Can you think of an un-designed process that employs external machinery to maintain the state of another machine?
It’s fine to search through random results for an outcome you’re aiming for. Just don’t call it Darwinian evolution.
Perhaps the evidence for the vast scope of Darwin’s theory really isn’t as strong as biologists over the years have been telling each other.
Lang and Rice cite a number of articles to show that loss-of-function mutations are just a small minority of those found in studies of organisms.
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.