I do understand your annoyance with this below and I share in this revulsion of any/all sensationalist headlines - no matter who the author or their motives. But I can not control others and I think your own words convey this particular case is really a rather weak argument [in fact it was not even included in this ICR headline].
“What I don’t understand is why ICR consistently lies about what the theory says and what new scientific discoveries mean, and why people like you defend its lies. They want to assert that the loss of genetic info in one or two cases proves something about universal genetic entropy since the Fall? Fine, make that argument. They don’t need to add the false claim that the ToE doesn’t allow for the loss of genes.”
But I have noticed over the years that criticizing TOE is rather like nailing jello to the wall because there is no clearly stated TOE [always depends upon the whims of the collective genius minds at work].
Oh and don’t ever even approach the ‘3rd rail:’
Darwin hinted at this one but ever since DNA complexities were realized the TOE has tried to distance itself from the very foundation it requires - an explanation for that first spark of life from non-life - abiogenesis.
I think of it as similar to the relationship between obstetrics and pediatrics. You can't have a child without conception, so in that sense fertility is the foundation of all medicine. But it would be foolish to claim that nothing was ever understood, or could be understood, about the growth and development of children (and adults) until conception had been fully explained.