What is hard to believe about that sample is that anyone who calls themselves a skeptic would come within a thousand miles of any argument of its relation to the supposed operation of RMNS.
Using that program or its Herculean(chuckle) extension, I can with 100% accuracy determine the next "improvement" of the "organism". Prediction of the time used to accomplish that "improvement" would also be possible but would contain the statistical evidence of the "randomness". Is that possible with Darwinian evolution? Absolutely not. The weasel applet mentioned by someone on this thread is a better but still flawed example. It uses randomness in a more "realistic" fashion and is somewhat of a simulation of the RMNS as accomplished in animals(generations and mixing etc). However, it too is predictable in the statistical sense as to outcome at each step. Why? It has a specific goal. Nature as it is explained by Darwin has no such specific goal.
I concur. That's reason #2 why I don't buy the theory of evolution as currently explained.