Lenski agrees that the beneficial mutations seen in his Long Term Evolution Experiment are overwhelmingly degradative or loss-of-function ones.
Immediately you know these structures were designed. How should you know that? How did the scientists know that?
Computer methods of analyzing mutations are widely used because they are generally accurate. They do not suddenly lose their accuracy when I cite them.
A very common way to try to discredit an argument is to exaggerate it, ignore distinctions an author makes, and/or change carefully qualified claims into bizarre absolutes.
Only by sheer coincidence would blind factors produce such remarkable things, and coincidence is never that lucky.