The first section will summarize the evidence that Darwinian mechanisms have not produced new life forms and so must be abandoned. Since the devices involved in Darwinism are sexual in nature, it follows that sexual reproduction cannot produce new kinds of living things.
This is part of the opening of Salty's paper on Evolution as a Self-Limiting Process.
Even if we assume he is right that Darwin's theories are incorrect, this a logical fallacy. Denying the antecedent. "If Darwin is right, sexual reproduction will be able to produce new kinds of living things. Darwin is not right, therefore sexual reproduction cannot produce new kinds of living things."
It's akin to saying, "When the weather is rainy, it's cold out. But it's not rainy today, therefore the weather will be warm." The weather could still be cold, but not rainy.
This fallacy seems to be the only explanation in the paper for sexual reproduction not being involved in evolution.
(Salty, if I'm misinterpreting what you said here, please let me know. Additionally, I haven't had time to read your other papers yet. You might explain it there.)
------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll