Nebullis stipulated that she could flip bits from DOS and end up with Windows XP. I then correctly pointed out that to achieve that feat, that she would need both a Key and an Algorithm. Of course, there is no way that she could ever show either the Key or the Algorithm. For one thing, Windows XP was designed by intelligent beings, not naturally evolved. Designs can skip evolutionary steps; Evolution can't. That's post #557 in a nutshell.
I have just explained how evolution can! Neutral mutations accumulate without functional expression until they are carried into a functional state by other mutations. The hierarchical nature of genetic control networks also ensure that small mutations at the genetic level can lead to vast changes at the selection level.
Correct.
I then correctly pointed out that to achieve that feat, that she would need both a Key and an Algorithm.
Incorrect.
You did indeed challenge her to provide a "cryptographic" transformation that could change one into the other IN ONE SINGLE TRANSFORMATION, but since that's not what she was talking about, you were flat wrong in your claim that "to achieve that feat, she would need both a Key and an Algorithm".
But thanks for playing.
For one thing, Windows XP was designed by intelligent beings, not naturally evolved.
Which is beside the point, since the issue that was raised was whether it was *possible*, theoretically, to get from one to the other via a sequence of small bitwise changes.
Designs can skip evolutionary steps; Evolution can't. That's post #557 in a nutshell.
No, post #557 in a nutshell was that you were trying to change her suggestion (huge number of serial bitwise changes) into something else entirely (a single gigantic cryptographic transformation that makes the transition in one single step).
It's pure apples and oranges. The fact that you think your post is relevant in any way to hers shows that you either fail to understand her example, or that you don't understand your own (i.e., the nature of cryptographic transformations).