I already clarified this in the debate. Kondrashov’s paradox is at the heart of GE, but Sanford did add clarifications and additions to the concept; it’s not as if they are 1:1 identical. Think of it as a Venn Diagram where GE is a larger circle that totally encompasses Kondrashov’s Paradox and then some. But for the sake of the debate, I kept it to Kondrashov’s Paradox only since that is entirely defensible and still unsolved.
This is basic population genetics and is not controversial. Yes, it operates in a technical sense, but in a practical sense it does not matter because it is overwhelmed by drift for mutations of that size.
Since this point has been endlessly muddied, I will quote this one again:
“As such, the definition of neutrality is operational rather than functional; it depends on whether natural selection is effective on the mutation in the population … not solely on the effect of the mutation on fitness.”
- Dr. Adam Eyre-Walker, PhD Molecular Evolution
- Dr. Peter Keightley, PhD Genetics
Eyre-Walker, A., and Keightley P.D., The distribution of fitness effects of new mutations, Nat. Rev. Genet. 8(8):610–8, 2007. The distribution of fitness effects of new mutations | Nature Reviews Genetics
So yes, natural selection is technically there, acting on the mutation, at least in theory, but drift dominates. That’s why it’s called “effectively neutral”. This is why Lynch says that neutral mutations have a probability of fixation equal to their frequency (1/(2N)). It’s technically slightly off from that, but it doesn’t matter in the end.