Well, duh. At least, they help it along. Of course theres more to it than that, but ultimately mutations are the biggest forces in evolution. Over time, genetic mutations can cause the changes that drive natural selection and ultimately evolution. So, what's the issue?
"Mutations cannot produce the types of changes evolution requires—not even close. Some may benefit an organism (e.g., beetles on a windy island losing wings), but virtually every time mutations come with a cost."
Oh boy. Yes they can. What mutations cannot do is cause an increase or a decrease in information, that is left up to chromosomal duplications and deletions, but that is a different story altogether. Mutations can cause the necessary changes, like the example they give, but not every mutation has a cost. This is complete bull. The VAST MAJORITY of mutations are benign, meaning that they don't cause a negative or positive change. Mutations that cause positive changes, like the example they give, don't have negative effects. If they did, they would die and natural selection/evolution would be working as predicted. Only those mutations that are truly beneficial would live on.
I don't quite see what AIG is seeing here. Whatever they're reading is obviously not doing them any good.