intent or style or a goal. Evolution has none of these.