Which doesn't help anyone at all, scientifically. What people like you and I want to know is whether or not math supports Evolution, and the argument that Evolution has no fixed objective gets us quite a ways away from math being able to help answer any of the Big Questions.
What Watson did in the original article for this thread was to identify an area where math could show some meaningful probabilities. Because we can calculate the probability of one or more data sets being reached out of some large possible number of permutations, we can use math to calculate the probability of various lengths of sequences of useful or desired data self-forming without intelligent intervention.
With this math, we can see the odds of bases "accidentally" forming a sequence of DNA that could form life, or we could calculate the improbability of useful data forming on a hard drive after a non-intelligent magnetic interference pattern swept over it, or we could calculate the probability of monkeys banging out the first sentence of Shakespeare's Hamlet.
And that math has merit. We already know by definition that the proper DNA sequence for the first life form either had to form with or without intelligent intervention. Now we have the math to show us just how much data could be within the realm of possibility to form a desired sequence (for letters accidentally spelling out an English sentence, up to 96 correct characters could, over 17 Billion years, potentially self-form without intelligent aid). More than 96 correct bites of data is pretty well out of the question, at least without intelligent intervention.
Of course, the calculated probability / improbability for bases sequencing in DNA will be slightly different, and of course it is possible that there are a large number of potential life forms relative to non-life-sustaining DNA sequencing possibilities which will also affect the final probability somewhat, but one can quickly see with Watson's math that we are drilling down to something useful and scientific, and that has the future potential of identifying Evolution's precise improbability / probability.
But even then, there will be those in the Evolutionary camp who cry that life evolving from inanimate matter (i.e., the first step in the whole process of life - AKA "abiogenesis") is not part of Evolutionary Theory. Perhaps there are even those who would cling to Evolution regardless of the math against it, and might be tempted to try many such ruses in order to steer clear of mathematical truths. Due to popular and political considerations of those who refuse to accept the math on natural abiogenesis, it's probably going to eventually take math on the probabilities of mutations forming, surviving, and being successfully transferred to other organisms before anyone can say with certainly if Evolution is or is not mathematically feasible.
On the other hand, if Life can be shown to be formed with fewer than 96 correct sequential bases in a DNA strand, then natural abiogenesis is certainly possible. Compared to the simplist known life forms, however, we're a long way from proving any such thing, while not being too far away from proving that it isn't possible.
Why look stupid trying to defend two untenable ideological doctrines (evolution AND abiogenesis) when, if you act arrogant enough about it and get good enough with the ad-hominems, you can get off with one?
Perhaps there are even those who would cling to Evolution regardless of the math against it, and might be tempted to try many such ruses in order to steer clear of mathematical truths. Due to popular and political considerations of those who refuse to accept the math on natural abiogenesis, it's probably going to eventually take math on the probabilities of mutations forming, surviving, and being successfully transferred to other organisms before anyone can say with certainly if Evolution is or is not mathematically feasible.
It isn't.
The big lie which is being promulgated by the evos is that there is some sort of a dialectic between evolution and religion.
That's BS. In order to have a meaningful dialectic between evolution and religion, you would need a religion which operated on an intellectual level similar to that of evolution, and the only two possible candidates would be Rastifari and Voodoo.
The real dialectic is between evolution and mathematics. Professing belief in evolution at this juncture amounts to the same thing as claiming not to believe in modern mathematics, probability theory, and logic. It's basically ignorant.
The biggest group of disbelievers in evolution is, in all likelihood, mathematicians and not Christians. You had a collosal face-off between leading evolution proponents and some of the world's best mathematicians in the late sixties at Wistar; the mathematicians told the evos they were FUBAR and the evos have been in denial ever since.
The Wistar Institute Symposium was a milestone meeting held in Philadelphia in April 1966 to discuss the statistical possibility of Darwinian evolution. The conference was chaired by Sir Peter Medawar, whose work on graft rejection won him a Noble prize. By 1966, computers had progressed enough to determine statistically if random mutations alone could account for the level of evolution seen in organisms after five billion years. After a heated debate and several meetings, the Wistar Symposium deemed this statistically impossible.
Furthermore, many of the scientists at Wistar came forward to state that the fossil record did not support evolution. Few fossils showing transitional stages between species had been found. Arguments also came up about advanced organs such as the eye and that 5 billion years was not enough time for these organs to evolve.
For more details about the Wistar Institute Symposium, see the following links: