Sigh. Actually, Post 557 is a post that uses a cryptography analogy to illustrate why an earlier claim that DOS had multiple paths to Windows was in error.
"Ok, I'll take a stab at "truthfully addressing post #557": It's a giant load of nonsense. It, again, performs the classic Creationist fallacy of challenging someone to explain a hypothetical "single step" process which, sadly, bears no real resemblance to any evolutionary claim or process." - Dan DAySigh. Actually, Post 557 is a post that uses a cryptography analogy to illustrate why an earlier claim that DOS had multiple paths to Windows was in error.
Yes it was. And it was fatally flawed, on several counts. One of the biggest was that you were challenging someone to come up with a single operator (cryptographic key) which could alter DOS code into Windows code in a single step (i.e., a single cryptographic encoding).
They were positing the possibility of a stepwise evolutionary path between DOS and Windows (i.e., a path that leads from one to the other through many workable intermediate forms via small incremental changes), you were inexplicably changing the subject entirely to the feasibility of randomly finding one gigantic leap from the first form to the final form, which *disallows* any "stepping stone" modifications like the other person was suggesting.
I'm amazed you even considered it a valid comparison.