You asked what was inaccurate. I told you, assuming that the only way you would fail to recognize the inaccuracy was if you hadn’t read the statement and footnote. Clearly I was mistaken – and didn’t notice that you were one of the people responsible. Now that I’ve gone back and re-read the claim they say I made and the quotation from me, I still have no idea why you think it might be accurate. Could you explain the connection between what I said and what you say I said?
Exactly. What it doesn’t imply is that slightly deleterious mutations accumulate until their overall effect becomes large, and then that they become selectable – which is what the ‘claim’ is. I said that mutations of very slight effect are never selectable and therefore beneficial and deleterious mutations are always in equilibrium, since they were never selected for in the first place. You’re saying that they become selectable. Those are two very different idea. Are you genuinely unable to tell the difference between them?
I’m really trying not to be rude, but before concluding that I’m trying to be opaque, first consider the possibility that you’ve overestimated your own reading comprehension.
As I said above, I provided an explanation in (among other places) the text you quoted above. If you don’t understand the explanation, ask. Telling me that I haven’t provided an explanation while quoting my explanation would be insulting if it weren’t so ridiculous.