Lenski agrees that the beneficial mutations seen in his Long Term Evolution Experiment are overwhelmingly degradative or loss-of-function ones.
Their review pretty much completely misses the mark. Nonetheless, it is a good illustration of how sincere-yet-perplexed professional evolutionary biologists view the data.
The evidence commonly cited to argue for evolution’s ability to drive large-scale transformations is almost always circular.
I saw that biologist Nathan Lents says that he has been asked to review Mike Behe’s new book.
The contrast between the evolutionary sterility of Lenski’s unintelligent Darwinian evolution and the evolutionary potency of Arnold, Smith, and Winter’s intelligent evolution is striking.