This is the sort of stuff he uses to argue against evolution -
He wants an example of an evolutionary process evolving the word 'Brown' to 'Black'. Now, if it is done by the methods available to evolution it
is p!ss easy. The problem is that he misrepresents evolution. He suggests that his random mutation generator is the mechanism available.
Evolution is random mutation and natural selection.
Thus, in 1,000,000 simultaneous trials, it would be easy to do this:
Blown (c.f. single point mutation and selection)
Block (c.f. double mutation)
Black (c.f. single point)
Easy. Three steps. All mutations observed in nature. We could use scaffolding and all kinds of processes.
The issue is that his 'challenge' is still BS. As evolution doesn't aim towards any target. Moreover, it is not single organisms that evolve, but
whole populations. You might say, but that the above transition was not random. But that would be ignoring the fact we might have more than 1,000,000
trials occuring simultaneously, all being selected according to fitness (i.e. producing coherent english words). Indeed, there are multiple pathways
to overcome this challenge.
Honestly, his challenges are irrelevant to real science. He misrepresents everything from information theory to biology.
[edit on 16-1-2008 by melatonin]