Sunday is my Sabbath.
I really don't see much significance to the article you are so enamored of. I don't think you understand populations in genetics.
Well, the first is an obvious conclusion since you don't understand the article. And the second is an outgrowth of your first lapse. It is unquestioned that the subject was in a journal of science. It was new science. It involved deleterious mutations in several species and a conclusion. You simply do not understand the importance of that conclusion. These journals don't just print rehashed knowledge. Another conclusion can be drawn which is at least remarkable, deleterious mutations were fixed in a genome prior to their correction.
Natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being; and as modern geology has almost banished such views as the excavation of a great valley by a single diluvial wave, so will natural selection, if it be a true principle, banish the belief of the continued creation of new organic beings, or of any great and sudden modification in their structure.